Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 years [1 ed.] 3110601095, 9783110601091

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
Introduction
I. Discovery and Disputes
Notes on Jumbo’s Desk
Charles Taylor as a Man of St John’s
How Ben Sira Crossed my Path
II. The Hebrew Manuscripts and Rabbinic Circles
Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira
The “Booklet” of Ben Sira
Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B
The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited
The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts
Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglo
Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan
Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective
III. The Poetry of the Book
The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C
Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter
Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira
The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira
IV. The Language of the Book
The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah
Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language
The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira to Biblical Hebrew Philology
Biographies of Authors
Index of References
Index of Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2018

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2018

Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages, Jeremy Corley, Michael Duggan and Renate Egger-Wenzel

Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 years

Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif

ISBN 978-3-11-060109-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061447-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-061297-4 ISSN 1614-3361 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018963680 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: Michael Peschke, Berlin Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents Abbrevations 

 ix

James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif Introduction   1

I Discovery and Disputes Mark Nicholls Notes on Jumbo’s Desk The Diaries of Charles Taylor 

 9

Andrew A. Macintosh Charles Taylor as a Man of St John’s  Pancratius C. Beentjes How Ben Sira Crossed my Path 

 19

 25

II The Hebrew Manuscripts and Rabbinic Circles Stefan C. Reif Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira Approaches and Reproaches   39 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger The “Booklet” of Ben Sira Codicological and Paleographical Remarks on the Cairo Genizah Fragments   67 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B Codicological Reconstruction and Material Typology of Marginal Readings  Benjamin G. Wright The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 125

 97

vi 

 Contents

James K. Aitken The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts  Renate Egger-Wenzel Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 169

Matthew Goff Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan The Figure and Text of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Judaism 

 183

Vered Noam Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 201

III The Poetry of the Book Eric D. Reymond The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 221

Jeremy Corley Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 243

Núria Calduch-Benages Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira A Case Study of Sir 21:1–10   267 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira The Basics   285

IV The Language of the Book Jan Joosten The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah 

 319

Noam Mizrahi Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language The Case of Sir 41:1–2   331

 147

Contents 

Haim Dihi The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira to Biblical Hebrew Philology   359  373

Biographies of Authors  Index of References  Index of Authors  Index of Subjects 

 375  392  398

 vii

Abbreviations AB ABD

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review AnBib Analecta Biblica The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. APOT Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913 American Schools of Oriental Research ASOR Das Alte Testament Deutsch ATD Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BASOR Bonner biblische Beiträge BBB Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie BBET Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English BDB Lexicon of the Old Testament Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums BEATAJ Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études: Sciences religieuses BEHER Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BETL Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et Orientalia Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie Bijdr Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BIOSCS Biblische Notizen BN Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZAW Cambridge Bible Commentary CBC Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBET Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CBQMS Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CRINT Currents in Research: Biblical Studies CurBS Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément. Edited by Louis Pirot and André Robert. DBSup Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1928– Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield: DCH Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2014 Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DCLS Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DJD Dead Sea Discoveries DSD Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament EHAT Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972 EncJud ErIsr Eretz-Israel Estudios bíblicos EstBib Forschungen zum Alten Testament FAT Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes FSBP

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-201

x  HALOT

 Abbreviations

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999 HBS History of Biblical Studies HCS Hellenistic Culture and Society HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JE The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1925 JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library Mas The Masada Scroll of Ben Sira MPIL Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden MS(S) manuscript(s) MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens NAB New American Bible NEchtB Neue Echter Bibel NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NJB New Jerusalem Bible NJPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text New Revised Standard Version NRSV Österreichische biblische Studien ÖBS Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ODNB Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OLA Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece PVTG Protokolle zur Bibel PzB Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by Theodor Klauser et al. RAC Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1950– Revue biblique RB RBL Review of Biblical Literature Revista catalana de teología RCT Revue des études juives REJ Revue de Qumran RevQ Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Friedrich M. Schiele, and RGG1 Leopold Zscharnack. 1st ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1909–13 SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLStBL Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature

Abbreviations 

SCS SJCL SSS STDJ SubBi SVTP TSAJ TThSt ThSt VT VTSup WUNT ZAW

Septuagint and Cognate Studies St John’s College Library Semitic Study Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Subsidia Biblica Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphica Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Trierer theologische Studien Theologische Studiën Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

 xi

James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif

Introduction

Abstract: This introduction situates the volume’s essays on the Cairo Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira within the context of the discovery of these texts and subsequent scholarly research over the past 120 years. Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, Hebrew manuscripts

The identification of the first leaf of a Hebrew version of Ben Sira from the Cairo Genizah in 1896, followed by the rapid discovery of more leaves of the Hebrew, changed the direction of scholarship on the book. It was readily recognized, through examination of the Hebrew, that textual uncertainties in the book could be clarified. The original language allowed for proper recognition of biblical allu­ sions, while also drawing attention to the importance of the rabbinic citations of the book.1 Discoveries in subsequent years restored large portions of the Hebrew original from the Genizah, and further finds from Masada and Qumran provided additional pieces from antiquity.2 The Dead Sea discoveries in particular put to rest any question that the Hebrew might not be ancient and confirmed the reli­ ability of the Greek as a witness. Renewed interest in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira has been sparked, however, by new discoveries in recent years. In the past decade new leaves from MS C and from MS D among the Genizah manu­­ scripts have been identified.3 Eric Reymond has also identified traces of offset letters in MS A, so that for the first time we have some Hebrew words from the first chapter of the book.4 Therefore, from the first discoveries to the latest we may rightly speak of 120 years of discovery. At present there are a number of commentaries in preparation on the book, and at least three new editions of the Hebrew in preparation.5 In all this, little 1 See Taylor, “Preface,” in Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira, for an early appreciation of its significance. On the rivalry between scholars over the early finds, see Reif in this volume. On the revival of the study of Ben Sira from one scholar’s perspective, see Beentjes in this volume. 2 The Cave 2 Qumran fragments were published in Baillet, Milik, and de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes.’ Part of the book’s final acrostic, included in the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll, was published by Sanders, “Sirach 51:13ff (11QPsa Sirach).” The Masada scroll was published by Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll. 3 For MS C, see Elizur, “Two New Leaves.” For MS D, see Elizur and Rand, “New Fragment.” 4 Reymond, “New Hebrew Text.” 5 Commentaries are in preparation by B. G. Wright; J. Corley and B. C. Gregory; M. J. Goff and G. S. Goering; E. D. Reymond and S. L. Adams. An edition of the Hebrew manuscripts is in preparation https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-001

2 

 James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif

attention has been paid to the physicality of the manuscripts and the fact that, contrary to what might be expected from rabbinic censure, they were preserved in the context of the medieval Genizah in Cairo. Until recently, information on the manuscripts has been repeated from the first publications, where suggestions were often made without much comparative data. Proposals for the dates of the manuscripts were frequently quite speculative, although not unreasonable given the state of knowledge at the time. The important area of codicology was still in its infancy, and subsequently the Ben Sira manuscripts have been left out of consideration in comparison with other medieval Hebrew manuscripts.6 Nev­ ertheless, the manuscripts display evidence of a highly complex transmission history, seen both in the differences between the ancient versions (various edi­ tions of the Greek, and additions and omissions in the Old Latin and Syriac) and the many differences in the Hebrew manuscripts (rearrangement, doublets, omis­ sions, synonymous replacements and so on).7 A recent volume addressed some of these issues of the textual evidence to be gleaned from the complex relationship between the Hebrew manuscripts and versions.8 Here, the intention is to focus on the contribution the Hebrew manuscripts have made and on how they are to be understood in the wider context of rabbinic studies and the Cairo Genizah.9 The significance of understanding the manuscript tradition, and especially within the context of comparable medieval manuscripts and the transmission of Jewish lit­ erature in the Middle Ages, has largely been neglected. To understand the surviving Hebrew text of Ben Sira, we need to understand how the manuscripts relate to each other and how they are to be appreciated as individual witnesses. The scribes behind the texts need to be brought to light, both those who first copied the text in antiquity and those who preserved it in the Middle Ages. Recognition that features of the manuscripts are not unique to Ben Sira but part of the tradition of copying manuscripts, and that even the identity of some copyists might be known, sheds surprising light on our witnesses.10 In addition, the contribution that might be made by Ben Sira to Hebrew studies in the Genizah has yet to be fully appreciated. This placement of the manuscripts by J.-S. Rey, J. Joosten and E. D. Reymond. A polyglot, initiated by F. V. Reiterer, is being complet­ ed by R. Egger-Wenzel (see Egger-Wenzel in this volume), and a comparable project is in planning in Germany. 6 Cf. the remarks of Olszowy-Schlanger and Rey in this volume. 7 See Aitken in this volume. 8 Rey and Joosten, Texts and Versions. 9 On the place of Ben Sira in rabbinic tradition, see Mizrahi and Goff in this volume. 10 See Olszowy-Schlanger in this volume, for the paleography of the MSS and the identity of the scribes behind them; Rey on further codicological features; and Wright on Persian glosses in MS B.

Introduction 

 3

within the context of the Genizah remains a desideratum too for other ancient Jewish texts in the Genizah (such as the Damascus Document and Aramaic Levi), along with those that might be medieval translations of ancient sources (Tobit). In short, while it has been suggested that the Genizah represents an ongoing non-standard tradition since antiquity,11 the consequences of this have yet to be followed through. The discovery of the Hebrew has also allowed for an appreciation of the place of Hebrew poetry in the Second Temple period. While drawing upon bibli­ cal language and phraseology,12 Ben Sira was an independent and creative poet. His writings can be analyzed for the poetic craft that is brought to his work,13 although the creativity of the medieval copyists of the manuscripts has also to be recognized.14 In addition to poetic form, the manuscripts have thrown light on the history of the Hebrew language, now greatly expanded in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This has clarified features of Biblical Hebrew,15 and allowed for an appre­ ciation of the development of Hebrew from Classical (Biblical) Hebrew through to Rabbinic Hebrew.16 There is a complex relationship between the manuscripts, poetic style and language, and close attention to the text can illuminate much in this area.17 With these themes in mind, it was appropriate, on the 120th anniversary of the first discovery, to focus on the evidential value and contributions of the Hebrew manuscripts, bringing together Ben Sira scholars and those working on the later history of reception of the manuscripts and on the paleography of medieval manuscripts. As the home of Lewis and Smith, and of Charles Taylor and Solomon Schechter, Cambridge was a natural location for the conference that lies behind this volume. The conference was held in the congenial atmo­ sphere of St John’s College, Cambridge, the College where Charles Taylor was Fellow and subsequently Master. Taylor’s name is forever associated with the Genizah, both for his supply of funds to Schechter to acquire the manuscripts in the first place (and immortalized in the T-S Genizah Research Unit of the Univer­ sity Library) and for his Hebrew expertise, which included publishing some of the Ben Sira fragments.18 It is fitting therefore to include papers presenting his life 11 Reif, “Reviewing.” 12 See Corley in this volume. 13 See Calduch-Benages and Reiterer in this volume. 14 See Reymond in this volume. 15 See Dihi in this volume. 16 See Joosten in this volume. 17 See Mizrahi in this volume. 18 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira. For more on Taylor and the Genizah, see Reif, Charles Taylor.

4 

 James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif

and work,19 and to begin the story of the 120 years of discovery with reflections on the characters behind the manuscripts (section I). These papers, vividly captur­ ing the characters and situations of Victorian college life of relevance to the first discoveries, are intentionally informal in tone. In addition, Beentjes, one of the first scholars in the modern era to return to the study of Ben Sira, and the editor of the latest Hebrew edition of the manuscripts,20 recalls how Ben Sira became such an important subject of study for him within the scholarly tradition of the Low Countries. The remaining papers focus on key aspects of the contribution of the manu­ scripts. First, the largely neglected topic of the physical features of the manu­ scripts along with questions of their reception from rabbinic to medieval times (section II). Then the poetic aspects of the book that can be seen more clearly with the discovery and publication of the Hebrew (section III). Finally, the language of the book and its place within the history of Hebrew are examined (section IV). The numbering of the Ben Sira texts follows the system used in Friedrich Reiterer’s numerical synopsis (Zählsynopse).21 The organizers of the conference and the editors of this volume are deeply grateful to the managers of the Polonsky Fund of the University of Cambridge, to St John’s College, to the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL), to the editors of the series, especially Dr Jeremy Corley for his close attention to the final text, and to the publishers, Walter de Gruyter, for their generous sponsorship of various aspects of the arrangements.

Bibliography Baillet, Maurice, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran. DJD III. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Beentjes, Pancratius. 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. Repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Elizur, Shulamit. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010): 13–29; Hebrew: “‫קטע חדש מהנוסח העברי של ספר בן סירא‬.” Tarbiz 76 (2006–2007): 17–28. Elizur, Shulamit, and Michael Rand. “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira.” DSD 18 (2011): 200–5.

19 See in this volume Nicholls on the newly discovered diaries of Charles Taylor; and Macintosh on Taylor’s personality. See too Reif, Charles Taylor. 20 Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira. 21 Reiterer, Zählsynopse.

Introduction 

 5

Reif, Stefan C., ed. Charles Taylor and the Genizah Collection: A Centenary Seminar and Exhibition. Cambridge: St John’s College, 2009. Reif, Stefan C., “Reviewing the Links between Qumran and the Cairo Genizah.” Pages 652–79 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Reiterer, Friedrich V. Zählsynopse zum Buch Ben Sira. Fontes et Subsidia 1. Berlin, de Gruyter: 2003 Rey, Jean-Sébastien, and Jan Joosten, eds. The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. JSJ Supplement Series 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Reymond, Eric D. “New Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Chapter 1 in Ms A (T-S 12.863).” RevQ 27/105 (2015): 83–98. Sanders, James A. “Sirach 51:13ff (11QPsa Sirach).” Pages 79–85 in The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). Edited by James A. Sanders. DJD IV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965.

 I Discovery and Disputes

Mark Nicholls

Notes on Jumbo’s Desk The Diaries of Charles Taylor Abstract: Major aspects of the life of Charles Taylor, Master of St John’s College, Cambridge, are illustrated from the diaries he kept from 1887 until his death in 1908. Although sometimes regarded as ineffective, he maintained an active schedule dealing with college business. However, he will be forever remembered with Solomon Schechter for their joint achievement in bringing thousands of Cairo Genizah manuscripts to Cambridge University Library. Keywords: Cairo Genizah, Cambridge University, Hebrew manuscripts, Master’s Lodge, St John’s College

Historical reputations are sometimes shaped by random detail. Charles Taylor was an eminent scholar, something of a prodigy. Over time he won a reputa­ tion as a mathematician specialising in geometry, as a competent Classicist, as a widely respected theologian, and as a careful College bureaucrat with an eye for a tidy Statute. And in wider scholarly folk-memory, of course, he is forever linked with Solomon Schechter as the parties responsible for the transfer of the incomparable Cairo Genizah collections to the University Library in Cambridge, where these precious survivals have stimulated more than a century of rewarding research. In his own College, however, Taylor has come to represent something less impressive. His twenty-seven years in the Master’s Lodge—one of the longest Masterships in the history of St John’s—coincided with low points in both the College’s financial fortunes and wider reputation. Somewhat shy—one obituary notes his “intense reserve”—and temperamentally unsuited to the domestic pol­ itics of College life, he appears to cut a rather lonely figure.1 As the years passed several Fellows in a fractious and politically divided College held him in, at best, amused affection, regretting that he had lost his grip on things, and tickled by his marriage to a woman thirty-seven years his junior in 1907, a few months before his sudden death. Was he a man who came too late to the Master’s chair, or does the record as it stands paint a false picture?

1 The Eagle 30 (1909): 80. The Eagle is the college magazine, published annually or at more frequent intervals by St John’s College, Cambridge, since 1858. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-002

10 

 Mark Nicholls

Random detail can, indeed, mislead. Weighing its importance, one must do what historians should always do: hunt down further evidence, offsetting the randomness of survival and providing a fuller picture of the subject. In study­ ing the last two decades of Taylor’s life, we are greatly assisted by the discov­ ery of appointments diaries, preserved in St John’s College Library, which Taylor himself kept from 1887 to 1908.2 These diaries have rested in obscurity for the past century, tucked away in Library cupboards and basements, and the reasons for this neglect are, alas, embarrassing for this author, as the person who “holds the key” to these stores. They have long been filed with similarly-sized commer­ cial ledgers and desk diaries used by generations of reading room staff, and their anonymous covers have for too long remained unopened. Even the point at which the diaries came to the Library is not certainly known, though it appears likely that the transfer was effected soon after Taylor’s death, when his widow was clearing out the Lodge so that the new Master, Robert Scott, could move in; this was the time when Taylor’s library was being systematically broken up between several Cambridge collections. Less likely is the possibility that they came with the miscellaneous deposit of Taylor’s papers and annotated copies of his pub­ lished works, presented to the Library by his widow in 1950.3 It is possible that these diaries supplement earlier examples now lost, but the most likely hypothesis is that they were an innovation born of Taylor’s busy life as Vice-Chancellor, in effect chief executive officer of the University, between 1 January 1887 and 31 December 1888—in those days a duty taken up in rotation by Heads of Cambridge Houses. Had Taylor organised his life in this way before 1887, it is probable that earlier diaries would also have come over to the Library on his death. He was not one to throw away such records. What we can say is that, from the later 1880s, diaries sat at the heart of the Master’s administrative life: the sheets of blotting paper interleaved throughout his favoured T. J & J. Smith’s Com­ mercial Scribbling Diaries were obviously used to dry the ink on many other items of correspondence passing over Taylor’s desk, not simply to blot the facing page. In the mind’s eye one may see the open foolscap diary serving as a desk blotter, a constant accompaniment when the Master was at work. While containing dry stuff, factually detailed yet thin on thought and opinion, diaries of this sort are a godsend to biographers. They pin down the subject in time and place. They show too duties and responsibilities, and also a person’s interests and pastimes. What would that person cross the road—or take the train to London—to see? How did they spend free time? Where did they stand in society? Whose company did they seek out, and who sought them out for 2 These are now catalogued as SJCL, Taylor Papers/Diaries. Reference thereafter is by date. 3 SJCL, Charles Taylor, List in Box 1.



Notes on Jumbo’s Desk 

 11

company in turn? If the bare record of movement is supplemented by jottings— agendas for meetings, aides-memoire for discussions, deadlines for work—then so much the better. And we find all these things in the excellent series left to us by Charles Taylor. Of course, as historical sources these diaries have their drawbacks. There are blank days, particularly over the summer’s long vacation and at other times when Taylor is away from his desk. So “silences” of this kind leave a veil over the ways in which he used his holidays and some of his leisure hours. And the staccato nature of an appointments diary denies us a connected prose narrative. These are not reflective journals. We must take them for what they are, and indeed the lack of a retrospective, self-serving element so prominent in the narrative diary sets facts over opinions, and is no less welcome for that. What, then, do the diaries tell us? Taylor was in so many ways a typical nine­ teenth-century Master. He hobnobbed with his own kind, lunching and dining at Trinity College next door to St John’s, and at other Lodges, and serving as or deputising for the Vice-Chancellor, attending or arranging dinners for Ambassa­ dors and Princesses, the Lord Chief Justice, King Oscar II of Sweden and Norway in 1900, the Regent of Uganda in the Hall of St John’s in July 1902, the Duke of Dev­ onshire, various Bishops, the Mayor of Cambridge, and Lord Kitchener, British Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Army, referred to properly by his title “the Sirdar” in the diary.4 A Master lived in the University as much as in the College world. Also typical are his long absences from Cambridge. Although we do not have the details, it is clear that Taylor spent a lot of time away from the College, in the Highlands, staying with the builder and philanthropist Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona at Glencoe and with Samuel, Viscount Molesworth at Eilean Aigas, or in the Welsh slate country around Llanberis, or in the Lake District during 1899. Taylor in his youth had been a keen walker and an enthusiastic mountaineer, and in flat Cambridge he evidently missed the high peaks and tougher ascents.5 He was a long-time member of the Alpine Club, and in the diaries the often silent summer months are broken on 24 September 1904 by a note recording that he climbed Ben Nevis that day. Presumably this achievement was jotted down either long in advance or, more likely, after the event, on returning to his Cambridge desk—possibly pointing to pride in the climb or to a particularly happy memory. However, at no time until the very end of his life did he return to the Alpine scenes

4 SJCL, Taylor Diaries, 24 November 1898. 5 Details of pioneering climbs in the Alps during the 1870s, provided by T. G. Bonney, are found in The Eagle 30 (1909): 73–77, and rather happily recorded in Taylor’s passports for the time: SJCL, Taylor MSS 1/5/1, 1/5/2.

12 

 Mark Nicholls

of his youth.6 The lure of wild Britain was evidently strong, for he missed the start of Michaelmas Term 1892, not wishing to cut short his holiday in the Western Isles. Henry Bevan, one of his obituarists in the College magazine The Eagle, assures us that Taylor “was the easiest of guests to entertain”: he “revelled in grand cloud effects,” went on long walks and took care of himself.7 That he was, in short, always welcome, but still one supposes that there is an element of social aspiration in his repeated choice of the titled host on the grand Scottish estate. Besides the typical, we find the personal. Taylor’s own interests emerge from his diaries. He enjoys serving on the University’s Botanic Garden Syndicate and notes stages in the College’s Naden Divinity Studentship competition: Taylor had held this studentship in earlier life. There are outings to London to dine at gentle­ men’s clubs and attend various events, for example a visit to the Garrick Theatre in July 1890, staying overnight. He opens new buildings at Uppingham School, and takes seriously his connections with Shrewsbury and with the Perse School in Cambridge, at both in the role of a Governor. On the domestic front, but in the line of pleasure rather than business or duty, he is evidently proud of his mem­ bership of the College Book Club, a Fellows’ society of long standing, even then: many meetings are noted. There are insights into the nature of his Christian faith, and again the pre­ vailing view of one who “conformed to […] middle-of-the-road religiosity” tells only a part of the story.8 Taylor was a Victorian man of muscular Christianity, of “mission” and good works. He took London evangelism in the impoverished East End very seriously, supporting the St John’s College Mission to Walworth, enter­ taining men and women engaged in such work in the Master’s Lodge from time to time, and visiting these operations regularly: “He never missed a Harvest Thanks­ giving at the Church” of the Walworth Mission.9 On 23 June 1892, he accepted an invitation to the opening of the University of Oxford’s new Oxford House in Bethnal Green. The diaries offer a tentative reassessment of the “somewhat semi-detached,” equable but rather ineffective Master of St John’s, a picture derived from College histories, and the diaries and memoirs of contemporaries such as T. R. Glover and his erstwhile rival for the office of Master, Thomas George Bonney.10 It is perhaps fairer to write of a measured engagement. Masters had the scope for detachment— 6 J. E. Sandys, revised by John D. Pickles, “Charles Taylor (1840-1908),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/36427. 7 The Eagle 30 (1909): 199. 8 Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 369. 9 The Eagle 30 (1909): 81. 10 Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 370.



Notes on Jumbo’s Desk 

 13

even today the Statutes of St John’s reflect precedents when insisting that unless detained by “sickness or other urgent cause,” a Head of House should be absent from the College for no more than 180 days in a year!11 But in fact, summers and an occasional Easter apart, Taylor was “around.” Like most of his contemporaries and predecessors, he did not dine frequently at the Fellows’ Table (and that is what it is: the Master, while always welcome and while always presiding when present, attends by invitation), but instead, his custom was to host dinners in the Lodge, particularly on Saturday nights. “Jumbo” Taylor—the nickname given to him by undergraduates, and maybe taken up by more senior members of the College—was a big man, and he liked his dinners: lists of guests are recorded faithfully. As many as eighteen might sit down at table for one of these meals. Guests were a mix of local worthies, Heads of other houses, distinguished visitors and a sprinkling of Fellows and their wives. In the late nineteenth century, having married Fellows was still a novelty, and the Master obliged the unattached major­ ity of generally younger men, keen to preserve the bachelor spirit of the Hall and Combination Room, by playing host to those who had tied the knot. It is not quite fair to say, as does the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, that Taylor “left details of [College] administration to others.”12 For one thing, affairs might be delegated with confidence: in Robert Forsyth Scott he was both blessed with, and possibly overshadowed by, an immensely successful and busy Senior Bursar.13 For another, the diaries suggest that his obligation as Master to chair meetings of the College Council was always taken seriously. While Glover considered him “perhaps unique among inefficient chairmen,” Taylor still ensured that business was transacted with what we would today consider dis­ patch. From what Glover himself writes after his election to the Council in 1907, a Council meeting seldom ran beyond an hour, two at most.14 Of course, some busi­ ness was more congenial than others. Draft agendas in the diaries suggest that Taylor’s College interests related particularly to livings and property. Taylor was in Holy Orders, an ordained priest in the Church of England, and the stepping stones of preferment, lucrative rectories and vicarages, were ever fascinating to the cleric. Finance was of uppermost concern to late nineteenth-century St John’s and the performance of the agricultural estate was crucial, for the College was going through a rough patch, perhaps the worst financial crisis in its history.15 Ready 11 Currently Statute IV. 12 Sandys, revised by Pickles, “Charles Taylor.” 13 Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 384–85. 14 SJCL, Diaries of T. R., Glover, 6 December 1907. 15 Miller, Portrait of a College, 96–97.

14 

 Mark Nicholls

availability of cheap American wheat under prevailing free-trade arrangements had led to agricultural depression—College tenants were struggling to pay their rents—and St John’s had compounded the problem by taking on debts through building projects in the previous generation which were still being paid off. The result was relative decline compared to other Houses, in numbers, resources, and dividends paid to the Master and Fellows. There was little at St John’s to attract the ambitious academic or the particularly able student from a high-achieving school. The College fabric was neglected, successive officers obliged to put off until tomorrow what they ought to have done that day. The undergraduate intake shrank dramatically, leaving a historically large College ranking only fifth on the list ordered by numbers of resident members.16 And in 1911, three years after Tay­ lor’s death, the College belatedly introduced electric light to domestic and lecture rooms, ostensibly as a quatercentenary present to itself, but in fact as part of an effort to catch up on a notably dilapidated home estate, regarded as “terrible, ter­ rible” by one frustrated Junior Bursar.17 His was truly the era of gaslight, paraffin lamps, gloom and shadow. Also recorded carefully in the diaries are the names of those submitting written work for the annual Fellowship competition. The Master did not forego his own voice in this essential intake of fresh blood and ambition. Much of the administrative correspondence and other paperwork was undertaken by Taylor himself, and directly by the senior College officers, though the consequent bureaucracy was growing, and a central office for staff was discussed in February 1896. Masters have always cultivated donors, that essential source of continuing College prosperity across the centuries, and all the more essential when times were hard. There were no “Development Offices” in those days; processes were far less systematic, perhaps more gentlemanly. Alexander Lord Peckover, the Quaker banker, philanthropist and collector, and Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire, was a regular visitor to the Master’s Lodge in the 1890s, notably in 1897. Although nothing is spelled out, the impression is that Taylor was cultivating him as a “pros­ pect.” If this was the case, the outcome was perhaps other than a cash-strapped College might have wished, for Peckover in 1902 gave St John’s, not a large sum of money, but something arguably more precious: the lovely fifteenth-century Book of Hours, illustrated by the “Master of Sir John Fastolf” and once belonging to,

16 Venn, Statistical chart, 382. 17 “The Installation of Electric Light,” The Eagle 33 (1912): 25–26; Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 381.



Notes on Jumbo’s Desk 

 15

and inscribed by, the College’s Foundress, Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of the first Tudor king, Henry VII.18 Otherwise, there was evidently scope for the Master to opt in and out of what would now be seen as compulsory social events. The College’s May Ball, first organised in 1888, features in Taylor’s diary for 1892. By modern standards, the Ball was essentially a dinner-dance for the young, and thus only half attrac­ tive to the rotund, bachelor Master. He attends from time to time, but by no means every year. The prospect of dinners, tout court, is always more appealing. Taylor attends “The Johnian Dinner at Limmer’s Hotel” in George Street, Mayfair, during April 1895 and the delightfully titled “first annual College dinner” in June 1902. One hundred years ago and more this may be, but there is an air of the time­ less about some College details in the diaries. Competition for undergraduate essay prizes was as thin then as it is now. It has always been hard to stimulate an eighteen year old into risking precious time on such competitions, even though the prizes on offer were—and are—generous.19 Late in life, marriage to “a fine well set young woman … with a pleasant face,” Margaret Dillon (b. 1877), daughter of the Hon. Conrad Adderly and Ellen Dillon, radically changed Taylor’s world, and the appointments diary began to reflect the fact that the Master was now a family man with new social responsibilities.20 He became a bit less remote—offering breakfast in the Lodge to groups of four or five undergraduates at a time, even to the whole first boat on occasion, and thus beginning, or maybe resurrecting, a long tradition.21 This new state of affairs is reflected in the parallel survival of diaries kept by Margaret Taylor in 1907 and 1908, recording the social calls and entertaining consequent on an Edwardian marriage in Cambridge. The Master’s late marriage came as a shock to some Fellows: the Classicist T. R. Glover attended a College meeting to present Taylor with a wedding present, and the company was treated to “a queer speech by [the President, J. E. B. Mayor] on awkwardness of a house crammed with wedding presents, as contrasted with room the people of Pompeii had, and Japanese.”22 The unpredictable address was typical of Mayor, but his words added to the air of unreality about the marriage. Evidence for Taylor’s scholarly work is plentiful in the pages of these diaries, and anyone interested in precise details of his association with Solomon Schech­ 18 Now SJCL, MS N.24. 19 SJCL, Taylor Papers/Diaries, 12 October 1895. 20 SJCL, Diaries of T. R. Glover, 7 November 1907. 21 SJCL, Album 38. 22 SJCL, Diaries of T. R. Glover, 10 October 1907. The college President is deputy to the Master. J. E. B. Mayor (1825-1910) was Professor of Latin from 1872 till his death.

16 

 Mark Nicholls

ter will find some interesting clues. The numerous recorded meetings suggest a close working relationship. Appointments, in the Lodge and at Schechter’s house in Glisson Road, spread over a decade.23 Important milestones in the Genizah transfer are also logged: thus on 29 January 1898 Taylor writes “The Cairo MSS. Wrote letter to V[ice] C[hancellor] (signed by Mr Schechter) offering them.” Just under a month later, this entry follows: “Genizah MSS / To be at Mr Chapman’s 4.30. Ditto Dr Schechter’s 5” (28 February 1898). And so the bureaucracy pro­ ceeds: “Genizah MSS / To write to VC about letter of L[ibrary] S[yndicate]” (25 April 1898); “The Cairo MSS” (5 May 1898). Exercising administrator’s privilege, Taylor is one of the first to consult, and even to borrow from the materials. In this he was scrupulous, writing on 8 August 1898: “Returned the Genizah fragment of the Hexapla to the Library.” There are hints too at the friendship between the two men. Taylor attends the formal presentation of a leaving gift to Schechter at Christ’s College on 11 March 1902, and Schechter’s subsequent address in New York is noted in the year-end memoranda for 1903. One senses that he will be missed. There was an ongoing social acquaintance with the “Ladies of the Sinai.” Taylor dined with Agnes Lewis and Margaret Gibson on 28 November 1899—prob­ ably at their house. He accepted invitations to “At Homes” given by the ladies on 30 May 1900, and also on 3 June 1904. They were, after all, a part of the same small Cambridge social world. Like Taylor, both took the view that “God disliked idleness,” and they were also companions in the “team of scholarly volunteers” recruited by Schechter “to help him spin the ancient straw [of the Genizah] into gold.”24 The diaries provide milestones for Taylor’s later scholarship. The completion of The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels is recorded on 3 March 1892.25 As for the Wisdom of Ben Sira, we find a reference “Ecclus (returned for Press)” on 24 June 1899, and Taylor presents a paper on Ben Sira to the College Theological Society on the evening of 10 November 1899.26 On 2 April 1903 he jots down: “Ben Sira art. to editor of J. A. R. for make up / Passed for Press Apr. 11th,” always a proud moment, and perhaps one catching here a certain relief at the respite from his labours: like adding the full-stop to a project.27 Reflecting speaking commit­

23 For example, those on 24 January 1893, 23 January 1895, 24 February 1896, 20 / 24 August 1896, and 16 November 1896. 24 Soskice, Sisters of Sinai, 59, 258. 25 Taylor, The Witness of Hermas. 26 Schechter and Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. 27 Taylor, “Wisdom.”



Notes on Jumbo’s Desk 

 17

ments, in the same year we find “Jewish Apocalypses” against 2 July. “Lecture on Ben Sira’s acrostic” is the entry for 2 November 1904. Charles Taylor’s appointments diaries thus provide evidence for the Head of House and the Cambridge scholar, but, dealing with these laconic, curiously inti­ mate sources, it is perhaps right to return at the last to their value in laying bare the soul of this brilliant, yet in many ways very stiff and traditional man. Taylor comes over as the quintessential late Victorian: socially aware, absorbed with Christian good works, enthusiastic for physical exercise, hostile to the idea of the wasted minute, and—if impatient with mere words on the subject—attuned to the vocabulary of the British Empire. Sometimes these character traits run conge­ nially together. On one memorable day in 1888 during his Vice-Chancellorship, when Bishops from all over the globe attending the Lambeth Conference visited Cambridge en masse, eighty of them dined in Hall, and the Bishops of Chicago, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania stayed in the “Lodge or College” that night.28 The diaries also timetable Taylor’s ceremonial role in celebrating Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee.29 One detects the pride, personal as well as for St John’s, in the details of these entries. Taylor attended the Cambridge Rede Lecture on “Our true relationship with India,” delivered in June 1905 by the eccentric scholar soldier Colonel Francis Younghusband, just back from leading an incursion into Tibet. Was it the intriguing mystery of Tibet, or the reflections on Imperial rule in South Asia, that took him there?30 It is important, however, to stress that Taylor was no Colonel Blimp. He seems to have sympathised with the campaigns for women’s degrees at the University, serving on the Women’s Degrees Syndicate in 1897 and noting, without comment, the ill-fated vote on 21 May in which Cambridge MAs scotched these plans. In the same spring, he could not stay away from a lecture at the Cavendish Laboratory at which Professor Edward Emerson Barnard of Chicago exhibited photographs of the Milky Way, taken using the forty-inch telescope at the Yerkes Observatory. Truly, modern scholarship was showing that there were more things in heaven!31 He attended a lecture on Cambridge district nursing.32 A president of the Col­ quhoun Club of the Royal Society of Literature, Taylor demonstrated a taste for popular literature, going to London to preside at a dinner given to “Mark Twain”— 28 A seating plan for the occasion is preserved at SJCL, Taylor MSS 1/2/4. 29 Also supplemented by the “souvenirs” among Taylor’s mementos, invitation cards and or­ ders of service, SJCL, Taylor MSS 1/2/1, 1/2/2. 30 On Francis Younghusband, see French, Younghusband; Seaver, Francis Younghusband. 31 On 8 June 1893 Taylor had visited the Cavendish to see “astronomical photos” taken by Pro­ fessor Barnard using the Lick Observatory in California, so this was more than a passing interest in the young science of astro-photography. 32 SJCL, Taylor Diaries, 26 February 1900.

18 

 Mark Nicholls

he properly puts quotation marks around the pseudonym—at the Café Monico, close to the theatre-land of Shaftesbury Avenue, on 21 June 1899. Twain had recently settled in London, led there by his quest for treatment to cure his epilep­ tic daughter, Jean. And it is typical of the man that the august Master of St John’s College walked to Cambridge’s New Theatre in December 1903 to attend an exhi­ bition of “cleaning by vacuum.” Perhaps Charles Taylor was attracted by a marvel of modern domestic engineering, or perhaps, driven by that distinctive fondness for domesticity and his own space, he simply saw some potential benefit to the maintenance of the enormous rooms within the Master’s Lodge. In conclusion, this article has made use of the diaries of Charles Taylor to bring to life the man associated with Solomon Schechter in the recovery of the Ben Sira manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. As we have seen, this achievement was just one out of many events in his busy career as Master of St John’s College, Cambridge. Ben Sira scholars will forever be in debt to him.

Bibliography The Eagle: the college magazine of St John’s College, Cambridge: https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/ eagle-scanning-project French, Patrick. Younghusband: The Last Great Imperial Adventurer. London: Harper Collins, 1994. Linehan, Peter, ed. St John’s College, Cambridge: A History. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2011. Miller, Edward. Portrait of a College: A History of the College of St John the Evangelist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961. Repr. 1993. Sandys, John E. , revised by John D. Pickles, “Charles Taylor (1840-1908),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/36427. Schechter, Solomon, and Taylor, Charles. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Hebrew Text Edited from Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection, and Annotated, with an English Translation, an Introduction, and an Appendix containing Additional Material and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Seaver, George. Francis Younghusband: Explorer and Mystic. London: Murray, 1952. Soskice, Janet. Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Found the Hidden Gospels. London: Chatto & Windus, 2009. Taylor, Charles. The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels. London: C.J. Clay, 1892. —. “The Wisdom of Ben Sira. JQR 15 (1903) 440-74; 604-26. Venn, John A. A Statistical Chart to Illustrate the Entries at the Various Colleges in the University of Cambridge, 1544–1907. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908.

Andrew A. Macintosh

Charles Taylor as a Man of St John’s Abstract: This article outlines the contributions of Charles Taylor to the life of St John’s College, as well as to Hebrew scholarship, within the context of late nine­ teenth and early twentieth century Cambridge. Keywords: Boat Club, Cambridge University, Hebrew scholarship, St John’s College

On 1st October 2016, I completed sixty years as a member of St John’s College; for almost fifty of those years, I have been a Fellow of the College. The College is constantly refreshed by new blood, nowadays much of it from beyond the con­ fines of the UK. But it also needs continuity persons, i.e. Johnians by birth, who know its traditions from the moment of their arrival. I have been lucky enough to fall into the latter category, as indeed did Charles Taylor, Master from 1881 until his death in 1908. I came up as a freshman in 1956; he did so almost 100 years previously in 1858. He was a member of St John’s for fifty years and a Fellow for seventeen years. Lest I should seem to claim superiority in length of my tenure of a Fellowship, I should explain that, according to our arcane rules, once elected Master, Taylor ceased to be a Fellow. So I willingly concede his superior record in the service of the College—he was a Master, while I managed to be a President (in our tradition, quasi Vice-Master). I mention all these matters because the College is a wonderful organism of persons, living and departed. In short, we have a superb exemplar of what the Greek calls κοινωνία and Hebrew ‫חברה‬. And this under the patronage of St John who, if he was an Evangelist, was also a Jew. When I arrived here to read Theology, I was told that I must learn Hebrew. I do not think that I greeted this news with enthusiasm but, as things turned out, it was the best compulsion that was ever laid upon me. If it had not happened, I would never have become a Fellow of the College or attained the oldest and most senior Cambridge degree, Doctor of Divinity as, of course, did Taylor. Whether Taylor had the very same initiation is not clear. We know that he read the Maths Tripos and gained, as ninth Wrangler, the equivalent of a first class. Next, he sat a part of the Classics Tripos, and gained a modest second. But then, finally, he sat the brand new Theology Examination where he regained the first class. And here is the main point: Hebrew was a compulsory ingredient for Taylor as it was for me. At this point, it may occur to my readers that Taylor was a polymath. In fact, the relevant statutory objective of the College was “learning.” And this objective https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-003

20 

 Andrew A. Macintosh

he fulfilled amply. We may contrast the modern emphasis in specialisation and research, the latter word now added to the statutes as an objective. There can be no doubt that in retrospective judgement, Taylor’s greatest contribution and distinction was his excellence as a Hebraist, biblical and rab­ binic. His edition of ‫ פרקי־אבות‬is very widely praised to this day,1 as is his financial largesse in assisting Solomon Schechter’s work of bringing the contents of the Genizah from the Fustat synagogue in Cairo to the University Library; as, too, his warm support (also financial in part) of the appointment of the first Jewish lectur­ ers and teachers within the University. All this must be set against the late-nineteenth century circumstances of the College over which he presided. In 1881, he became the last Master required to be in Holy Orders of the Church of England. He had been ordained, as we say in the trade, to his Fellowship and had not been required to serve in a parish church. His Mastership began exactly ten years after the repeal of the Test Act, which enabled non-conformists, and even non-Christians, for the first time to be admit­ ted as members of the Colleges and University. Women, it should be noted, had to wait for another century before being admitted as members of St John’s College. This, the element of reform, is another large contribution of Taylor. He served as a member of the Cambridge University Commission for reform of the Tripos and College statutes. His service in this business resulted in his election to a stint as Vice-Chancellor of the University. It is, as a later Master of the College taught me, a particular British trait, and one exemplified in the history of Oxford and Cambridge, that reform or progress is made from within tradition, and not by radical innovation involving a breach with it. Taylor’s work was marked by just such characteristics and, where the pro­ motion of Hebrew and Rabbinics was concerned, his standpoint was that of being open to possibilities and of extending the welcome of cautious courtesy. Two religions obtained in St John’s in his time, the one statutory, the other not so. The Christian religion, as by law established, the Church of England, was an important aspect of the ethos of the College. Canon William Selwyn, brother of the more famous bishop, George Augustus, preached in 1861 what today would be called the key-note sermon in connexion with the plan to build a new chapel. The College must have, he thundered, better divines than Redmayne, better preachers than Pilkington, better and braver bishops, more earnest and eloquent pleaders for liberty than Wilberforce, better heralds of the gospel than Henry Martyn, ... better missionary bishops than Colenso. We must have a nobler band of men than these, and more in number.

1 Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers.



Charles Taylor as a Man of St John’s 

 21

Better than Wilberforce or Henry Martyn was a big ask, but we see clearly in this the perceived raison d’être of the College in the age of empire. There was, more­ over, another aspect. The reforms alluded to coincided with the early years of biblical criticism and with advance of science and Darwinism. Furious rows broke out amongst the Fellows, and sermons were polemical in the extreme both in the cause of reform and of conservatism. Indeed, so ugly was the situation that sermons were actually banned from the chapel for a considerable period. Taylor has been described as “well-liked for his good humoured, equable and even-handed management of affairs, but he was somewhat detached.”2 One wonders whether his love of Hebrew and Rabbinics afforded him a ready escape to the Lodge from such vicious religious bickering. The non-statutory religion was and is the Lady Margaret Boat Club, named after the College’s foundress. Its Credo runs: Viva laeta Margarita, beatorum insulis, si possimus fuerimus SEMPER caput fluminis (“Margaret’s ghost we praise the most among the islands of the blessed. If we can be, then we shall be always head of the river”). The semper is traditionally held out in song as long as the singers can hold a single breath. A letter on our tutorial files from my own day makes the point a fortiori: the tutor in question had visited a friend who was a master at a public school. The letter ran,3 Dear Bonso, it was wonderful to meet at the cricket match (at the school) last Saturday and many thanks for the tea. It was also good to meet the boy whom you suggest for St John’s. He seemed an admirable candidate. On my return to College, however, I was distressed to discover that the number 4 seat in the second boat is already taken. Perhaps the young man’s best bet is to reapply next year. Yours ever...

And then the P.S.—a magnificent pièce de résistance: “By the way, what subject would the young man like to read?” Taylor was a devotee of this religion as well as of the statutory one. He rowed for the third boat, the highest of the amateur crews. Here he beats me: I rowed in the eleventh boat—but we did make four bumps and won our oars. Here we may note that rowing men, when they cease to row, tend to obesity, and this was Taylor’s fate. The waspish contemporary diarist, T. R. Glover, says remarkably little about Taylor. He tells us that he was a poor chairman and that some of his routine College speeches were uninspiring. He reveals that he was known as “Jumbo” by the undergraduates and that in his younger days he had been a vigorous alpinist. In a letter to Glover, there is the line which I now quote: “Jumbo who grew fat

2 Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 370. 3 Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 291.

22 

 Andrew A. Macintosh

and to whom his former Alpine colleagues declined to be roped, for fear that he should drag them down a crevasse.” Another St John’s Hebraist was Henry Hart, my teacher and son of another Hebraist, a contemporary of Taylor. Henry was for many years the greatly-loved bachelor Dean of Queens’ College. Faced, as we all were in the late 1960s, with the violent student revolution that swept from Paris and the USA to Cambridge, Henry, frightened by the situation, reacted in a most radical way: he got married. Well, that is what Taylor did too in 1907, a year before he died of apoplexy. His bride, the daughter of a distinguished lawyer, was 37 years his junior, he being in his late sixties. Of her Glover wrote: “Met AH Bevan who said: Mrs T explained that she married the Master as she wished for a larger sphere—an ambition rarely so literally fulfilled.”4 The Honourable Mrs Taylor naturally survived her husband and lived on for nearly six decades of the twentieth century. The Master of my post-graduate days recalled that Mrs T always referred to her late husband as “my Master.” Her devotion to his memory was manifested by untiring persistence in seeking his posthumous glory. Indeed, she became an acknowledged nuisance to Taylor’s successors. In earlier days, at a College Ball, a young man had spoken warmly of Mrs T to a girl with whom he was dancing, not knowing that she was Mrs T’s sister. He added “... and old Jumbo’s not a bad sort.” Having this typical British understatement in mind, I venture to suggest that it is a fitting tribute to Taylor. Understatement is not a characteristic of the Hebrew language. So how shall we translate the concept? One might think of the Yiddish and say of him that he was a Mensch. Hazarding a guess at Hebrew, and recalling that ‫ כבוד‬denotes weight as well as gravitas and honour, we might settle on ‫איש נבון‬ ‫ובעל־כבוד‬, a solid citizen and a worthy Johnian of no small achievement.5 A final personal note: I would wish to pay tribute, as so often I have been privileged to do, to Stefan Reif for his tireless efforts in bringing the contents of the Genizah from burial in obscurity to the light of general recognition. That Stefan was elected to a Fellowship of Taylor’s College, as a crown upon his career, is meet and right and I rejoice that it happened, me consule (as President and member of the College Council). Jumbo would have been well pleased.

4 Linehan, St John’s College, Cambridge, 415. 5 I am grateful to my old friend and colleague, Peter A. Linehan, distinguished historian of the College, for much useful gossip. See his St John’s College, Cambridge.



Charles Taylor as a Man of St John’s 

 23

Bibliography Linehan, Peter, ed. St John’s College, Cambridge: A History. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2011. Reif, Stefan C., ed. Charles Taylor and the Genizah Collection: A Centenary Seminar and Exhibition. Cambridge: St John’s College, 2009. Taylor, Charles. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877. 2nd ed. 1897.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

How Ben Sira Crossed my Path Abstract: In a short and personal impression, a survey of Ben Sira commentaries and dissertations in the Netherlands from 1550 onwards is followed by a glance at how the author became intrigued by and involved with the study of the book of Ben Sira. Finally, some comments are made on the radical change Ben Sira research has undergone since the mid-sixties of the twentieth century. Keywords: Ben Sira, commentaries, Dutch scholarship

When invited to describe briefly how I became involved in the study of the book of Ben Sira, I thought it would be an easy task. But when it now comes to the crunch, it appears to be more complex. Does the book of Ben Sira have some sort of special link with the Low Countries, and was it this that directed me to the Jerusalem sage? Particularly from the sixteenth century onwards we see a growing interest in the book of Ben Sira in the Low Countries: –– Anonymous. Dat boeck Jesus Syrach. Ecclesiasticus genoemt, vol wijser sproken ende schooner leeringen. P. Warmerssoen, drukker te Campen, ca. 1540–1566.1 –– Anonymous. Ecclesiasticus ofte Das boeck Jesus Syrach ghenaemt: Voor huys vaders, ende haer huysghesinne seer nuttelijcken om te leesen. Gedr. tot Wesel, 1567.2 –– Jan Fruytiers. Ecclesiasticus, Ofte de wijse sproken Iesu des soons Syrach. Antwerp 1565. Repr., Amsterdam: Muller, 1898.3 This is a rather curious book. The Dutch translation of all fifty-one chapters of Ben Sira is not only in rhyme, but has also been set to music.4 The same phenomenon relating to the book of Ben Sira is known from Germany: Georg Henning (Magdeburg, 1575), Joann. Willecherus (Magdeburg, 1595), and Magdalena Heymair. Das Büchlein Jesu Syrachs in Gesangweiß verfaßt. Regensburg, 1578. Repr., 1609.5

1 In English: The Book of Jesus Sirach, called Ecclesiasticus, full of wise sayings and fine les­ sons. 2 In English: Ecclesiasticus, also called The Book of Jesus Sirach. For fathers of the family and their household, very profitable to read. 3 In English: Ecclesiasticus, or the wise sayings of Jesus, the son of Sirach. 4 Scheurleer, Ecclesiasticus, XXXI. 5 In English: The booklet of Jesus Sirach set to music. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-004

26 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

–– Cornelius Iansenius [Gandavensis] (1510–1576). Annotationes in librum Sapientiae et commentana in Ecclesiasticum. Antwerp, 1589 (repr., 1596); idem, Commentarii in Ecclesiasticum, in: Cornelius Iansenius [Gandavensis]. Paraphrasis in Psalmos omnes Davidicos, cum argumentis et annotationibus. In Proverbia Salomonis et Ecclesiasticum accuratissima commentaria. Leiden: Landry, 1586. Repr., 1597.6 –– Johannes Drusius/Jan van den Driesche (1550–1616). In Sapientiam Iesu Sirach seu Ecclesiasticum castigations sive notae. Franeker, 1596; idem, Proverbia Ben-Sirae. Auctoris antiquissimi, qui creditor fuisse nepos Ieremiae prophetae [= Alphabet of Ben Sira]. Franeker, 1597; idem, Ecclesiasticus. Pages 374–619 in Liber Tobiae, Judith, Oratio Manasse, Sapientia, et Ecclesiasticus Graece & Latine – Cum dictis Scripturae parallelis … et ad calcem Ecclesiastici positum duplex Alphabetum Ethicum Ben Sira. Edited by Johann A. Fabricius. Frankfurt: Wohlfahrt, 1691. From the seventeenth century we must of course mention: –– Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide/Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen[e] (1567–1637), a Flemish Jesuit who was a professor of Holy Scripture in Louvain (1596–1616) and in Rome (1616–1637), publishing commentaries on all the books of the Bible, except for Job and Psalms. His Commentaria in Ecclesiasticum was originally published in Leiden in 1633, and in Antwerp in 1634. It is also known as Ecclesiasticus Jesu Filii Sirach. Illustratus accurato commentatio R.P. Cornelii a Lapide. Leiden: Du-four & Gapaillon, 1633. –– Hugo Grotius (1583–1645). Ad Librum Ecclesiasticum sive Sapientiam Iesu Filii Sirach. Pages 610–713 in vol. 1 of Opera omnia theologica in tres tomos divisa. Amsterdam: Pieter de Groot, 1679. Repr., 1972. After a huge interval of almost two centuries in which Ben Sira publica­ tions in the Netherlands hardly appeared, there were some research publica­ tions at Groningen University: –– Jan van Gilse (1810–1859) theologiae in seminario teleiobaptistarum Ams­ taelodamensi studiosi. Commentatio ad questionem a venerabili theologorum ordine in Academia Groningana. Propositam: Libri, qui sapientia Jesu Siracidis inscribitur argumento brevius enarratio, accuratius doctrinae fons exponatur. Addatur libri cum Proverbiis Salomoneis comparatio. Quae praemio est omata. Groningen, Oomkens, 1832.7 –– In 1860, a dissertation, comparing Sirach with the New Testament Letter of James, was defended by Antonius Boon. Dissertatio exegetico-theologica, de 6 He was born in Hulst in 1510 and became bishop of Ghent; he died in 1576. He is not the famous Cornelius Jansenius (1585–1638), the founder of Jansenism who was bishop of Ieper (Ypres). 7 Printed by Jan Oomkens II (1808–1835).



How Ben Sira Crossed my Path 

 27

Jacobi Epistolae cum Siracidae libro, sapientio dicto, convenientia. Groningen, 1860. A peculiar publication is the one on vaccination against cowpox, Over het pligtmatige en christelijke der zorge voor zijne gezondheid, in het algemeen, en van dat der koepokinenting in het bijzonder: naar aanleiding van Sirach XXXVIII, 1–4. Amsterdam: Cornelis Fock, 1824.8 The Dutch Reformed pastor François Elbertus Daubanton (1853–1920), who in 1903 was appointed professor at Utrecht University for biblical the­ ology and missiology, published “Het apokryphe boek ΣΟΦΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΣΙΡΑΧ en de leertype daarin vervat. Eene historisch-dogmatische Studie.” ThSt(U) 4 (1886): 235–71; 5 (1887): 21–50.9 In 1870, the Baptist pastor Johannes Dyserinck (1835–1912) published a Dutch translation of the Greek Sirach: De Spreuken van Jezus, den Zoon van Sirach, uit het grieksch opnieuw vertaald en met opschriften en eenige aanteekeningen voorzien. Haarlem: Erven Loosjes, 1870.10 In 1908, it was followed by a Dutch translation of the Hebrew Ben Sira text(s) by Johannes Dyserinck and Jan Carel Matthes (1836–1917), professor of Old Testament at Amsterdam University: De Spreuken van Jezus Sirach. Uit het hebreeuwsch vertaald. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1908.11 Meanwhile, within the Roman Catholic Church of the Low Countries, a new genre came into existence: full commentaries on the book of Ben Sira in Dutch on the basis of the Vulgate. One of the very first was written by the following: –– Joannes Theodorus Beelen (1807–1884). Het boek genaamd Ecclesiasticus naar den Latijnschen tekst der Vulgaat in het Nederlandsch vertaald en in doorlopende aanteekeningen uitgelegd. Leuven: Fonteyn; Amsterdam: Van Langenhuyzen, 1883.12

8 In English: About the dutiful Christian concern for one’s health in general, and for cowpox vaccination in particular, with reference to Sir 38:1–4. 9 In English: The apocryphal book ΣΟΦΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΣΙΡΑΧ and the type of doctrine defined in it. A historical-dogmatic study. Alma, “Daubanton”, 158, gives the impression that it is a book published in 1887. 10 In English: The sayings of Jesus, son of Sirach, translated anew from the Greek and provided with headings and some annotations. 11 In English: The sayings of Jesus Sirach translated from Hebrew. 12 In English: The book called Ecclesiasticus according to the Latin text of the Vulgate translat­ ed into Dutch and explained in consecutive comments.

28 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

–– Andreas Jansen (1868–1936). Het boek Ecclesia[s]ticus van Jesus, Sirach’s zoon. Vertaald en met aanteekeningen voorzien.13 Biblia Sacra 5, 4.’s-Her­ togenbosch: Teulings, 1905; reissued under the same title in the series: De Heilige Boeken van het Oude Verbond 5. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Teulings’ Uit­ geverij, 1933, 353–579. –– Bernardus Johannes Alfrink (1900–1987). Het Boek Ecclesiasticus. Oud Tes­ tament IV, 6. Brugge: Byaert, 1934. Possibly the first book-length commentary on the Greek text in Dutch was written by: –– Adrianus van den Born (1904–1978), Wijsheid van Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. De Boeken van het Oude Testa­ ment VIII/5. Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1968. Although this commentary is based on the Greek text, it is, however, referred to as being de grondtekst (“the original text”). As far as I am aware, there is to date no Dutch commen­ tary on the Hebrew Ben Sira text. To be honest, although already a Master’s student myself, I did not know anything about the existence of all these above-mentioned publications on the book of Ben Sira. Anyway, I had no incentive to embark on the study of the book of Ben Sira. I knew only the 1968 commentary by van den Born, since I had a copy of it in my possession. So how did I really become involved in the study of the book of Ben Sira? As far as I can now reconstruct from my memory, there were three elements of my concern with this deuterocanonical writing. 1. The first reason to become involved with Ben Sira was a rather practical one. Looking for a dissertation subject, deuterocanonical literature was much more tempting, since at that time (the 1970s) it was still more or less on the periphery of scholarly research. 2. And second, personally, Gerhard von Rad’s Weisheit in Israel was an enormous incentive.14 For me as a Roman Catholic student, it was a real surprise that such an impulse for the study of the (apocryphal!) book of Ben Sira came from the Protes­ tant side. This remarkable change was the result of von Rad’s 1964 essay, warning of an overemphasis on the historical aspects of Old Testament research: “Sehe

13 In English: The book of Ecclesiasticus of Jesus, Sirach’s son, translated and provided with annotations. The author was officially known as Joannes Andreas Hendericus Gerardus Jansen, in his later life archbishop of Utrecht (1930–1936). 14 Von Rad, Weisheit, 309–36.



How Ben Sira Crossed my Path 

 29

ich recht, so sind wir heute in der Gefahr, die theologischen Probleme des Alten Testaments zu einseitig im Bereich des Geschichtstheologischen zu sehen.”15 3. As a consequence, we should ask: “What caused this Ben Sira revival?” In my view, there are several reasons why Ben Sira research from the mid-sixties onwards has undergone a radical change. The discovery and publication of the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts at the end of the nineteenth century already produced a distinctly text-critical and philological approach. The mid-sixties of the twentieth century onwards, however, con­ stituted a crucial landmark in Ben Sira studies when a real upswing was set in motion. This was brought about by the discovery of fragments of a Hebrew Ben Sira Scroll (Sir 39:27–32; 40:10–19; 40:26–44:15, 17) at Masada in 1964 by Yigael Yadin, by the publication of these fragments, as well as by the publication of the great Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, containing parts of the Hebrew text of Sir 51:13–30.16 The Ben Sira texts from Masada and Qumran provided conclusive evidence that the Hebrew text of the medieval Ben Sira manuscripts, which had been discovered in the Cairo Genizah in 1896, and later on in a number of libraries, appeared to a high degree to reflect the original. From then on it was no longer necessary to spend nearly all research time defending the reliability of the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts, since to a great extent the authenticity of the Hebrew Ben Sira text was now safeguarded. This significant conclusion undoubtedly had its impact on the status of the book of Ben Sira. As long as the Hebrew text was under “suspicion of not being authentic,” there was no discussion whatsoever about what text was to be consid­ ered the most reliable one: naturally, the Greek text. However, from the moment that the Hebrew text was considered authentic and reliable, it appeared that there was “no small difference” (B. G. Wright) between the grandson’s translation and his grandfather’s original. More and more, scholars became aware that each text tradition, therefore, ought to be studied in its own right. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had another important effect too. Bit by bit, scholars became aware that the single blank page between Malachi and Matthew in their Bibles is in fact an enormous timespan of at least 250 years, in which many religious writings had been produced, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries. Against this background, the book of Ben Sira

15 Von Rad, “Aspekte alttestamentlichen Weltverständnisses.” 16 Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll; Sanders, “Sirach 51:13ff (11QPsa Sirach),” 79–85.

30 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

became part of the increasing interest in the Second Temple period, an era often called by Christians “between the Testaments.”17 As to Bible translations, the Greek text of the grandson was, and still is, for the Catholic Church, the canonical basis. However, holding to the Greek text as if it were the parent text, sometimes results in quite odd situations. Let me point to one curious example. The text edition of the book of Ben Sira by The Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book (Jerusalem, 1973) placed chap­ ters 33–36 in the sequence of … the Greek text!18 Therefore, a fresh Hebrew text edition of the book of Ben Sira was required, the more so since Vattioni’s text edition contained some flaws both in the Hebrew and Greek columns, and in the footnotes to the Hebrew texts as well.19 Meanwhile, the influence of Hellenism that had been traditionally viewed by scholars within the political, literary, historical, and cultural domains, was more and more linked to religious matters too.20 And apocalyptic also became a substantial and serious field of research. From the mid-sixties of the twentieth century onwards, all these facts there­ fore caused a major shift in the study of the book of Ben Sira. Text-critical prob­ lems no longer monopolized the conversation. Ben Sira research shifted its activ­ ities towards theological and literary topics. The first substantial fruits of this theological revolution were Josef Haspecker’s dissertation on “Fear of the Lord” and Johann Marböck’s Habilitationsschrift on “Wisdom in Change.”21 Among the founding fathers of this new trend who contributed an immense in-depth knowledge of the book of Ben Sira, I should like to mention Alexander A. Di Lella, Maurice Gilbert, and Johannes Marböck. Since then, an incessant flow of literary, historical, theological, and sociolog­ ical studies have enriched the field. The past decades have seen enormous prog­ ress in the study of the book of Ben Sira, as amply documented in an avalanche of overviews, dictionaries, congress volumes, Festschriften, and doctoral theses, a selection of which has been attached in an Appendix to this article. My sincere wish for the near future is that publishers will be persuaded to sponsor commentaries on the book of Ben Sira in which both the Hebrew and Greek texts are simultaneously commented on in parallel columns. In 1974, I started a dissertation project on “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira.” Soon after I began, the analysis of chapter 36 confronted me with the problem of 17 Russell, Between the Testaments. 18 The Book of Ben Sira. 19 Vattioni, Ecclesiastico; Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira. 20 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus. 21 Haspecker, Gottesfrucht; Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel.



How Ben Sira Crossed my Path 

 31

the manner in which Ben Sira made use of (quotations from) the Hebrew Bible in the process of composition. So it was that my dissertation was ultimately about phenomena such as inverted quotations, structural use of Scripture, unique col­ locations, and hapax legomena.22 I really do regret that at the time of its publica­ tion (1981) there was no need or pressure to publish it in English, as has become standard nowadays.23 As to the topic of prayer in the book of Ben Sira, we now have Werner Urbanz’s dissertation, Gebet im Sirachbuch and his successive articles on this topic.24 With reference to chapter 36, we benefit from Maria Carmela Palmisano’s study, Salvaci, Dio dell’ universo.25 I think we must be proud and pleased that the study of the book of Ben Sira, in all its different manifestations, flourishes as never before.

Bibliography Alma, J.. “François Elbertus Daubanton.” Pages 157–58 in vol. 2 of Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlands Protestantisme. Edited by Doede Nauta. Kampen: Kok, 1983. Beentjes, Pancratius C.. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. —. Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6-26. Nieuwegein: self-published, 1981. —. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Bib 63 (1982): 506–23. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Edited by Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim. The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973. Fruytiers, Jan. See Scheurleer, Daniel François. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfrucht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Hengel, Martin. Judentum und Hellenismus. WUNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969. Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. BBB 37. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1971. Repr. BZAW 272; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. Salvaci, Dio dell’ universo: Studio dell’ eucologia di Sir 36H, 1–17. AnBib 163. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. 22 Beentjes, “Inverted quotations”; an overview of the stylistic feature called “‘Structural use of Scripture’ in the Book of Ben Sira” will be published in due course in a volume edited by Jeremy Corley. 23 Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach. 24 Urbanz, “Emotionen mit Gott”; Urbanz, “Die Gebetsschule.” 25 See also Palmisano, “La prière.”

32 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

—. “La prière de Ben Sira dans les manuscrits hébreux et dans les versions anciennes.” Pages 281–96 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. Russell, David S.. Between the Testaments. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960. Sanders, James A. “Sirach 51:13ff (11QPsa Sirach)” Pages 79–85 in The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). Edited by James A. Sanders. DJD IV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Scheurleer, Daniel F.. Ecclesiasticus oft de wijse sproken Iesu Soons Syrach: nu eerstmael deurdeelt ende ghestelt in liedekens, op bequame en ghemeyne voisen naer wtwijsen der musijck-noten daer by gheuoecht, deur Ian Fruytiers – opnieuw uitgegeven en van eene inleiding en een register voorzien door D.F. Scheurleer. Amsterdam: F. Muller & C., 1898. Urbanz, Werner. “Emotionen mit Gott: Aspekte aus den Gebetsaussagen im Sirachbuch.” Pages 133–58 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2011. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. —. Gebet im Sirachbuch: Zur Terminologie von Klage und Lob in der griechischen Texttradition. Herders biblische Studien 60. Freiburg: Herder, 2009. —. “Die Gebetsschule des Jesus Sirach: Bemerkungen zu Inhalten, Subjekten und Methoden des Gebets im Sirachbuch.” PzB 18 (2009): 31–48. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versione greca, latina e siriaca. Testi I. Naples: Oriental Institute, 1968. von Rad, Gerhard. “Aspekte alttestamentlichen Weltverständnisses.” EvTh 24 (1964): 57–73. Repr., von Rad, Gerhard, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament I. TB 8. 3rd ed. München: Kaiser, 1965. —. “Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach.” EvTh 29 (1969): 113–33. Repr., von Rad, Gerhard, Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Wright, Benjamin G.. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. SCS 26. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada with Introduction, Emendations and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965. Repr., Pages 151–225 in Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999.



How Ben Sira Crossed my Path 

 33

Appendix Some Recent Publications on the Book of Ben Sira Overviews: Harrington, Daniel J. “Sirach Research since 1965: Progress and Ques­ tions.” Pages 164–76 in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder. Edited by John Kampen and John C. Reeves. JSOTSup 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994; Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Resources and Recent Research.” CurBS 4 (1996): 161–81; Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira (1980–1996).” Pages 23–60 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997; Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research.” Bijdr 66 (2005): 131–44. Repr., Pages 3–16 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Louvain: Peeters, 2006; Calduch-Benages, Núria. “La situació actual dels estudis sobre el llibre del Siràcida (1996–2000).” RCT 26 (2001): 391–98; Gilbert, Maurice. “Où en sont les études sur le Siracide?” Bib 92 (2011): 161–81. Dictionaries: Di Lella, Alexander A. “Wisdom of Ben Sira.” ABD 6:931–45; Gilbert, Maurice. “Jesus Sirach.” RAC 17:878–906; Id. “Siracide.” DBSup XII/71:1390–1437; Marböck, Johannes. “Sirach/Sirachbuch.” TRE XXXI/1–2:307–17; Reiterer, Fried­ rich V. “Jesus Sirach/Jesus Sirachbuch/Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus.” WILAT: http:// www.wilat.de. Congress volumes: Reiterer, Friedrich V., ed. Freundschaft bei Ben Sira: Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira Salzburg 1995. BZAW 244. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996; Beentjes, Pancratius C., ed. The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference Soesterberg, Netherlands. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997; Egger-Wenzel, Renate, ed. Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002; Xeravits, Géza G., and József Zsengellér, eds. Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. JSJ Supple­ ments 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008; Passaro, Angelo, and Bellia, Giuseppe, eds. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008; Rey, Jean-Sébastien, and Jan Joosten, eds. The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011; Karner, Gerhard, et al., eds. Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach / Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 66. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017.

34 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

Festschriften: Egger-Wenzel, Renate, and Ingrid Krammer, eds. Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Fs Friedrich V. Reiterer. BZAW 270. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998; Calduch-Benages, Núria, and Jacques Vermeylen, eds. Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Fs M. Gilbert. BETL 143. Louvain: Peeters, 1999; Fischer, Irmtraud , Ursula Rapp, and Johannes Schiller, eds. Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Fs J. Marböck. BZAW 331. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003; Corley, Jeremy, and Vincent Skemp, eds. Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. CBQMS 38. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005; Corley, Jeremy, and Harm van Grol, eds. Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011; Renate Egger-Wenzel, Karin Schöpflin, and Johannes F. Diehl, eds. Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage: Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag. DCLS 15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013; Calduch-Benages, Núria, ed. Wisdom for Life: Essays offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. BZAW 445. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Collected essays: Marböck, Johannes. Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer. Herders Biblische Studien 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995; . Weisheit und Frömmigkeit: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Literatur der Spätzeit. ÖBS 29. Frankfurt: Lang, 2006; Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Louvain: Peeters, 2006; Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn …”: Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007; Wright, Benjamin G. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJ Supplements 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008; Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Die Vollendung der Gottesfurcht ist Weisheit” (Sir 21,11): Studien zum Buch Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach). SBAB 50. Stuttgart: KBW, 2011; Sauer, Georg. Studien zu Ben Sira. BZAW 440. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013; Gilbert, Maurice. Ben Sira: Recueil d’études – Collected essays. BETL 264. Louvain: Peeters, 2014; 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. Doctoral theses: Hildesheim, Ralph. Bis daß ein Prophet aufstand wie Feuer: Untersuchungen zum Prophetenverständnis des Ben Sira. TThS 58. Trier: Paulinus, 1996; Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000; Reitemeyer, Michael. Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob: Psalmentheologie im Buch Jesus Sirach. BBB 127. Berlin: Philo, 2000; Liesen, Jan. Full of Praise: An Exegetical Study of Sir 39:12–35. JSJ Supplements 64. Leiden: Brill, 2003; Mulder, Otto. Simon the High



How Ben Sira Crossed my Path 

 35

Priest in Sirach 50. JSJ Supplements 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003; Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. BZAW 379. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007; Adams, Samuel L. Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions. JSJ Supplements 125. Leiden: Brill, 2008; Goering, Greg S. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJ Supple­ ments 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009; Urbanz, Werner. Gebet im Sirachbuch: Zur Terminologie von Klage und Lob in der griechischen Texttradition. Herders Biblische Studien 60. Freiburg: Herder, 2009; Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Ben Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010; Balla, Ibolya, Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. DCLS 8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011; Ellis, Teresa Ann. Gender in the Book of Ben Sira: Divine Wisdom, Erotic Poetry, and the Garden of Eden. BZAW 453. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013; Bussino, Severino. The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. AnBib 203. Rome: Gregorian & Bibli­ cal Press, 2013.

 II The Hebrew Manuscripts and Rabbinic Circles

Stefan C. Reif

Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira Approaches and Reproaches Abstract: The scholarship, industry and insights of the first scholars to examine the Genizah texts of Ben Sira, particularly in England, Germany and France, ensured seminal editorial and exegetical work, as well as fresh discoveries. They successfully placed Ben Sira in its Jewish cultural, literary and linguistic settings. Semitics, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Bible studies and Rabbinics received appropri­ ate attention and expertise. Inevitably, there were personal tensions and expres­ sions of animosity. While Schechter, Neubauer, Smend, Lévi and Halévy railed against others, Taylor, Cowley and Peters were inclined to be more respectful and polite. Their inter-denominational work continues to be of considerable overall value to specialists. Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, Israel Lévi, Solomon Schechter, Charles Taylor

1 Introduction On the assumption that there will be some readers of this volume who will—for some inconceivable reason—be unfamiliar with the story of the Ben Sira discov­ eries among the Cairo Genizah fragments, I shall briefly rehearse the tale and the three scenes in which parts of it were played out. That safely done, the essay will then move on to its central theme which concerns people as much, if not more than, texts. In 1763, the English writer and lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, told his biographer, the Scot, James Boswell: “The biographical part of litera­ ture is what I love most.”1 In a recently published study, the philosopher Sarah Bakewell clearly subscribed to the notion that learning is more interesting when it is cast into the form of life because people are vastly more interesting than ideas.2 I happily concur with those two assessments. While by no means averse to discussing texts, their discovery and their scientific treatment, I have become 1 Boswell, Boswell’s London Journal, 293. 2 In her volume, At the Existentialist Café, 32 and 326. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-005

40 

 Stefan C. Reif

enthused by the idea of uncovering, in addition, the individual motivations and personal relationships that often underlie what scholars researched, how they undertook their tasks and which topics and theories were of the most singular significance for them. 3 The early exploitation of the rich source of medieval texts and documents found in the Egyptian capital towards the end of the nineteenth century is not only a veritable treasure trove for the historian of language, literature, religion and cultural developments but also provides weighty evidence of the manner in which those who made the original discoveries behaved as they sampled the scholarly wares that they brought from the eastern to the western world and from parochial obscurity to international attention and recognition.4 This is nowhere truer than in the case of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira that was written about 180 BCE, almost lost in the subsequent millennium, and reconstructed by the early Genizah scholars, beginning some 120 years ago. This paper will describe the major figures who pioneered that reconstructive work by their editing of the rele­ vant fragments, and will offer an evaluation of their editions. It will also compare in some detail their treatments and their methodologies, and attempt to reveal who was warmly supportive of whom, and which scholars approached the work of their colleagues in a highly critical and even pugnacious fashion. It will then be possible to offer an evaluation of the contributions made by these early editors to scholarly progress in the field.

2 Familiar Story Early in 1896, Mrs Agnes Lewis (1843–1926) and Mrs Margaret Gibson (1843–1920) set out on a trip to British-administered Egypt and Ottoman Palestine. By that time, the two Scotswomen (who were sisters) were not only seasoned travellers in the Near East but also had to their credit the discovery of important manuscripts, especially at St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula. With their massive, inherited wealth, their love of the Bible and their knowledge of Semitic languages, they were well equipped to conduct research on the items they purchased. Vis­ 3 I am deeply grateful to Professors Friedrich Reiterer and Renate Egger-Wenzel for the availabili­ ty of the extensive Ben Sira Library at the University of Salzburg; to Dr Ingrid Krammer for sharing with me her unpublished summary “Forschungsgeschichte über die Auffindung der hebräischen Manuskripte”; to Professors Renate Egger-Wenzel, Peter Linehan and Malcolm Schofield, and to Dr James Aitken, for struggling with me over some especially difficult German and Latin written in late nineteenth-century academic style (see examples in footnotes 57 and 60 below). 4 Reif, Archive, 1–22.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 41

itors to their home “Castlebrae,” near the Presbyterian Seminary, Westminster College, that they had relocated and sponsored in Cambridge, would find them poring over old and tattered manuscripts. Their devoted scholarship raised the hackles of those local dons who felt that neither women nor Scottish Presbyteri­ anism should play a central role in the academic activities of the male-dominated and Anglican University of Cambridge. It was those more on the periphery of the learned circles of Victorian society dwelling by the River Granta who established close friendships with the twin sisters, lauded their achievements and were at times beneficiaries of their intrepid voyages to the Orient.5 Solomon Schechter (1847–1915) and his wife Mathilde (1857–1924) were among such friends of the “Giblews.” He was Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Litera­ ture—only the second Jew to occupy such a post in the University—and she was a cultured Jewish woman of German background who was competent in a number of European languages. To the deep Jewish and Hebrew knowledge that he had acquired in the Ḥasidic community of his Eastern European background, Schech­ ter added the critical and historical approaches to which he had been exposed in Lemberg (now Lviv), Vienna and Berlin. Schechter came to London in 1882 to be the personal Talmud tutor of Claude Montefiore (1858–1938), the wealthy nephew of the distinguished communal and political leader of nineteenth-century AngloJewry, Sir Moses Montefiore (1784–1885), and received his Cambridge appointment in 1890, as successor to Solomon Marcus Schiller-Szinessy (1820–1890). By 1896, he had established no mean a reputation as an innovative scholarly editor of rab­ binic texts but he had also crossed scientific swords with the Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford, David Samuel Margoliouth (1858–1940).6 Despite his name, Margoliouth was an Anglican priest who had mastered Semitic languages. His Jewish family had originated in North-Eastern Poland, near Lithuania, and his father and uncle had converted to Anglicanism and become well-established figures in London. Early in his Oxford career, Margoliouth had taken a special interest in the Book of Ben Sira, composed in the early second century BCE but apparently lost in its original, or early Hebrew form. In a major publication in 1890, he had argued that the most reliable textual witnesses to the original Hebrew of that book of proverbs were the Greek and Syriac versions pre­ served within Christianity. The testimony of Rabbinic Judaism (indeed the “whole rabbinic farrago”) was of little consequence and “Old-Hebrew and the old-Israel” were theologically dead and buried. Margoliouth had reconstructed a Hebrew that he thought most likely to reflect what had been written by the original author but

5 Soskice, Sisters, 239–58. 6 Bentwich, Schechter, 83–163; Scult, “Schechter’s Seminary”; Dunkelgrün, Papers.

42 

 Stefan C. Reif

his version had attracted the criticism of such leading Hebrew scholars as T. K. Cheyne (1841–1915), S. R. Driver (1846–1914) and Adolf Neubauer (1831–1907).7 Schechter was particularly incensed by the views of the apostate from “the other place,” whose linguistic, literary and theological theories seemed to him wholly unwarranted. He set out to defend the Jewish literary tradition in an article published in 1891 in which he cited some of the quotations of Ben Sira in rabbinic literature. He acknowledged that they might not represent the original Hebrew, and had been adjusted, but suggested that they were relevant to the discussion of that original since they were “mostly written in pure Hebrew.”8 In a later essay, he drew a contrast between such Hebrew and the Greek and Syriac versions, which he described as “no less than defaced caricatures of the real work of Sirach.”9 At home in Cambridge, he would say again and again to Mathilde, perhaps as he sat around the table chatting with her and his three little children: “If I only had leave of absence and sufficient money, I would go in search of that lost Hebrew original.”10 Little did he know that his friends Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson would soon provide him with the opportunity of publishing a significant proportion of what has turned out to be the closest thing that the contemporary world of learn­ ing has to that Hebrew original. Having returned from their latest trip at the end of April 1896, Agnes and Margaret had begun to sort out the manuscript treasures that they had brought back with them from “Jerusalem, the plain of Sharon and Cairo.”11 They seem to have appreciated that, for Hebrew and Aramaic texts that were from the Apocry­ pha or the Talmud, they required the assistance of someone more specialist than themselves. Consequently, when meeting Schechter in King’s Parade on 13 May, they invited him to go to “Castlebrae” and inspect such items for himself. He was already there, in their dining room, when they returned from their shopping trip. His wife Mathilde, takes up the story at that point: While still at their house, Dr Schechter glanced rapidly through the manuscripts, then quickly put them all back, all except one very small torn page, which he retained, saying, “May I really have this? It looks interesting to me.” The ladies smiled and assured him that he was welcome to it. He left almost immediately, telling me to wait for him at our home, as he had to go to the University Library. An hour or so later he arrived in a very excited mood, 7 Murray, “Margoliouth”; Margoliouth, Essay. 8 Schechter, “Quotations.” 9 Schechter, “Hoard,” 26. 10 Mathilde Schechter, “Memoirs.” I am grateful to the Library of the Jewish Theological Semi­ nary of America in New York for permission to use and cite this material. 11 Lewis, Shadow, 172–78. In her letter to the press (see footnote 13 below), and in Schechter’s edition of the Lewis-Gibson fragment (see footnote 15 below), it is stated that the acquisition was made “in Palestine.”



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 43

and very pale. His first words were, “Wife, as long as the Bible lives my name shall not die! This small torn scrap is a page of the Hebrew original of Ben Sira.”12

A telegram was sent to his Scottish friends that invited them to come and discuss the discovery with him and he wrote them the famous letter that notes his identi­ fication and its massive significance. He also asked them to keep the matter secret but he himself appears not to have adhered to that principle of confidentiality when he met other scholars that afternoon. At their meeting later the same day, they decided that Mrs Lewis should send letters announcing their discovery to the cultural magazines, the Academy and the Athenaeum, and that Schechter should publish the fragment in the Expositor. The letter submitted by Mrs Lewis appeared in the press three days letter and was the catalyst for much feverish scholarly activity in the course of the following few months, as a result of which numerous additional fragments were located in a variety of academic libraries.13 With his usual enthusiasm, imagination and industry, Schechter saw the great potential for the study of medieval Hebrew manuscripts above and beyond the Ben Sira discoveries. He therefore arranged a trip to Cairo in late 1896 and early 1897, the cost of which was met by his friend and colleague, Charles Taylor (1840–1908), the Master of St John’s College. He went primarily in pursuit of more such treasures but returned with a great deal more than another few Ben Sira fragments.14 As a result, the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection at Cambridge University Library, with its almost 200,000 items, became the most important source for the close study of early medieval Jewish literature. In the field of Ben Sira studies, the next few years saw the pub­ lication of a number of important editions of the various fragments found in dif­ ferent locations. It is now necessary to describe the scholars who completed this work and what each of them achieved.

3 Schechter Enough has already been noted about Schechter’s education, scholarship and character to make it clear what kind of edition he was able to produce and publish of the Lewis-Gibson fragment within a short time, still in the year 1896.15 Once the news had been widely disseminated, there was inevitably anxiety on the part of 12 Mathilde Schechter, “Memoirs.” 13 Academy 1254 (16 May, 1896): 405; Athenaeum 3577 (16 May, 1896): 652. 14 Reif, “Discovery.” 15 Schechter, “Fragment.”

44 

 Stefan C. Reif

many in the fields of biblical, rabbinic and Semitic studies to see the text of the original, and to form their own opinions about its significance. It is not surprising that Schechter preferred that access should not be given to others until he had published his edition and his preference only increased the tensions between him and other specialists. It also put him under pressure of time. As he himself reported in his introduction to the edition: “Many scholars both here and on the continent have expressed the wish to see the Fragment published without any delay.”16 Mathilde Schechter, and indeed Charles Taylor, appear to have exer­ cised profound influence on the manner in which Schechter wrote and how he responded to other scholars. Perhaps it was one of them, or both, who suggested that he add this comment that welcomed rather than resented their involvement: “I am, on my part, not less anxious to hear as soon as possible the opinions of those who have made Sirach the special subject of their studies.”17 In that same introduction to his fifteen-page article, Schechter explained that he had limited himself to the basic minimum in his annotations to the text. He had had neither time nor space to deal with the poetic aspects of the Hebrew, to characterize in detail the kind of post-biblical Hebrew (“Neo-Hebrew” he calls it) that had been used, or to relate this Hebrew version to the texts preserved in the Greek and Syriac versions. These versions were “in a very unsatisfactory state, owing chiefly to imperfect acquaintance […] with the Hebrew language.”18 That said in the introduction, Schechter nevertheless went far beyond simply presenting a bare Hebrew text and translation. He did touch on various linguis­ tic and literary matters, as well as explaining his decipherments and his textual restorations and supplies, and commenting on the dating of Ben Sira’s book and of the fragment. He described the fragment as having been among those items acquired by the “Semitic scholars,” Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson, in Palestine, not in Egypt.19 If that is accurate, then there was apparently already then a steady stream of items making their way from Cairo to the dealers of the Holy Land, perhaps including Rabbi Shelomo Aharon Wertheimer (1866–1935), Jerusalem scholar and bookseller. Schechter pointed out that the Hebrew book was still cir­ culating among the Jews in the tenth century. He was wholly convinced that the Hebrew version found in that newly discovered fragment was an essential key for unlocking the composition created by Yeshua‘ Ben Sira and inherited by his translator and grandson a few decades later. Schechter left no room for doubt about his views in this respect: “There cannot, therefore, be even the shadow of 16 Schechter, “Fragment,” 13. 17 Schechter, “Fragment,” 13. 18 Schechter, “Fragment,” 1. 19 Schechter, “Fragment,” 4.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 45

a doubt that our text represents nothing else but the original.”20 He did, however, qualify this by agreeing that the text had been subjected to “changes, corruptions and mutilations owing to the carelessness of copyists and other mishaps.” His hope was that “further finds will prove the means of restoring to us the whole of Ecclesiasticus.”21

4 Neubauer and Cowley While Schechter was preparing his edition of the fragment brought to Cambridge by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson, two scholars in Oxford were planning an urgent response to the news of its discovery that had been published on 16 May, 1896. Adolf (Avraham) Neubauer and Arthur E. Cowley (1861–1931) immediately set in motion a search through the Egyptian fragments already acquired by the Bodlei­ ­an Library in the previous few years; their aim was to discover more Ben Sira texts and swiftly to publish an edition of those. Neubauer was highly qualified for the task. Born in Slovakia and educated in the traditional study of rabbinic texts, he had made his way to Prague where he studied with an outstanding proponent of Wissenschaft des Judentums, Solomon Judah Leib Rapoport (1786–1867). He adopted the latter’s historical approach to Jewish literature and, having matricu­ lated at the University of Prague, studied oriental languages at the University of Munich from 1854 until 1856. He was based in Paris from 1857 until 1868 where he sharpened his expertise in Hebrew manuscripts and Jewish bibliography. He was then appointed by the Bodleian Library to catalogue its Hebrew manu­ scripts, about a year after Schiller-Szinessy had received a similar appointment at Cambridge University Library. Neubauer went on to be sub-librarian in 1873 and Reader in Rabbinic Hebrew in 1884. By that time, he had made many trips to examine Hebrew manuscripts in numerous settings and had published widely and prolifically in Hebrew and Jewish studies. By 1895, Neubauer’s health was deteriorating (perhaps because of the onset of Alzheimer’s disease or a similar ailment) and he needed the assistance of Cowley to work on the Ben Sira fragments. Cowley was an impressively compe­ tent linguist. He had studied classics at Oxford, moved on to European languages, and then become a recognized expert in Hebrew, Aramaic and Sanskrit. While still teaching modern languages at Magdalen College School in Oxford, he had, in 1890, begun a partnership with Neubauer that produced a scientific study of the 20 Schechter, “Fragment,” 14. 21 Schechter, “Fragment,” 15.

46 

 Stefan C. Reif

Samaritan liturgy.22 He was therefore an obvious choice when the need arose for a co-editor of the Bodleian’s Ben Sira fragments. He proved no slouch throughout his career, going on to take over Neubauer’s positions after the latter’s retirement in 1899, completing his catalogue of Bodley’s Hebrew manuscripts, holding an academic post in Cambridge from 1912 until 1919, and spending his final eleven years as Bodley’s Librarian. He was even knighted by the King a few months before his death. As well as publishing important books in the field of Semitics, he was an efficient administrator who successfully re-organized the manner in which the Bodleian was managed.23 Given Neubauer’s state of health, it may jus­ tifiably be assumed that Cowley played a major role in the preparing, planning and publishing of the volume that they jointly authored and that appeared in the bookshops in January 1897, when Schechter was still in Cairo negotiating the removal to Cambridge of a massive number of Genizah fragments that were des­ tined to provide many more Ben Sira texts. Neubauer and Cowley had located another nine leaves in the Bodleian Library and their volume contained an edition of those, as well as of the Lewis-Gibson fragment. In the preparation of their volume, they had, as they reported, con­ sulted a number of local experts, including S. R. Driver, D. S. Margoliouth and J. F. Stenning (1868–1959), and had been kindly given access by the scholarly Cam­ bridge twins to the latter’s fragment. Their work was impressive. They had not only deciphered the texts of the newly discovered Bodleian fragments but had annotated them and furnished the readers with the Syriac, Greek, and Old Latin versions, as well as an English translation. Also included (and discussed) were the rabbinic citations of Ben Sira and a text of the Alphabet of Ben Sira (a medi­ eval text inspired by the Book of Ben Sira, “mostly indecent,” in the language of the authors). They had, in effect, produced what amounted to a polyglot edition of those few fragments that were then available. They also dealt with matters of literary history and provided a text-critical apparatus, no doubt taking some delight in altering “some of the readings accepted by Mr. Schechter.”24 Of substantial significance to this comparative assessment of the early edi­ tions is their evaluation of the Hebrew of Ben Sira. Despite their erudition, they seem not to have appreciated properly the place of the language used by Ben Sira in the history of Hebrew from the late biblical until the mishnaic period. Granted, 22 Cowley, Liturgy. 23 For biographical details of Neubauer and Cowley, see Dictionary of National Biography Second Supplement (London: Macmillan, 1912), 5–7; Who Was Who 1897–1915, 6th ed. (London: A. & C. Black, 1988), 382; Dictionary of National Biography 1931–1940 (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 194–95; Who Was Who 1929–1940 (London: A. & C. Black, 1941), 297. 24 Neubauer-Cowley, Original Hebrew.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 47

they had no Dead Sea scrolls to guide them, but in that respect other scholars seem to have had a better intuition about what was transpiring linguistically among the Jews of the early second century BCE. It would perhaps be best, for the sake of accuracy, to allow them to speak for themselves: “The language, as already observed, is classical Hebrew, the syntax displaying no traces of the pecu­ liar New-Hebrew constructions… New-Hebrew idiom was in process of formation at this time, and it is evident that both New-Hebrew and Aramaic words were current in the Hebrew with which the author was familiar; but the predominant character of his style is nevertheless pure and classical.”25 In addition, their notes in the introduction about how their discovery related to that of Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson may be fairly characterized as somewhat disingenuous. Oxford, through Archibald Henry Sayce (1845–1933), the Assyri­ ologist and traveller, and Count Riamo d’Hulst, of Belgium/Germany (ca.1850– 1916), also working for the Egypt Exploration Fund, had been among those who had brought items to the Bodleian in the earlier 1890s and it has been suggested by Rebecca Jefferson that negotiations had already been taking place between Oxford and Cairo representatives before the Lewis-Gibson discovery and the Schechter visit to Cairo.26 That having been noted, it seems incontrovertible that it was the publication of the letter from Mrs Lewis that was the immediate catalyst for the searches then undertaken by various institutions, Oxford included. What Neubauer and Cowley wrote was undoubtedly intended to play down the Cam­ bridge discovery and identification: “Almost simultaneously the Bodleian Library acquired, through Professor Sayce, a box of Hebrew and Arabic fragments, among which we recognized another portion of the same text of Sirach.”27 An alternative interpretation of the events is given by Mrs Schechter in her memoirs: He [Neubauer] was very friendly with Schechter until the discovery of the Ben Sira frag­ ment; after the announcement and description of the fragment, he overhauled [sic] the Bodleian Mss. and found there some leaves of the same. So he maintained that he had found them “simultaneously”. He was [sic] a very jealous nature, and for a long time he could not forgive Dr Schechter. He was very bitter about many things.28

25 Neubauer-Cowley, Original Hebrew, preface, xii. 26 Jefferson, “Cairo Genizah” and “Genizah Secret.” 27 Neubauer-Cowley, Original Hebrew, preface, xiii. 28 Mathilde Schechter, “Memoirs.”

48 

 Stefan C. Reif

5 Smend There were a number of Rudolfs who belonged to the Smend family of German Protestant theologians in Westphalia in the nineteenth and twentieth centu­ ries. Of relevance to this essay is the one who was in his forties when he first confronted the new Genizah texts of Ben Sira. Rudolf Smend (1851–1913) is well known as a student of the leading proponent of biblical criticism in the late nine­ teenth century, Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), at Göttingen, and for his research on the first six books of the Hebrew Bible. Having studied theology at Berlin and Bonn, and completed a doctoral dissertation on Arabic poetry, he taught at the University of Basle before returning to Göttingen in 1889 as professor of Biblical studies and Semitic languages. With these academic accomplishments behind him he was well suited to undertake an analysis of the Ben Sira fragments.29 In March 1897, Smend published a review of the Neubauer-Cowley edition in the Theologische Literaturzeitung. He preferred their literary theory over other interpretations, argued the authenticity of the Hebrew version which made good the Greek and Syriac inadequacies, and was opposed to the notion (of Margo­ liouth, for instance) that the Hebrew text represented retroversions from the Greek and the Syriac. He then spent ten days in England on a research grant in the spring of 1897 and was able to view photographs of the Lewis-Gibson frag­ ment and of those published by Neubauer and Cowley, as well as Schechter’s readings of the Cambridge manuscript. He followed up in the same periodical two months later with the results of his examination of these photographs and suggested many different readings of the difficult words. He also criticized the Oxford scholars for using, in the process of conservation, a system of washing the fragments that made some of the texts less legible. The photographs he had seen were of the manuscripts before that process had damaged them and were therefore superior.30

6 Oxford’s Response Neubauer and Cowley responded in the July issue of the Jewish Quarterly Review, explaining that he had misunderstood the conservation process and that, with regard to photography, “it may be accepted as an axiom that its evidence is

29 Graf, “Smend.” 30 Smend, “Review of Neubauer-Cowley.”



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 49

unsound unless supported by the original.”31 They had covered the fragments with a transparent paper and, although this may have created some textual prob­ lems, no letters had totally disappeared (sic!). Interestingly, they seemed again to wish to play down the Cambridge editorial contribution to the reconstruction of the Book of Ben Sira since they signed themselves “The Editors of the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus,” as if there were no others!32 In a Berlin publication that he sub­ mitted in the second half of June, and that was published later that year, Smend explained that he had wished to publish the Lewis-Gibson fragment but had appreciated that Schechter had priority. Since Schechter had been too busy to do a second improved version, Smend was now doing so, with acknowledgements to the three Cambridge scholars. His edition consisted of annotated readings of all the fragments and he offered many alternative readings to those proposed by Neubauer and Cowley. With regard to their conservation process, he responded to their comments by suggesting that covering up the text with a material sometimes meant that the photograph was then actually superior.33

7 Lévi and Halévy in Paris The international nature of the interest in the newly discovered fragments of Ben Sira is well exemplified by the fact that it was not only scholars in England and Germany who were involved but also some in France. Just as Smend had challenged the readings of his Oxford colleagues, so his own 1897 edition was not greatly to the liking of one of the leading French orientalists. Joseph Halévy (1827–1917), in addition to being a Paris professor, was a poet, an ardent Hebra­ ist and Zionist, and a traveller, with brilliant, if somewhat idiosyncratic, views on numerous matters. He had affirmed the Jewishness of the Falashas in Ethio­ pia, had undertaken dangerous journeys in Yemen, and was antagonistic to the theories of Smend’s teacher, Wellhausen.34 In his review of Smend’s edition, he expressed the need to be frank about that latter scholar’s new readings of the fragments. They were so questionable that they put him, as reviewer, in a most embarrassing position (“qui me mettent, je l’avoue franchement, dans un embar­ ras extrême”). He cited Emil Kautzsch (1841–1910) and Hermann Strack (1848– 1922) in support of his own earlier dating of Ben Sira (around 290 rather than 200 BCE) and, in response to criticism of his readings, argued that they were provi­ 31 Neubauer-Cowley, “Emendations,” 564. 32 Neubauer-Cowley, “Emendations,” 567. 33 Smend, “Fragment.” 34 Polotsky, “Halévy.”

50 

 Stefan C. Reif

sional. Given that latter admission on his part, one wonders why he was unable to regard the readings proposed by Smend as equally provisional.35 It was in Paris, too, that another independent-minded scholar applied his learning to the newly discovered fragments. Israël Lévi (1856–1939) was born in Paris of Alsacian Jewish stock and received a university education as well as train­ ing at the Rabbinical Seminary. He was known for his wide Jewish and Hebrew learning as well as for his work as both journalist and scholarly author. He taught University as well as Seminary classes in Paris and held the post of Chief Rabbi of France for almost twenty years. Lévi edited the highly regarded scholarly publi­ cation the Revue des Études Juives and demonstrated his powers of independent thought in political, theological and communal contexts over many decades.36 The remarkable thing about his relationship with Ben Sira is that his work for almost ten years after the Lewis-Gibson announcements was effectively research in progress. As more material became available and more scholars turned their attention to Ben Sira, so Lévi gave new thought to the linguistic, literary and his­ torical problems and did not hesitate to subject his work not only to fine-tuning but also to major adjustment and alteration. His first published articles on the Genizah texts of Ben Sira appeared in the Revue in 1896 and 1897. The gist of part of what he wrote indicated that he was dissatisfied with how Schechter had treated him, as well with the Cambridge scholar’s preliminary study of the Lewis-Gibson fragment. Schechter had had the good fortune to be the scholar who had been most closely involved in the Genizah discoveries but was too busy to deal with all the material. Much remained to be unpacked. Lévi had therefore not yet been able to obtain access to the new items and had had to be satisfied with what little was available to him. With regard to his assessment of what he had seen, he offered his views on a number of aspects of the discovery. In the matter of the historical context of Ben Sira, he was of the opinion that the author was much influenced by Hellenistic thought and he rejected Schechter’s early dating of the Hebrew text from the Genizah. In the matter of the Greek and Syriac versions he expressed the view that there had been an original Hebrew that predated the Greek and the Syriac, but suggested that the Genizah fragments did not represent that Hebrew but a later one. The author had struggled to produce an adequate Hebrew but the result was at a consider­ able linguistic distance from the biblical books of Job, Ecclesiastes and Daniel. Lévi noted the novel nature of some of the Hebrew but was evidently not greatly impressed by it. While Ludwig Blau (1861–1936), Wilhelm Bacher (1850–1913)

35 Halévy, Reviews. 36 See Yvette R. Kaufman, “Israël Lévi: Un érudit à la tête du judaïsme français.”



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 51

and Smend were essentially supportive of Schechter’s contribution, Lévi found reasons to offer his alternative interpretations.37 Lévi did not have the patience to wait for more texts to appear but was anxious to start on his edition of the Hebrew fragments. He published the first part of this work in 1898, knowing that there would have to be a second part at a later date, when additional Genizah fragments became available. Although he acknowledged the tentative nature of this first edition, he put a good deal of scholarship and industry into its production, and had many views to convey on a variety of topics. He gave an account of the history of the Genizah discover­ ies and offered clear and reliable descriptions of each of the fragments. He also explained the importance of Ben Sira for the history of the Hebrew language, for Jewish ideas about the messianic future, for the status of the priesthood and for the relationship between the Jews and Hellenism. He drew attention to the fact that the text was treated by some of the scribes as if it had canonical status and that marginal glosses had been added to some of the manuscripts. Ben Sira had been aware of most of the books of the Hebrew Bible. Lévi questioned whether the Genizah texts represented the original Hebrew but did acknowledge that there were errors in the Greek and Syriac translations. He placed the vocabulary and syntax somewhere between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew and characterized the book as belonging to the wisdom literature of the first quarter of the second century BCE. On the methodological front, he stressed that the Neubauer-Cowley edition required significant correction (“une révision sévère”) and explained his critical apparatus, his translation and his list of works cited. In the preparation of his text he had seen the originals as well as photo­ graphs, and had checked the original of the Lewis-Gibson fragment with Schech­ ter, Cowley, Stenning, and C. D. Ginsburg (1831–1914). In the matter of his French translation, he had declined to follow blindly the testimony of the Greek, and with regard to his readings of the manuscripts he had explained where he was in disagreement with the views of others, including those of Smend.38 In 1899, Lévi contributed yet another article to the Revue in which he again took up the matter of the status of the Hebrew version of Ben Sira as found in the Genizah texts. He first of all totally rejected and even mocked the linguistic and literary theories of Margoliouth and then argued that the latest texts pub­ lished by Schechter should not be considered as reflecting the Hebrew original but might be employed to reconstruct it. He says of his own earlier views (in my translation from the French): “We were right when we were the only ones not to

37 Lévi, “Découverte”; “La sagesse;” “Quelques notes.” 38 Lévi, Ecclésiastique, part 1.

52 

 Stefan C. Reif

identify this strange Hebrew with the original words of Ben Sira.”39 His Parisian colleague Halévy did not, however, let Lévi’s edition pass without offering his own criticisms very soon after its appearance. The title of the edition (L’Ecclésiastique […] Texte Original Hébreu) was deceptive since it was based only on a frag­ ment published by Neubauer and Cowley and by Smend. Lévi’s text purported to follow the original manuscript but his translation did not match the transcription of the Hebrew text and this would be perplexing for the reader. He had also opted for some inaccurate and strange readings of the text (“nous sommes étonnés de recontrer des expressions incorrectes ou d’un sens bizarre”). In spite of his rab­ binic status, Lévi had, asserted Halévy, shouted from the rooftops that rabbinic folklore was no more historical than any other folklore, but this fact was self-evi­ dent to every enlightened talmudist. Halévy again stressed his own earlier dating of Ben Sira to 290 and not 200.40

8 Schechter and Taylor In 1899, the focus moved back to Cambridge since by that time the two owners of all the fragments that had come from Cairo, Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor, had presented their priceless collection to the University of Cambridge and had begun to sort out the fragments under a variety of headings.41 Needless to say, they had found more texts of Ben Sira and were therefore in a position to match the Bodleian initiative of two years earlier by producing their edition of the fragments found in what was now the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collec­ tion at Cambridge University Library. Before a description is given of that edition, it is appropriate to pause and say something about Taylor, to match what was already written earlier about his Jewish co-editor. Charles Taylor had been born and raised to a family that had made its fortune by the early purchase of extensive parts of what is now known as the West End of London, such as Regent Street. He had come up to Cambridge in 1858, studied mathematics and theology and, in the latter context, become enthused by the study of Hebrew in general and rabbinic texts in particular, as taught to him by Schiller-Szinessy, Schechter’s predecessor. He was ordained as an Anglican priest, was a noted rower and alpine climber in his youth, and became a Fellow, and ultimately Master, of St John’s College. 39 Lévi, “L’origine”: “Décidément notre premier mouvement avait été le bon, quand, seul dans la presse, nous n’avions pas voulu d’abord voir dans cet étrange hébreu les paroles mêmes de Ben Sira.” 40 Halévy, “Review.” 41 Reif, Archive, 234–38.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 53

Throughout his career his fascination with rabbinic texts did not diminish and he produced an edition of the mishnaic tractate ’Abot that has remained an invalu­ able tool for students of the subject.42 He continued to work with Schechter, as he had done with Schiller-Szinessy, and they were mutually enriched. He also supported formal Jewish entry, as students and faculty, into the University in the early 1870s. He encouraged and sponsored (from his personal wealth) Schechter’s trip to Cairo in 1896 and hence became the joint owner of the Genizah Collection, able to produce with Schechter the edition of the Ben Sira fragments that they had identified among their “hoard of Hebrew manuscripts,” as Schechter (or was it actually Taylor?) had described it in 1897.43 Their edition is another fine item of scholarship which provides eloquent tes­ timony to the remarkable scholarly partnership that they had generated. Neither of them overshadowed the other since they each made central contributions to the publishing project. Taylor set the research scene with a preface in which he described the Genizah discoveries of the Hebrew Ben Sira and the publications relating to those fragments that appeared between 1896 and 1898. He then intro­ duced the current edition of “eleven new leaves found by Dr Schechter” and described how Ben Sira “is of unique interest to the scholar and the theologian as a Hebrew work of nearly known date, which forms a link between the Old Tes­ tament and the Rabbinic writings.” He pointed out that Ben Sira had imitated the earlier Hebrew scriptures but not always in their original form. In the context of his final paragraphs, Taylor supported his conviction, and that of his fellow editor, about the Hebrew’s superiority to the Greek, by citing (besides other argu­ ments) a statement made by the grandson of Ben Sira in the prologue to his Greek version of his grandfather’s Hebrew work: “Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have labored to interpret we may seem to fail in some of the phrases. For things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the same force in them when they are translated into another tongue.” Taylor then offered his richly annotated English translation, followed by an equally important appendix. There he included his detailed and erudite notes on difficult passages in chapters 39–51, together with his comments on the work of earlier editors of the relevant fragment, and his total rejection of the sugges­ tions of Margoliouth concerning an alleged retranslation by the Genizah Hebrew of Ben Sira on the basis of Greek and Persian versions. À propos Margoliouth’s “proofs” for his theory, the Reverend Dr Taylor politely but firmly evaluated them in a typically Victorian fashion: “In such of them as are hereinafter discussed, I

42 Taylor, Sayings. 43 Reif, Archive, 61–63, 68; Reif, Taylor; and Andrew Macintosh’s essay in this volume.

54 

 Stefan C. Reif

do not find any that is, as far as I can judge, sound.”44 In addition, he dealt with the alphabetical acrostic (51:13–30) in its Hebrew, Greek and Syriac versions, as well as in the reconstruction of the Hebrew published by Gustav Bickell (1838– 1906) in 1882, again with Taylor’s own learned annotations.45 So much for the half of the volume provided by Taylor. Schechter was no less generous with his scholarship in the other fifty percent. He began with a prefa­ tory note about the methodology in creating his text edition, and with thanks to Chief Rabbi Aaron Bensimon (1848–1928), and Warden of the Jewish Community of Cairo, Jossef Cattaui (1861–1942), “for their exceptional liberality in placing the treasures of their Genizah at my disposal, which alone made this publication possible.” With regard to his own scholarship, he acknowledged that he did not regard his commentary as definitive, adding that the “obscurities are too many to allow us to hope for finality in a preliminary edition [...] finality will not be reached without a more thorough-going study of the post-Talmudic literature in its various branches […] than students are wont to accord to it.”46 He was also aware that his views on the relationship of Ben Sira to the Old Testament, as explained in the introduction, would “probably call forth a good deal of opposi­ tion” but they were based on too much serious study to warrant their omission. He described the fragments then known as A and B (T-S 12.863–4; T-S 16.312 and 16.314–5) and took issue with Neubauer and Cowley, as in the matter of the use of the relative pronoun ‫ש‬. Schechter also aimed some bolts at Cheyne for his late dating of the Psalms, claiming that the Ben Sira evidence demonstrated clearly that the biblical Psalms were not a product of the same age.47 Taylor and Schechter had completed the work on their volume in the spring of 1899 and by the autumn Smend had already published a review of their publi­ cation. This appeared in what seems to have been a favorite journal of Smend’s, the Theologische Literaturzeitung, and the review was by and large favorable in its assessment. He noted Taylor’s hesitation about the Hebrew text compared to Schechter’s considerable enthusiasm for it and mentioned that the Master of St John’s had often expressed preference for the marginal glosses over the body of the text. Smend also drew attention to what he regarded as some inadequate English translations by Taylor. It was, however, on Schechter’s work that he com­ mented more expansively. Although Smend sometimes had to disagree with him, he admired Schechter’s great knowledge and familiarity with rabbinic literature and was generally in agreement with his occasional corrections of the Hebrew on 44 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, LXX. 45 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, V–LXXXVII. 46 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 4. 47 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 1–68, (1)–(24).



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 55

the basis of the Greek and the Syriac. He also offered no objection to Schechter’s view that many words reflected Mishnaic Hebrew rather than Biblical Hebrew, nor to his theory that Ben Sira was familiar with, and made use of the whole Hebrew Bible with the exception of Daniel. In the latter matter, Smend at the same time reported that Schechter himself expected opposition to this. In conclu­ sion, Smend expressed the view that the world of scholarship owed a great debt of gratitude to Schechter for his industry, erudition and circumspection (“That­ kraft, Gelehrsamkeit und Umsicht”).48 Lévi, on the other hand, in his various responses to the work of others on the Ben Sira fragments, as published in 1899 and 1900, found himself neither in admiration of their efforts nor in agreement with their theories. Taking issue with the conclusions and suggestions made in the Taylor-Schechter edition, he decried the quality of the Hebrew found in the Genizah texts (“gauche,” he called it) and argued again for the theory of retranslations from various languages, especially Syriac. Interestingly enough, he seemed a little less sure of himself in the matter of that Hebrew when he reviewed the edition of the fragments found in the British Museum published by George Margoliouth (1853–1924).49 In that evaluation he repeated his support for the idea of a Hebrew retranslation from the Syriac version but at the end demonstrated some hesitation (“mais la problème est bien plus complexe”). In his lengthy review of the edition published by Elkan Nathan Adler (1861–1946) of the London scholar’s own fragments, Lévi was clearly making use of the notes he was compiling for his own forthcoming edition.50 He offered alter­ native suggestions for the lacunae and a critical analysis of a text that was often corrupt, as well as drawing attention to problems of interpretation. Even more significantly, he had more to say about the historical place of the newly discov­ ered Hebrew texts of Ben Sira. He did not exactly change horses in mid-stream but seemed to be making a valiant effort to control both steeds. He noted that Adler’s edition had provided important data on the matter of the originality of the Hebrew which decisively clarified the matter. Some Hebrew was part of the original language of Ben Sira and had not been borrowed from other languages. Lévi swiftly added, however, that this did not refute the theory of additions made in a retranslation from the Syriac. Many verses, he suggested, had slipped into the original under the influence of the Talmud.51

48 Smend, “Review of Schechter-Taylor.” 49 George Margoliouth, “Original Hebrew.” 50 Adler, “Chapters.” 51 Lévi, “Notes” and “Nouveaux.”

56 

 Stefan C. Reif

9 Lévi Again In 1900, Lévi, now with the availability of many more published fragments, including manuscript C that he had himself edited, was able to publish the second half of the edition that he had promised in his earlier volume of 1898.52 His comments regarding the originality of the Hebrew were highly discursive but he finally concluded that manuscripts A and B were remnants of an original Hebrew that had been supplemented in various ways, especially by way of corrections, additions, interpolations and modifications made on the basis of the Syriac. He included in his introduction detailed descriptions of manuscripts B, A, C and D, and their characteristics, explaining in particular how they related to the Greek and Syriac versions. In addition to discussing the alphabetical acrostic and Bick­ ell’s reconstruction, he stressed the importance of Ben Sira for Hebrew language and biblical literature, and dealt with the influences of Hellenism on the book, and with the Latin version.53 If Lévi’s criticisms of others were sharp, his edition received more than a soupçon of peppered response as delivered by Rudolf Smend. In his comments of 1900, Smend claimed that although he had rarely followed his French colleague, Lévi had, for his part, made major use of his work, sometimes without indicat­ ing this fact in his edition. His Greek and his Syriac, according to Smend, were inadequate. He was efficient and knowledgeable but also arrogant. Smend noted his many errors and suggested that these allowed one to judge the value of Lévi’s criticisms of the other editors of the Hebrew Ben Sira. Instead of indicting where others had gone wrong he should look to the mistakes in his own work, espe­ cially in his characterization of the Hebrew Ben Sira as unoriginal. Smend was a trifle less dismissive in remarks made some three years later. He made a point of stressing how Lévi had changed his mind about the originality of the Genizah texts of Ben Sira and suggested that the Hebrew of such texts was challenging but exciting, a fact even less well understood by Lévi than by the other scholars. It was only reasonable to assume that the Hebrew vocabulary of Ben Sira could not always be understood by reference either to much older Biblical Hebrew or to the much later Mishnaic Hebrew. The Greek and the Syriac, for their part, could provide important evidence for the understanding of specific Hebrew words.54

52 This manuscript was confusingly dubbed MS D by Lévi, “Fragments de deux,” but subse­ quent scholarship has called it MS C, following Schechter, “Further Fragment.” 53 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, part 1. 54 Smend, “Reviews of Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique.”



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 57

10 Peters Twice Certain mistakes and changes of mind were also a feature of the next edition to be discussed, namely, that of Norbert Peters (1863–1938). Reared and educated in Coesfeld and Paderborn, Westphalia, Peters had studied theology in Würzburg and Münster from 1883 until 1887 and been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in 1887. He continued with his studies of Bible and Oriental Philology at Bonn and Tübingen between 1889 and 1892, and obtained his doctorate. Father Peters served as Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the Theological College of Pad­ erborn from 1892 until 1934 and was the author of some thirty volumes and a leading promoter of Catholic Biblical Studies. His efforts were recognized by his receipt of various honors and awards.55 The edition that Peters published in 1902 was in certain respects a tour de force. It extended to 445 pages, included a lengthy introduction and detailed com­ mentary, with a restored Hebrew text and a German translation.56 The preface discussed Ben Sira’s place in Jewish literature, the newly discovered Hebrew text and each of the Genizah manuscripts. Peters also had some important insights. He appreciated that the talmudic citations should now be more favorably evalu­ ated and that the Hebrew might be a reflection of the original, albeit not exactly as it left the author. He explained how it related to Biblical Hebrew and Mish­ naic Hebrew, and to Semitic languages, and saw it as an early form of Mishnaic Hebrew. As for the Greek, it should not be uncritically used for emending the Hebrew. Peters suggested that a comparison of the Greek and Syriac demon­ strated that the Syriac translation stood between the Hebrew Urtext and the original Greek Vorlage and represented an evolved version of that Greek Vorlage, while the Hebrew texts from the Genizah represented later textual versions.57 The problem was that he made more than his fair share of errors in his text and commentary and, more importantly, his restored Hebrew expressed his personal preferences rather than a version that might be regarded as authentic. It is hardly surprising that his policy attracted the criticism of numerous scholars, including Paul Vetter (1850–1906) who pointed out that Peters had reconstructed a Hebrew

55 “Dr. theol. Norbert Peters” [Online: http://www.westfälische-biographien.de/biographien/ person/499]. 56 Peters, Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus. 57 Peters, Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, 72: “Die Vergleichung mit Griechisch und Syrisch zeigt auch, was von vornherein zu erwarten war, dass Syrisch mit seiner Vorlage zwischen T und der Vorlage des Griechisch steht, so dass sein Text sich als Weiterentwicklung des Textes der Vorlage des Griechischen charakterisiert, während T wieder ihm gegenüber als jüngere Textesform [sic!] erscheint.”

58 

 Stefan C. Reif

version which, for the specialists, could not with any certainty be identified as the original text, as the author had himself unashamedly admitted.58 Peters tried to make amends with a second edition in 1905 which was more favorably received.59 As he himself explained [in my English translation from his challenging scholarly Latin] “I have added a German version to the text that is precise and faithful, but I have refrained from adding to the Hebrew text itself, leaving it exactly as we read it in our preserved Hebrew manuscripts. The readers of my [earlier] book rightly criticized me in this and I myself afterwards regretted it.”60 Much of what he then offered was as in his previous edition but there are clear indications that this edition was intended for use in the Catholic Church. He had pointed the Hebrew text so that it could be used in the Church where Ecclesiasticus was part of the biblical canon and not an apocryphal book. He also stressed that his Latin translation was based on the authoritative Church version, with adjustments only where the Hebrew text demanded it, dating his preface in the second week of Lent in the Roman Catholic calendar.61

11 Smend Again In 1906, Rudolf Smend produced his richly annotated Hebrew edition, with a German translation, a lengthy introduction, a brief preface, and an extensive glossary of Hebrew vocabulary. He repeated an account of the Genizah discover­ ies, described and dated all the manuscripts, and outlined his methodology. He explained how access to the originals, photographs and a cleaning process had all helped him to improve the readings of Neubauer-Cowley, which he had used in his earlier editions of 1897, and he provided examples of such improvements. Among his conclusions he deemed that the Hebrew of the fragments was the orig­ inal and not a translation from Greek or Syriac; that the various Hebrew versions were the product of a much earlier period and not of the Genizah period and had already arrived in Cairo as fragments or as established texts; and that the Hebrew orthography reflected Mishnaic Hebrew (“neuhebräisch”).62 58 Vetter, Review of Peters. 59 Peters, Ecclesiasticus. 60 Peters, Ecclesiasticus, preface v: “Textui ita castigato et typis descripto versionem germani­ cam adieci, sed praetermissi textum ipsum hebraicum addere, prout re vera in manuscriptis hebraicis nobis conservatis legitur. Quod et lectores libri mei iuste vituperaverunt et ego ipse postea dolui. Quare, quod tunc pratermisi, nunc supplevi.” 61 Peters, Ecclesiasticus, preface, vi and ix. 62 Smend, Weisheit.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 59

12 Lévi Revised By the time that he came to write his article on “Sirach” for the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, Israel Lévi had clearly been influenced not only by the new discoveries but by the arguments of colleagues whose views he had previously derided. His essay was (and remains) a major contribution to the topic but he had undoubt­ edly amended the conclusions that he had reached in earlier publications. One may regard this as very much to his credit rather than as any indication of failure. His own words are the best means for making perfectly clear his revised position: [Manuscripts] A and B are derived from a copy characterized by interpolations due to a retranslation from Syriac into Hebrew […] Despite the corrections and interpolations men­ tioned, however, the originality of the text in these fragments of Ben Sira cannot be denied. Besides the fact that many scholars deny the existence of any interpolations, there are por­ tions in which it is easy to recognize the author’s hand; for he has a characteristic tech­ nique, style, vocabulary, and syntax which are evident in all the versions. It may safely be said that in the main the work of Ben Sira has been preserved just as it left his hands, while the chief variant marginal readings recorded in the fragments and confirmed by the translations may be regarded as evidences of the existence of two separate editions written by Ben Sira himself.63

One can only wonder what Lévi would have made of such statements had he read them in the work of others some eight years earlier.

13 Examples of Exegesis Before offering some conclusions about the editions of the Hebrew Ben Sira that appeared in the first decade after its rediscovery, it may help to illustrate the dif­ ferent approaches described above if a few examples from MS B are offered of how the various editors dealt with certain words:

13.1 On ‫תי‬...‫ הת‬in 39:32 Schechter, 11, reads ‫הת[אמ]צתי‬, noting that the Hebrew matches the Greek and the Syriac misunderstands the verse.

63 Lévi, “Sirach.”

60 

 Stefan C. Reif

Peters, 170–71, cites all suggestions and the facsimile, opting for ‫ התנצבתי‬even if it does not otherwise occur. Smend, 38 and 366, reads ‫ התיצבתי‬and cites Aramaic ‫ יציבא‬and MH ‫יציב‬. Neubauer-Cowley, 4, read ‫ התיצבתי‬marking the middle letter as doubtful. Lévi, 12, describes Greek and Syriac and discusses in detail which letters can be seen. He opts for the unusual and unlikely ‫( התעכבתי‬translating “je me suis arrêté” in his footnote).

13.2 On ‫ יספוק‬in 39:33 in relation to ‫ יספיק‬in 39:16 Schechter, 11, notes that the Greek reflects an original ‫ יספיק‬and refers to the par­ allel in v. 16b. Peters, 171, notes that the Greek reflects ‫ יספיק‬and cites the interchange of yod and waw; possibly ‫יספקו‬. Smend, 38 and 367, suggests ‫יספוקו‬. Neubauer-Cowley, 5, suggest reading ‫ יספיק‬and translate “supplieth.” Lévi, 12, notes that the Greek follows verse 16b and reads ‫“ יספיק‬procurer” (“pro­ vides”, “supplies”).

13.3 On ‫ זה רע מה זה‬in 39:34 Schechter, 11, observes that the Greek read ‫מזה‬. Peters, 171, notes the Greek and Syriac, and the Ethiopic translation, and the gloss ‫מזה‬. Smend, 38 and 367, opts for all the marginal glosses on this verse. Neubauer-Cowley, 5, note the marginal gloss and translate: “this is worse than that.” Lévi, 12, follows Neubauer-Cowley and translates “ceci est pire que cela.”



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 61

13.4 On ‫ טוב‬or ‫ יגביר‬/‫ יגבר‬in 39:34 Schechter, 11, opts for ‫ טוב‬from Greek, and cites Syriac as reflecting ‫יגבר‬. Peters (171, in his notes to the first edition) opts for simpler and more standard ‫ יגבר‬as in the marginal gloss but notes ‫ יגביר‬as parallel to Ps 12:5; in his second edition, 94, he simply notes marginal gloss ‫יגבר‬. Smend, 38, opts for marginal gloss ‫יגבר‬. Neubauer-Cowley, 4–5, note and appear to translate the gloss (qal form) and not the text (hiphil form). Lévi, 12–13, simply notes the variant and translates “a son triomphe.”

13.5 On ‫ ברכו‬/‫ זמרו‬in in 39:35 Schechter, 11, notes space for only three letters in 35b. He proposes reading the gloss perhaps as ‫ לש' הקדוש‬for text ‫לשמו הגדו‬. Peters, 171, suggests that, as in other manuscripts ‫ הק = הקדוש‬or ‫הקדש‬, cites gloss ‫ קדשו‬and notes that Syriac presupposes ‫שמו‬. Smend, 367, cites Greek translating “name of God” and Syriac “his name.” Neubauer-Cowley, 4–5, suggest ‫ הקדוש‬or ‫ הקודש‬and note the gloss ‫“ קדשו‬his holy name.” Lévi, 13, suggests ‫ שם הקדוש‬or ‫ שם קדוש‬and cites the Greek rendering which specif­ ically mentions the Lord.

13.6 On ‫ שינת לילה‬in 40:5 Schechter, 12, suggests that the original may have been ‫( תדד מעיניו‬citing Gen 31:40) as in Syriac, instead of as in Greek which seems to have had ‫רעיוניו‬. Peters, 174, cites various suggestions of Neubauer-Cowley, Smend and Lévi, citing Greek and Syriac and the gloss to justify his reading ‫ תשנה דעתו‬or, in the second edition, ‫תשנה דעת‬. He offers (391) a strange pointing of ‫ שינת‬with shewa. Smend, 369–70, gives a scholarly explanation and linguistic justification of ‫תשנה‬ ‫ את דעתו‬but the context is sleep so he takes it to refer to a doubling of his troubles.

62 

 Stefan C. Reif

Neubauer-Cowley, 4–5, follow the marginal gloss ‫דעתו‬. Lévi, 16, rejects ‫ תשנה את דעתו‬and claims to see different letters here, yielding ‫העירה‬ ]‫ ;[לבו‬so Syriac which reflects ‫“ = מנד‬trouble.”

14 Conclusions There can be little doubt that the mutual feelings of antagonism entertained by Schechter in Cambridge and Margoliouth in Oxford provided a major impetus for the pursuit of a medieval Hebrew text of Ben Sira and that the travels and pur­ chases of Lewis and Gibson were instrumental in effecting a successful outcome to such a pursuit. The scholarship, industry and insights of a number of scholars, particularly in England, Germany and France ensured not only fresh discoveries but also important editorial and exegetical work that laid the foundations for a broader understanding and appreciation of Ben Sira. Such efforts, as they ripened and bore fruit, succeeded in placing Ben Sira in its cultural, literary and linguistic setting within Jewish history. Views tended to mutate as more data became avail­ able but this encouraged progress rather than hindering it. Different areas of spe­ cialization were represented by each of the editors and this ensured that Semitics, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Bible studies and Rabbinism all received their appropri­ ate share of attention and expertise. Inevitably, there were tensions about the availability (or non-availability) of manuscript fragments and about who should receive credit for what, and when. There were also, at times, expressions of ani­ mosity on the part of some scholars towards others which perhaps extended from the professional to the personal. While Schechter, Neubauer, Smend, Lévi and Halévy were not without their faults in that connection, scholars such as Taylor, Cowley and Peters were inclined to encourage more respectful, polite and clinical assessments of the work of colleagues. The scholarly involvement was inter-de­ nominational at a period that long predated enthusiasm for inter-faith dialogue. Jews, Catholics and Protestants with all manner of commitments participated in the campaign to give Ben Sira his proper academic attention and the result was a decade of remarkable progress and achievement. It seems that Schechter and Smend had a greater degree of mutual admiration than was to be found among the other scholars but this remains to be carefully researched.64 To their great credit, the assiduous work of all these early editors, working as yet without input

64 Smend’s grandson, of the same name, kindly informs me by letter (Göttingen, 19 December, 2016) that he has no correspondence that could shed light on this relationship.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 63

from the Dead Sea scrolls, is still today of considerable overall value to all those entering the field of Jewish literature in the Second Temple period.

Bibliography Adler, Elkan N, “Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1899/1900): 466–80. Bakewell, Sarah. At the Existentialist Café. London: Chatto & Windus, 2016. Bentwich, Norman. Solomon Schechter: A Biography. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938. Boswell, James. Boswell’s London Journal 1762–1763. Edited by Frederick A. Pottle. London: Heinemann, 1950. Cowley, Arthur E. The Samaritan Liturgy. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. Dunkelgrün, Theodore, ed. Papers from the Solomon Schechter Centennial Conference in Cambridge. Jewish Historical Studies 48. London: Jewish Historical Society of England, 2017. Graf, Friedrich W. “Smend: Hermann Rudolf.” in Neue Deutsche Biographie 24 (2010): 509. Halévy, Joseph, Reviews of Smend, Das hebräische Fragment, and of Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique.” Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 6 (1898): 187–89. Jefferson, Rebecca J. W. “The Cairo Genizah Unearthed: The Excavations Conducted by the Count d’Hulst on behalf of the Bodleian Library and their Significance for Genizah History.” Pages 177–99 in From a Sacred Source: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif. Edited by Ben Outhwaite and Siam Bhayro. Leiden: Brill, 2010. —. “Genizah Secret. The Count d’Hulst and Letters Revealing the Race to Recover the Lost Leaves of the Original Ecclesiasticus.” Journal of the History of Collections 21 (2009): 125–42. Kaufman, Yvette R. “Israël Lévi: Un érudit à la tête du judaïsme français.” http://judaisme.sdv. fr/histoire/rabbins/islevi.htm. Lévi, Israël. “Découverte d’un fragment.” REJ 32 (1896): 303–4. —. L’Ecclésiastique, ou, La Sagesse de Jésus, Fils de Sira: Texte Original Hébreu, Édité, Traduit et Commenté, part 1. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898. —. L’Ecclésiastique, ou, La Sagesse de Jésus, Fils de Sira: Texte Original Hébreu, Édité, Traduit et Commenté, part 2. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901. —. “Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscrits hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique.” REJ 40 (1900): 1–30. —. “Les nouveaux fragments hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique de Jésus, fils de Sira.” REJ 39 (1899): 1–15, 177–90. —. “Notes sur les Ch. VII.29-XII.1 de Ben Sira édités par M. Elkan N. Adler (+Errata).” JQR 13 (1900): 1–17, 331–32. —. “Quelques notes sur Jésus Ben Sirach et son ouvrage.” REJ 35 (1897): 19–47. —. “L’origine de l’original hébreu de l’Ecclésiastique.” REJ 38 (1899): 306–8. —. “La sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sirach.” REJ 34 (1897): 1–50, 294–96. —. “Sirach, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of.” JE 11:388–97. Lewis, Agnes S. In the Shadow of Sinai: A Story of Travel and Research from 1895 to 1897. Cambridge: Macmillan & Bowes, 1908.

64 

 Stefan C. Reif

Margoliouth, David S. An Essay on the Place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890. Margoliouth, George, “The Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus XXXI.12-31, and XXXVI.22-XXXVII.26.” JQR 12 (1899/1900): 1–33. Murray, Gilbert. “David Samuel Margoliouth, 1858–1940.” Proceedings of the British Academy 26 (1940): 389–97. Neubauer, Adolf. “Prof. Smend’s Emendations,” JQR 9 (1897): 563–67. 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. Peters, Norbert. Liber Iesu Filii Sirach sive Ecclesiasticus Hebraice: Secundum Codices Nuper Repertos Vocalibus Adornatus Addita Versione Latina cum Glossario Hebraico-Latino. Freiburg: Herder, 1905. —. Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, untersucht, herausgegeben, übersetzt, und mit kritischen Noten versehen. Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Polotsky, Hans Jakob, “Joseph Halévy.” EncJud 7:1185–86. Reif, Stefan C.. A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University Library’s Genizah Collection. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000. —, ed. Charles Taylor and the Genizah Collection: A Centenary Seminar and Exhibition. Cambridge: St John’s College, 2009. —. “The Discovery of the Ben Sira Fragments.” Pages 1–21 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 1996. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Schechter, Mathilde. “Memoirs.” Unpublished notes located in the Schechter Archive 101 at the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York. Schechter, Solomon. “A Fragment of the Original Text of Ecclesiasticus.” Expositor 5,4 (1896): 1–15. —. “A Further Fragment of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1900): 456–65. —. “A Hoard of Hebrew Manuscripts.” Pages 1–11 in Studies in Judaism. Second Series. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1908. —. “The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature.” JQR 3 (1891): 682–706. Schechter, Solomon, and Taylor, Charles. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Hebrew Text Edited from Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection, and Annotated, with an English Translation, an Introduction, and an Appendix containing Additional Material and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Scult, Mel. “Schechter’s Seminary.” Pages 43–102 in Tradition Renewed: A History of the Jewish Theological Seminary. Edited by Jack Wertheimer. 2 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1997. 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. —. Review of Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, parts 1 and 2. Theologische Literaturzeitung 25 (1900): 134–36; and 28 (1903): 585–87. —. Review of Neubauer-Cowley. Theologische Literaturzeitung 22 (1897): 161–66, 265–68. —. Review of Schechter-Taylor. Theologische Literaturzeitung 24 (1899): 505–9. —. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach mit einem hebräischen Glossar. Berlin: Reiner, 1906.



Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira 

 65

Soskice, Janet. Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Found the Hidden Gospels. London: Chatto & Windus, 2009. Taylor, Charles. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877. 2nd ed. 1897. Vetter, Paul. Review of Peters, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text. Theologische Quartalschrift 85 (1903): 439–40.

Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

The “Booklet” of Ben Sira Codicological and Paleographical Remarks on the Cairo Genizah 1 Fragments Abstract: Since the identification by Solomon Schechter of a leaf among the frag­ ments from the Cairo Genizah acquired by Agnes S. Lewis and Margaret Gibson, the Hebrew Book of Ben Sira has been the object of intense scholarly interest. Further Genizah fragments belonging to six different manuscripts were discov­ ered and used to reconstruct the Hebrew text and to compare it with the Greek and other translations and traditions. Attempts were made to explain the context of transmission of the text from antiquity to the Middle Ages. Some scholars con­ sidered that this context must have involved non-rabbinic “sectarian” Jewish groups, such as the Karaites. Surprisingly little attention has been paid so far to the manuscripts themselves, their material features and paleography. This paper is dedicated to Ben Sira as a book, as a physical object. The writing materials of the manuscripts, their formats, dimensions, script and handwritings are ana­ lyzed and then used as a source for reconstructing the milieu in which the manu­ scripts were copied and transmitted. Keywords: Cairo Genizah, Hebrew paleography, quire, scribe

The Hebrew Book of Ben Sira, “lost and found,” has inspired scholarly passion since at least the end of the nineteenth century, when Mrs Margaret Gibson and Mrs Agnes Lewis discovered in 1895 the first leaf of what is now known as MS B. Soon after the identification and publication of this manuscript by Solomon Schechter, further leaves of the same manuscript were published by Arthur Cowley and Adolf Neubauer in Oxford. The rush to discover further fragments of this theologically important work led Schechter to the attic chamber of the Ben Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo, thereby laying the foundations for all subsequent Genizah research.2 Further encouraged by the 1964 discovery of ancient scroll 1 I thank the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and Dr Ben Outhwaite, the Head of the Cairo Genizah Research Unit, the Bodleian Library and Dr César Merchan-Hamann, the curator of Hebrew Manuscripts, the Alliance Israélite Universelle and Mr Jean-Claude Kuperminc, the Library Director, and the British Library and Mrs Ilana Tahan, the curator of Oriental collections, for their kind permission to reproduce the images in this paper. 2 See especially Reif, “Discovery.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-006

68 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

fragments in the Masada fortress and other discoveries at Qumran3, the study of Ben Sira—including textual variants, connection to the biblical canon, mis­ leading attribution to sectarian circles, and, above all, the theological and moral message it contains—has challenged philologists, theologians and Hebrew lin­ guists for the past 120 years. Faced with this massive multiplication of knowledge and publication surrounding the Genizah manuscripts, it is striking to note how little attention has in fact been devoted to the study of these manuscripts in their physical aspects. Most fragments have been the subject of short descriptions by their editors, as summarized by Moshe Zvi Segal in his Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem. He also included important information on the page and text-layout, as well as punctuation and editorial symbols.4 More recently, the unusual anthological MS C has benefitted from a more detailed codicological description: its quiring was reconstructed by Shulamit Elizur5 and further studied by Jean-Sébastien Rey.6 The paleographical dating and contextualization of the Ben Sira manuscripts have actually received very little attention. Dates for the manuscripts in question have been proposed, but rarely discussed. Understandably, the dates proposed by different scholars are often at odds. MS A, for example, whose date around 1100 is now established, has been dated to the first half of the ninth century by Adler, and to the first half of the eleventh century by Schechter. MS C was described by Gaster as the earliest of all Ben Sira Genizah manuscripts, while Segal dated it to the tenth–eleventh century.7 At the end of the nineteenth century, Israel Lévi acknowledged frankly that a precise dating of the manuscripts was impossible because of the non-existence of a discipline of Hebrew paleography. He consid­ ered MS B as older than the twelfth century by “comparison with other Genizah manuscripts.”8 The lack of a detailed paleographical analysis of the manuscripts has deprived them of a more precise chronological setting, and hindered the reconstruction of the social and religious milieu in which the manuscripts circu­ lated. From the outset of Genizah research, the transmission of the non-canonical Ben Sira has been linked to “sectarian” circles. From then on, it was but a small step to the unsubstantiated conclusion—only recently challenged—that the Book of Ben Sira was related to the Karaites. 3 Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll; Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 19. 4 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 49–53. 5 Elizur, “Two new leaves,” 15–18. See Elizur, “New Fragment,” for the earlier Hebrew version of this publication of a newly discovered additional fragment of MS C (fragments in Gifford col­ lection in Los Angeles). 6 Rey, “Un nouveau bifeuillet.” 7 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 52. See also Di Lella, “Leaves,” 155. 8 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, X: “Le lecteur désirera probablement être foxé sur l’âge de l’évidence. Malheureusement, la paléographie hébraïque n’a pas été constituée…”



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 69

In fact, as far as the manuscripts’ handwritings and scripts are concerned, there is, as we shall see, nothing to sustain such a conclusion. Given the frag­ mentary state of the manuscripts and the absence of direct evidence for their dates and places of production (such as scribal colophons or explicit mentions of their provenances), reconstructing the history of Ben Sira as a physical artefact proves an arduous task indeed. My aim in this paper is to contribute a few pre­ liminary remarks concerning the codicology and paleography of the Genizah’s Ben Sira manuscripts, and thus enhance our understanding of the historical and cultural context in which these books were copied and read. The identification of the script and handwriting will be used for the approximate dating and localiza­ tion of the manuscripts, as well as for attributing them to particular cultural and religious settings. As a general paleographical comment, it may be granted that the type of script, defined as a typological model shared by a group of scribes, depends on the place, time and intellectual milieu in which a book was copied. On the other hand, the choice of a register of script (such as calligraphic square or more cursive) and the quality of execution depend on the scribe’s personal skills, and also on the function, costs and destination of the book. It is therefore import­ ant to define the quality and the possible destination of the Ben Sira manuscripts prior to their paleographical examination. As we know, the Book of Ben Sira had not enjoyed, within Rabbinic Judaism, canonical status as a biblical book,9 and was listed among the ‫ספרים חצוניים‬ (“external books”) whose reading, or at least study, on a par with the holy writ­ ings should be discouraged (y. Sanh. 10.1 [28a], b. Sanh. 100b). Nevertheless, the book was copied and read in Hebrew throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The relative importance of the circulation of the book may be gathered from its various mentions in both Palestinian and Babylonian circles. The Dead Sea fragments provide tangible evidence of the transmission and readership of this work in the centuries following its composition. Although no copies are extant from the talmudic period (more widely, we know of no copies of non-biblical books from this time), the mentions and quotations from the book in the Talmud and Geonic literature10 argue in favor of an uninterrupted chain of transmission of this text among Jewish communities, including among rabbinic authorities. It is possible, as suggested by Tal Ilan, that the “anti-feminist” nature of many of Ben Sira’s sayings may account for the rabbinic interest in this book, insofar as 9 For the reasons behind the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sira from the Jewish canon, see Veltri, Libraries, 220–21. 10 Cowley and Neubauer, Ecclesiasticus, VIII. For a listing and discussion of the quotations in the Talmud, midrashim, Saʿadya Gaon and medieval rabbinic sources, and their degree of con­ formity with the Hebrew version, see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 37–43.

70 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

the rabbis sought to “support their blatantly misogynistic assertions by appeal­ ing to a great sage of the distant past.”11 What is certain is that the Book of Ben Sira, including its anti-women stance and ethical aphorisms, may have appealed to a larger reading public. It did not make it to canonical status at Yavneh, but remained, if not a scholastic text, certainly a book for casual reading, probably greatly enjoyed, given its poetic qualities and sharp insights into human nature. Sefer Ben Sira appears in the Genizah primarily as a book for casual reading. Its popularity may be surmised from no less than six independent copies (recon­ structed from thirty-nine fragments, referred to in the literature as MSS A, B, C, D, E, F)12 found in the Genizah—a relatively high number given its haphazard mode of conservation. This informal nature of the Sefer Ben Sira may be deduced from the “open recension” type of its text, from differences in the text layout (MS B, E and F follow the text layout in hemistichs with a caesura marked by a blank in the middle of the line whereas MS A, C and D are written as a “running text,” in a block of long lines), from the existence of witnesses reorganizing thematically the excerpts from the book (as attested by the anthological MS C), and finally, as we shall see, from the rather cheap or inferior quality of the material used in the manuscripts themselves.

1 Codicological Features The first and most obvious feature of the books, all in codex format, is their use of cheaper writing material—inferior quality Oriental paper—and their modest dimensions: Manuscript

Height of page (cm)

Width of page (cm)

A

18

11.5

B

19

17

C

14

10

D

17

13

E

20

16

F

16.5

14.5

11 Ilan, Integrating Women, 170. 12 For a list, images and transcriptions of the manuscripts, see http://www.bensira.org/, which complements with new discoveries the work of Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira.



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 71

The largest are MS E, measuring 20 cm high and at least 16 cm wide (incom­ plete, cut vertically) and MS B, measuring 19 cm x 17 cm (almost square propor­ tions). The smallest is the anthological MS C, a modest volume of 14 cm x 10 cm. All the manuscripts are therefore small to pocket-size fascicles, or booklets.13 In their present state of conservation, it is difficult to ascertain whether the booklets of Ben Sira circulated independently, or whether they were copied as parts of larger miscellaneous volumes, containing a selection of various texts. It is equally difficult to reconstruct the book-structure of the fascicles. Only in the case of MS B, whose 21 extant fragments belonged to more than one quire, can the codicological composition be tentatively reconstructed. Judging from the missing text, Quire I might have contained five bifolia, but is today missing. From Quire II, we have two disjointed leaves: T-S 12.871r (10:19–11:2)-v (11:3–20) and T-S NS 38a.1r (15:1–16)-v (15:17–16:7). There was one more bifolium between the bifolia whose disjointed leaves have been preserved. Quire II contained at least three bifolia. There followed at least one quire, Quire III, today missing. Quire IV is rela­ tively well preserved, and still contains three bifolia out of five: the outer bifolium (a-a’) is missing, T-S 16.312r (left) (30:11–24)-v (30:24–11) (b), BL Or. 5518r (31:12– 21)-v (31:22–31) (c), T-S 16.313r (left) (32:1–13)-v (32:14–33:3) (d), the inner bifolium is missing (e-e’), T-S 16.313v (left) (35:11–26)-r (right) (36:1–21) (d’), BL Or 5518r (36:22–37:9)-v (37:11–26) (c’), T-S 16.312v (left) (37:27–38:12)-r (right) (38:13–27) (b’).

Quire IV

13 Books often circulated as unbound fascicles or booklets, which could include one or more quires, and contain a work, or a part of a work. For the definition of a fascicle (juz) in Arabic book culture, see Humbert, “Le ğuz’,” 77–86. The booksellers’ lists from the Genizah often mention such fascicles; see Allony, Jewish Library. In the following description of manuscripts, r = recto and v = verso. Note that in Quire V, the scribe wrote 43:1 at the end of one leaf, before beginning the next leaf with 42:24.

72 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

Quire V was smaller. It contained only three bifolia; two are entirely preserved, as is the front leaf of the outer bifolium, but the corresponding end-leaf of the quire is missing: CUL Or 1102r (39:15–28)-v (39:29–40:8) (=a), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/1r (40:9– h26)-v (40:26–41:9) (=b), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/2r (41:9–22)-v (42:1–11) (=c), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/3r (42:11–43:1[sic])-v (42:24[sic]–43:17) (=c’), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/4r (43:17– 33)-v (44:1–16) (=b’), with the last empty folio missing (=a’).

Quire V

Quire VI is complete. It is composed of three bifolia: Bodl. MS heb. e.62/5r (44:17– 45:4)-v (45:5–13) (=a), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/6r (45:14–22)-v (45:23–46:6) (=b), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/7r (46:6–18)-v (46:19–47:10) (=c), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/8r (47:11–23)-v (47:23–48:12) (=c’), Bodl. MS heb. e.62/9r (48:12–22)-v (48:24–49:11) (=b’), T-S 16.314v (left) (49:12–50:10)-r (right) (50:11–22) (=a’)

Quire VI

On folio a’ recto (=T-S 16.314v [left]), in the upper corner of the inner margin, there is a letter waw, probably with the numerical value 6. It appears in Quire VI, and seems to be the signature of this quire. Leaf a’ is indeed the last folio of the quire. Normally, however, one would expect the number of the quire to appear at the end, on the last page of the quire, rather than on the penultimate. The number 6 also corresponds to the numbering of the folios in this quirethe last folio is indeed the sixth in the quire. However, the other folios of this quire are not numbered. Since the last folio of the quire is not preserved in any other quire of the booklet,



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 73

and there are no other numbers on any of its folios, it is impossible to ascertain whether this waw indeed corresponds to a system of numbering, but it is likely. To finish the text, which was too short for an entire quire, the scribe added one bifolium (T-S 16.315), which covers the end of chapter 50 and chapter 51. Thus, according to my calculation, the booklet contained six or seven quires (depend­ ing on the size of the missing quires), four completely or partially preserved, and one additional folded bifolium to finish the book. All this constituted a booklet that was probably of some 44 folios. MS A, from which three out of five bifolia of Quire I are preserved, must have consisted of two or three quires. The pocket-size anthology, MS C, as recon­ structed by Shulamit Elizur, was very likely composed of one unusually large quire most probably containing seven bifolia (14 pages), of which four bifolia are still preserved. In addition to the small size of these paper booklets, the informal character of most of the Ben Sira manuscripts is further established by the style and register of their script.

2 Paleography As stated, a paleographical analysis of the Ben Sira manuscripts is intended to provide some information on their historical Sitz im Leben but it also helps with the definition of the cultural and religious milieu of their scribes and readers. In order to do so, when this is possible, the analysis aims to identify the scribal hands (handwriting), as well as the type and register of the script. In some cases, it is indeed possible to identify the scribe of a Ben Sira manuscript as the scribe of other extant books or documents. The handwriting identification has been carried out following the Standard Handwriting Observation and Evaluation (SHOE) method, which has been adapted to Hebrew script.14 When the scribe has not been identified, the paleographical analysis focuses on typological and stylis­ tic features, which are compared with other dated or datable manuscripts. As stated, none of the preserved manuscripts contains an explicit mention of the date of the copy, or the place or community where it was produced. The identification of the scribe known from other manuscripts therefore provides a precious yardstick. In this respect, a real breakthrough was the identification by

14 The SHOE method was developed by a forensic expert, Marie-Jeanne Sedeyn, Introduction. It was then adapted for Hebrew script; see Olszowy-Schlanger, “Petit guide.”

74 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

Edna Engel of the copyist of MS A as Abraham ben Shabbetai, the scribe of two books whose preserved fragments contain his colophons: 1. MS St. Petersburg EBP-AP I 2889 (henceforth MS St. Petersburg),15 containing twelve leaves of an abridgment of the Kitāb Jāmi‘ al-Alfāẓ, a biblical dictio­ nary of the Karaite lexicographer, David ben Abraham al-Fāsī, was copied in Tyre in 1091 (27 Adar I 4851 AM). 2. T-S F3.2916, one bifolium from a Hebrew translation of the aggadot of the Bab­ ylonian Talmud (b. ‘Erub. 54a-b), was copied in 1089/90 (4850 AM), with no mention of the place. A handwriting analysis of MS A and its comparison with MS St. Petersburg leave no doubt that they are the work of the same person, who formulates the colophon in the first person subject style, “I, Abraham son of R. Shabbetai, may he rest in peace, wrote this dictionary for myself in the city of Tyre…” The Cambridge bifo­ lium is slightly more problematic. Even an untrained paleographer can see imme­ diately that the fragment contains two different scripts. However, the second leaf of the bifolium, recto and verso, was copied in the same script as MS A and MS St. Petersburg (Fig. 1).

15 Sirat, Glatzer and Beit-Arié, Codices hebraicis, III, n° 44. 16 Sirat, Glatzer and Beit-Arié, Codices hebraicis, III, n° 42.



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

Fig. 1 T-S F3.29v with the colophon, and a leaf of MS A, T-S 12.864

 75

76 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

The script is small in size but may be defined as square script. The two manu­ scripts share a number of common characteristics: –– both manuscripts are written on mediocre Egyptian paper with no chain lines (faint traces of laid lines are visible), with very obvious fibers. This grayish paper, very frequent in the Cairo Genizah, “drinks” the ink, resembling soft blotting paper, as seen on the fluffy edges of the leaf. This is why the writing is in some places visible on the reverse. –– in the talmudic manuscript (T-S F3.29), there is no ruling. In MS A, there are single vertical lines at each side of the block of the text, but no horizontal lines were traced to guide the lines of the text. This accounts for a very slight dip in the middle of the line (Fig. 2), which seems to be the scribe’s personal tendency, but also corresponds to a fashion in the layout of contemporary legal documents.

Fig. 2 Sample of MS A and T-S F3.29 (note the dip in the middle of the line)

Note here: –– the presence of the vertical lines helps to justify the side edges of the text. In MS A, the lines begin regularly on the right and the ruling helps here, while in the talmudic fragment the right-hand margin is irregular: the text invades the right-hand margin by a width of two letters in the lower half of the page. The left-hand margin is carefully maintained even in MS A, but the talmudic fragment, with no ruling, also shows that the scribe is trying not to extend into the margin. In both manuscripts, he uses extended letters and graphic space-fillers to justify the margin. –– the same page layout in a block of text written in running lines



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 77

–– that in both cases there is some care about the text layout: soph pasuq or a dot marks text subdivisions in MS A, while the talmudic fragment contains dots and larger blank spaces in the line. In both manuscripts, some text sub­ divisions begin with an indent of a width of two-three letters at the beginning of a new line –– the same text density (similar spacing between the lines, words and letters) –– a similar proportion between the body of the letter and the descenders and ascenders which are roughly equal to the height of the main body of the letter –– the relative parallelism of the vertical downstrokes and the descenders and ascenders, most of which lean very slightly to the left –– that the horizontal upper bars of the letters he, tav tend to be parallel to the headline –– that the bases of the letters are slightly slanted (bet), with lamed not reaching the baseline –– that the descenders are straight or turned to the left, and sometimes wavy –– that the final nun begins at the headline –– the small serifs on dalet, he –– the rounded hooks of the lamed –– the pointed pe, nun –– the cross-shaped aleph, which resembles the “Palestinian” subtype, as used in the chancelleries of the Palestinian Geonim –– the aleph-lamed ligature. Although not monumental, this square script is not devoid of calligraphic care and consistency. There is no doubt that MS A, MS St. Petersburg and T-S F3.29 were copied by the same individual, whose name appears in the two extant colophons: Abraham ben Shabbetai. The two colophons contain the dates: T-S F3.29 was written in 1090, and MS St. Petersburg, a year later. Moreover, the colophon of MS St. Peters­ burg contains the place of writing: Tyre. We may therefore safely date our MS A to the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Cairo Genizah has preserved further information about the scribe and his milieu. It was Jacob Mann who first made a connection between the scribe of the col­ ophons (without, however, being aware that the scribe also copied MS A of Ben Sira) and a certain Abraham ben Shabbetai attested in a number of Genizah docu­ ments.17 In fact, two individuals bearing this name are attested in the Cairo Genizah. One is the scribe and a signatory of a ketubbah written in Fustat in 1063 (Philadel­

17 Mann, Texts and Studies, I, 446–47; Idem, Jews in Egypt, II, 259 n. 7.

78 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

phia, Katz Centre 339 + T-S 20.124). An analysis of the handwriting shows that this Abraham ben Shabbetai is definitely different from the scribe of MS A (Fig. 3).18

Fig. 3 T-S 20.124, a marriage contract drawn up in Fustat, in 1063, by Abraham ben Shabbetai I

The second Abraham ben Shabbetai was the one identified by Mann. He was close to the Palestinian yeshiva. By the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centu­ ries, he was active in Fustat, and sometime after 1110 was finally appointed as a muqaddam, a judge, of the provincial community of Minyat Zifta, where he is attested at least until 1125 (MS Bodl. Heb c 28.68). He was later succeeded by his son, Shabbetai ben Abraham. This identification of our scribe with the Egyp­ tian judge is essential for the identification of the Rabbanite circles in which the text of Ben Sira was transmitted. Such an identification is not straightforward, because the paleographical comparison of MS A with the documentary writings of Abraham ben Shabbetai of Minyat Zifta is problematic. However, as we shall see, it is indeed possible to make a connection between our scribe from Tyre and the judge from the Rīf district.19 It is, of course, possible and very likely that Abraham ben Shabbetai trav­ elled from Tyre to Egypt at the end of the century. In the colophon of the 1091 MS St. Petersburg, Abraham portrays himself as a travelling scholar and begs “the Merciful God to protect his comings and goings, and to save him from wicked people and from the traps set by highway robbers” (‫הרחמן ישמור צאתי ובואי ויצילני‬ ‫)מבני אדם הרעים ומאורב בדרך‬.20 At the time when the manuscript was copied, Tyre was the haven to which the rabbinic yeshiva moved from Jerusalem sometime after 1071 (the time of the latest dated legal documents from the court of the Pal­ estinian Gaon, Elijah ha-Kohen in Jerusalem), quite probably due to the Seljuks’

18 See Rey, “Scribal Practices,” 108–10. Goitein, Mediterranean Society, II, 45–47, suggested that the signatory of the ketubbah was the scribe’s grandfather. 19 Rey, “Scribal Practices”; “Sagesses hébraïques.” 20 Sirat, Glatzer and Beit-Arié, Codices hebraicis, III, n° 44.



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 79

war against the Fatimids and their capture of the Holy City.21 The handwriting of Abraham ben Shabbetai in MS A, MS St. Petersburg and T-S F3.29 bears the characteristic typological features of the handwriting developed in this Jerusalem Geonic center by the mid-eleventh century. The judge from Minyat Zifta, Abraham ben Shabbetai, also had close ties with the Palestinian academy and the leaders of the Palestinian community in Fustat and Cairo, and notably with the Nagid, Moses ben Mevorakh, as attested by the warm personal tone of his letter to the Nagid (T-S 32.8). Abraham was also a signatory of legal deeds drawn up in Fustat in 1106 (ketubbah, T-S 28.23) and in 1107, when his autograph signature appears on one of the enrollments of legal documents in Cairo, in the pinqas (court regis­ ter) kept by Abraham ben Nathan (T-S 10J27.3a). It is relevant that Abraham ben Nathan (son of Nathan ben Abraham, the head of the tribunal (av beit din) of the Jerusalem yeshiva and, in 10381042, a famous rival of the Gaon, Shelomo ben Judah), was also in Tyre in the 1090s, where he was involved in a controversial business involving the yeshiva.22 He was an Egyptian envoy of the contested Exi­ larch David ben Daniel ben Azariah who challenged the authority of the Gaon Abiathar ha-Kohen ben Elijah. After the downfall of David ben Daniel and his reconciliation with the Palestinian Gaon, Abraham ben Nathan returned to Egypt and was a judge in Cairo until ca. 1115.23 It seems that around the time of the Cru­ saders’ conquest of the Holy Land, the Palestinian yeshiva moved from Tyre to Egypt. Several scholars known to be active in the yeshiva in Tyre are indeed men­ tioned some years later as scribes or judges in Egypt. Was this also the case with Abraham ben Shabbetai, the scribe of MS A? Abraham ben Shabbetai, the judge of Minyat Zifta, wrote at least three letters: T-S 13J13.20 (a circular letter to six different towns in the Egyptian Rīf under his jurisdiction), T-S 32.8 (a letter to the Nagid Moses ben Mevorakh), and T-S 12.56 (a letter to Abu Iṣḥaq ha-Kohen ben Samuel, telling him about Abraham’s troubles with a guest who appeared to be a gambler). Uncomfortable as it is, one must acknowledge that the handwriting of the three letters differs from that of MS A and the two colophoned books (Fig. 4). The personal signatures of Abraham on the letters are similar but not identical to the signatures found in the colophons. The line of writing in the signatures of the letters is concave, the density of the signature in T-S F3.29 is higher, with letters touching each other, and some shapes of the letters are different such as k-shaped aleph in the missives versus a square 21 See Gil, History, par. 899–901. 22 In 1094, Abraham ben Nathan wrote a letter to the leading merchant, Nahorai ben Nissim in Fustat, describing the dire state of the Jewish community in Tyre after the local unrest of a year earlier; see ENA 1822a.44–45, ed. Gil, Palestine, III, n° 557. 23 Gil, Palestine, par. 911.

80 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

form in the colophons (Fig. 5). Should we assume that the identification of the scribe of MS St. Petersburg, T-S F3.29 and MS A, with the judge in Minyat Zifta, as suggested by Mann, is erroneous?

Fig 4 Samples of the handwriting and the shapes of the letters aleph in T-S F3.29, and the two letters T-S 13J13.20 and T-S 32.8.

Fig. 5 Signatures of Abraham ben Shabbetai in T-S F3.29 and the two letters T-S 13J13.20 and T-S 32.8.

The two handwritings are indeed different at first glance, but it is also the case that they do not belong to the same register of script. The books are written in a square script while the letters are written in a documentary, more cursive script.



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 81

This accounts for the differences between the shapes of the letters that are not comparable: it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the scribe’s identity when the writings under consideration belong to different script registers. Fortunately, T-S F3.29 can be of considerable help, because it contains two different registers of script on one bifolium. This difference was noticed by Jacob Mann (but, surprisingly, was not commented upon in the Codices volume by Sirat et al.). Mann also noticed that the text of folio 2 does not follow directly the text on folio 1 (in other words, the preserved bifolium is not the inner bifolium of the quire). The script of folio 2 r-v, including the colophon, is square and identical to the MS A. The script of folio 1, on the other hand, is a documentary script with cursive features. In addition to the different morphology of the letters, practices such as line management differ between script 1 and 2 of T-S F3.29. The tendency for the lines to sink in the middle is very strong in the documentary script of folio 1, as is the tendency for spillage and irregularity on the left-hand margin. When the scribe of folio 1 makes an effort to justify the ends of the lines to the left, he uses different practices (such as abbreviating words without developing them in the following line and writing the last word of the line above the line) from those of folio 2. Moreover, whereas the square script of folio 2 leans slightly to the left, the inclination of the script of folio 1 is clearly to the right (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 F3.29: differences of the script on fol. 1v and 2r.

82 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

Indeed, script 1 and 2 of T-S F3.29 look very different. On the other hand, the doc­ umentary script of folio 1 appears to share many common characteristics with the script of the letters written by Abraham ben Shabbetai: –– dip in the middle of the line

Fig. 7 T-S F3.29

Fig. 8 T-S 12.56

Fig. 9 T-S 13J13.20

Fig. 10 T-S 32.8



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 83

–– low degree of parallelism of the downstrokes and ascenders

Fig. 11 T-S F3.29 and T-S 13J13.20

Note here: –– the slight slant to the right –– the similar morphology and ductus of the letters T-S F3.29 - different shapes of similar letters: bet-kaph,

dalet-resh,

he-khet

- horizontal upper bars lifted to the left (dalet) or lifted and then descending at the left extremity (he and tav)

- the use of two allographs of the aleph: K-shaped and N-shaped in the same document

- final nun starting from the middle of the line or even the baseline, with its head on the right, and a short and wavy descender - aleph-lamed ligatures similar in shape and ductus

T-S 13J13.20

84 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

- allographs of the final mem (rounded, sometimes open in the upper left corner, or pear-shaped, or almost square with a long upper horizontal bar)

- rounded shape of the pe - shape of the shin with the short middle stroke attached to the extremity of the left-hand arm

Despite the differences of ink and calamus, and a gap of some twenty years between the writing of T-S F3.29 and the letters from Minyat Zifta, the similarities in the general aspect and in the morphology and ductus of particular characters are striking. The letters and the folio 1 of T-S F3.29 may have been written by the same person. As stated, it is difficult to categorically claim the same concerning folio 2 of T-S F3.29, written in a square register of script. But the two scripts of T-S F3.29 are obviously related because they are found in the same codicological unit, the same book; what is more, both T-S F3.29, folio 2, and the letters of Minyat Zifta are signed by Abraham ben Shabbetai. Abraham ben Shabbetai of the colophons and the judge of Minyat Zifta therefore seem indeed to be one and the same person. It is possible that Abraham ben Shabbetai adapted the register of the script to the function of the text he copied: that is to say, documentary for contracts and letters, and more calligraphic and square for books—although he did not follow this division in all cases. But even if the two scripts were by two different persons (Abraham and a secretary?), there can be no doubt that they worked closely together. In any case, MS A and the judge of Minyat Zifta are related. The associ­ ation has important implications for the transmission of the Book of Ben Sira in rabbinic circles in Egypt. Of similar background and dating is MS D. I am unable for the time being to pinpoint with precision the scribe of this manuscript. However, the script is very characteristic, and belongs to a well-known sub-type of the Oriental docu­ mentary script. It is analogous (but not identical) for example to Bodl. MS heb. b.12/20, an acknowledgement written by the Rabbanite in Fustat, dated to 1100. This script-type contains the following salient features (Fig. 7): –– wavy soft movements of the calamus without shading (without difference between thin and thick strokes) –– rounded bases placed on the baseline, sometimes nesting (bases of letters underline the following letter)



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 85

–– concave aspect of the horizontal upper bars of bet, dalet, he, khet, kaph, final mem, samek, qoph, resh, tav. Sometimes the upper horizontal bar is lifted to the left, but descends again at the left extremity of the stroke –– final nun is wavy, placed in the middle or at the baseline, with its head placed to the right of the descender –– K-shaped aleph with a prominent upper arm of the right-hand part of the letter, extending slightly above the headline.

Fig. 12 MS D and Bodl. MS heb. b.12/20

In MS D, this script has acquired a calligraphic, decorative form. However, there is no doubt that typologically it is a sub-type of the script that was developed in the rabbinic courts in Egypt for writing legal documents. This chancellery script appeared in the third quarter of the eleventh century, and acquired its partic­ ularly pronounced waviness and concave bars around the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Here again, the paleographical definition of the script-type points to rabbinic circles in the Egyptian capital. A similar context of production may be suggested for MSS E and F. A different register of script was used to copy the anthology of Ben Sira MS C and, the most calligraphic of all, MS B. Both these manuscripts are written in square script. MS C, written on Egyptian paper of poor quality, similar to that of MS A, D, E and F, is an informal copy of a fluent but rather mediocre scribe. The move­ ments of the calamus seem hesitant; one notices irregularity of the letter sizes and ductus. The same scribe wrote other manuscripts found in the Cairo Genizah, mostly small personal prayer-books and piyyuṭim (BL Or 5557O. 43–50 as well as T-S NS 198.81, T-S NS 273.188, T-S NS 273.48, Budapest MTA 282.5 (1–2), ENA 2943.7–8, ENA 3853.11–12) (Fig. 8). These manuscripts are undated, and their litur­ gical contents do not help in this matter. Some features such as the elongated pro­ portions of the letters, the small serifs on some of the left extremities of the bars, aleph without a foot, lamed reaching the baseline, and curved descenders of the final kaph and pe point to the 13th century or later. A study of the writing material

86 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

provides some further information. In order to copy the prayer books, the scribe used recycled paper. Several fragments are indeed folios cut out of official Arabic decrees. Although only a few words can be identified, the Arabic characters could belong to the twelfth or even thirteenth centuries.24 This corroborates a relatively late, post-Faṭimid, dating for the MS C, which is being proposed on paleographi­ cal grounds. Contrary to current opinion, MS C is therefore the most recent of the Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira.25

Fig. 13 MS C (T-S 12.727) and T-S NS 198.81, fol. 1r

MS B belongs to a different category of codices altogether. It is laid in regular hemistichs on better quality paper, which was carefully ruled with a masṭara (Arabic, a ruling board). The text was copied in square script by a professional hand, and was carefully collated with at least one more different manuscript. I am unable to identify the main scribe of MS B, and can propose its dating only on typological and stylistic grounds. Such a dating is of course problematic. The 24 I thank Professor Geoffrey Khan and Professor Marina Rustow for their comments on the Arabic script. 25 This paleographical conclusion goes against the previous dating attempts to the tenth or eleventh century and the opinion that the anthological MS C is considerably earlier than the other Genizah manuscripts; see Gaster, “New Fragment”; Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 5.



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 87

square script belongs to the North-Eastern subtype of Oriental Hebrew script, i.e. the branch used in Babylonian communities (Iraq and Iran), and in the commu­ nities of the diaspora that remained under Babylonian influence. The Babylo­ nian origins of the codex, or at least of its scribal training and milieu, may also be argued from the presence of three words with Babylonian vowels and of four Judeo-Persian marginal glosses. These Middle Persian glosses in Hebrew char­ acters correspond to passages 32:1 (T-S 16.313r); 35:26; 40:22–26 (Lévi: 40:18)26 (Bodl. MS heb. e.62/1r) and 45:8 (Bodl. MS heb. e.62(7v). All four Persian notes were written by the same glossator (who also added other notes and corrections in Hebrew), and they all refer to the collation of the text with other manuscripts. It is noteworthy that when the gloss was not a textual variant but a “free text,” the glossator used Persian. This glossator (who is different from the main scribe) was familiar with Middle Persian, and it may have been his native tongue. Less calligraphic than the script of the deluxe masoretic codices, the square script of MS B has nonetheless some affinities with the calligraphic Oriental square of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The main characteristics of the script in MS B include: –– “squat” proportions of the letters: many letters are square or even broader than higher

–– regular headlines suspended on the ruled line, with the horizontal upper bars parallel to the headline

–– small serifs on some bars of bet, he, resh, dalet

26 Lévi, Hebrew Text, 49. On the Persian glosses see Wright’s article in the present volume.

88 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

–– wavy descenders of final kaph and nun

–– ascenders of the lamed equal to the height of the line ended with a small flag; the horizontal stroke of the lamed is straight and placed on the headline –– regular baseline: the bases are parallel to the baseline, the large base of the shin is ‘sitting on the line’

–– some cases of nesting

–– the left extremity of the bases turns downwards below the baseline line (bet, kaph, mem, nun, tsade, pe, tav)

–– aleph corresponds to the North-Eastern subtype, with the left-hand down­ stroke descending a distance from the headline and touching the baseline further left than the end of the main oblique stroke



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 89

–– final mem whose wavy base and the left-hand downstroke meet creating a ‘beak’; a similar pointed meeting-point of the strokes also appears in the base of the shin

–– characteristic gimel, longer than the baseline, with its left-hand stroke touch­ ing the mainstroke at the level of the baseline, and waw longer than the base­ line

–– vertical downstrokes are relatively parallel in the line; waw is often wavy, and similar waviness may affect other letters (downstroke of nun, right-hand downstroke of he, khet)

–– right-hand downstrokes of dalet, he and khet contain a bottleneck curve

–– there are two allographs of the final nun: one with a short descender with a diamond-shaped small head on the left of the descender, and another with a longer curved descender and the head to its right

These characteristics relate to the main scribe of MS B who copied the majority of the body of the text and a few marginal glosses. His handwriting is regular, but in a few places he writes smaller, thinner and less calligraphic letters to accom­ modate the longer text. For example, in BL Or 5518 verso (right-hand leaf of the bifolium), in the left-side column, the scribe wrote a hemistich, then realized that

90 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

he needed to add three more words; he squeezed the last letter (final mem) of the regularly written portion of the text, and added three words written with very narrow letters. It is only after he wrote these additional words (which appear to be in the same ink and hue as the previous part of the line) that he placed the soph pasuq to end the verse (Fig. 9). Similar, progressively diminishing letters were used in T-S 16.313 verso (left-hand leaf of the bifolium), left-hand column (Fig. 10).

Fig. 14 BL MS Or 5518 verso, narrow letters by the main scribe

Fig. 15 T-S 16.313 verso: progressively narrowing letters by the main scribe

It is likely that the main scribe of MS B worked from an imperfect model. In T-S 16.313 recto, the penultimate line in both hemistichs (maybe also the last line, but it is now severely damaged and impossible to analyze) was written by a different scribe, with a different, slightly darker ink (Fig. 11), in the space left empty in the initial copy.

Fig. 16 T-S 16.313r: a line of the main text added by a different scribe



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 91

The handwriting of this second scribe differs in several salient aspects from that of the main scribe: –– the inclination of the downstrokes is different: the letters lean to the left, while those of the main scribe lean to the right –– there is no waviness at the end of the bases: the bases are straight and in some cases lifted upwards at the end (the foot of the tav) –– no bottleneck effect of the meeting place in the right-hand upper corner between the upper horizontal bar and the right-hand downstroke –– elongated proportions: the letters are thinner rather than larger. The identification of the script on this line as different from that of the main scribe permits a reconstruction of the copying scenario: a line was left blank when the first scribe worked, because the line was either absent or illegible in his model. It was subsequently filled in by a glossator (corrector or copy-editor). In the light of this identification, one understands better the marginal gloss in Judeo-Persian added in the left-hand margin. It seems to refer precisely to the fact that the verse was missing in the manuscript: 35:27+ Bmg. ‫אין פסוק אז‬ [‫נוסכתהא ידי[גר‬ [‫ואידר זא הישת[ה‬ [‫בוד ובי נבישת[ה‬ “This verse of the other version was omitted here and written.”27 Indeed, MS B was the object of careful editing, collation and correction by several glossators. More than 450 interventions and additions have been introduced by several scribes, including the main scribe. Their paleographical study is a desid­ eratum, but given the scope of such an analysis, it has to be treated in a separate publication. As stated, it has not been as yet possible to ascertain who was the scribe of MS B. However, all the above stated salient features of its square script, and notably square proportions, wavy and long waw, wavy downstrokes, bottleneck curved meeting point between the right-hand downstroke and the upper hori­ zontal bar of such letters as he, khet, tav, ‘pointed’ final mem and shin or char­ acteristic downwards curve of the bases all appear in a specific group of dated and localized documents from the Cairo Genizah. These are indeed characteristic 27 This translation reflects the state of the manuscripts, which was not well understood by Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 56, who consequently followed Margoliouth and of­ fered: “this clause is not found with that verse in the other copies.” I thank my colleague, Profes­ sor Philip Huyse, for his help with a correct understanding of this Middle Persian note.

92 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

features of the square script of the legal documents drawn up before the court of Shemaryah ben Elhanan, the leader of the Babylonian congregation of Fustat at the turn of the millennium (he died in 1011). Among the Genizah fragments, the dated writings which show the closest paleographical analogy with MS B are the documents written most probably by Ephraim ben Sadoq (dated documents: 970s-987, e.g. T-S 16.56), by the scribe of T-S 12.170, and, most of all, by the scribe of T-S 18J1.3 (probably by Mu‘ammar ha-Sofer ben Isaac), written in Fustat in 1007. The specificity of the graphic features of this group of documents allows us to situate the copy of MS B sometime around the year 1000 in Fustat. The presence of glosses in Judeo-Persian further argues in favor of the Babylonian congregation as its Sitz im Leben.

3 Conclusions This brief paleographical analysis of the Genizah manuscripts of the Book of Ben Sira, considered as a corpus, has made it possible to provide a tentative date and location for these medieval texts. Two further issues have been addressed: –– the quality and destination of the codices –– the milieu in which they were produced and transmitted. All the manuscripts are small sized codices on paper. All but one, MS B, are of mediocre quality, on cheap paper, without ruling, or calligraphic efforts. Five are written in a register of script primarily developed for practical writings such as legal contracts and letters, and only subsequently used to copy non-calligraphic books. Only two codices are written in square script (MS B and C), one of them, MS C, by a scribe lacking calligraphic ambitions. This manuscript actually contains a selection of passages rather than the full running text. It is the smallest of the Ben Sira manuscripts, probably made up of only one large quire. As we have seen, the same scribe wrote other manuscripts found in the Cairo Genizah, mostly small personal prayer books and piyyuṭim, some on reused paper. MS C and the other medieval manuscripts of Ben Sira (with the possible exception of MS B) belong to the group of cheap personal copies recorded on material of lesser quality. The identification of the scribe of MS A and the typological definition of the documentary script of MS D, E and F, places these manuscripts in a specific context of production: the Rabbanite community of Egypt at the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The MS A scribe and MS D script further point to a rabbinic milieu related to the Palestinian yeshiva, which moved from Jerusalem to Tyre and then to Egypt. The MS B is probably the earliest Genizah Sefer Ben Sira, and



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 93

can be linked, on the basis of its paleographical typology, with the rabbinic court of Fustat in the last quarter of the tenth to the early years of the eleventh century. None of the Genizah manuscripts shows any special connection with the Karaite scribal world. True, Abraham ben Shabbetai, the scribe of MS A and an excellent Hebraist in his own right, did copy a Bible dictionary by a Karaite author, just as he copied a translation of the Babylonian Talmud. This simply confirms that the postulated gap between the Karaites and Rabbanites is largely a later historio­ graphic construction, rather than an eleventh-century reality. Rabbanite scholars read books written by Karaite authors and vice versa, and the field of Hebrew language studies was certainly a perfect meeting ground. It may be added here that the scribe of MS C also produced Rabbanite prayer books. The paleographical typology of the manuscripts of Ben Sira goes against the claimed transmission of this text by Karaite circles. The unfortunate formu­ la—“non-canonical, therefore heretical, and therefore Karaite”—long reiterated since the early years of Genizah scholarship has effectively obscured for many decades the actual contexts in which the book of Ben Sira was transmitted. This “sectarian” approach received a new impetus with the discovery of the ancient textual evidence in the Judean Desert, and some scholars have gone on to claim that medieval manuscripts of Ben Sira were copied from ancient manuscripts discovered in the Judean Desert.28 Some researchers, such as Naphtali Wieder, have sought to link with the Karaites an account of the discovery of Hebrew man­ uscripts in caves near Jericho, as told by the Nestorian Katholikos Timotheus around 815.29 However, the proclaimed Karaite connection is contradicted by historical, material and textual evidence in the early ninth century as much as in the elev­ enth-twelfth centuries.30 Both, in the case of Ben Sira and other “non-canonical” texts found in the Genizah, such as the Damascus Document (whose MS A, T-S 10K6, for instance, was probably copied by the same scribe as the eminently Rab­ banite Pirqa de-Rabbenu ha-Qadosh in Bodl. MS heb. a.2/24 + T-S H 7.21 + T-S K 21.94 + T-S K 21.18), the Karaite connection cannot be sustained by any textual or historical evidence. In the case of the manuscripts of Ben Sira whose scribe or type of script has been identified, the copyists were not only Rabbanites, but were indeed rabbis and scribes of the Rabbanite communities. They transmitted an ancient text that was included among the Judean Desert writings, but was evi­ dently also in circulation at the time of the writing of the Talmud and in later Geonic times. As we have seen, in the absence of canonical sanctity, the Book of 28 Di Lella, “Qumran.” 29 Wieder, Judaean Scrolls, 253–57. 30 See especially Erder, Karaite Mourners, 249.

94 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

Ben Sira was copied in the form of small, cheaply produced booklets, readily cir­ culated among Jewish communities in the medieval Mediterranean world.31

Bibliography Allony, Nehemya. The Jewish Library in the Middle Ages, Book Lists from the Cairo Genizah (Hebrew). Edited by Miriam Frenkel, Haggai Ben-Shammai, with the participation of Moshe Sokolow. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East [Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem], 2006. 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. Cowley, Arthur E., and Adolf Neubauer. Ecclesiasticus XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11 Translated from the Original Hebrew and Arranged in Parallel Columns with the English Revised Version of 1895. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45 (1964): 153–68. —. “Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach.” CBQ 24 (1962): 245–67. Elizur, Shulamit. “New Fragment of the Hebrew Version of the Book of Ben Sira.” (Hebrew) Tarbiz 76 (2007): 17–28. —. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010): 13–20. Erder, Yoram. The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the Qumran Scrolls. On the History of an Alternative to Rabbinic Judaism (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 2004. Gaster, Moses. “A New Fragment of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1900): 688–702. Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. —. Palestine during the First Muslim Period (634-1099) (Hebrew). 3 vols. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and the Ministry of Defence-Publishing House, 1982. Goitein, Shlomo D. A Mediterranean Society, The Jewish Communities of the World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. 6 vols. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967–1993. Humbert, Genevieve. “Le ğuz’ dans les manuscrits arabes médiévaux.” Pages 77–86 in Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient. Edited by François Déroche and Francis Richard. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1997. Ilan, Tal. Integrating Women into Second Temple History. TSAJ 76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Lévi, Israël. L’Ecclésiastique, ou, La sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira: texte original hébreu / édité, traduit et commenté. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898–1901. —. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Leiden: Brill, 1904. Mann, Jacob, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs: A Contribution to their Political and Communal History Based Chiefly on Genizah Material hitherto Unpublished. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.

31 Already strongly argued by Reif, “Reviewing.”



The “Booklet” of Ben Sira 

 95

—. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1931–1935. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. “Petit guide de description des écritures hébraïques: identifier la main du scribe.” http://www.hebrewmanuscript.com/images/petit-guide-de-descriptiondes-ecritures-hebraiques-bwb.pdf. Reif, Stefan C. “The Discovery of the Cambridge Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira: Scholars and Texts.” Pages 1–22 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. —. “Reviewing the Links between Qumran and the Cairo Genizah.” Pages 652–79 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Un nouveau bifeuillet du manuscrit C de la Genizah du Caire.” Pages 107–14 in Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Hans Ausloos et al. BETL 224. Louvain: Peeters, 2008. –. “Scribal Practices in the Ben Sira Hebrew Manuscript A and Codicological Remarks.” Pages 99–114 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach / Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner et al. SBL SCS 66. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. –. “Sagesses hébraïques de l’époque hellénistique. Éditions, traductions, commentaires, perspectives historiques et linguistiques. Tome 2: Le manuscrit A de Ben Sira. Édition critique, traduction et notes paléographiques et philologiques,” Unpublished Habilitation (Université de Strasbourg, 2012). Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Sedeyn, Marie-Jeanne. Introduction à l’examen objectif des écritures manuscrites. Méthode «SHOE» (Standard Handwriting Objective Examination, SHOE) à l’usage des médecins, sociologues, chercheurs, experts en écritures. Meyreuil: Fovea, 1998. Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1953. Sirat, Colette, Mordechai Glatzer, and Malachi Beit-Arié. Codices hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fuerint exhibentes. Monumenta palaeographica medii aevi: Series Hebraica III. Brepols: Turnhout, 2002. Veltri, Giuseppe. Libraries, Traditions and Canonic Texts. The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. JSJ Supplements 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Wieder, Naphtali. The Judaean Scrolls and Karaism. London: East and West Library, 1962. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965.

List of Illustrations Fig. 1 T-S F3.29v with the colophon, and a leaf of MS A, T-S 12.864 Fig. 2 Sample of MS A and T-S F3.29 (note the dip in the middle of the line) Fig. 3 T-S 20.124, a marriage contract drawn up in Fustat, in 1063, by Abraham b. Shabbetai I Fig. 4 Samples of the handwriting and the shapes of the letters aleph in T-S F3.29, and the two letters T-S 13J13.20 and T-S 32.8.

96 

 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

Fig. 5 Signatures of Abraham b. Shabbetai in T-S F3.29 and the two letters T-S 13J13.20 and T-S 32.8. Fig. 6 F3.29 Differences of the script on fol. 1v and 2r. Fig. 7 T-S F3.29 Fig. 8 T-S 12.56 Fig. 9 T-S 13J13.20 Fig. 10 T-S 32.8 Fig. 11 T-S F3.29 and T-S 13J13.20 Fig. 12 MS D and Bodl. MS Heb. b 12.20 Fig. 13 MS C (T-S 12.727) and T-S NS 198.81, fol. 1r Fig. 14 BL Or 5518 verso, narrow letters by the main scribe Fig. 15 T-S 16.313 verso: progressively narrowing letters by the main scribe Fig. 16 T-S 16.313r: a line of the main text added by a different scribe

Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B Codicological Reconstruction and Material Typology of Marginal Readings Abstract: This article first presents a material description of manuscript B and a reconstruction of the codex as a whole. Second, a typology of its marginal read­ ings is offered. The aim is to gain insight into the process of marginal annota­ tions. Finally, on the basis of a paleographical analysis, this article discusses the number of scribes responsible for the main text and the different marginal notes. The authors demonstrate that the main text of manuscript B is already the result of critical study and that it underwent different stages of annotation of the text and rearrangement of its structure by various scribes. Keywords: Cairo Genizah, marginal notes, scribal practices

This article, dedicated to several characteristics of manuscript B of Ben Sira,1 is closely related to three other studies:2 one dedicated to the scribal practices and codicological characteristics of manuscript A; one to the complex question of the stemmatization of manuscripts A, B, and D and, more specifically, to the origin of the marginal readings of manuscript B; and another one to the question of the origin of doublets in manuscript B. The present study focuses on three topics. The first section will be dedicated to the material description of manuscript B and, in particular, to the reconstruc­ tion of the codex as a whole. Second, we will try to distinguish a typology for the marginal readings of this manuscript in order to reach a better understanding of the complex process of marginal annotations in this manuscript. Finally, on the basis of a paleographical analysis, we will try to determine the number of scribes responsible for the main text and the different marginal notes.

1 We would like to offer our sincere gratitude to the colleagues who contributed to a fruitful on­ line discussion initiated by Ben Wright in the months leading up to this conference. This paper undoubtedly derived benefit from their insights. It has been written with the support of ANRDFG/MSH Lorraine Project PLURITEXT and the center of research Écritures (EA 3943). Images are reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 Rey, “Scribal Practices”; “Relationship” (forthcoming); “Doublets” (forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-007

98 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

1 Codicological Description of Manuscript B 1.1 Manuscript Description The manuscript consists of bifolia measuring 19.7 cm x 35 cm (17.5 cm per indi­ vidual folio). The top and bottom margins vary between 1.5 and 2 cm. Each folio consistently contains 18 lines with a line space of 0.9 cm, resulting in a distance of 15.3 cm between the first and the last lines. The distance between the right and left margins varies depending on the bifo­ lium. For example, T-S 16.313 and Or.1102 have a width of 13 cm, T-S 16.315 a width of 12.2 cm, and T-S 16.314 of 12.6 cm. The external margins vary between 2.3 and 2.8 cm and the internal margins between 2 and 2.7 cm. The precise regularity of the line space suggests that the scribe used a masṭara (or ruling board) to prepare his writing surface. The masṭara would not have included a left and right margin. These had to be established manually and independently for each bifolium, thus explaining the variation in width. The text is written on paper, which has laid lines that are hardly visible (there are no visible chain lines). This type of paper was dominant in the Orient until 1250 and remained in use until at least the fourteenth century.3 The ink used for the main text is brown. As most Oriental manuscripts of this period, it is written in iron-gall ink. The ink is corrosive and has destroyed the paper in many places. We often find offset letters on the opposing page.4 The majority of the marginal notes have been written in a similar ink, but with a straighter calamus. In certain instances, a darker ink—almost black metallic (possibly carbon ink)—is used. This may suggest the later intervention of another scribe. In other places, the marginal corrections have been written in a more diluted ink, which has sometimes faded. The text has been written stichometrically, as in the Masada scroll and in manuscripts E and F. The first stich is aligned along the right margin and is not justified. The positioning of the second stich is less systematic, as the spacing between two stichs on one line is irregular. Sometimes the scribe has tried to adjust the position of the second stich with the intention of aligning along the left margin, but he is not at all consistent in this regard. A clear example is the hymn in chapter 51. Here, the second stich of consecutive lines is identical (‫)כי לעולם חסדו‬. Yet, as we see on fol. XX verso l. 12–18 and fol. XXI recto l. 1–7, the scribe has

3 Beit-Arié, Hebrew Codicology, 253. 4 Reymond, “New Readings.”



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 99

not aligned the beginning of each stich along either the left or the right. Conse­ quently, the margins are irregular. In contrast to what we see in manuscript A, we find very few instances of the dilation of letters to fill out the line in manuscript B (see, for example, the final kaph of ‫ חסדך‬in Sir 51:3 [fol. XX recto l. 14] and the resh of ‫ השמר‬in Sir 32:22 [fol. V verso l. 11]). More frequently, we see a narrowing of the letters in order to make the line fit and to prevent too much overflow into the margin (see, for example, ‫לשמעון‬ ‫ בן ישוע בן ﭏעזר בן סירא‬in Sir 50:27 [fol. XX recto l. 7] and our remarks in paragraph 2.4 below). Letters are suspended from the upper line while traced slightly below it. The main text is written in a formal square script characteristic of the tenth and elev­ enth centuries, known to be in use particularly for biblical manuscripts.5 The size of the letters is regular, even though no base line is traced. They have a height of 2.5 mm. The mast of the lamed usually exceeds the top line by 5 mm, whereas the leg of the qoph as well as the final forms of the nun, the tsade, and the kaph exceed the base line by about 4 mm. The divine name is systematically written as three yods. The aleph-lamed lig­ ature is rare in this hand, but appears sporadically in the main body of the text (see the form ‫ אלעזר‬in Sir 50:27 [fol. XX recto l. 7]) and is more frequent in the marginal notes. Abbreviations are frequent in marginal notes and marked by a dot above the ׄ or with an oblique stroke above the letter letter, as in Sir 44:17 (folio 14 recto l. 1: ‫)ב‬, as in Sir 42:10c (folio XI verso l. 15).

1.2 Reconstruction of Quires6 A first incomplete booklet consisting of at least five bifolia containing Sir 10:19 to 16:7 can be reconstructed according to the following schema:

5 See Beit-Arié, Sirat, and Glatzer, Codices. 6 For an alternative reconstruction, see Olszowy-Schlanger, “The ‘Booklet’ of Ben Sira,” in this volume.

100 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

(Folio 2 verso TS NS 38a Sir 15:17-16:7) Folio 2 recto TS NS 38a Sir 15:1-16 (Folio γ verso Sir 14:11-27) Folio γ recto Sir 13:21-14:10 (Folio β verso Sir 13:6-20) Folio β recto Sir 12:11-13:5 (Folio α verso Sir 11:28-12:10) Folio α recto Sir 11:11-27 (Folio 1 verso TS 12.871 Sir 11:3-10) Folio 1 recto TS 12.871 Sir 10:19-11:2

(Folio 2 recto Sir 3:27b-4:12a?) Folio 2 verso Sir 4:12b-4:28b? (Folio γ recto Sir 4:28c-5:10?) Folio γ verso Sir 5:11-6:12? (Folio β recto Sir 6:13-6:31?) Folio β verso Sir 6:32-7:31? (Folio α recto Sir 7:32-8:9?) Folio α verso Sir 8:10-9:5? (Folio 1 recto Sir 9:6-10:17?) Folio 1 verso Si 10:1-18?

Fig. 1: Reconstruction of the quire containing Sir 3:27(?)–16:7 (The reconstruction is based on the Hebrew text of manuscript A)

As the two preserved folia cannot be the facing pages of the same bifolium, they must belong to the left parts of two different bifolia, separated by three missing pages. These missing pages would have contained Sir 11:11–27 and 11:28–12:10 (folio α); Sir 12:11–13:5 and 13:6–20 (folio β); Sir 13:21–14:10 and 14:11–27 (folio γ). If we take into consideration that each folio has 18 lines, that is to say 36 stichs, we can easily reconstruct the whole codex. Before our first quire, the Hebrew text of manuscript A from Sir 3:16–10:19 contains 449 stichs, while for Sir 1:1–3:15, the Greek comes to a total of 129 stichs. The Syriac addition of Sir 1 has 24 stichs; in that case, the missing part may have contained approximately 578 stichs (449 + 129), or 602 stichs (449 + 129 + 24) if we include the Syriac addition.7 The result would be: (1) if we do not include the Syriac addition, a first quire of three bifolia with a first blank page; (2) if we include the Syriac addition, there would be five blank lines at the beginning of the first page, which is just enough for a title and a colophon. This latter solution (i.e., with the Syriac addition) is preferable and would confirm the presence of this addition in the Hebrew text, which is also the case in manuscript A, as demonstrated recently by Reymond and Karner.8 7 The Syriac text of Sir 1:1–10:19 is slightly shorter with 544 stichs. 8 Reymond, “New Hebrew Text”; Karner, “Ben Sira.”



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 101

After this quire, Sir 16:7–30:11 has 881 stichs in the Greek text. This would cor­ respond to another quire of six bifolia (= 864 stichs for the reconstructed Hebrew). Finally, Sir 30:11–51:30 has been written on three quires. The first one, con­ taining Sir 30:11–38:27, would have consisted of four bifolia. The middle bifo­ lium is missing and would have contained the text of Sir 33:4–35:10. Taking into account that each folio has 18 lines (36 stichs), this bifolium (144 stichs) would represent a Hebrew text slightly longer than the Greek (143 stichs) and the Syriac (132 stichs) texts.

(Folio 8 verso TS 16.312 Sir 38:13-27b) Folio 8 recto TS 16.312 Sir 37:27-38:12 (Folio 7 verso Or 5518.1 37:11-26) Folio 7 recto Or 5518.1 36:22-37:9 (Folio 6 verso TS 16.313 Sir 36:1-21) Folio 6 recto TS 16.313 Sir 35:11-26

-26) .1 37:11 :9 5518 o Or 36:22-37 7 vers 5518.1 (Folio recto Or 7 Folio

(Folio β verso 34:25(?)-35:10 Folio β recto 34:4(?)-24(?)

(Folio 3 recto TS 16.312 Sir 30:11-24a) Folio 3 verso TS 16.312 Sir 30:24b-31:11 (Folio 4 Or 5518.2 recto Sir 31:12-21) Folio 4 Or 5518.2 verso Sir 31:22-31 (Folio 5 recto TS 16.313 Sir 32:1-13) Folio 5 verso TS 16.313 Sir 32:14-33:3 (Folio α recto Sir 33·4-19 Folio α verso Sir 33:20-34:3(?)

Fig. 2: Reconstruction of the quire containing Sir 30:11–38:27

The second quire consisted of six bifolia. One folio of the first bifolium is missing and would have contained 38:28–39:14 (with a text slightly longer than the Greek which contains only 32.5 distichs, but a little shorter than the Syriac which con­ tains 45.5 distichs for this passage). The third quire, containing only 50:22–51:30, was made up of one bifolium. The fact that there is only one bifolium in this quire could result from two possi­ ble situations: either the scribe considered that seven folia would have been too much for a booklet—quires of six bifolia (known as senions) were common for codices in paper9—or the scribe did not count the number of distichs in his copy in advance and had to add a final bifolium to complete his text.

9 Beit-Arié, Hebrew Codicology, 300.

102 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

(Folio 20 verso T-S 16.314 Sir 50:11-22) Folio 20 recto T-S 16.314 Sir 49:12-50:10 (Folio 19 verso Ms Heb e62.9b Sir 48:24-49:12) Folio 19 recto Ms Heb e62.9a Sir 48:12-23 (Folio 18 verso Ms Heb e62.2b Sir 47:23-48:12) Folio 18 recto Ms Heb e62.2a Sir 47:11-23 (Folio 17 verso Ms Heb e62.4b Sir 46:18-47:10) Folio 17 recto Ms Heb e62.4a Sir 46:7-18 (Folio 16 verso Ms Heb e62.6ba Sir 45:23-46:6) Folio 16 recto Ms Heb e62.6a Sir 45:14-23) (Folio 15 verso Ms Heb e62.7b Sir 45:5-13) Folio 15 recto Ms Heb e62.7a Sir 44:17-45:4

(Foli o Folio 10 recto 3 verso Sir 38:2 TS 16.3 8-39 12 Sir :14 (?)) 30:2 4b-3

1:11

(Folio 9 recto and verso missing Sir 38:28-39:14)

(Folio 10 recto Or.1102 recto Sir 39:15-28) Folio 10 verso Or.1102 verso Sir 39:29-40:28 (Folio 11 recto Ms Heb e62.1a Sir 40:9-40:26) Folio 11 verso Ms Heb e62.1b Sir 40:26-41:9 (Folio 12 recto Ms Heb e62.3a Sir 41:10-41:22) Folio 12 verso Ms Heb e62.3b Sir 42:1-11 (Folio 13 recto Ms Heb e62.5a Sir 42:12-43:1) Folio 12 verso Ms Heb e62.5b Sir 43:1-16 (Folio 14 recto Ms Heb e62.8a Sir 43:17-33) Folio 14 verso Ms Heb e62.8b Sir 44:1-16

(Folio 22 verso T-S 16.315 Sir 51:21-30) Folio 22 recto T-S 16.315 Sir 51:12-20

(Folio 21 recto T-S 16.315 Sir 50:22-51:5) Folio 21 verso T-S 16.315 Sir 51:6-12

Fig. 3: Reconstruction of the quires containing Sir 38:28–50:22b and 50:22c–51:30

In conclusion, manuscript B was composed of six irregular quires made up of the following number of bifolia: 3 + 5 + 6 + 4 + 6 + 1.

1.3 Vocalization Words are pointed only sporadically in this manuscript. In contrast to manu­ script A, vocalization is never applied to a complete verse, but only to isolated



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 103

words (the only exception being one marginal reading, ‫שנֵה תֵ מַה‬ ַ ‫חַדֵ ש אֵל ְו‬, a doublet of Sir 36:6 [fol. VI verso l. 5]). In the majority of cases, the vocalization seems redundant and does not appear to clarify the interpretation of complex Hebrew forms. The vocalized words are generally common. See, for example, ‫ ר ֹאשֶך‬in the margin of Sir 37:9 (folio VII recto l. 17). Even the rare forms like ‫לָן‬, perfect qal of ‫ לין‬in Sir 30:20 (fol. III recto l. 13) or ]‫( מכֹֿועָ[ר‬with a raphe on the begadkephat) in Sir 11:2 (fol. I recto l. 18) are, in fact, perfectly clear. However, in Sir 36:28 (fol. VII recto l. 5), the vocalization ‫ ִאׁשָּה‬is clearly corrective.10 The scribe invites the reader to interpret the letters as “her husband” (‫)אִיׁשָּה‬, as in the Greek (ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς), and not as “a woman” (‫ׁשה‬ ָ ּ ‫) ִא‬. This raises several questions: (1) Has this vocaliza­ tion been added by the main scribe, or by a scribe responsible for the marginal notes? In the event of the latter: (2) Why did he not put the correct reading in the margin, as elsewhere? (3) Where did the correction come from: from another Hebrew text with the consonants ‫אישה‬, or from a comparison with the Greek (this verse is missing in the Syriac)? Manuscript B also contains at least three instances of Babylonian vocalization: fol. VIII verso l. 6 in the margin (Sir 38:17): ‫;וההם‬ ֔ fol. XI verso l. 5 supralinear: ‫וארח‬ ֔ (as a correction to ‫ ואדון‬in Sir 42:3); fol. XII recto l. 10 in the main text (Sir 42:18): ‫חקר‬. ֔ Babylonian vocalizations are also attested in manuscript A.

1.4 Titles and Paragraph Markers In the extant folia of manuscript B, we have three instances in which the scribe has included a title to introduce a new section. On fol. IV recto l. 1, before Sir 31:12, the scribe wrote ‫מוסר לחם ויין יחדו‬. On fol. XI recto l. 8, we read ‫מוסר בשת‬, written above the line where Sir 41:14 starts. The scribe had started the line with the letters ‫מוסר בשת שמ‬, which is the opening of Sir 41:14, but deleted these letters and added ‫ מוסר בשת‬as a title in the middle of the line. We find another title on fol. XIII verso l. 1 (before Sir 44:1): ‫שבח אבות עולם‬. The final mem of ‫ עולם‬is widely dilated in order to align the title more or less with the center. In a few instances, there are blank lines separating two sections: fol. I recto, between ll. 10 and 11 (between Sir 10:27 and 10:28); fol. II verso, between ll. 15 and

10 See also the dot to distinguish sin from shin in Sir 38:4 (fol. VIII recto l. 9): ‫“ ברא ׂשמים‬He created medicines [and not ‘heavens’]” (‫ סמים‬has probably here the meaning of medicine as in Aramaic, ̈ and the Greek φάρμακα). See also the quotation of this see 4Q197 4 i 12 // Tob 6:7, cf. Syriac ‫ܣܡܡܢܐ‬ verse of Ben Sira in Gen. Rab. 10:6. I thank Jeremy Corley for drawing my attention to this point.

104 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

16 (between Sir 15:15 and 15:16)11; fol. VIII recto, between ll. 5 and 6 (between Sir 37:31 and 38:1); fol. VIII verso, between ll. 12 and 13 (between Sir 38:23 and 38:24); fol. XI verso, between ll. 11 and 12 (between Sir 42:8 and 42:9); fol. XII recto, between ll. 4 and 5 (between Sir 42:14 and 42:15); fol. XXI recto, between ll. 8 and 9 (between Sir 51:12 and 51:13). These blank lines indicate the thematic end of a section and signal a change in subject.12 They are, therefore, categorized as paragraph markers. For example, in chapter 51 the scribe marks the end of the hymn and the beginning of the autobiographic poem with a blank line. However, he did not mark the begin­ ning of the hymn. Interestingly, this is precisely where we find a peculiar sign, a pe with three dots on top (fol. XX verso l. 12). This sign appears three more times in our manuscript: on fol. VI verso in the upper margin above line 1 (Sir 36:1) and in the right margin of line 17 (Sir 36:23), as well as on fol. VIII verso in the upper margin above line 1 (Sir 38:13). According to Lévi, the pe is the abbreviation for ‫“ פיסקא‬section,”13 a technical term used in ancient literature to indicate the beginning of a new para­ graph. However, it is certainly preferable to retain the solution proposed by Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor. They interpreted this sign as the abbreviation for ‫פתוחה‬ “opening.”14 While they are not totally convinced by this interpretation, it is interest­ ing that they refer to Christian D. Ginsburg, who mentions manuscript Hébreu 3 of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.15 In this manuscript the scribe is not systematic.

Fig. 4: The sign for petuhah without a blank line (Prov 1:20) in Ms. Hébreu 3 – Bibliothèque Nationale de France

11 On this blank line, we see traces of the letters lamed, ayin, and shin. These traces are the result of the ink of the word ‫ לעשות‬on line 15 of the verso bleeding through. 12 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 2: iv. 13 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 2: iv. 14 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, III: 10. 15 Ginsburg, Introduction, 9–24, esp. 18–19.



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 105

The sign ‫ פ‬for ‫ פתוחה‬occurs either with or without a blank line. In seven instances, blank lines appear without the sign ‫פ‬, as in our manuscript. In any case, it indi­ cates that the pe as a paragraph marker corresponds to a blank line. Either the scribe of manuscript B is not consistent, as in Ms. Hébreu 3, or—and this is more probable—the main scribe indicates sections by a blank line and one of the glos­ sators added the sign ‫פ‬, for ‫פתוחה‬, where blank lines had been omitted. Indeed, except in 38:13, the sign indicates a change in subject that is not indi­ cated by a blank line, as in the cases cited above. The occurrence of this sign next to 38:13, however, remains unexplained. Given that the question of the book’s structure has long been debated by modern scholars,16 this material delimitation of the text by scribes in the medi­ eval period should be taken into consideration and demonstrates that this ques­ tion was already the subject of close attention.

2 The Marginal Notes of Manuscript B 2.1 Israel Lévi’s Typology In the introduction to the first volume of his commentary, published in 1898, Lévi17 provided—to the best of our knowledge—the most comprehensive descrip­ tion of the marginal notes. He distinguished three different types, attesting to three different scribal hands: (1) Marginal notes, mainly correctives, written by the same scribe as the main text; (2) Marginal notes written by another hand that were based on another manuscript, as confirmed by the Judeo-Persian notes;18 (3) And, finally, eight notes situated between Sir 39:15 and 49:11 which Lévi attri­ butes to a third hand.19 He characterizes this last type of notes as explanatory, written in Aramaic or a less literary form of language.20 The situation was further complicated when, in 1901, in the introduction to the second volume, Lévi contradicted his earlier assumption, stating that the hypothesis of different hands should be abandoned.21 His new assumption was 16 For a status quaestionis, see Corley, “Searching.” 17 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: xi–xviii. 18 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: xi–xii. 19 Sir 39:19b; 40:18b; 41:12b, 14b, 18c; 42:3, 6(?), 9. 20 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: xvii. 21 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 2: v: “Jusqu’ici on admettait couramment que les gloses marginales, provenant d’autres mss., étaient dues à un ou plusieurs lecteurs, d’autant plus que l’écriture en est parfois toute différente de celle du texte. Il faut donc renoncer à cette opinion.”

106 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

based on the Persian note to Sir 35:26 (see the bottom left margin of fol. VI recto, T-S 16.313 recto). This note, analyzed in detail by Benjamin Wright in his contri­ bution to this volume, states the following: “This verse (is) from other copies and had been omitted here and written.”22 Lévi rightly recognized that line 18 of this folio is a doublet of line 17. His argument is that the Persian note proves that the scribe who wrote this note is the same as the scribe who wrote line 18 in the main text. Therefore, the scribe who wrote the Persian note must have been the same as the scribe of the main text. However, Lévi was mistaken. The Persian note does not concern line 18, but most probably line 17. What Lévi had not noticed is that line 17 had been written by a hand that is clearly different from the hand of the main text.23

Fig. 5: Sir 35:25, T-S 16.313 recto

If we may focus on the second stichs of the last two lines of this folio, which are the easiest to read, we have for Sir 35:26:24 line 17b: ‫“ כעת חזיזים בעת בצורת‬as a time of thunderstorms in time of drought” line 18b: ‫“ כעב חזיזים בעת צרך‬as a cloud of thunderbolts in time of need”25 This example, in fact, suggests the opposite of Lévi’s conclusion. It demonstrates that line 17 was added later by another scribe from another copy of the text of

22 See Wright, “Persian Glosses,” in this volume. 23 The right arm of the ayin is more rounded than in the main text, the tav is written differ­ ently from that in the main text (see Wright, “Persian Glosses,” in this volume), and the letters are slightly inclined to the left while they are straight in the main text. I am indebted to Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, who drew attention during the conference to this convincing example of different hands in the main text. 24 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: xvii. 25 The Hebrew line is attested only by a few traces of letters but is nevertheless readable.



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 107

Ben Sira. This scribe would have been the same as the one who wrote the note in Persian.26 If this line has indeed been written by a different hand from the rest of the main text, then the question arises whether this scribe erased the original text, or whether it would originally have been a blank line. There appear to be traces underneath the letters of line 17, but it is unclear whether these are the result of line 17 of the verso bleeding through—a common phenomenon in manuscript B— or whether they witness to a text written underneath.

2.2 Categorization of Marginal Notes Since Lévi’s original classification of the marginal notes and scribal hands may no longer be maintained, we would like to reconsider the question. The expres­ sion “marginal note” may refer to different realities: –– Marginal writing that is situated before the soph pasuq and seems to continue the main text, with letters suspended from the horizontal rule; –– Interlinear notes not indicated by a circellus or any corrective mark (like the three dots in manuscript A); –– Marginal notes situated after the soph pasuq, in most cases introduced by a circellus, written clearly outside of the right and left margins of the main text, and written in a semi-cursive hand that contrasts with the formal script of the main text. The latter may, in turn, be divided further into three subtypes: –– Marginal readings written horizontally—but not necessarily aligned with the ruled upper line of the main text (see, for example, the marginal note in the left margin of fol. VI recto l. 6, relating to Sir 35:16); –– Marginal readings written vertically—generally for important alternatives or additions to a complete stich or distich. The orientation of these marginal notes changes, at times even when different notes are written on the same page. When we look at the left margin of fol. VII recto, containing Sir 36:23– 37:9, for example, we see two notes written bottom-up and one note written top-down. In some cases, the change in orientation may be explained on the

26 The Greek offers a mix of the stich of lines 17 and 18: ὡς νεφέλαι ὑετοῦ ἐν καιρῷ ἀβροχίας “as a cloud of rain in a time of drought” which supposes a Vorlage ‫כעב חזיזים בעת בצורת‬. The Syriac ‫“ ܐܝܟ ܥܢܢܐ ܕܡܛܪܐ ܒܙܒܢܐ‬as a cloud of rain at the time would correspond to stich 2: ‫ܕܡܬܒܥܐ‬ ݂ when it is requested.”

108 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

basis of spatial constraints. We will return to this issue below when discuss­ ing the order in which the marginal notes were added to the text; – A few marginal readings written obliquely, as in fol. VI recto, which contains the marginal note ‫ וגבור מה יתאפק‬on Sir 35:22, written diagonally in the left margin. Four Judeo-Persian notes are found among the marginal notes, namely on Sir 32:1 (fol. V recto); Sir 35:26 (fol. VI recto); 40:22–26 (fol. X recto); and 45:8 (fol. XIV verso).27 After the last Persian note, marginal readings disappear with the excep­ tion of four notes pertaining to Sir 47:8–9 (fol. XVI verso).28 This observation indi­ cates that most—but not necessarily all—of the marginal notes are closely related to the scribe who also provided the Persian notes, and to the other copy or copies of the text of Ben Sira on which these notes are based.

2.3 The Marginal Notes Were not All Written Sequentially A first observation is that the arrangement of the marginal notes on the page shows that they have not been written sequentially. It implies that they are the product of different stages of annotation through time. A good example may be found in the two marginal notes presenting alternative readings for Sir 31:6 and 31:9 on fol. III verso.

27 For more information on the Persian notes, see the contribution of Benjamin Wright in this volume. 28 See Wright, “Persian Glosses,” in this volume.



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 109

Fig. 6: Sir 31:6, 9 (fol. III verso, T-S 16.312)

The scribe of the first note on Sir 31:6 has been forced to write the last word of the first line obliquely because the second note on Sir 31:9 was already written. This proves that the first note (on Sir 31:6, l. 10) was written after the second one (on Sir 31:9, l. 13). It implies that the marginal notes were not written sequentially in a single stage, but more probably at different times and occasions by one or two scribes. In the present example, it is hard to distinguish two different hands. It is more probable that the same scribe wrote both notes. The hand often seems to suggest a single scribe, so it is possible that the same scribe went through the Hebrew text of Ben Sira at different points in time and made notes at different stages.

Fig. 7: Sir 42:10–11 (Bodl. MS Heb e62)

110 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

A second example is found on fol. XI verso, from line 14 onwards. A first note pertaining to Sir 42:10a (l. 14) is added horizontally in the right margin, ‫תתפתה‬. On the next line, we find another horizontal note, this time on Sir 42:10c (l. 15): ‫א׳ פחזה‬. Two vertical notes are written in the right margin as well, one on Sir 42:10 (l. 15), consisting of two lines, and one written directly below, on Sir 42:11 (l. 17), consisting of three lines. The first few letters of each of the first three lines of these notes are significantly smaller than the rest of the letters and are crammed into the available space between the main text and the horizontal note on Sir 42:10 (‫)תתפתה‬. As soon as the scribe had moved on from ‫תתפתה‬, he had more space to write in the margin: letters become bigger and the line of writing is no longer straight but deviates towards the available free space. The last two lines of the final note start only below the second horizontal note on Sir 42:10c (‫)א׳ פחזה‬. This clearly indicates that both vertical notes were added after the two notes ‫ תתפתה‬and ‫ א׳ פחזה‬had already been written. Such an observation is a strong indication that the marginal notes were written in stages and at various occasions. It could imply that different scribes intervened in the text. It also shows that this manuscript may be considered as a “working document” that has been compared to different copies of Ben Sira throughout its life and was used as a support to collate attested variants of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira.

2.4 First Type: When Marginal Writings Are not Marginal Readings On several occasions, the scribe of the main text finishes writing the line, when unusually long, by making use of the margin in order to maintain a stichometric presentation. This occurs particularly in instances where there are some textual problems (e.g., a doublet, an addition, etc.). This is, for example, the case in Sir 10:31 (fol. I recto l. 16); Sir 15:20 (fol. II verso l. 6); Sir 16:3 (fol. II verso l. 10); Sir 31:16 (fol. IV recto l. 10); Sir 31:22 (fol. IV 4 verso l. 2); and Sir 32:1 (fol. V recto l. 1, parallel to manuscript F); Sir 32:4 (fol. V recto l. 4, parallel to manuscript F); Sir 37:2 (fol. VII recto l. 10, parallel to manuscripts C and D); Sir 41:16 (fol. XIII verso l. 18). With regard to these cases, we may make the following observations: (1) While the size of the letters in the margins is smaller as a result of the limited space available, the formal square script is similar to that of the main text (see the typical case of the tav written in the same manner as in the main text and not as in



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 111

some other marginal notes)29; (2) The additional text is never introduced by a circellus; (3) The text is aligned with the top line of the text and continues on the line of the main text; (4) The additional text is situated before the soph pasuq, while other marginal notes are situated after it; (5) The Persian note on Sir 32:1 indicates that these notes were already attested in the manuscript before the notes of the glossator; (5) And, finally, it also occurs in the folia after the last Persian note (for example, in fol. XXI recto l. 8, Sir 51:12). The two following instances will illustrate the phenomenon:

Fig. 8: Sir 32:1 (fol. V recto l. 1, T-S 16.313, // MS F)

Fig. 9: Sir 31:16 (fol. IV recto l. 10, Or 5518.1)

In conclusion, these cases should not be considered as marginal “notes” in the same way as the others, but rather as words or sentences from the main text over­ flowing into the margin and written by the same scribe. Most of them are the result of textual transformations through textual transmission, especially the inclusion of tristichs that are not compatible with a stichometric layout, or doublets.30

29 On the tav, see Wright, “Persian Glosses,” in this volume. 30 See, for example, the particularly explicit case of Sir 51:12, where the scribe left a blank line before the final poem, but added the last sentence of the preceding section in the margin. We see this elsewhere as well: Sir 31:16 (fol. IV recto); Sir 31:22 (fol. IV verso); Sir 32:1 (fol. V recto); Sir 44:16 (fol. XIII verso); Sir 46:18 (fol. XVI recto). In two cases, there is a doublet of two stichs, that is, a quadristich written as a distich (Sir 43:30 [fol. XIII recto] and Sir 45:25 [fol. XV verso]). It seems that two cases are simply two long stichs (Sir 50:27 [fol. XX recto] and Sir 51:12 [fol. XXI recto]).

112 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

2.5 Second Type: Marginal Notes or Corrective Marks There are different signs of corrections in the manuscript. Scribes are far from systematic. Deletions may be indicated by an inverted circumflex [ ̌] above the letters, as in fol. XI recto l. 8, or by dots inside the letters as in fol. I recto l. 8. Letters or words may be crossed out (this is done only by the scribe who wrote marginal readings), as in the marginal reading to Sir 32:10 (fol. V recto l. 13), where the correction was written underneath. We often find supralinear or infralinear corrective letters, both in the main text as well as in the margin. This is the case for Sir 31:19, 20 (fol. IV recto ll. 13 and 16), where ‫ נבון‬has been corrected to ‫ נכון‬twice by a supralinear kaph written above the beth. We see a similar correction in the twofold marginal note to Sir 35:12 (fol. VI verso l. 2): ‫ובכהגשת ובכהגיש‬. The opposite correction, of kaph into beth, may be found in the marginal note to 37:12 (fol. VII verso l. 6): ‫( בכלבבו‬see the Greek ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀυτοῦ). In Sir 37:11 (fol. VII verso l. 2), a supralinear aleph corrects ‫וממקנה‬, the otherwise unattested hiphil participle of ‫קנה‬, into ‫וממקנא‬, a participle piel of ‫קנא‬. This correction does not fit the context well semantically, but it testifies to the annotator’s attempt to provide the preserved letters with a grammatical meaning. In Sir 41:20 (fol. XI recto l. 16), we find a supralinear he in ‫מה ֗חריש‬, and in Sir 51:2 (fol. XX recto l. 14), the second yod in ‫ הייתה‬is supralinear as well. Supra- and infralinear corrections also occur with complete words. In Sir 30:12 (fol. III recto l. 4), we see that ‫ ונולד‬is replaced by the infralinear ‫( ולך‬the darker ink of this correction compared to the main text may indicate that it is a later annotation). In Sir 35:12 (folio VI recto l. 2), ‫ לו‬is corrected into ‫ אֵל‬written below it, in agreement with the Greek and the Syriac. In Sir 38:25 (fol. VIII verso l. 16), ‫ לשדד‬is the supralinear correction for ‫ישובב‬, while the marginal reading confirms the reading of the main text. In Sir 42:3 (fol. XI verso l. 5), ‫“ ואדון‬and a master” is changed into ‫וארח‬ ֔ “and a traveler” (see the Greek ὁδοιπόρων) with what appears to be the Babylonian vowel sign for /o/. In Sir 42:8 (fol. XI verso l. 10), the infra­ linear word ‫( ושואֵל‬with aleph-lamed ligature and vocalization) is either an alter­ native or a complement to ‫ונוטל‬. In Sir 43:21 (fol. XIII recto l. 6), the word ‫ הרים‬is added above the line (compare the Greek and Job 40:20). In the Persian note to Sir 45:8 (fol. XIV verso, left margin), the word ‫ תא‬is added, again above the line and is clearly corrective. In Sir 47:10 (fol. XVI verso l. 18), the word ‫ משפט‬has been corrected, but the supralinear correction is difficult to read; it probably read ‫מ ֯ק ֯דש‬.֯ These infra-supralinear notes are not of the same type as the regular mar­ ginal notes. We noted that they are never introduced by a circellus, that they are probably not produced by the same scribe, and that they do not follow the same material layout. Are they also alternative readings based on another copy, or, alternatively, and more likely so, corrective annotations as in manuscript A?



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 113

2.6 Third Type: Notes Written at the Very Edge of the Paper Another peculiarity of this manuscript is the presence of several vertical notes curiously written at the very edge of the paper, even when there would have been enough space in the margin (see Sir 11:2 [fol. I recto]; Sir 11:931 [fol. I verso]; Sir 30:21 [fol. III recto]; Sir 35:21 [fol. VI recto]; Sir 43:30 [fol. XIII recto]; and Sir 47:9 [fol. XVI verso]). Most of them are barely readable. For this reason, it is often difficult to evaluate them from a paleographical point of view (except for fol. III recto, which is clearly written by another hand). Are these marginal notes similar to the other ones? Are they written by another scribe? Are they added late, or early? In hypothesizing that the marginal readings of manuscript B depend on an archetype of manuscript A, the case of Sir 11:2 may be enlightening: ‫בתוארו‬ ֯ ̇‫אל תהלל אד̇ם‬ [‫אדם ֯ב ֯מ[׳‬ ֯ ‫תתעב‬ ‫מכֹוע[ר[ ואל תתעב אדם מעזב במראהו‬ ֯ ‫ אל‬ Do not praise a person for his good looks, and do not abhor a person forsaken in his appearance. The Hebrew of the main text is perfectly understandable, yet two alternative read­ ings are preserved while only one circellus was written on ‫מעזב‬. In the right margin, the word ]‫מכֹוע[ר‬, as expected, agrees with manuscript A and the Syriac. The other alternative reading—at the very edge of the paper—agrees with the Greek (the end of this marginal note is very hard to read properly). The piel or the pual of ‫ עזב‬in the sense of “to be dirty, ugly,” is not attested in biblical or Qumran Hebrew.32 It is also extremely rare in Rabbinic Hebrew and limited to very late texts. Maagarim identifies the first attestations in Yannai (3 times).33

31 This note written on two lines is hardly readable. We are suggesting the following letters: ׄ ‫[◦ [כאי]ן̇ ע̇צ ׅ ׄ̇ב‬ ‫ה‬/ ׄ ‫[וב]ריבֿ‬ [‫זד‬ 32 The reading ‫ שבר‬suggested as an alternative by Ben Ḥayyim and followed in Maagarim is impossible. 33 The attestation in MS Bodl. heb. d.55 folio 6r is particularly interesting because the two roots ‫ עזב‬in the pual and ‫ כער‬in the hophal are paralleled and contrasted with words referring to beauty and delight: ‫ מה עוזבו מה הוכארו‬,‫מה יפו ומה נעימו‬, Yannai, 82 ,‫קדושתות לשבתות הפורענות והנחמה‬. The two words are also associated in the hitpael in Cant. Rab. 2.14.8 in manuscript Vat. Ebr. 76 ‫מִתְַאכ ֵֶרת ומִתְ ־‬ ‫( ַעזֵבֶת‬vocalized by another hand in the manuscript). Jastrow, Dictionary, 656, notices the same association in Gen. Rab. 45.4, ‫ היא מתכערת ומתעזבת‬but the last word (‫ )עזב‬is missing in MS Vat. Ebr. 30 recorded in Maagarim. See also, Yannai, 5:22 ,‫ במדבר‬,‫ קדושתות לשבתות השנה‬where the piel of ‫עזב‬ is contrasted with ‫“ הידור‬paying respect, honoring, adorning” (‫)ע' הידור ו' העיזוב‬.

114 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

Concerning the marginal variant ‫ מכוער‬in Ben Sira, the root ‫—כער‬also attested in Sir 13:22 with the meaning “ugly, repulsive”—is an Aramaism34 present neither in biblical nor in Qumran Hebrew, but only in rabbinic literature.35 If the note in the right margin, written by the Persian scribe, is indeed based on a copy close to manuscript A, where did the second note come from? Why was this note not placed just below the first one, as is the case in other instances where we have two or three variants for a single word written in the same margin (see, for example, fol. XI recto l. 6)? Why did the scribe not put two circelli, as is the case elsewhere when there are two marginal notes for one word or phrase (as, for example, in fol. VIII recto l. 14 or fol. XI recto l. 13)? The most obvious explanation would be that these cases indicate that these notes are the product of another scribe, with other practices, who used as his base either another copy of the Hebrew or an ancient version (here the Greek). Similarly, in the marginal note on Sir 30:21 the niphal ‫ אל תכשל‬is changed into the hiphil ‫אל תכשילך‬. Surprisingly, the Greek, in translating καὶ μὴ θλίψῃς σεαυτόν, “do not afflict yourself,” must have read ‫אל תכשילך‬, as in the margin. The trans­ lator, however, has understood the pronominal suffix not as an object, which is generally the rule, but as a reflexive pronoun. Such an understanding may reflect a specific characteristic of Hebrew syntax from the Hellenistic Period.36 The mar­ ginal Hebrew text (‫ )ואל תכשילך עצתך‬could indeed be understood in this way, but it is more likely that we should read a third person feminine with ‫ עצה‬as subject, “that your advice does not make you stumble.” In the note to Sir 35:21, the scribe replaces the conjunction ‫ עד‬by ‫עד כי‬. We cannot draw any conclusions on the basis of this note, as the Greek ἕως may reflect either form, and the note does not change the meaning significantly. To conclude this section, we offer the following observations: (1) The replace­ ments are not corrective and could only have been added by a scribe on the basis of another Hebrew copy of Ben Sira; (2) One of these notes appears after the last Persian note. This Persian note indicates that the copy or copies of Ben Sira used by this scribe does not continue beyond this verse. That implies clearly that the annotations after the Persian note were made by another scribe who used (a) dif­ ferent copy (or copies), containing a longer text of Ben Sira; (3) These notes are 34 The root ‫אר‬/‫ כע‬is elsewhere attested in Aramaic, Mandaic, Syriac, and possibly in Biblical Hebrew (see Kister, “Some Observations,” 137–65, esp. 140–1), as well as the derivatives )‫ כואר(ו‬,‫ מכערו‬,‫מכער‬ ‫ כיעור‬,)‫ מכארו(ת‬,‫מכאר‬. 35 Rüger, Text, 64, judiciously mentions the case of Nah 3:6 where the words ‫ ושמתיך ּכְרֹאִי‬are written ‫ושמתיך כָאּורה‬, from ‫כאר‬, in 4Q169 (pNah) 3–4:3 1–2, which explains the translation of these words in the Targum by ‫שוֵינִיך ְמ ָכע ֲָרא ְלעֵינֵי [עממיא] כָל ָחזַך‬ ַ ‫ ַו ֲא‬. 36 See elsewhere, Sir 7:7, 16; 1Q26 1:5 8 // 4Q423 4:1; Rey, “Quelques particularités,” 155–73, esp. 168–71.



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 115

not systematically introduced by a circellus (circelli are attested in 30:21, 35:21, and, perhaps, although strangely placed between two stichs, 37:9); (4) From a paleographic point of view these notes come from a different hand than the other marginal notes (see especially the tsade in Sir 30:21 and the letter inclination to the right, infra §3).

2.7 Fourth Type: Oblique Marginal Notes Finally, we have to consider, as a separate category, the marginal notes written diagonally in a script that is paleographically distinct from that of the horizontal notes. It seems that these notes were written at a later time. This suggestion is supported by the oblique note on Sir 35:22 (fol. VI recto). The main text, ‫וכגבור לא‬ ‫“ יתאפק‬and as a warrior he will not refrain himself,” is marked by two circelli. A first scribe changes the negation ‫ לא‬into ‫ מה‬in the margin. A second scribe, then, adds the oblique note ‫וגבור מה יתאפק‬. This note is clearly secondary because the scribe had to compress the last letters of ‫ יתאפק‬due to the next note ‫ רשעים‬written by the same hand as the first scribe. The fact that this note is not a corrective (the main text is perfectly intelligible) indicates that the annotation comes from another copy of Ben Sira (or from an ancient translation). The reading ‫ וגבור‬is, for example, attested in the Greek Lucianic group in ὁ κραταιός (manuscripts 248; 493; 637). The next oblique note is at Sir 37:5 (fol. 7 recto l. 12).37 The entire verse of Sir 37:5, missing in manuscript B (but attested in manuscript D [BAIU I.D.2 recto l. 9]) has been added in the margin by the first scribe, who had in front of him a copy similar to the text of manuscript D.38 Another scribe put a circellus, not on the main text, since this verse is missing, but on the marginal note, which is uncommon in the manuscript. He then wrote the alternative reading, ‫“( נוחל‬The good friend inherits with the stranger”), in place of ‫“( נלחם‬The good friend fights against the stranger”), which is attested in B, D, and the Syriac (the Greek has a different interpretation probably based on an already corrupted text). In such a case, it is difficult to understand the origin of the reading ‫ נוחל‬if it does not come from another copy of Ben Sira (independent of the Greek and the Syriac transla­ tions).

37 For an analysis of this verse, see Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching, 78–80. 38 See Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 180; Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 301; Rey, “Relationship” (forth­ coming).

116 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

The oblique note of Sir 38:15 (fol. VIII verso l. 3), ‫על ידי‬, also added by a second scribe, aims to replace ‫ לפני‬in agreement with the Greek (εἰς χεῖρας) and the Syriac ̈ ). (‫ܐܠܝܕܝ‬ The oblique reading of Sir 40:10 (fol. X recto l. 2) is generally ignored by com­ mentators and editions. Two marginal notes provide alternatives to the main text, ‫ובעבור תמוש כלה‬.39 The first, written horizontally, concerns the entire verse (‫וֺבֺעבורו‬ ‫)ת׳ רעה‬, while the second, written diagonally, pertains to one word (‫)ובשכרו‬.40 The expression ‫ בשכר‬is attested in Rabbinic Hebrew in the sense of “on account of,” and is here a close synonym to both the main text and particularly its first mar­ ginal alternative. Fol. X verso includes two oblique marginal notes. In Sir 41:2, the oblique marginal note offers a grammatical change: the piel or niphal form ‫ ינקש‬has been replaced by the qal participle of the same root, ‫ונוקש‬. The next oblique reading, ‫“ רישם‬their poverty,” in Sir 41:5, is hard to explain.41 It may be an alternative to ‫רעים‬ “the evil ones,” and may correspond to its circellus. This circellus, however, could also refer to the interlinear notation ‫“ ערים‬adversaries.” Segal thinks that ‫רישם‬ corresponds to an alternative reading of 41:6b that may be reflected in the Syriac translation ‫“ ܚܘܣܪܢܐ‬loss, ruin.”42 The oblique note of Sir 41:12 (fol. XI recto l. 4) is clearer. The main text reads ‫“ מאלפי אוצרות חכמה‬more than thousands of treasures of wisdom.” Here again, two circelli are attested. The first scribe replaced ‫ חכמה‬by ‫ ֶחמְדָ ּה‬and a second scribe changes ‫ אוצרות‬into ‫ סימות‬or ‫סומות‬. It seems clear that this oblique note is later, otherwise it would likely have been placed before the first one. The association between ‫ אוצר‬and the much rarer word ‫ שימה‬is well attested in manuscript B and the Masada scroll (see, for example, Sir 40:18 and 41:14). As noticed already by Yadin, it illustrates the fact that the original scribe of manuscript B changed a rare word into a more common or a more biblical word (and not the other way around).43 39 If the verb is from the root ‫“ משש‬to grope,” the main text might possibly mean “and in order that annihilation will grope (forward)…” However, it is difficult to make sense of the Hebrew, both as presented in the main text and as in the marginal reading. 40 I owe this reading to Eric Reymond. It is also the reading proposed by Smend, Weisheit, 39, and Ben Ḥayyim, Ben Sira. Lévi reads ‫ נבשכון‬and wrote “C’est, pour nous, un griffonnage ana­ logue à celui qui se voit en face de 41,15, et que les éditeurs n’ont pas reproduit, avec raison” (Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: 19). 41 Lévi notes: “La glose marginale ‫ רישם‬ou ‫ רושם‬n’a jusqu’à présent été expliquée par personne. Serait-ce le mot « indice, renvoi », qui appellerait l’attention sur la correction interlinéaire ?” (Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: 35). 42 Segal, Ben Sira, 276–77. 43 Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 163.



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 117

Finally, the last oblique note in Sir 41:15 (fol. XI recto l. 7) has been crossed out by the scribe and is hard to interpret, but its first letters may agree with the Masada text of the first stich. The main text reads ‫“ מאיש מצפין חכמתו‬Better the man who hides his folly, than the man who hides his wisdom,” and agrees with Masada. The first marginal reading puts ‫ מאדון‬instead of ‫מאיש‬. The second mar­ ginal note, written obliquely, should pertain to ‫מצפין‬, but was crossed out and consequently ignored by most commentators. The preserved traces have been read as ‫( יטמין‬although the mem is hard to read), and are qualified by Lévi as gib­ berish.44 Letters are inclined to the right and not to the left. In conclusion, these marginal oblique notes should clearly be attributed to another scribe. All of them are introduced by a circellus, as are the horizontal ones, but were written later, as their position on the folio demonstrates. The paleographic characteristics of these notes also indicate that they stem from another scribe. Finally, regarding their content, we may conclude that, as with the other notes, they are not correctives, but were clearly based on another copy of Ben Sira.

3 Paleographic Characteristics of the Marginal Notes45 In various instances in this paper we have distinguished different hands among the marginal notes of manuscript B. This hypothesis was proposed by Lévi and has often been advocated by other scholars.46 The main difficulty for anyone attempting to answer this question is the het­ erogeneous character of the handwriting within the same marginal note, or even within the same word. The writing of the marginal notes is slightly cursive and very irregular in size, thickness, and coloration. The letters’ size is smaller than the main text and the pen finer, while the thickness of the strokes can be irregular within the same note (see, for example, the vertical note on Sir 36:4 [fol. VI verso], where strokes vary between 0.5 mm to 1 mm, the latter being similar to the main text). The writing is free and fluent and in a few instances seems clumsy, which contrasts strongly with the main text. Sometimes letters like aleph, he, and tsade

44 Lévi qualifies these letters as gibberish (“griffonnage,” Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: 39); Smend reads ‫מטמין‬, which seems improbable (Smend, Weisheit, 41). 45 For an alternative approach, see Olszowy-Schlanger, “The ‘Booklet’ of Ben Sira,” in this volume. 46 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1: xi-xviii; Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 160.

118 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

have ornamental additions, and aleph-lamed ligatures are frequent while they are rare in the main text. The scribe uses different ways to trace the same letter. For example, the aleph is written either with three or four strokes, and with the right arm most of the time open to the left, but sometimes also open to the right. The first letter in this table is the most common.

Fig. 10: Ductus of the aleph

The way in which the mem is written also varies considerably, from two to four strokes. As for the aleph, we observe the same variation in the main text, even though the writing is much more regular than in the notes. Since the different shapes of the mem are attested within the same word or note, as we see in fol. VIII recto l. 3 (‫ )מטמים‬and fol. IV recto l. 4 (‫)ממך‬, it is not possible to attribute this variation to different hands. 3

1 2

2

3

1

4

2

3

2 1

3

1

2

4

1

1 3 2

Fig. 11: Ductus of the mem

Fig. 12: Fol. VIII (T-S 16.312) recto l. 3 and fol. III (Or 5518.2) recto l. 4

However, despite this difficulty, we may distinguish at least two hands based on the confluence of two characteristics, namely, the inclinations of the letters and the shape of specific letters, such as the tsade. In the majority of cases, all the letters are slightly oriented to the left. However, in several rare and specific cases,



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 119

as in the marginal notes written at the very edge of the paper, in oblique notes, or in a second note for one and the same word in the main text, letters are slightly oriented to the right.

Fig. 13: Fol. VI (T-S 16.313) recto l. 9 (Sir 35:20)

These notes that are slightly oriented to the right present other characteristics not attested elsewhere, such as the very cursive shape of the tsade. This becomes clear in the two marginal notes on Sir 35:20, fol. VI recto l. 9 (fig. 13). In the first word, the tsade is written in three strokes with ornaments, as in most cases, while in the second word, the tsade is more cursive, in two strokes, with a concave first stroke. 2

1

2

1 3

Fig. 14: Ductus of the tsade

In conclusion, the analysis of the ductus of different letters and a comparison of the different shapes attested lead us to the cautious conclusion that, notwith­ standing the fact that the writing is irregular and the letters are traced in different ways, the large majority of the marginal notes are from the same hand. This was likely the same scribe who also wrote the Judeo-Persian notes and who is to be distinguished from the scribe of the main text. Beside this principal annotator, we have to distinguish at least a second annotator responsible for the notes written at the very edge of the paper, the oblique marginal notes, and several double or triple marginal notes.

4 Conclusion Since the first publication of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira at the end of the nine­ teenth century and, more specifically, the introduction in Lévi’s commentary,

120 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

little scholarly attention has been paid to the material characteristics of the man­ uscripts of Ben Sira. This study has aimed to fill this gap for manuscript B and to provide a tool as well as a basis for further studies on the Hebrew of Ben Sira and medieval Hebrew codicology. The reconstruction of the codex attests to a composition of six irregular quires. It allows us to estimate with relative precision the number of missing bifolia and stichs. It suggests the presence of the Syriac addition in Sir 1 in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, as demonstrated recently by Reymond and Karner for manuscript A. This study has focused largely on the typology of marginal readings and raised a major question: how many scribes intervened in the redaction of the notes and which source texts did they use? We have tried to advance the discus­ sion with regard to the following points: (1) The main text of manuscript B is already the result of critical studies by scribes who added alternative readings attested in other manuscripts, rab­ binic quotations, or ancient translations (mainly Syriac) into manuscript B by means of doublets or tristichs.47 (2) The formal handbook script, the careful stichometric presentation, and the consistent rulings attest to the status of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira as a reli­ gious text for this scribe. (3) The marginal notes were written over the course of time. They were written in stages, and attest to critical analysis of the text, in particular through com­ parison with other witnesses or ancient translations. We may characterize this manuscript as a sort of working copy of Ben Sira accumulating ongoing textual analysis by medieval scholars. (4) Some of the doublets or tristichs have been written in the margin for sti­ chometrical reasons and should not be considered marginal notes. They belonged to the copy of the main scribe. (5) The scribe who wrote the Persian notes (we called him the “Persian scribe”) is responsible for most of the marginal readings, but not for all of them. His annotations are based on at least one other incomplete copy of Ben Sira from the same family as the Hebrew text of Ben Sira manuscripts A and D.48 (6) This scribe is not the same as the scribe of the main text. This becomes clear on the basis of the distich of Sir 35:26 added into the main text on the basis of another copy. This distich is clearly not from the same hand as the main text. It may also be deduced by the Persian note of Sir 32:1, which claims that the third stich written in the margin by the scribe of the main text is also attested in his other copy. 47 Rey, “Doublets” (forthcoming). 48 Rey, “Relationship” (forthcoming).



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 121

(7) The Persian scribe has an incomplete copy of Ben Sira. Since the notes often agree with the Masada text, could it be that this copy is derived from a copy discovered in a Qumran cave in the ninth century? (8) Many notes are characterized by a specific typology, which implies that we should distinguish them from the notes of the Persian scribe. It concerns infra- and supralinear annotation, notes written at the very edge of the paper, and oblique notes. The origin of the interlinear notes is unclear to us. They do not seem to be corrective, since in each case the Hebrew of the main text is understandable. They appear to be alternative readings, probably also based on alternative copies of Ben Sira or on ancient translations, since various annotations agree with the Greek in particular. This is also clearly the case for the notes written at the very edge of the paper and for the oblique notes. These latter notes have been written by a different hand from that of the Persian scribe. Moreover, as these notes also appear after the last Persian note, they must be based on another (possibly complete) Hebrew text of Ben Sira. (9) Very rarely, notes have been written with a different black ink. These must also belong to another wave of annotation. (10) The interest of scribes in the text of Ben Sira is not limited to letters and words, but also pertains to the text’s structure, as indicated by the ‫פ‬, for ‫פתוחה‬, certainly added by one of the glossators in the margin when the scribe of the main text apparently forgot or neglected to insert blank lines. These observations show a real process of critical investigation into the Hebrew text of Ben Sira in the course of its transmission: before the existence of manu­ script B through the insertion of doublets originated in other copies, quotations or retroversions; and in manuscript B itself through different waves of annotation presumably based on more than one other copy of the text. These elements lead us to conclude that manuscript B of Ben Sira is more than a copy of the Hebrew text: it is a real critical edition of the text dating to the medieval period. The sig­ nificance of this manuscript is twofold: not only is it a witness to the Hebrew text, but in its specific form it also contains an important part of the history of trans­ mission and transformation produced by a series of learned and critical scholars in medieval times.

122 

 Jean-Sébastien Rey and Marieke Dhont

Bibliography Beit-Arié, Malachi. Hebrew Codicology: Historical and Comparative Typology of Hebrew Medieval Codices based on the Documentation of the Extant Dated Manuscripts Using a Quantitative Approach. Preprint Internet English Version 0.1. http://web.nli.org.il/sites/ NLI/English/collections/manuscripts/hebrewcodicology/Pages/default.aspx. Beit-Arié, Malachi, Colette Sirat, and Mordechai Glatzer. Codices hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fuerint exhibentes. 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997–2000. Ben Ḥayyim, Zeeb. The Book of Ben Sira (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973. Corley, Jeremy. “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira: An Investigation of Beginnings and Endings.” Pages 21–47 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. —. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. BJS 316. Providence, RI: Brown University, 2002. Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Putnam, 1903. Karner, Gerhard. “Ben Sira ms A fol. I recto and fol. VI verso (T-S 12.863) Revisited.” RevQ 27 (2015): 177–203. Kister, Menahem. “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 137–65 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. STDJ 36. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lévi, Israël. L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira: Texte original hébreu. 2 vols. BEHER 10. Paris: Leroux, 1898–1901. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “The Doublets in ms A and B of Ben Sira.” In Proceedings Volume for Ben Sira Conference, Richmond, 2017. Edited by Greg S. Goering et al. JSJ Supplements. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. —. “Quelques particularités linguistiques communes à 4QInstruction et à Ben Sira.” Pages 155–73 in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey. STDJ 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “Scribal Practices in the Ben Sira Hebrew Manuscript A and Codicological Remarks.” Pages 99–114 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach / Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner et al. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 66. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. —. “The Relationship between Manuscripts A, B and D.” In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, Jerusalem 26-29 June 2016. Edited by Moshe Bar Asher and Steven E. Fassberg. STDJ. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Reymond, Eric. “New Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Chapter 1 in Ms A (T-S 12.863).” RevQ 27 (2015): 83–98.



Scribal Practices in Ben Sira Manuscript B 

 123

—. “New Readings in Ben Sira 40:9–49:11 Ms B (MS.HEB.E.62 and Or. 1102).” RevQ 29 (2016): 443–56. Rüger, Hans P. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. BZAW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portion of the Book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Segal, Moshe Z. The Complete Book of Ben Sira (Hebrew). 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch mit einem hebräischen Glossar. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965.

List of Illustrations Figure 1: Reconstruction of the quire containing Sir 3:27(?)–16:7 Figure 2: Reconstruction of the quire containing Sir 30:11–38:27 Figure 3: Reconstruction of the quires containing Sir 38:28–50:21 and 50:22–51:30 [3 repeated] Figure 4: The sign for petuhah without a blank line (Prov 1:20) in MS Hébreu 3 – Bibliothèque Nationale de France Figure 5: Sir 35:26, T-S 16.313 recto Figure 6: Sir 31:6, 9 (fol. III verso, T-S 16.312) Figure 7: Sir 42:10–11 (Bodl. MS heb. e.62) Figure 8: Sir 32:1 (fol. V recto line 1, T-S 16.313 // MS F) Figure 9: Sir 31:16 (fol. IV recto, Or 5518.1, line 10) Figure 10: Ductus of the aleph Figure 11: Ductus of the mem Figure 12: Fol. VIII (T-S 16.312) recto line 3 and fol. III (Or 5518.2) recto line 4 Figure 13: Fol. VI (T-S 16.313) recto line 9 (Sir 35:20) Figure 14: Ductus of the tsade

Benjamin G. Wright

The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited Abstract: MS B of Ben Sira has been described as a collated manuscript, whose marginal corrections and annotations preserve readings from other Ben Sira texts. Among these marginalia, we find four glosses in Judeo-Persian on which little work has been done since the early part of the twentieth century. Yet, the glosses prove important for the textual criticism and textual history of Ben Sira as well as for the problem of how many scribes worked on the manuscript. At this stage of research, it looks as if the marginalia derive from the scribe who copied the text and at least one additional scribe. Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, Hebrew manuscripts, Persian glosses

As scholars celebrate the 120th anniversary of the discovery of the Cairo Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira, they can look back at the tremendous advances that the Genizah discoveries have brought about in the study of Judaism from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages in a wide variety of disciplines. But as all are aware, much remains to be done, and many of the conclusions of earlier generations of scholars demand reconsideration after over a century of research. Indeed, as all scholars of Ben Sira know from recent developments, additional fragments of Ben Sira are still coming to light and additional text in the existing manuscripts has been deciphered.1 For those who study the book of Ben Sira, the value of the Genizah manuscripts A–F cannot be underestimated. When the Genizah manuscripts are combined with the Masada manuscript, with the verses from chapter 51 preserved in the Cave 11 Psalms scroll, and with the 2Q18 frag­ ments, scholars now have almost seventy percent of the book in Hebrew.2 In this short paper, I want to reconsider an issue that to my mind has lain dormant for many years, that is, consideration of the marginalia in MS B from the perspective of their material aspects and of the impact that thinking about the materiality of MS B has on text-critical work. Before I go any farther, however, I need to emphasize that, as a scholar of the book of Ben Sira in its ancient context, 1 For new leaves of MSS C and D, see Elizur, “Two New Leaves”; Elizur and Rand, “A New Frag­ ment.” For recently deciphered text in MS A, see Reymond, “New Hebrew Text” and Karner, “Ben Sira MS A.” 2 For a convenient collection of the photographs of all the extant Ben Sira Hebrew manuscripts, see the excellent website constructed by Gary Rendsburg and Jacob Binstein at www.bensira.org. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-008

126 

 Benjamin G. Wright

I realize that I am treading on unfamiliar ground here. I am not an expert in medi­ eval Jewish paleography, nor am I an expert on the social history of medieval Judaism, although a basic understanding of medieval Judaism is necessary for thinking about the Ben Sira manuscripts from the Genizah.3 With these caveats in mind, I want to discuss some issues that arose for me and that began with the Judeo-Persian glosses in the margins of MS B. Scholars who focus on Ben Sira as a Second Temple wisdom book and its implications for studying Early Judaism care mostly about the text-critical value of the manuscripts for reconstructing the Hebrew text of the book, whose primary language of transmission into modernity was the Greek translation made by Joshua Ben Sira’s grandson, according to the prologue that accompanies the Greek translation, along with the important Syriac and Old Latin translations. As part of those text-critical discussions, the marginal corrections and glosses in MS B are often cited simply as “MS B margin.” Several years ago, I traveled to Cam­ bridge to examine the Ben Sira manuscripts there in preparation for a commen­ tary that I am scheduled to write. In MS B, it seemed to me that I could identify at least two different hands that had made corrections or additions in the margin. Prof. Judith Olszowy-Schlanger was kind enough to examine the manuscript while she was in Cambridge, and she confirmed to me that there appeared to be at least two hands, one of which might be the scribe of the main text, and that the writing was “paleographically close to Iraqi script.”4 Since that communica­ tion, I have wanted to return to this issue for the obvious text-critical reason that if MS B has more than one correcting hand, then there might well be more than one text that served as the basis for the marginal corrections, and thus, scholars would want, and indeed need, to distinguish one hand from the other. In other words, we ought to be thinking about MS B(mg)1 and MS B(mg)2 at the very least. The paleography of the marginalia in MS B becomes more complex, since as Prof. Olszowy-Schlanger noted in our communications, some corrections are made in a semi-cursive style rather than in a bookish square script, which makes identifi­ cation and discrimination of different hands even more complex. The best place to begin, it seemed to me, was with the Persian glosses, both for what they might say about the textual situation of Ben Sira in the medieval period and for their paleographical value. To review quickly, the extant fragments of MS B contain four glosses in Judeo-Persian that have text-critical implications 3 On paleography, see Judith Olszowy-Schlanger’s paper in this volume. On the social history of medieval Judaism based on the Genizah finds, see the pioneering work of S. D. Goitein, Mediterranean Society. 4 Private email from 6 September 2009, reconfirmed at the Cambridge conference in September 2016.



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 127

for understanding MS B. The same glossator presumably wrote all four, and thus, for paleographical purposes, we have a fair amount of text with which to compare the handwriting of the marginal corrections in order to see which notations came from the glossator and which might have derived from another (or other) hand(s). As I looked at these glosses and at the marginalia in MS B, I realized that the situation was more complicated than I had first imagined and that the material aspects of the manuscript required some closer consideration in order to assess the transmission of the text of Ben Sira in the Middle Ages. This celebratory con­ ference gave me the opportunity to reprise some of these questions and to hear from scholars whose expertise would be invaluable in trying to answer them.

1 The Material Aspects of MS B Twenty-one folios (forty-two pages) are extant of MS B, which dates from the eleventh or twelfth century and contains portions of 10:19–11:10, 15:1–16:7, and 30:11–51:30 (with 33:4–35:10 and 38:28–39:14 missing altogether).5 The manu­ script leaves have been ruled with a ruling frame, which demarcates right and left margins as well as horizontal lines from which the letters of the main text descend, and each leaf originally had eighteen lines.6 The main scribe has written the text in a fine book hand, although sometimes the letters get compressed when he copied long lines that extend into the margins. On two leaves, VI verso at 36:1 and VIII verso at 38:13, we find the Hebrew letter pe with three dots in a triangle above it at the top of a column, and in two cases, VI verso at 36:18 and XX verso, at the start of the hymnic addition in 51:12, the pe is in the margin. Except for 38:13, it comes at junctures where new poetic material begins.7 Generally, then, it seems to indicate a new section where the text has no physical break or, when at the top of the page, where no blank line can indicate new material. Blank lines as section breaks occur in five places to separate sections: after 37:31 (VIII recto),

5 The leaves are housed at Cambridge University Library (CUL), the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the British Library. 6 I am grateful for conversations with many members of the conference that have resulted in revisions to the original paper. I am particularly grateful to Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, who cor­ rected my understandings of medieval Hebrew paleography and manuscript/book production at several points. 7 See Israel Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique II, iv–v. Lévi thought that the pe represented ‫פיסקא‬, “section,” whereas Schechter and Taylor (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 10) understood it to mean ‫פתוחה‬, as in Maso­ retic biblical manuscripts.

128 

 Benjamin G. Wright

38:23 (VIII verso), 42:8 (XI verso), 42:14 (XII recto), and 51:12 (XXI recto) to signal the end of a section.8 The extant leaves of MS B also preserve two obvious titles: one at the top of IV recto before 31:12, which reads “Instruction about Bread and Wine Together” (‫מוסר‬ ‫)לחם ויין יחדו‬, and one at the beginning of the Praise of the Ancestors in 44:1 (XIII verso), which reads “Praise of the Fathers of Old” (‫)שבח אבות עולם‬. A subscription ends the book: “Until here are the words/sayings of Shim‘on son of Yeshua who is called Ben Sira; The Wisdom of Shim‘on the son of Yeshua the son of El‘azar, the son of Sira; May the name of the Lord be blessed from now until forever.” ‫עד הנה דברי שמעון בן ישוע שנקרא בן סירא‬ ‫חכמת שמעון בן ישוע בן אלעזר בן סירא‬ ‫יהי שם ייי מבורך מעתה ועד עולם‬ If we look at the frequency of marginalia in the extant leaves, we observe that folios I and II, which contain the verses from chaps 10–11 and 15–16, are lightly corrected. Starting at 30:11 (III recto), MS B has many more marginalia than the earlier leaves, and this trend continues until 45:8 where the last of the Persian glosses appears. After that, until the end of the manuscript, we encounter cor­ rections at 46:10 (XVI recto), where a faint tav appears to stand in the margin, and at 47:8 and 9 (XVI verso).9 Single words and phrases that are corrected in the margins usually have a supralinear circle, either empty or filled in, to mark the place that requires correction. Sometimes, when the referent is obvious, the corrector abbreviates the word. Some marginal corrections have vocalizations, and in at least one case, 38:26 (VIII verso), vocalization has been added to the main text. In some passages, the corrector makes two marginal corrections for the same word in the main text, giving synonyms or orthographic variants. These are marked with two separate circles (e.g., 35:20, VI recto). Clauses, most fre­ quently, but especially entire verses that are glossed, have no reference mark, although there are exceptions. Longer text is usually written in the margins at a ninety-degree angle to the main text. Interlinear corrections are unusual in this manuscript, perhaps because the interlinear space is fairly small or perhaps out of respect for the integrity of the main text. Most corrections, then, are made in the margins and are of various sorts, from orthography to corrections of apparent mistakes to full verses. We even find one case of a correction of word division in 32:7 (V recto), and in three instances (at 31:1 [III verso], 32:10 [V recto], and 41:15 [XI recto]) a correction has been crossed out.

8 See Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique II, iv. 9 My thanks to Eric Reymond, who brought the tav to my attention.



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 129

2 The Persian Glosses and Their Implications Much of the basic work on the manuscripts and particularly on the Persian glosses was done over a century ago, and—including my own mea culpa—I have been amazed at how often these early Ben Sira scholars are neglected. The most extensive discussion of the Persian glosses may be found in the work of Israel Lévi in his two major publications on the Genizah Ben Sira, L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, Fils de Sira, édité, traduit, et commenté, (the first part from 1898 and the second part from 1901) and The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (1904). For the Judeo-Persian, in the second part of L’Ecclésiastique, Lévi relied on an article by W. Bacher, which appeared in the period between the publication of parts one and two.10 Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor note two of the glosses in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors (1899). They relied on the expertise of D. S. Margoliouth, who other­ wise is famous (or infamous) for claiming that the Genizah Ben Sira manuscripts were retranslations from Syriac and Persian.11 Arthur E. Cowley and Adolf Neu­ bauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (1897), mentioned two of the glosses but provided no discussion of either. Norbert Peters in Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus (1902) also relies on Bacher, since he admits that he does not know Persian.12 Rudolf Smend in Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch (1906) states that most of the marginal corrections were made by the glossator, but he gives no evidence for his claim.13 Now to the glosses themselves. The four glosses in Judeo-Persian coincide with 32:1 (V recto), 35:26 (VI recto), 40:22–26 (X recto), and 45:8 (XIV verso). Since MS B does not preserve the entirety of Ben Sira, we cannot be certain that there were no glosses prior to the first one. Among the early scholars, only Lévi dis­ cussed all four, although even he did not really explore their implications very thoroughly. Subsequent scholarship has done little more than mention them occasionally.14 I am indebted to Mr. Ofir Haim of the Hebrew University of Jerusa­ 10 Bacher, “Randnotizen.” 11 The comments on the Persian glosses that they include have the initials D. S. M. following the note. On Margoliouth’s views about the Genizah manuscripts, see his Origin of the ‘Original Hebrew’. 12 Peters, Ecclesiasticus, 138. 13 Smend, Weisheit, [Introduction to the Hebrew] 11–12. 14 In the scholarship that I have read, only Beentjes, “Reading the Hebrew Ben Sira Man­ uscripts,” 102, does more than note their existence. The Accordance module for Ben Sira, for example, does not even include the Persian glosses in the Hebrew manuscript database.

130 

 Benjamin G. Wright

lem for examining the glosses and offering me his suggestions on the texts and translations.15 32:1: ‫אין ני[…] אאב אן פסוק איסת פא נוסכהא דיגר‬

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

The first gloss appears in the top right corner of V recto (T-S 16.313). In the small lacuna, Lévi, following Bacher, reconstructed [‫ני[ם פסוק‬.16 An examination of the gloss, however, confirms that the lacuna has insufficient room for five full letters. Mr. Haim has suggested to me [‫ני ]מה‬, [‫ני[ם נא‬, or simply [‫ני ]ם‬. The resulting trans­ lation would be different depending on which reconstruction one prefers. Follow­ ing the first would produce the translation: “This half (verse) is not found with that verse in other copies.” The other two would be roughly equivalent to each other: “This half (verse) is found with that verse in other copies.”17 It seems most likely to me that the negative, which Schechter and Taylor read, makes the best sense. Thus, the gloss refers to 32:2a, the last clause in the line, which overloads it

15 Ben Outhwaite also solicited the opinion of Prof. Ludwig Paul of the University of Hamburg, who kindly sent along his opinion on a couple of readings as well. Prof. Paul’s suggestions will be noted below in the notes. 16 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique II, 152. 17 Lévi (L’Ecclésiastique II, 152) translates, “Cette moitié de verset se trouve avec ce verset dans les autres manuscrits.” Schechter and Taylor (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 56) render it, “this clause is not found with that verse in the other copies.”



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 131

and which the scribe had to extend into the margin. The glossator wanted to note that this clause is not found here in other manuscripts, that is, at the end of verse 1. 35:26: ‫אין פסוק אז נוסכתהא ידיגר ואידר זא הישתה בוד ובי נבישתה‬18

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

The second gloss appears at the bottom left margin of VI recto (T-S 16.313). The text reads: “This verse (is) from other copies and had been omitted here and writ­ ten.”19 The gloss was inserted next to 35:26, and the verse, when compared to the Greek and Syriac, has two additional clauses. Lévi thought that the gloss most likely referred to the second half of the verse, which is now illegible, and was probably a doublet.20 In his estimation, the glossator noted that this part of the verse was not found in other copies available to him but that the main scribe had written it here. This interpretation would be consistent with the intent of the first gloss in that it aims to comment on the text already written by the main scribe without making any major interventions into the main part of the manuscript itself. Yet, it seems more reasonable to understand the gloss as referring to (at 18 Mr. Haim suggests reading ‫ וא‬in place of ‫ זא‬in the second clause in order to make good sense of the gloss. 19 Lévi (L’Ecclésiastique, II, 166–67) reads a negative and translates the end of the gloss as “not written.” Mr. Haim follows other readings that do not have the negative. At any rate, the meaning of the gloss as far as it relates to the main text would be approximately the same. 20 L’Ecclésiastique, II, 167.

132 

 Benjamin G. Wright

least) the last legible line on the page (and perhaps to the illegible last line as well), which is written in a different hand from that of the rest of the text (see below). In this understanding of the gloss, the main scribe, for some reason, left at least one blank line in the manuscript that was filled in by the glossator, who noted that the original scribe had omitted the line and that he had copied it from another text. The last two letters of the gloss are very difficult to decipher, and the word could perhaps be read as ‫נבישתום‬, “I wrote it.”21 If this last reading is accepted, then two possible interpretations present themselves: (1) the glosses are the prod­ ucts of the main scribe who had access to other exemplars and was commenting on the text that he had already produced or (2) the glossator was not the same as the main scribe, but in this case he used the first person singular to note that he—and not the original scribe—had filled in the line. The material condition of the gloss at this point prevents a firm conclusion as to the correct reading, since the letters are difficult to make out, although as I shall argue, I think the identifi­ cation of the glossator as the main scribe is unlikely.22

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

These two interpretations can be adjudicated, at least initially, by examining the handwriting that occupies the last legible line on the page. If that writing is 21 Note the negative in Lévi. Ludwig Paul reads the last word as ‫נבישתום‬, “I wrote it” (personal communication), which is the source of my suggestion here. 22 Lévi, (L’Ecclésiastique, II, v) seems to think that the glossator and the main scribe are the same person, although this assessment differs from the one he makes in part I, where he thinks that there might be up to three different hands at work (L’Ecclésiastique I, xi–xviii).



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 133

compared with the surrounding text, it looks as if the two hands differ. So, for example, the writing in the last line has a distinct slant to the left, whereas the writing of the main text does not. Moreover, the letter spacing between the two hands is different and the letters of the last line are generally taller than those of the surrounding main text. In addition, certain letters are formed differently, such as the tav and the ayin, which in the main text reclines whereas the ayins in the last line stand more upright.23 All these observations lead me to the prelim­ inary conclusion that a scribe different from the main scribe – almost certainly the glossator – added the last line. Consequently, then, the glossator is almost certainly not the same as scribe who copied the main text. More on this below. 40:22–26: ‫נא קול ]מי[ גופת‬/‫פא בינוסכתי אצל בוד אילא פא‬/‫מי מאניד כו אין נא‬

Oxford MS heb. e.62 folio 1a (used with kind permission of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Photo: @ Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford)

In the bottom right margin of X recto (Oxford MS heb. e.62 folio 1a),24 written at ninety degrees to the main text, is a long gloss that opens with a quote from b. Sanh. 100b, which begins with a quotation of Prov 15:15 and then adds a quo­ tation from Ben Sira that is not found in his book.25 After the citation, the glossa­ tor notes, “It is likely that this was not in the original copy but was transmitted orally.” Here I take the phrase “original copy” to mean Ben Sira’s book. Why the glossator has given this citation and comment here remains a mystery, since the 23 In an earlier form of the paper, I had made this suggestion, but I did not include it in the conference version. Conversations with Prof. Olszowy-Schlanger at the conference convinced me to restore it in the paper for publication. 24 Unfortunately the identifiers used in the Oxford Bodleian folios do not follow the chap­ ter-verse order of Ben Sira. For a convenient chart that has the equivalent Oxford folio numbers with the proper order, see, http://www.bensira.org/pdf/bodleian/BodleianConfusion.pdf. 25 Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 100b.”

134 

 Benjamin G. Wright

content of Sir 40:22–26, next to which the gloss is written, has nothing to do with poverty, and I can find no other obvious connection with the main text. 45:8: ‫ אידר בוד‬/‫ תא‬/ ‫אין נוסכת‬

Oxford MS heb. e.62 folio 7b (used with kind permission of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Photo: @ Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford)

The final gloss in XIV verso (Oxford MS heb. e.62 folio 7b) is also written at ninety degrees to the main text. It is unrelated to the text of Ben Sira but is rather a brief note that states succinctly: “The copy is until here.” Apparently, the exemplar that the glossator used to make his corrections was defective and ended at this point. So what do the glosses themselves tell us about the book of Ben Sira and its text as they relate to the manuscript’s provenance, the main text, and the other marginalia? To begin, we can be relatively certain that Persian Jews copied the main text and made the glosses and at least some of the marginal corrections, since the hand of the main text is in an Iraqi/Persian hand. In addition, the glosses are written in Judeo-Persian, and it is likely that many of the marginal corrections are in the hand of the glossator.26 The first gloss seems to be motivated by a desire not to make interventions into the main text but to note differences between it and the glossator’s exemplar. In the second, the glossator explains his intervention into the text of the manuscript, since he has filled in a missing line. That the glos­ sator uses the plural “copies/manuscripts” in these two glosses raises an import­ ant question for which I do not have a ready answer. Did the glossator know more than one text/manuscript of Ben Sira besides the one he used to correct MS B? Or did he use more than one manuscript as an exemplar for corrections? The mul­ tiple corrections for single words might indicate that he did. On the other hand, 26 In addition to Prof. Olszowy-Schlanger’s communication with me, Lévi early on identified the script as Persian (L’Ecclésiastique, x). See also Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew, xiii.



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 135

does the plural simply represent a manner of expression that does not refer to actual, multiple manuscripts? My sense, at least, since the glossator does use the singular in the third gloss, is that he does have access to, or know about, multiple manuscripts of the book. Of course, the fact that the Cairo Genizah has delivered up six manuscripts with variant versions of the text offers good evidence that the glossator might well have had multiple manuscripts available to him. The glosses also prompt questions about the possible origins of MS B. The more or less standard historical reconstruction of the appearance of Ben Sira manuscripts in the Genizah after almost a thousand-year hiatus connects a letter of Timothy I of Baghdad (ca. 800), in which he reports having heard of manuscripts discovered near the Dead Sea, with Karaites in Jerusalem and with Saʿadiah Gaon.27 Moreover, the Genizah contained Karaite documents, and thus, a Karaite connection would not be out of the question. More recently, however, Stefan Reif has questioned the necessity of this reconstruction.28 In addition, Jenny Labendz, examining the rabbinic citations of Ben Sira, and Jean-Sébastien Rey, looking at scribal practices in MS A, have argued independently that Ben Sira probably continued to be copied, studied, and recited within normative rabbinic circles.29 Indeed, Rey argues that “the diffusion of Ben Sira is in fact more evident in Rab­ banite circles than in Karaite ones.”30 In either reconstruction, though, Palestine seems to be the most probable geographical location for the continued preserva­ tion of the Hebrew Ben Sira, at least in the early centuries. Saʿadiah Gaon, in the late ninth–tenth century, offers us a good example of how Ben Sira might have been known widely by the Middle Ages. In his work Sefer Ha-Galuy, written between 931 and 934, most likely in Persia, Saʿadiah cites 26 hemistichs of Ben Sira, which most closely resemble the text of MS A from the Genizah. Moreover, he knows that the book of Ben Sira is written in verses, and, while defending his practice of writing with accents and vocalization against the Karaites, he claims that Ben Sira was written in the same manner.31 Saʿadiah was 27 See particularly Kahle, “Age of the Scrolls” and Di Lella, Hebrew Text of Sirach, 91–92; for a scholarly history of this connection and a critique, see Rey, “Scribal Practices.” 28 Reif, “Genizah and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 690. 29 Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” and Rey, “Scribal Practices.” Saʿadiah figures in Rey’s account. Labendz points out the accuracy of Ben Sira citations in Palestinian rabbinic tradition and theo­ rizes that the text likely moved in the fourth century from Palestinian to Babylonian authorities. She does not go chronologically as far as Saʿadiah, however, and so does not mention him in her article. 30 Rey, “Scribal Practices,” 112. 31 On Saʿadiah’s life and works, see Malter, Saadia Gaon. Of course the Genizah manuscripts do not have vocalization and accents as a rule, although they do appear in several of them. It seems to me that this comment of Saʿadiah deserves more attention with respect to the availability of

136 

 Benjamin G. Wright

born in Egypt and lived in Palestine for a short period after which he resided in Sura as Gaon. He could have come into possession of the text of Ben Sira in any of these places, but since he cites it in a work he wrote while in Babylonia, it seems likely, even probable, that he encountered the text of Ben Sira there.32 Moreover, the fact that MS B and its corrections are written in Iraqi/Persian hands, that the four glosses are in Judeo-Persian, and that Saʿadiah likely learned of Ben Sira in Babylonia might point to Babylonia as the place of MS B’s origin, as Cowley and Neubauer surmised.33 If MS B was copied and corrected in Babylonia, it would then have been taken to Egypt at some later point. Indeed, travelers seem to have moved relatively freely between Egypt, Pal­ estine, and Babylonia during the Middle Ages, and while a manuscript copied in Babylonia could find its way to Egypt, an Iraqi/Persian hand does not necessitate the manuscript’s origins in Babylonia. S. D. Goitein, for instance, documented the extensive contacts between Iraq and Egypt as well as the large presence of Iraqi Jews in Egypt during this period. As he notes, “[D]uring the High Middle Ages men, goods, money, and books used to travel far and almost without restrictions throughout the Mediterranean area.”34 Thus, the existence of prominent Iraqi and Iranian Jewish communities in Egypt much earlier than the eleventh century, and of extensive official contacts between these areas and Egypt, would allow for MS B to have been copied and corrected in Fustat just as easily as in Babylonia. The Persian glosses, then, do not offer us a ready indication of MS B’s provenance. The same holds true of the marginal corrections. We are left, then, with several possibilities: (1) The manuscript was copied and the corrections added in Babylo­ nia, and it was then brought to Fustat; (2) MS B was copied and corrected in Fustat by a scribe or scribes who resided there; or (3) MS B was brought from Babylonia to Egypt where it was corrected against at least one other manuscript whose text relates to that of MSS A and D.35 As I noted earlier, certain paleographical difficulties pertain to distinguishing different hands in MS B. Primarily, while the text is written in a formal book hand, many of the marginalia, including the Persian glosses, are written in an inconsis­ tent semi-cursive script, or at least in a much less formal square-like script. The Ben Sira in the Middle Ages. So, for example, by citing Ben Sira as an example of a text written with accents and vocalization, was Saʿadiah appealing to a text that both he and the Karaites would have found authoritative? If this was the case, then, Ben Sira indeed seems to have been widely known in the Middle Ages. 32 Although, according to Malter (Saadia Gaon), he did a lot of traveling, a fact that might mit­ igate my suggestion. 33 Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew, xiii. 34 Goitein, Mediterranean Society, III, 66. 35 Rey, “Relationship Between Manuscripts A, B, and D.”



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 137

Persian glosses offer a body of text for comparison with the other marginalia, and I will make a few observations on that basis. If we look at the first of the glosses in 32:1 (B V recto) together with the clause to which the gloss refers, it seems clear that the scribe of the main text has written the last clause—the presumed subject of the gloss—including the additional correcting word. Except perhaps for the aleph, the tav, the bet, and the final nun are completely consistent with the hand of the main text elsewhere.

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

So, did the main scribe copy the overloaded verse as in his exemplar and the later glossator then make the marginal note based on his? Or is the glossator the scribe of the main text, who has access to a different manuscript that has the last clause in a different verse? If we compare the handwriting of the gloss and the last clause, as one pertinent example, I want to draw attention to the way that the tav

138 

 Benjamin G. Wright

is made in the glosses compared to the main text.36 The tav of the glossator looks to be a two-stroke letter where the left-hand stroke extends above the top cross stroke. The tav of the main hand, including in the last clause in 32:1, is a threestroke letter that has a slight uptick on the cross stroke at the top, but there is no upper extension of the left-hand stroke, which descends from the cross stroke. Even accounting for potential variation between a book hand and a less formal or semi-cursive hand, these two methods of making the tav are very different. The two different types of tavs can be found in the corrections, as for example on IV verso, and probably represent corrections from the main scribe and the glossa­ tor.37 The following images provide a comparison. Persian Glosses:

Main Text:

36 From conversations during the conference with Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, I understand that the shapes of letters should not be the first priority in looking at handwriting. Since the glosses and other marginalia are written in different types of writing—square script and a more semi-for­ mal hand—some of these comparisons were helpful to me in trying to sort out the questions and problems of trying to distinguish between the main hand and the hand(s) in the glosses and other marginalia. In addition, the number of strokes used to make a letter might also be relevant here. My hope is that a detailed paleographical study of MS B by a medieval Hebrew paleogra­ pher will bring more clarity to the issues at stake. My suggestions are certainly preliminary at best. 37 We see a similar issue in at least one case with the letter khet in a correction at 31:30 (B IV verso).



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 139

Other letters also show a fair amount of variation, although the differences are not always as striking and are more difficult to decide. One example is the aleph. Do we have two hands in the marginalia? My impression is that yes, we do, but I would be anxious to hear what Hebrew paleographers would have to say about this. Glossator (Persian Glosses):

Glossator? (Marginalia):

Main Scribe (Main Text):

Main Scribe? (Marginalia):

140 

 Benjamin G. Wright

Numerous other cases of marginal corrections also appear to be in the hand of the main scribe, although the writing is much less formal than that of the main text. So, in 32:5, the main text reads ‫שיר‬, which is corrected to ‫ שירת‬in the margin.

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

Except for the somewhat inconsistent placement of the middle stroke in the shin, the letters are all consistent with those of the main scribe’s handwriting, includ­ ing the tav. Such cases could be multiplied throughout the pages of MS B. The last example I want to bring in this context is the marginal note on 31:6–8 on III verso.

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.312 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.312 (used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 141

The two verses that are corrected in the margin are in an informal hand, which itself is very inconsistent. Notice, for instance, the alephs in the upper left stichos of the marginal correction. The tav looks like those that we saw in the glosses, and the lameds are much more rounded and have accentuated, rounded hooks at the top in this informal hand, whereas those of the main copyist are much sharper and more angular. Do these differences indicate two different scribes? Or are we faced here with the difference between a scribe writing in a formal book hand and then writing in a quicker, more informal hand in the margin? My initial impres­ sion is that this hand is different from the main copyist’s hand. Finally, there are several examples of marginal corrections, including both single words and longer verses that much more closely resemble the careful book hand of the main text than the semi-cursive, informal script that generally char­ acterizes the marginalia. Corrections to 32:7; 32:14, and 43:11 provide good exam­ ples. 32:14 (V verso)

32:7 (V recto)

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313

Cambridge University Library, T-S 16.313

(used by kind permission of the Syndics of CUL)

43:11 (XII verso)

Oxford MS heb. e.62 folio 5b (used with kind permission of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford; Photo: @ Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford)

142 

 Benjamin G. Wright

To my admittedly untrained eye, then, I think that the examination of the mar­ ginalia that I have conducted thus far, and the evidence provided by the Persian glosses and the other marginalia, suggest that MS B was the product of at least two different scribes. One copyist wrote the main text and a number of the mar­ ginal corrections presumably from another exemplar. A second scribe—the one who produced the Persian glosses—corrected the manuscript according to at least one additional exemplar, which was defective and ended at 45:8. This second scribe seems also to have been responsible for most of the longer alternative verses recorded in the margins, although I have not examined each of these care­ fully enough to decide whether they are exclusively the product of the glossator, and that would certainly be a desideratum. In the cases where two marginal cor­ rections are suggested for the same word, as in 30:12 (III recto), both made by the same scribe, we have to ask with Lévi whether the corrector had two differ­ ent exemplars, or whether he was trying to make sense of an exemplar that was defective or difficult to read.38 A third possibility is that the corrector thought the text was erroneous or that he did not understand the text, and he was trying his best to make sense of it. In any case, I am not convinced that another exemplar necessarily explains this circumstance the best, although that remains a possi­ bility. What, then, can we make of the corrections that come subsequent to the last Persian gloss at 45:8? The single tav that looks to reside in the margin at 46:10 perhaps represents a correction of ‫ תדע‬for the main text’s ‫דעת‬.39 For 47:8 and 9 (XVI verso), from the few letters that are extant, the handwriting looks to be consistent with the hand of the main scribe. So, for example, the final nun of ‫הכין‬. The longer phrase is written in the fold between two pages and is very difficult to make out, and I hesitate to draw any firm conclusions from this sample. The initial letter, qoph, however, looks somewhat angular, resembling those of the main hand, although the lamed of ‫קול‬, as much as can be seen, seems more rounded than the lamed of ‫ נבל‬near it in the margin, which more resembles the lameds of the main text. The passage concerns David, and perhaps the main scribe tried to clarify it by making David explicit, providing a verb for 9a, adding a stringed instrument, and making explicit reference to the Psalms. Why he would make this interven­ tion in only this place after 45:8 I cannot say, but I do not think that he was neces­ sarily following another exemplar here.

38 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique I, xvii, prefers the second explanation. 39 I am grateful to Eric Reymond who suggested the possible solution.



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 143

3 Conclusions In a short paper such as this one, I could not make an exhaustive review of all the marginalia. So, I conclude by way of three succinct points: 3.1 We contemporary scholars of Ben Sira neglect those scholars who initially worked on the Genizah manuscripts to our peril.40 While they were not ultimately persuasive in many cases, they often asked the right questions and pointed in the right direction. Often they have given the most extensive discussions of some features of the Genizah Ben Sira manuscripts. 3.2 If we are to employ the Genizah manuscripts for the textual criticism of Ben Sira, as is necessary for those of us who study the work in its ancient context, we must pay attention of the material aspects of Genizah manuscripts A–F for what they can tell us about the textual transmission of the Hebrew in the Middle Ages. In the case of MS B, much more detailed consideration of its marginalia, espe­ cially with respect to its paleography, will enable us to distinguish the different scribal hands—and potential texts—of Ben Sira there. My initial soundings—and I emphasize they are the initial probings of a non-paleographer—into this issue have persuaded me that we should distinguish at least between the corrections made by the main scribe and those of the glossator and designate them as MS B(mg)1 and B(mg)2. 3.3 Further study of the Ben Sira manuscripts from the Genizah will require an interdisciplinary approach to these issues, and collaboration will benefit those of us who study Ben Sira in his ancient context and those whose interest is Judaism in the Middle Ages. Such collaboration goes beyond the investigation of the man­ uscripts, although for my purposes this is perhaps the most important aspect of the work. So, for example, as a result of conversations about MS B, one of my colleagues who studies Kabbalah has become interested in the extent to which Kabbalists might have known and used Ben Sira. One hundred and twenty years after the discovery of the Ben Sira manuscripts, so much remains to be done. I am sure that in this paper I have only scratched the surface of the many possibilities for research and collaboration that this confer­ ence highlighted.41 40 See Reif’s paper in this volume that makes this particular point. 41 My thanks to Eric Reymond and Jean-Sébastien Rey for reading earlier drafts of this paper and offering valuable suggestions, several of which caused me to change my mind about some of my initial conclusions.

144 

 Benjamin G. Wright

Bibliography Bacher, Wilhelm. “Die persischen Randnotizen zum hebräischen Sirach.” ZAW 20 (1900): 308–9. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Reading the Hebrew Ben Sira Manuscripts Synoptically. A New Hypothesis.” Pages 95–111 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. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Cowley, Arthur E., and Adolf Neubauer. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897. Di Lella, Alexander A.. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Elizur, Shulamit. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010): 13–29. Elizur, Shulamit, and Michael Rand. “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira.” DSD 18 (2011): 200–5. Goitein, Shlomo D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. 3 vols. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967–1978. Kahle, Paul. “The Age of the Scrolls.” VT 1 (1951): 38–48. Karner, Gerhard. “Ben Sira MS A Fol. I Recto and Fol. VI Verso (T-S 12.863), Revisited.” RevQ 27 (2015): 177–203. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJSR 39 (2006): 347–92. Lévi, Israel, L’Ecclésiastique ou La Sagesse de Jésus, Fils de Sira. Texte Original Hébreu, édité, traduit, et commenté. Première partie. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898. (= L’Ecclésiastique I) —. L’Ecclésiastique ou La Sagesse de Jésus, Fils de Sira. Texte Original Hébreu, édité, traduit, et commenté. Deuxième partie. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901. (= L’Ecclésiastique II) —. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus with Brief Notes and a Selected Glossary. SSS 3. Leiden: Brill, 1904. Malter, Henry. Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1921. Margoliouth, David S. The Origin of the ‘Original Hebrew’ of Ecclesiasticus. Oxford: J. Parker & Company, 1899. Peters, Norbert. Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus. Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Reif, Stefan C. “The Genizah and the Dead Sea Scrolls: How Important and Direct is the Connection?” Pages 673–91 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange et al. VTSup 140/II. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Scribal Practices in the Ben Sira Hebrew Manuscript A and Codicological Remarks.” Pages 99–114 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach / Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 66. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017. —. “The Relationship between Manuscripts A, B and D.” In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, Jerusalem 26-29 June 2016. Edited by Moshe Bar Asher and Steven E. Fassberg. STDJ. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.



The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited 

 145

Reymond, Eric D. “New Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Chapter 1 in MS A (T-S 12.863).” RevQ 27 (2015): 83–98. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of The Book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collections Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Wright, Benjamin G. “B. Sanhedrin 100b.” Pages 183–93 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, by Benjamin G. Wright. JSJ Supplements 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

James K. Aitken

The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts Abstract: The manuscript witnesses to Ben Sira display a considerable variety of differences between them, and this picture of variety becomes all the more pro­ nounced when the versions are also considered. The differences raise challenges for exegesis and should be taken into account by exegetes. Some differences, however, are very small and these offer clues by the history of the text of Ben Sira. Ancient proverbial material shows many variations that are comparable to those that we see in Ben Sira, implying that in its earliest stages the text of Ben Sira con­ tained variants. This variation would be representative of the ongoing copying of the texts of Ben Sira throughout antiquity. It also implies that each manuscript has to be treated independently, in the manner of some rabbinic texts. Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, Hebrew manuscripts, textual differences

The differences that exist between the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira and the differences from the ancient versions are evident to anyone working on Ben Sira. Already in an early publication, Schechter observed how the Hebrew manu­ scripts diverged from each other. This was evident from his examination of two manuscripts, which he called “for convenience sake” MSS A and B. He noted two verbal differences (the noun in 4:17 compared to 33:1; and the verb in 6:9 com­ pared to 41:2) and variation in the representation of the Tetragrammaton. He also noted that MS A shows a closer agreement with the Syriac, while MS B corre­ sponds often with the Greek against the witness of the Syriac.1 He had already earlier seen that the manuscripts and the versions represent differing witnesses, noting that MS B and Bmg coincided with the versions in some places, but not in others.2 Schechter concluded that the evidence points to various classes of man­ uscripts existing in the Hebrew itself, but he did not elaborate further.3 König likewise saw the marginal readings of MS B as evidence that several recensions of the Hebrew Ben Sira must have circulated.4 It was thus easy to recognize from the start that the witnesses display considerable variations. How to explain them

1 “Introduction,” in Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 11. 2 Schechter, “Fragment.” 3 “Introduction,” in Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 11. 4 König, Originalität, 8. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-009

148 

 James K. Aitken

and how to treat them in exegesis of the book have, however, remained problems for the past 120 years. The idea of manuscript classes has not proven easy to define, but recogni­ tion that there are significant differences between the manuscripts has been con­ firmed by subsequent discoveries. Since Schechter, many other divergences have of course been observed, and they have been subjected to a number of systematic studies.5 It seems, though, that no one solution can explain features, and prefer­ ences for one manuscript over another, or the explanation of retroversion from either Greek or Syriac, rarely convince. The aim here is to examine some of the dif­ ferences and to consider what they might tell us about the manuscript evidence and the reception of Ben Sira. In calling it the synoptic problem, it is immediately clear what my topic is, but there is a fundamental difference between studying Ben Sira and the New Testament, for which the term “synoptic problem” is most familiar. There is no attempt here to derive a single source behind the various manuscript witnesses and no assumption that there was a Quelle to which each witness may be traced.

1 The Nature of the Differences Two scholars, Beentjes and Wright, have devoted most attention to the nature of the differences between the witnesses. Beentjes has warned against the dangers of “parallelomania” and has cautioned against concluding that a biblical allusion was intended in those cases where it appears in only one manuscript tradition.6 He gives as an example the variants in Sir 40:15b: Mas ‫ׄע ׄל [שן] צר‬ B: Bmg: Gr:

‫על שן סלע‬ 7 ‫ען שן צור‬ ἐπ᾿ ἀκροτόμου πέτρας

The reading of B is closer than the other witnesses to Job 39:28 (‫ )על שן סלע‬and the influence of that biblical passage and biblical idiom (1 Sam 14:4) has been

5 For a review of approaches to the textual history, including a critique of Schrader, Leiden, see Reiterer, “Review,” 26–34. 6 Beentjes, “Preliminary,” 288. 7 The reading of the nun instead of the lamed in ‫ ען‬of Bmg seems to be clear and accepted in most editions (e.g., Sefer Ben Sira, 43; Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira). The reading of MS B text is clearly ׄ See Beentjes, “Errata,” 376. ‫ע ׄל‬.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 149

recognized. 8 However, the evidence of the other witnesses, preferring ‫ צור‬to ‫סלע‬,9 speaks against interpreting here an intentional biblical allusion on the part of the ancient author.10 The scribe of MS B stands apart from the other witnesses, and he most likely modified the verse to conform to biblical wording. Beentjes also drew attention to how some B marginal readings offer syn­ onyms without any obvious distinction between them: for example, ‫ עליון‬for ‫אל‬ (40:1a); ‫ נבראו‬for ‫( ונוצר‬39:28a); and ‫ דופי‬for ‫( מום‬44:19b).11 The trend seems to be that MS B has biblical quotations and allusions that seem secondary, while Bmg, in agreement with Mas, has what we might consider to be the original. The same may be seen in the language where Bmg and Mas contain Aramaicizing words, originally thought to be later modernizations in comparison to the Hebrew words in B, but through Mas now recognizable as ancient readings.12 There is a bibliciz­ ing tradition in MS B and it makes greater sense to see this as a scribal modifica­ tion. However, in a few instances, this relationship seems to go in the opposite direction, with Bmg being secondary. Beentjes suggested that some differences may be accounted for by dictation as a likely cause of sound variants (e.g., Sir 42:6b).13 Wright covers similar ground to Beentjes, observing textual corruption as a natural source of differences, but also noting how doublets, puns and wordplay, biblical quotations, and harmonizations and allusions, all add to the complexity of the manuscript tradition.14 We should also note a helpful study by Voitila, who concludes that word order variation occurs easily in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, especially where the words constitute coordinated items that do not affect the general sense.15 While some variation may be seen in the Greek translation, and it is therefore possible that the translator was free to change the text as he saw fit, the witnesses demonstrate that already in the Hebrew tradition there exists variation and, accordingly, it cannot all be attributed to the translator. Hence, Voitila concludes, it is not possible to determine which of the textual traditions is 8 Smend, Sirach, erklärt, 375. 9 The LXX appears to favor the other witnesses too, since ἀκρότομος seems to be used only to render ‫( צור‬e.g., Deut 8:15), including in Sirach (Sir 48:17). Prato, Problema, 122, favors the reading of MS B over Mas on the basis of the Greek and Syriac, but this is to be doubted. 10 A similar phenomenon may be seen in MS B at Sir 42:15b, where the text coincides with Job 15:17b (Beentjes, “Reading,” 289). Further examples of parallelomania are noted by Beentjes (“Reading,” 306–7). 11 Beentjes, “Reading,” 308. 12 Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 9. 13 Beentjes, “Reading,” 309. 14 Wright, “Preliminary Thoughts,” 89–109. 15 Voitila, “Differences,” 76–83.

150 

 James K. Aitken

the source of the variation. These discussions reveal the complexity of the textual history of Ben Sira—a textual tradition in which there are synonyms, synonymous doublets, transposed verses,16 word order variation, harmonization with the text elsewhere, and harmonization with the biblical text. The Genizah manuscripts add a further layer to the problem. As noted above, the tradition in MS B seems to have been influenced, more than others, by biblical harmonization, attributable to the scribe who copied the manuscript or its pro­ genitor.17 This raises the possibility that harmonizations need not only be with the biblical text but also with later biblical interpretative traditions. A small example of this is the case of Sir 15:14 in MSS A and B, which has been, for many, a parade example of biblical harmonization.18 B: ‫הוא מראש ׄברא אדם‬ Bmg: ‫[א]ל[הי]ם מבראשית‬ A: ‫אלהים מבראשית} א{ ברא אדם‬ Gr: αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον The reading of MS B appears to be closest to the Greek, while A and Bmg diverge. MS B uses the pronoun, has a single preposition in the prepositional phrase, and represents verb and object with standard translation equivalents.19 Both Bmg and MS A align the text more closely with Genesis 1 by specifying the subject as ‫אלהים‬ and replacing ‫ מראש‬with ‫מבראשית‬. It seems likely that Ben Sira was alluding to the creation account, as the verb makes clear, but was probably making an implicit allusion (the text of B), since it is unlikely that it would have been changed to the less explicit from a more explicit wording. Rather, a scribe made the refer­ ence more explicit by utilizing vocabulary from Genesis. As Wright observes, the version of MS A must have had some currency, since Bmg corrects B to the same text.20 It is believed that the scribe understood the prepositional phrase from Genesis as a noun, referring to the act of creation,21 perhaps a stock phrase by his time. There is in this example, however, more than a direct biblical allusion, since the scribe could have modified it further to align more closely with the biblical text. Rather, there seems to be a certain free adaptation, and even oral tradition, behind this. The preposition ‫ מן‬on the expression ‫ בראשית‬is reminiscent of some 16 There are certain “erratic verses” too, which are transposed into different places in different manuscripts (Beentjes, “Preliminary,” 285). 17 See too Goff’s paper in this volume. 18 E.g., Di Lella, Hebrew Text, 121; Wright, “Preliminary Thoughts,” 96–97. 19 See the discussion of Wright, “Preliminary Thoughts,” 96–97. 20 Di Lella, Hebrew Text, 121, proposes that the first two words in MS A are retroverted from a Syriac phrase that we find in Codex Ambrosianus, but he is reticent in his suggestion. 21 Di Lella, Hebrew Text, 121; Wright, “Preliminary Thoughts,” 97.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 151

traditions where the prepositional phrase has become effectively a nominal. This is best represented in the Targums Neofiti and Ps.-Jonathan to Gen 1:1: Tg. Neof. (cf. Frg. Tg): ‫מלקדמין בחכמה ברא דייי‬ Tg. Ps.-J.: ‫מן אוולא ברא אלקים‬ Furthermore, the dropping of the definite article from Gen 1:27 before the word ‫אדם‬ )Adam( is also typical of the Targums, although it does vary in the MT of Genesis 1–3 itself.22 Therefore, while we do have harmonizations with the biblical text, we also need to bear in mind that these texts are being passed down through rabbinic and related readings, and it is not exclusively the biblical text that is being cited. Such differences between the manuscripts affect exegesis of the book, an often neglected issue, and this will be explored below. This will be followed by a discussion of the emergent tradition of multiple witnesses in late antiquity. First, however, our attention will turn to the ancient versions (translations), which themselves represent a textual tradition.

2 Greek and Syriac as Versions The Greek translation of the Hebrew has often been viewed as isomorphic, ren­ dering at the word level rather than the phrase or clause level.23 This results in a Greek that reflects interference from the Hebrew where the translator appears to have privileged the source text.24 As a result, confidence has sometimes been high regarding the fidelity of the Greek to its Hebrew Vorlage. However, it has also been shown that the translator is sophisticated in his renderings, attentive both to the semantics and to the sound of the Greek.25 Similar considerations have been applied to the Syriac version, where confidence in its fidelity to the Hebrew has been overstated.26 Van Peursen has shown well, for example, how the Syriac version contains repetition of words and phrases where the Hebrew has differ­ ent words.27 These appear to be intended for poetic reasons and to strengthen the cohesion of textual units. Indeed, van Peursen’s reasoning on the Syriac may be applied to the Greek as well. Were the Hebrew witnesses considered identical 22 However, above ‫ אדם‬in MS A here, there is a supralinear correction adding the article (‫)ה‬. Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 44. 23 It has been classed as “indifferent Greek” by Thackeray, Grammar, § 2. 24 See, e.g., Wright, “Translation Greek,” 90–93. 25 Aitken, “Literary Attainment”; Aitken, “Literary and Linguistic.” 26 See van Peursen, Language, 16–18. 27 Van Peursen, Language, 63

152 

 James K. Aitken

with the translations, this would require that no changes were ever made to the text throughout history, that the translation must be literal and consistent, and that the status of Sirach in the church and biblical tradition would have been negligible.28 Clearly, all these principles cannot apply. At times, therefore, the ver­ sions are themselves alternative readings of the text. At other times, however, the versions witness to an alternative Hebrew reading, and one that would have been early in the tradition to have been attested in these witnesses. There are in the Greek version subtle changes that reveal the creativity of the translator, contributing to the shaping of the proverbs and developing new meanings in the course of his translating.29 In some instances, it seems that there is a different Hebrew version, now lost, lying behind the Greek,30 and this would imply that it is a further example of divergent Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this may be seen in Sir 11:5. The Hebrew as preserved in MS A and partially in MS B presents a common proverb on the reversal of fortunes.31 Sir 11:5 (A, B) ‫רבים נדכאים ישבו על כסא ובל על לב עטו צניף‬ Many that are oppressed will sit upon a throne. And those with nothing on their mind have borne a diadem. In MS B, but not in MS A or the ancient versions, we also find a doublet: ‫[ע֯ל ׄכסא ושפליׄ לב ׄיעטו ׄצניף׃‬ …] upon a throne And those downcast in heart will bear a diadem. Examining each of the Hebrew renderings, along with the ancient versions, the impression is given that there appear to be multiple configurations of the proverb. Following an older fashion, Rüger identified what he considered to be the earlier versions.32 The reading of MSS A and the first B version were for him older than the B doublet, but he also suggested that Greek (see below) has an older text form with πολλοὶ τύραννοι “many kings.” Closer examination of the evidence is in order.

28 Van Peursen, Language, 16–18. 29 Aitken, “Literary Attainment”; Aitken, “Literary and Linguistic.” 30 See Voitila, “Differences.” 31 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 234, offer a number of parallels: Sir 10:14; 1 Sam 2:7–8; Ps 113: 7–8; and Luke 1:52. On the poetic structure of the passage, and how it picks up vocabulary and themes from the beginning of the poem in 10:19, see Di Lella, “Sirach 10:19–11:6.” 32 Rüger, Text, 67.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 153

For the sentiment of the oppressed sitting on the throne, comparison is some­ times made with Isa 57:15, where God declares that he dwells on high with the crushed (‫ )דַּ כָּא‬and that he will revive the hearts of the crushed (‫)נִדְ כָּאִ ֽים‬.33 Reversal of fortune is a proverbial theme found, for example, in Ecclesiastes, and espe­ cially in Qoh 4:13–16. In Ben Sira, the two halves of the verse are in parallelism to describe a reversal in social status moving from a lowly position to that of a ruler. The second half of the verse is a little obscure, containing the phrase ‫בל על לב‬, which is often translated without comment as “some that none would consider.”34 In such cases, there seem to be attempts to interpret the wording in the light of the Greek and of the doublet in MS B. Many suggest the omission of a word owing to haplography: Smend suggests the addition of ‫עלים‬, giving the meaning “und an die man nicht gedacht hatte.”35 Segal reads instead ‫ בל עלו על לב‬and similarly Lévi ‫“ ולא עלו על לב‬and they do not bring to mind” (for the expression compare Ezek 14:3; Sir 32:12B).36 Fraenkel alternatively emends according to the sense and reads ‫( ענוי לב‬downcast of heart) for ׄ‫על לב‬.37 Perhaps, instead, we should understand the ‫ לב‬as belonging to a fool and that there is nothing within such a “heart.” It is quite possible that the phrase is corrupt beyond repair. In MS B the doublet offers a small modification of wording, although the first half of the verse is unfortunately almost entirely lacking. The differences in this variant lie in the yiqtol ‫יעטו‬, which may be the better reading to parallel ‫ ישבו‬earlier in the verse, and the reading ‫“ שפלי לב‬lowly in heart” for ‫“ בל על לב‬insignificant in heart.” This reading ‫ שפלי לב‬is perhaps better than the obscure alternative, and comes close to the biblical expression ‫שׁפַל־רוּ ַח‬ ְ (1 Sam 2:7; Prov 16:19; 29:23). This phrase also appears in Isa 57:15, with which comparison has already been made. It is possible that this is another harmonization with a biblical reading, but it might also suggest a preferable reading. The point, though, is that both texts offer a version of the proverb that conveys a slight difference in sense in each case. Turning to the Greek version, it appears to represent the same proverb in reverse. The resulting functional meaning is the same but the imagery seems con­ trary to the extant Hebrew versions. πολλοὶ τύραννοι ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ ἐδάφους, ὁ δὲ ἀνυπονόητος ἐφόρεσεν διάδημα.

33 Smend Weisheit, erklärt, 103; Rüger, Text, 67; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 234. 34 So Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 228; cf. Marttila, Foreign Nations, 221 (“one who was never thought of”); Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 109, suggesting the possibility of haplography (“an die man nicht dachte”). 35 Smend, Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch, 18. 36 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 68; Lévi, “Notes,” 12; cf. Rüger, Text, 67. 37 Fraenkel, “Zu Ben Sîrâ,” 191.

154 

 James K. Aitken

Many rulers have sat on the ground, and one not expected has worn a diadem. Some of the features may be explained through textual criticism. The choice of rulers can be a reading of the Hebrew ‫ נדכאים‬as ‫“ נדיבים‬rulers,” which is often rendered in the LXX by a lexeme for king or ruler: for example, βασιλεύς (Num 21:18); δυνάστης (1 Sam 2:8); ἄρχων (Isa 13:2; Ps 47:10). However, the rendering ἐπὶ ἐδάφους “on the ground” (reminiscent of Eccl 10:7) is less easy to explain. The Latin has the same reading as the Hebrew (in throno) which has led to the sug­ gestion that there has been a mistake or a correction in the Greek from ἐπὶ δίφρου “on a seat.”38 It would then have arisen from an inner Greek corruption, but it is unclear if an original ἐδάφους has been changed to δίφρου, or the other way round. We can also see in this Greek version the independence of the translator in choosing ἀνυπονόητος “unexpected,” a rare word, and one not attested else­ where in the LXX. This word does not help to explain the obscure Hebrew and cer­ tainly universalizes the meaning of the verse while removing any specification. What is striking about the verse in Greek is that two supposed corruptions have produced an intelligible proverb that does not change the overall sense, but does reverse the imagery. Given the ability of the Greek version to modify its Hebrew version,39 and given the variability in the manuscript tradition, it may be better to consider this as a separate proverb. As a result, it is subject to its own exegesis and commentary. In that light, it might be compared with sentiments close to Qoh 10:6, in which the rich will sit in a low place (‫ַשּׁפֶל י ֵֵשֽׁבוּ‬ ֖ ִ ‫ ) ַו ֲעשׁ‬in contrast to ֥ ֵ ‫ִירים בּ‬ the fool. Within the one verse, then, we have alternate traditions in the Hebrew witnesses, and another tradition in the Greek, which could be evidence of a third Hebrew tradition, or an interpretation by the translator, or a combination of both.

3 An Extended Example The peculiar nature of the differences between the witnesses is visible through­ out chapter 3 of Ben Sira, where the two Hebrew versions, MSS A and C, differ considerably in very small details, and where the Greek is creative in its own way. Although one of the witnesses, MS C, is an anthology, in this section it is one con­ tinuous text unit, following the order of verses known from the other witnesses. Within the space of three verses there are many differences to note: 38 Smend, Weisheit, erklärt, 103; Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 68. 39 See Aitken, “Subtlety.”



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 155

Verse

MS A

MS C

Greek

3:14a

‫צדקת אב לא תמחה‬

‫צדקת אב אל תשכח‬

ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ πατρὸς οὐκ ἐπιλησθήσεται

3:14b

‫ותמור חטאת היא תנתע‬

[‫וׄתחת ענותו תתנצ[ב‬

καὶ ἀντὶ ἁμαρτιῶν προσανοικοδομηθήσεταί σοι.

3:15a

‫ביום צרה תזכר לך‬

‫ביום יזכר לך‬

3:15b

‫כחם על כפור להשבית עוניך‬

‫וכחורב על קרח נמס חטאתיך‬

3:16a

‫כי מזיד בוזה אביו‬

‫כמגדף העוזב אביו‬

3:16b

‫ומכעיס בוראו מקלל אמו‬

‫וזועם אל יסחוב אמו‬

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεώς σου ἀναμνησθήσεταί σου· ὡς εὐδία ἐπὶ παγετῷ, οὕτως ἀναλυθήσονταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. ὡς βλάσφημος ὁ ἐγκαταλιπὼν πατέρα καὶ κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ κυρίου ὁ παροργίζων μητέρα αὐτοῦ.

There are a number of different types of variation in this passage, some minor and some more significant for meaning. They may be classified as follows:

3.1 Semantic Semantic differences between the choices of words do not always reflect a mod­ ified sense to any great degree, but in some cases can recall different biblical verses. In 3:14a MS A reads “to wipe out” (‫ )לא תמחה‬whereas MS C has a verb with a different nuance, “to forget” (‫)אל תשכח‬, supported also by Greek and Syriac. The “forgetting” works in parallelism with 15a, where the theme of “remembering” (‫ )זכר‬appears in both Hebrew witnesses. Skehan and Di Lella compare MS A to Neh 13:14 where the deeds recorded in God’s book are said not to be blotted out.40 More appropriate, perhaps, is Neh 3:37, which uses the same verb as MS A: ‫ָאתם ִמ ְלּפ ֶָנ֣יָך אַל־תִּ מּ ֶ ָ֑חה‬ ֖ ָ ‫וְאַל־תְּ ַכ ֙ס עַל־עֲֹו ָ֔נם ְו ַחטּ‬ Do not cover up their guilt or blot out their sins from your sight. The topic of God wiping out sins appears elsewhere in MS A at Sir 5:4. We are, therefore, left with two possibilities in 3:14a: either one version (MS A) is a biblical allusion used more than once in Ben Sira, or one (MS B) is a harmonization of the theme with the next verse 15a. The general sense remains the same, but the metaphor differs.

40 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 156.

156 

 James K. Aitken

A similar semantic difference is seen in the verbs in 15b, where MS A has “to destroy” (hiphil of ‫ )שבת‬and MS C has the poetic “to melt” (‫)נמס‬. The verb in MS C recalls Exod 16:21,41 and therefore there may have again been harmonization with the biblical text, although the reading of MS A could be a gloss on MS C. The two verbs in 16a are different, each rendering a slight nuance to the verse. The differences, however, between the verbs are small, and therefore are a further indication of the tendency to vary vocabulary between the witnesses. Similar con­ siderations may apply to the two verbs in verse 16b. In 16b, this tendency also continues, with God once being rendered by ‫( אל‬MS C; cf. Greek), and once by ‫“ בוראו‬his creator” (MS A; cf. Syriac). The versions are divided on which reading they prefer; the latter rendering emphasizes the theological message but other­ wise could be considered synonymous.

3.2 Synonymous Substitution At times the synonym in Hebrew appears to offer no difference in meaning and therefore is unlikely to have arisen from an attempt to modify the passage except where there is clear biblical allusion. In 14b, the alternatives of ‫( תמור‬MS A) and ‫( תחת‬MS C) make little difference other than the fact that ‫ תמור‬is rare and ‫תחת‬ would be a more common choice. In 14b, the two words for “sins” vary, without any obvious semantic distinction. This variation, however, reappears in reverse in 15b, suggesting that there may have been a transposition between the two man­ uscripts. In 15b the two words for “frost” and “cold” differ in the two Hebrew manuscripts, but this has little effect on the similes, other than again resulting in nouns that recall different biblical verses (see below).

3.3 Grammatical Variation Grammatical differences are slight, but one may note the variation of the prohibi­ tion between ‫ אל‬and ‫ לא‬in 14a. In 15a, the verbal form varies between the second and the third person.

41 See Corley, “Respect,” 163.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 157

3.4 Word Order The word order in the section quoted here is consistent, but in the following verses there is greater variation. Thus, in 3:17a the verb is placed in a different position in each Hebrew witness.

3.5 Scribal Error One clear scribal error is apparent in the omission of ‫ צרה‬in 15a. Without it, the expression makes little sense in MS C.

3.6 Minor Changes A small difference may be observed in 16a, where the opening word in MS A is ‫ כי‬but in C is the comparative particle ‫כ‬. Once more the versions are divided: the reading of MS A is supported by Syriac, while MS C is supported by Greek. It is apparent that there are a considerable number of differences between the Hebrew manuscripts, and this may be further illustrated by examination of the rest of chapter 3 in MS C. Some changes are very small and are all the more interesting for that. They do not match some of the major changes that we have seen in the versions, such as the reversal of proverbs or wordplays. Small changes indicate an unstable text. It might be presumed that MS C as an anthology would show greater deviation from other witnesses, especially now that it has been dated to much later than the other manuscripts.42 However, MS C seems to be closer to the Greek version than MS A. Segal and Rüger both favor the readings of MS C, although they are accepting a model of historical priority that is hard to maintain, given the complex picture of relations between the witnesses.43 In light of such a variation, how do we treat these differences on the exegeti­ cal level? Corley is the only scholar to have discussed the differences, when pro­ viding a study of the verses. He compares verse 15 to Exod 16:14, 21 where, in the story of melting of the manna in the wilderness by the morning sun, we find the noun ‫ כפור‬along with ‫ חם‬and ‫נמס‬.44 The verse in MS A seems to reverse the imagery of the manna destroyed by heat into a good thing: the heat represents a father’s

42 See Olszowy-Schlanger in this volume. 43 Segal, “Evolution”; Rüger, Text und Textform; Schrader, Leiden, favors MS A. 44 Corley, “Respect,” 163.

158 

 James K. Aitken

kindness which destroys sin as a bad thing.45 The imagery strengthens the force of the message, and whether a late harmonization or not, highlights the role of God by recalling his provision in the wilderness wanderings. Equally influential, however, might be Ps 147:16–18, which displays the power of God’s word to dispel the cold weather. The vocabulary items from both MSS A and C appear in this one Psalm, so that each witness contains biblical allusions. Meanwhile MS C has its own range of imagery. For instance, Corley raises the possibility that in MS C the “ice” (‫ )קרח‬is a pun on “baldness,” alluding to the age of a father. Meanwhile, the Greek version of this verse also provides its own modified interpretation of the simile and it too is worthy of its own commentary.46 The Sep­ tuagint hapax legomenon εὐδία is striking here, since the usual equivalent for Hebrew ‫( חם‬in MS A) is θερμός and cognates, and for ‫( חרב‬in MS C) is καύμα or ξηρασία. As a translation it is appropriate, since its meaning of “fair weather” is appropriate to the simile of warm weather melting frost. The noun εὐδία is, however, also a subtle translation in Ben Sira, since it can refer to the state of peaceful conditions, whether political or social. In the Rosetta Stone (OGIS 90.11), it is used for the concord or tranquility that Ptolemy V tried to bring to Egypt. This double sense accounts for a pun in the third-century BCE Alexandrian poet Herodas, where εὐδία indicates that everything in Alexandria is relaxing and peaceful, but also alludes to the fair weather, given its location on the coast: … τὰ γὰρ πάντα, ὄσσ’ ἔστι κου καὶ γίνετ’, ἔστ’ ἐν Αἰγύπτωι· πλοῦτος, παλαίστρη, δύναμι[ς], εὐδίη, δόξα, θέαι, φιλόσοφοι, χρυσίον, νεηνίσκοι … Everything you can find anywhere else is there in Egypt – wealth, the wrestling-club, power, the peaceful life, reputation, shows, philosophers, money, young lads … (Herodas, Mimiamb 1.28) In the Ben Sira passage, the simile requires the meaning of “fair weather” for melting frost, and yet the parallelism with θλίψις “turmoil” recalls the meaning “tranquility.” Therefore, the translator has effectively brought out the double sense of the word, and, as a result, the simile works even better in Greek than in Hebrew.

45 Gregory, Signet Ring, 234 n. 43, referring to an MA thesis by Griffin, suggests that fire in Ben Sira is a metaphor for the destructive power of sin. 46 The Syriac appears to be a close rendering of MS A. For further discussion of the Greek of this verse, see Aitken, “Literary Attainment,” 115–16.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 159

It can be seen, therefore, that there is considerable variation between the manuscript witnesses. Some differences are generated by harmonization with the biblical text, but there is not always an easy way to determine in which direction the harmonization has come about. While in our earlier example of Sir 40:15b it was clear how the change came about, it is not always so clear, as in the case of Sir 3:15. Other small changes, and especially the use of synonyms, are partic­ ularly difficult to account for. The differences do require greater attention from commentators, even if some differences are only the contributions of the ancient translators.

4 Variation in the Witnesses The variations in the manuscripts are significant and yet rarely discussed in com­ mentaries and studies. Other than where there is a clear text-critical explanation, there is a tendency to choose one Hebrew text over another without comment. At times there are subtle differences in meaning between the different readings, noted in the case discussed by Corley among commentators, but rarely consid­ ered. This variation could be a feature of proverbial literature and may go back to the earliest stages of the composition of the book of Ben Sira. Certainly the fact that, as we have seen, the Greek often favors one reading and the Syriac the other, indicates that already by the time of the Greek translation significant differences had entered the tradition. For illustration, variation within proverbial material can be seen in the book of Proverbs. These have been gathered by Snell, and then used by Carr as evidence in his advocacy of the transmission of biblical texts by memorization.47 Couplets, lines or parts of lines recur in the same or similar form, although as Fox notes, it is not mere repetition of lines since the cases of recur­ ring couplets with no variation, or nonsignificant variation, are infrequent. More often, there is a recurrence with variation.48 Among the examples noted by Snell and Carr are Prov 16:2; 21:2 and 12:15, verses that are identical but for the slight variation in number (‫ דרכי‬Prov 16:2//‫דרך‬ 12:15; 21:2) and the words for goodness (‫ זך‬Prov 16:2//‫ ישר‬12:15; 21:2):49 Prov 16:2a ‫ כל־דרכי־איש זך בעיניו‬all the ways of a man are pure in his eyes Prov 21:2a ‫ כל־דרך איש ישר בעיניו‬every way of a man is right in his eyes

47 Snell, Twice-told Proverbs; Carr, Formation, 27–28. 48 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 487. 49 Discussed in Carr, Formation, 27–28.

160 

 James K. Aitken

Notably, the second lines of Prov 16:2 and 21:2 are also parallel, varying only in whether they see God as weighing spirits (‫רוחות‬, 16:2b), or hearts (‫לבות‬, 21:2b): Prov 16:2b ‫ ותכן רוחות יהוה‬ but the Lord weighs spirits but the Lord weighs hearts Prov 21:2b ‫ ותכן לבות יהוה‬ Although one might argue in this last case for conscious alteration for literary effect—for example in the case of ‫ׄרוחות‬/‫—לבות‬most of these changes involve only slight shifts in meaning. The third example of Prov 19:5, 9 contains an inverse of negated verb to simple verb, but with the same message: and one who testifies lies will not escape Prov 19:5 ‫ ויפיח כזבים לא ימלט‬ Prov 19:9 ‫ ויפיח כזבים יאבד‬ and one who testifies lies will perish Various hypotheses are offered by Snell for this phenomenon in Proverbs,50 but importantly Fox notes that it cannot be oral formulaic composition because they are not fixed, conventionalized epithets or phrases of the kind associated with oral poetry.51 Fox instead proposes that there are implicit templates for framing proverbs: couplets are formed by being added to monostichic lines along with constant permutation and transformation.52 In the case of Ben Sira the tradition is perhaps less flexible than that seen in Proverbs, if, that is, Ben Sira derives from a written source in comparison with the early prehistory of the book of Proverbs. Nonetheless, the multiple variations within verses in close proximity suggests in Ben Sira a flexible oral tradition. It is perhaps a mistake to seek a historical arche­ ology for the text of Proverbs and preferable to recognize in both Proverbs and Ben Sira the nature of ancient methods of writing proverbial material. Behind the manuscripts is a text form that was preserved, but adapted considerably in the course of transmission, through both memory and copying. It is striking that variation appears early in the manuscript tradition of Ben Sira, as evident from the ancient versions and even from the Masada scroll. We are, therefore, justified in comparing it to the book of Proverbs where we see the degree of flexibility over proverbial material. As has been argued in a recent work, where the text and versions differ so much that it gives the impression of chaos, an alternative view is to appreciate that the differences reflect a scribe’s, or circles of readers’, appropriation and updating of the text.53 Thus, the differences will not lead us to reconstructing the early stages of the text, but will highlight the readers and interpreters of various times. This is compounded by the uncer­ 50 Snell, Twice-told Proverbs, 10–14, 70–73. 51 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 487. 52 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 488. 53 Rey and Joosten, Texts and Versions, vii.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 161

tainty over whether there ever was an original Hebrew text of Ben Sira. This may be considered from a practical viewpoint and from a theoretical viewpoint. On the practical side, the text appears to be a compilation of sayings gathered over time by the author. Its very length over 51 chapters might well mean it existed in shorter versions, or was compiled from shorter versions that had their own inde­ pendent transmission. Certainly, its length and unwieldy structure would mean that it might have been hard for it to have a definitive text.54 Second, on the theo­ retical level, it has been argued that the author never intended his teachings to be complete and that we might never have had one authored version of the book.55 For these reasons, there might have already existed in antiquity variation in the Hebrew manuscripts. This position is further complicated by the ongoing copying of the manuscripts of Ben Sira into the medieval period.

5 Variation in Medieval Manuscripts There has been an undue focus on seeking the Urtext of Ben Sira behind the man­ uscripts. This has been supported by an historical account regarding the origins of the manuscripts that is well known but worth considering with regard to the influence it has had on our perception. Di Lella in his classic study of the Hebrew textual tradition sought to show that the Genizah fragments are essentially genuine, that is, part of a textual tradition stretching back to ancient Hebrew wit­ nesses. To account for this, he reconstructed a historical scenario concerning the provenance of the Genizah manuscripts, if not originally suggested by him alone but already proposed by Paul Kahle.56 He sees a relationship between the events reported in the Syriac letter of Timothy I to Sergius (end of the eighth century CE) concerning the finding of Hebrew manuscripts in a cave near Jericho, and the scrolls found near Qumran.57 This is further supported by him by reference to Qirqisani and two Muslim authors. Di Lella contends that the Genizah Hebrew of Ben Sira came from the Jericho cave, as the text of Ben Sira seemed to be virtually unknown between Yavneh and the ninth century when Saʿadiah Gaon cited some quotations that precisely match the Genizah text. Certainly, there are notable connections between the Karaites and the ideas of the Dead Sea community, as

54 This does not mean that there have not been attempts to identify a clear structuring in the version we have today. E.g., Corley, “Searching.” 55 Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 86–113. 56 Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 16. 57 Di Lella, Hebrew Text, 81–84.

162 

 James K. Aitken

detailed in the publications of Astren, following Wieder.58 In one publication, Astren touches on this question and considers as the “most plausible of theories” the one that accepts that the Karaites had access to the ancient scrolls and used them.59 Others have also considered it possible that in the specific case of Ben Sira the medieval use of the text is accountable by the rediscovery of the text in this tale of cave finds.60 The discovery of Ben Sira provides a direct link from ancient times to the medieval text, without the complications of textual transmission. This acceptance of a direct link back to antiquity authenticates the preserva­ tion of an ancient text in medieval Judaism and severs, perhaps unintentionally, the manuscripts from a long transmission history. Others, however, have doubted this hypothesis of a medieval rediscovery of cave manuscripts. They have instead preferred the view of a continuous preservation of the manuscripts from antiq­ uity as better fitting the evidence.61 Traces of the transmission of Ben Sira in late antiquity support such an understanding. Corley has observed in his discussion of MS C how the book was twice anthologized in Judaism: in MS C and in b. Sanh. 100b.62 He points to the possibly significant point that the same verses appear in rabbinic quotations and in MS C, and further that both sources preserve only proverbial material, without any appearance of the “Praise of the Fathers” in rab­ binic writings.63 MSS A and B meanwhile both contain some rabbinic quotations. Di Lella minimized the significance of the rabbinic quotations of Ben Sira’s work, recording that in the rabbis only 19 hemistichs out of a total of 106 match the wording of the Genizah Hebrew manuscripts—the other 87 hemistichs are very free or merely paraphrases. Rather than this being supporting evidence for Di Lella’s view that the “original” text was unknown until its rediscovery in the medieval period, the rabbinic quotations may be seen as part of an ongoing, if oral and adaptive, tradition. Interestingly, Segal did posit the possibility of verses circulating orally, even if his justification is not beyond doubt. He proposed that the Syriac was based on a Hebrew text in which certain verses were originally current in oral form in Jewish circles of the talmudic period.64 Di Lella counters that these are retroversions of the hemistichs from Syriac.65 This may be too hasty 58 Astren, Karaite Judaism, 161 n. 6, on the connections with early Judaism in Karaite literature. See too Astren, “Dead Sea Scrolls”; Astren “Karaites”. Cf. Wieder, Judean Scrolls. 59 Astren, “Karaites,” 464. 60 Wright, “Ben Sira, Book of,” 91. 61 Schur, History, 15–16. See especially Reif, “Reviewing.” 62 Corley, “Alternative Hebrew,” 16. 63 Corley, “Alternative Hebrew,” 16–17. An exception is the echo of the praise of Simeon (chapter 50) in some liturgical texts. 64 Segal, “Evolution,” 123. 65 Di Lella, Hebrew Text, 22.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 163

a conclusion, especially given van Peursen’s questioning of many of the argu­ ments for retroversion from Syriac.66 The manuscript evidence of Ben Sira can and should be fitted into the wider picture of medieval Hebrew texts. Many scholars have seen the seventh to ninth centuries as a decisive period for the history of Jewish book production.67 It is understood to be a period when there was a systematic writing down of liter­ ary, legal and mystical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. Some of these had previ­ ously been transmitted by memory. But it is not a unidirectional movement since once a text was written, it would also have been passed down orally and there would have been a complex interface between the oral and written. The result is that, for many rabbinic and medieval Jewish texts, it is difficult, or at least not meaningful, to speak of one work. This was especially brought out in the writings of Schäfer and in debate with Milikowsky. The multiplicity of manuscripts for Schäfer raises the question of what a “text” actually is in rabbinic Judaism. The different versions in the manuscripts of one and the same text imply that each manuscript is an autonomous text, rather than different versions of one and the same text (which presupposes an Urtext).68 He advocates that the works cannot be placed in any one time or place, and therefore, as a result, only each manuscript can be so fixed.69 This viewpoint has been taken up in the study of Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer by Keim.70 She adopts the notion of the open book, indicating that the texts go on evolving without ever reaching a definitive closure.71 Significant for Ben Sira, Keim suggests that the open state of books applies particularly to texts that are fundamentally anthological in character.72 Such texts were not deemed sacrosanct. It may be noted in this light, as Olszowy-Schlanger observes from codicological analysis in this volume, that only MS B of Ben Sira is a carefully produced text in terms of paper quality, line drawing and script. All the other manuscripts of Ben Sira have a less formal character about them, appropriate for private study, possibly indicating that less authority was attributed to these texts.

66 Van Peursen, Language. 67 Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts, 34–36; Reif, “Aspects.” I am grateful to Philip Alexander for ad­ vice in this area. 68 Schäfer, “Research,” 146. Cf. Milikowsky, “Status Quaestionis.” 69 Schäfer, “Research,” 151–52. 70 Keim, Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer. For PRE see also Barth., “Medieval Hebrew.” 71 Keim, Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer, 25. 72 Keim, Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer, 25.

164 

 James K. Aitken

6 Conclusion It has been demonstrated that the diverse witnesses to Ben Sira display a great variety in both minor details and in the major communicative messages of the passages. This may be explained both by the character of proverbial literature in antiquity and by the transmission of Hebrew manuscripts into the medieval period. Greater recognition may be given to this variation if it is accepted that the Hebrew manuscripts had a long transmission history and were not merely dis­ covered in the early Middle Ages. The task for scholars is to provide commentary on each of the witnesses; within this process one should include the ancient ver­ sions, both as testimonials to a Hebrew text form and as early reading traditions of that text form. Although it has not been explicitly stated, we are returning to the stage of cre­ ating synoptic editions of Ben Sira manuscripts that has direct parallels with the new discussions in the study of rabbinic literature.73 Schäfer argues against the existence of an Urtext for much of rabbinic literature and therefore accepts that the classical editing method cannot apply. While Schäfer has received some crit­ icism for his editorial method,74 the key point is that current understanding of a text and its variants differs from that of classical scholarship or the Wissenschaft des Judentums in the same spirit.

Bibliography Aitken, James K. “The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach.” Pages 95–126 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Joosten and Jan Rey. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. —. “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 et al. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 66. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. Astren, Fred. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Medieval Jewish Studies: Methods and Problems.” DSD 8 (2001): 105–23. —. “Karaites.” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1:462–65. —. Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding. Columbia, DC: University of South Carolina Press, 2004.

73 Cf. Egger-Wenzel in this volume. 74 See Milikowsky, “Status Quaestionis” and the reply by Schäfer, “Once Again.” More recently, Schäfer and Milikowsky, “Current Views.”



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 165

Barth, Lewis M. “Is Every Medieval Hebrew Manuscript a New Composition? The Case of Pirqé Rabbi Eliezer.” Pages 43–62 in Agendas for the Study of Midrash in the Twenty-first Century. Edited by Marc L. Raphael. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, 1999. 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. —. “The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: Preliminary Remarks Towards a New Text Edition and Synopsis.” Pages 283–91 in “Happy the One Who Meditates On Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. —. “Errata et Corrigenda.” Pages 375–77 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. —. “Reading the Hebrew Ben Sira Manuscripts Synoptically: A New Hypothesis.” Pages 95–111 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Repr., Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Corley, Jeremy. “An Alternative Hebrew Form of Ben Sira: the Anthological Manuscript C.” Pages 3–22 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. —. “Respect and Care for Parents in Sirach 3:1–16.” Pages 139–72 in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Angelo Passaro. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2012/2013. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. —. “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira. An Investigation of Beginnings and Endings.” Pages 21–47 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. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45 (1964): 153–67. —. “Sirach 10:19–11:6: Textual Criticism, Poetic Analysis, and Exegesis.” Pages 157–64 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor. ASOR 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. —. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 18B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Fraenkel, Siegmund. “Zu Ben Sîrâ.” ZAW 21 (1901): 191–92. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Keim, Katharina E. Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer: Structure, Coherence, Intertextuality. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 96. Leiden: Brill, 2017. König, Eduard. Die Originalität des neulich entdeckten Hebräischen Sirachtextes: textkritisch, exegetisch und sprachgeschichtlich untersucht. Freiburg: Mohr, 1899. Lévi, Israel. “Notes sur les Ch. VII. 29-XII. 1 de Ben Sira Édités par M. Elkan N. Adler.” JQR 13 (1900): 1–17.

166 

 James K. Aitken

Marttila, Marko. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Milikowsky, Chaim. “The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature.” JJS 39 (1988): 201–11. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. van Peursen, Wido T. Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study. Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 16. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Prato, Gian L. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Reif, Stefan C. A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000. —. “Aspects of Mediaeval Jewish Literacy.” Pages 134–55 in The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe. Edited by Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. —. “Cairo Genizah.” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1:105–8. —. “Reviewing the Links between Qumran and the Cairo Genizah.” Pages 652–79 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 23–60 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. Rey, Jean-Sébastien, and Jan Joosten, eds. The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Rüger, Hans P. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. BZAW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach, Ben Sira: übersetzt und erklärt. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schäfer, Peter. “Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis.” JJS 37 (1986): 139–52. —. “Once Again the Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature: An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky.” JJS 40 (1989): 89–94. Schäfer, Peter, and Chaim Milikowsky. “Current Views on the Editing of the Rabbinic Texts of Late Antiquity: Reflections on a Debate after Twenty Years.” Pages 79–88 in Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine. Edited by Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Schechter, Solomon. “A Fragment of the Original Text of Ecclesiasticus.” Expositor 5,4 (1896): 1–15. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Schrader, Lutz. Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches. BBET 27. Frankfurt: Lang, 1994. Schur, Nathan. History of the Karaites. BEATAJ 29. New York: Lang, 1992.



The Synoptic Problem and the Reception of the Ben Sira Manuscripts 

 167

Segal, Moshe Z., “The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira.” JQR 25 (1934/35): 91–149. —. Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958. Repr., 4th ed. 1997. Sirat, Colette. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 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. —. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch mit einem hebräischen Glossar. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Snell, Daniel C. Twice-told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Thackeray, Henry St.-J. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Voitila, Anssi. “Differences in Order of Sentences, Lines, and Verses in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira.” BIOSCS 41 (2008): 76–83. Wieder, Naphtali. The Judean Scrolls and Karaism. London: East and West Library, 1962. Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira, Book of.” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1:91–93. —. “Translation Greek in Sirach in Light of the Grandson’s Prologue.” Pages 75–94 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. —. “Preliminary Thoughts about Preparing the Text of Ben Sira for a Commentary.” Pages 89–109 in Die Septuaginta: Text—Wirkung—Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. WUNT I/325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada: with Introduction, Emendations and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965.

Renate Egger-Wenzel

Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot Abstract: After a clarification of terminology, this article offers a brief history of how multilingual texts have been presented, and introduces some famous poly­ glots dating from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. The book of Ben Sira had been included in these polyglots, but the Hebrew text first became available through the discovery of the Genizah manuscripts in Cairo in 1896. Cowley – Neu­ bauer (1897) and Vattioni (1968) initiated work on a polyglot presentation. Within Friedrich Reiterer’s FWF research project at Salzburg, the preparation of a Ben Sira polyglot was undertaken as part of the production of a synoptic presenta­ tion of verse numbers for multiple Ben Sira editions (Zählsynopse). This polyglot, including the new discoveries of Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts, is now being completed by Egger-Wenzel and will be published in due course. Keywords: Ben Sira, Complutensian Polyglot, Polyglot Bibles, synopsis, Walton Polyglot

1 Preliminary Remarks The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to what we have done in a research project in Salzburg that began as early as 1993 under Professor Friedrich V. Reiterer’s guidance. We have since then collected and prepared the text of Ben Sira/Sirach/Ecclesiasticus in its main languages of Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin. The ultimate aim has been to prepare a commentary, but before that we needed to have a reliable textual base. That is why we started to compile a poly­ glot. We know that we have not discovered America. We appreciate that we have been standing on the shoulders of others. In that connection, it may be helpful to look back at the origins and history of column layouts before we address current research. With such a look at the past, I am fully aware that much of what I have to say may be familiar, but I hope that at the same time it will help to establish a background for our modern efforts and perhaps even add some spice to what could otherwise be a somewhat technical discussion.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-010

170 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

2 Terminology There may be some doubt about what we should call a text that is presented in several languages, especially if it is a biblical or, to use the Catholic terminology, a deuterocanonical work. Some might refer to it as a synopsis, while others will define it as a polyglot. In the study of biblical texts, there is a fairly long tradition of compiling such materials, especially after the invention of printing made pos­ sible the distribution of the Bible to a broader public. Let us first consult the dictionaries to uncover the origins of the terms “syn­ opsis” and “polyglot” and to acquaint ourselves with their definitions. Synopsis comes from the root συνοράω meaning “to see together or at the same time” or “to see in one view, see at a glance” and also “to take a general view.” If one checks the adjective συνοπτικός then one uncovers an additional nuance “seeing the whole together, taking a comprehensive view,” and taking σύνοπτος into account we may even add “in full view.”1 An example of such a synopsis might be our Salzburg Zählsynopse zum Buch Ben Sira, which offers a line-by-line listing of the sometimes divergent numeration of Ben Sira verses in their diverse published editions.2 On the other hand, the root of polyglot is πολύγλωσσος, which is translated as “many-tongued”3 and seems from its very origins to have had a connection with the Bible, with particular reference to the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11). According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “polyglot” is “a book containing versions of the same text in several languages; especially: the Scriptures in several languages.”4 However, multilingual texts can already be found in antiquity, as for example the one composed in the name of Darius the Great and including Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian script, within the Behistun Inscription (before 486 BCE). Another famous exemplar is the Rosetta Stone (196 BCE), containing a decree issued by Ptolemy V Epiphanes in Egyptian hieroglyphic and demotic scripts as well as Greek. Both these stone inscriptions were crucial for the decipherment of ancient languages.

1 Liddell and Scott, Intermediate. 2 Reiterer, Zählsynopse. 3 Liddell and Scott, Intermediate. 4 Merriam-Webster, s.v. “Polyglot.”



Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 171

3 History In the following short historical overview of multilingual Bible texts, Origen’s Hexapla (ca. 230–240) may be seen as a starting point, even if the author actually used only two languages, namely, the Hebrew5 with a Greek transliteration, and Greek in four versions: Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint in Origen’s recension, Theodotion, and, in addition, a separate column for variants.6 The voluminous Hexapla with its estimated 6000 folios, abandoning the scroll format for practi­ cal reasons, might have been bound in 40–50 volumes.7 Origen’s presentation of information in columns seems to have been followed by Eusebius in his Chron­ icon (before 325), a world chronicle that starts off with Abraham. His second volume provides data in tabulated format. This physical method of presentation is closely connected to the development of the new format of the codex. That format was employed for writing the Greek Bible text in columns, as we see in the two oldest uncial codices, namely Codex Vaticanus (ca. 325–350) and Codex Sinaiticus (ca. 330–360).8 Forerunners of texts in columns are already found in the Qumran and other Dead Sea poetical passages (as, for example, in manuscript Mas 1e – Mas Psa). Here we may also mention the Masada Scroll of Ben Sira, as well as MSS B, E and F (partially even D) of Ben Sira which are also written in columns. Nobody in antiquity called Origen’s work a polyglot. This expression came into use much later, perhaps in the early sixteenth century. According to the defi­ nitions offered earlier, one could say that the Hexapla is a mixture of polyglot and synopsis.

3.1 Famous Polyglots The world’s most often reproduced book, the Bible, was chosen by Johannes Gutenberg when he created his revolutionary technique of printing books (1452– 1454). The new Humanism, the amassing of encyclopedic knowledge, the exten­ sive travel, trade and political ambitions around the world, and of course the conflict between the Catholic Church and Protestants, as well as Martin Luther’s 5 Compare the discussion as to whether a first Hebrew column existed, as in Jenkins, “First Col­ umn,” 88–102; Norton, “Observations,” 103–24; Flint, “Columns I and II,” 125–32. 6 The book of Psalms even seems to have had, according to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 16.1–4, nine columns. 7 Cf. Fischer, Text, 133–38. 8 Norman, “Origen’s Hexapla”; cf. Grafton and Williams, Christianity, 323.

172 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

translation of the Bible into German (starting 1521) from its original sources of Hebrew and Greek—all these factors brought about in sixteenth-century Europe an increase in the reproduction of books from some hundreds to about 200 million items.9 The simpler technique of production (compared to copying a text by hand) also made books affordable for ordinary people. Bible scholars on the other hand had more sophisticated interests. They wanted to be provided with the original sources, and such a provision was instrumental in the development of textual criticism in modern times. It also led to the printed presentation of par­ allel biblical texts in different languages, starting off with the famous Spanish Complutensian Polyglot produced under the auspices of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (Alcalá de Henares, 1514–1517). That work generally includes texts in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic (then called Chaldean), and Latin. For the book of Ecclesiasticus the texts presented are the Septuagint version based on Codex Vaticanus, with an interlinear Latin translation made by Juan de Vergara,10 and Jerome’s version, the Vulgate.11 In order to update the Spanish Complutensian Polyglot, and as a kind of self-promotion by the Spanish King Phillip II, who saw his country as the center of the world, the Antwerp Polyglot was compiled by Christopher Plantin of Antwerp, who also included Hebrew print learnt from the Venetian printer Daniel Bomberg (1483–1553). It includes texts in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin. The book of Ecclesiasticus is presented in three columns: first the Vulgate, second the LXX, and third a Latin interpretation of the Greek. The Paris Polyglot and Walton Polyglot were based upon the Antwerp Poly­ glot. The former polyglot added the Samaritan Pentateuch and Arabic texts, the latter also Ethiopian and Persian texts. Naturally, for Sirach, the Hebrew was missing. The Paris Polyglot includes texts in Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean (Aramaic), Syriac, Samaritan Hebrew, Arabic and Latin. For the book of Ecclesiasticus, the Syriac follows the version of the Maronite Gabriel Sionita, published in 1635, which was also adopted by the Walton Polyglot in 1657. But the prize for including the greatest number of languages is undoubtedly won by the Walton Polyglot, edited by Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester in northwest England. It includes texts in Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean (Aramaic), Syriac, Samaritan Hebrew, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Persian and includes Latin translations of the oriental text versions. Sirach is displayed in three columns, in the upper part as follows: at the left margin the Vulgate, in the centre the LXX with the Latin 9 Buringh and van Zanden, “Charting,” 417. 10 Cf. Sáenz-Badillos, Filología, 327; Lee, “Complutensian Polyglot,” 99. 11 As Lee’s article, “Complutensian Polyglot,” 95-108, shows, it can be worthwhile to consult the Complutensian in order to obtain information about rare words in the text of Sirach.



Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 173

translation alongside; in the middle part the Syriac version on the left side with the Latin translation on the right; and in the lower part an Arabic version,12 again with a Latin translation. It is indeed a typographical masterpiece since the same scriptural text is presented in different languages on the same page. In the Walton Polyglot the number of languages used increased from four (as in the Compluten­ sian) to nine.13 This way, scholars were (perhaps) able to compare the texts easily.

3.2 A Polyglot Presentation by Cowley – Neubauer (1897) Some centuries later, following the breaking news in the early summer of 1896 that Solomon Schechter had discovered a manuscript page of the original Hebrew of Ben Sira with the help of the two sisters Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson, Adolf Neubauer and Arthur Ernest Cowley in Oxford made great efforts to outdo the scholar at the University of Cambridge. In a great hurry, after finding some Ben Sira manuscript pages at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, they published their volume a few months later, early in 1897, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11) together with the Early Versions and an English Translation.14 Even the first manuscript page containing Sir 39:15b–40:8b (CUL Or.1102), which had been deciphered by Solomon Schechter and had got the ball rolling, was included by Cowley and Neubauer. They presented on a double page the “Hebrew text, with the marginal notes and glosses arranged as in the MS”15 on the top right. An English translation appears on the top left with footnotes and references. Below the Hebrew, the authors added the Syriac text according to de Lagarde’s edition and, on the opposite side, Swete’s version of the Septuagint (2nd vol., 1891). Separately, after this polyglot of Sir 39:15b–40:8b, the matching text of “the Old Latin, according to Lagarde’s edition of the Codex Amiatinus”16 is presented, with the numbering of the Greek, including the divergent numbering of de Lagarde in brackets. A glossary of words in the Ben Sira manuscript not 12 In fact, there are two Arabic versions (cf. Samaan, Sept traductions arabes, 20–22, 148–58). 13 Miller, “Paris Polyglot Bible,” 3: “The increasing number of languages able to be printed, from four in Alcala to nine in London was a direct result of the recovery of manuscripts that was itself made possible by the increasing presence of European merchants, missionaries, travelers and ambassadors in the Levant.” 14 For more details, see Stefan C. Reif’s contribution “Some First Editions” in the present vol­ ume. 15 Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew, xiv. 16 Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew, xiv; cf. de Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 283–378. This Codex might be the oldest copy of Jerome’s text, written at the beginning of the eighth century in Northumbria.

174 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

found in the Tanak, and a collection of that sage’s proverbs transmitted in talmu­ dic and rabbinic literature and covering all 51 chapters, are added.

3.3 The Polyglot of a Single Book – Vattioni’s Ecclesiastico (1968) Almost seventy years later Francesco Vattioni took up the challenge of compiling a polyglot of the Book of Ben Sira. Vattioni’s Ecclesiastico,17 even if he does not call it a “polyglot,” was printed in 1968, and therefore does not include manuscript F, which was first published by Alexander Scheiber in 1982.18 The author presents a running text of the four main traditions. At the top left of a double page, one finds Ziegler’s edition from the Septuagint Institute in Göttingen, which had just been published three years earlier in 1965, reproduced here without any text-crit­ ical notes. This lack of annotation also applies to the Latin text presented below the Greek on the left, and to the Syriac text on the opposite side, bottom right. Only the Hebrew manuscripts at the top right are presented with notes, citing the marginal readings of the fragments, especially that of manuscript B, but also with useful cross-references to talmudic readings and some relevant bibliograph­ ical data. These are located between the texts of the Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac. Vattioni’s Latin text also offers what was then the recently published Biblia Sacra edition of 196419 and the Syriac text edition of de Lagarde,20 but the latter without the different numbering of the original edition. The author follows the confused numbering of chapters 30–36 in the Greek tradition following the practice of Ziegler who puts the numbering of the Vulgate in brackets. For the Hebrew, Vattioni either presents an eclectic version by citing the texts of up to three manuscripts, line after line, sometimes even a text from the mar­ ginal glosses of the fragments, or he cites parallel texts in the notes. This method of interlacing makes it fairly difficult to compare the single Hebrew manuscripts with each other, or with those texts in the margin. Vattioni’s purpose in putting together the four main text traditions in 1968 was to remove some of the obstacles in the way of scholars and students who wished to research the book of Ecclesiasticus. His undertaking such a huge task 17 Vattioni, Ecclesiastico (1968). This was not the first attempt to put a polyglot of a single bib­ lical book together—see, e.g., Agostino Giustiniani’s polyglot of the books of Psalms (published in 1516). 18 Scheiber, “Leaf,” 179–85. 19 Biblia sacra iuxta latinam Vulgatam (1964). 20 De Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace.



Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 175

may have been inspired by the then recently discovered Masada manuscript of Ben Sira in 1964, even if a complete text edition of the Hebrew Ben Sira was not yet available, and also by the new text editions of the Latin in 1964 and of the Greek in 1965.21

3.4 The Salzburg Ben Sira Polyglot Let me now offer a few words about how the project for a Ben Sira Polyglot started in Salzburg. We were still students when Professor Friedrich V. Reiterer asked Ingrid Krammer, Anton Fersterer and myself to join his Ben Sira project in 1993. In the first year, we only collected bibliographical data and built up a Ben Sira library. While reviewing most of the literature, we realized what a mislead­ ing mess the authors made of citing texts of Ben Sira, especially within chapters 30–36, because of the confusion of manuscript leaves in the Greek tradition.22 This led us to prepare a normative numbering by comparing the most important text editions in Hebrew (Sefer Ben Sira 1973,23 and later on Beentjes 199724 [repr. 2006]); in Syriac (Calduch-Benages-Ferrer-Liesen 200325 [2nd edition 2015] plus de Lagarde 1861,26 and Mosul 1951 repr.)27; in Greek (Ziegler [1965] 2nd ed. 1980,28 Rahlfs [1935] 9th ed. 1979,29 and Swete [1900] 4th ed. 192230); and in Latin (1964 Rome Vulgate,31 and the 1975 Stuttgart edition32). Additionally, we compared the numbering of the English-language New Revised Standard Version (1989),33 the German Einheitsübersetzung (1980),34 the revised translation of Luther’s text (1984)35 and Sauer’s translation (1981).36 21 Cf. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, IX. 22 Note the description in Reiterer, Zählsynopse, 27–49. 23 ‫ספר בן סירא‬/The Book of Ben Sira (1973). 24 Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (1997). 25 Calduch-Benages et al., La sabiduría del escriba/Wisdom of the Scribe (2003). 26 De Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi (1861). 27 Biblia Sacra iuxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta 2: 204–55. 28 Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (1965). 29 Rahlfs, Septuaginta (1935). 30 Swete, Old Testament (1922); cf. Swete, “Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach” (1900), 269–272, 286. 31 Sapientia Salomonis. Liber Hiesu Filii Sirach (1964). 32 Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam (1969). 33 Bible: The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal Books (1989). 34 Die Bibel. Altes Testament und Neues Testament. Einheitsübersetzung (1980). 35 Die Bibel. Nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (1985). 36 Sauer, Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira) (1981).

176 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

We needed a reliable textual base in Hebrew and in Syriac to match the Greek version of Ziegler and the Vulgate, and in order to solve the highly complicated numbering problem in the different text traditions and important translations of Ben Sira. But without access to the original manuscripts in Hebrew and Syriac, no comparison was possible that dealt with all the content down to the smallest poetic unit. At that time I ordered copies and microfilms from all the relevant locations, and contacted especially Professor Stefan C. Reif, Director of the Tay­ lor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library. In the 1990’s there was no Bible computer program in existence that con­ tained the Hebrew or Syriac texts of Ben Sira, as is now available through the Accordance Bible Software. George Kiraz had just started to work with the Syriac New Testament. We had to decide which fonts we would use in Hebrew and in Syriac. In order to input the texts onto the computer, I had to type the Hebrew with a font from the program Logos© on my own, still following at that time the Ben Ḥayyim edition. For the Syriac we used the font from the program Universe©. There were three of us who did the typing: Ingrid Krammer, Jacob Matthew, a Syr­ iac-Orthodox student from India, and I. Later Aho Shemunkasho converted the text into a new Syriac font developed by George Kiraz, and he also prepared all the text-critical notes on the Syriac, including all available Syriac manuscripts, for our Ben Sira Polyglot. In brief, the result in 1996 was our study edition (“Studientext zu Ben Sira”) which first presented the texts verse by verse, and then in a later format in which each colon was independently treated. The “Studientext” only functioned as a working tool and was never published. This was the early basis for the pub­ lished numeration used in the Zählsynopse which was called the “Reiterer Ge­­ samtzählung.” It is based on GI and employs a system of sigla to note all the additional texts in the other versions.

4 Methodology 4.1 “Studientext zu Ben Sira” (1996) In this polyglot text, which was at the time still presented verse by verse, we fol­ lowed the Greek numbering of GI in the left margin. In the first line we set the Hebrew text, where it has survived, according to the Sefer Ben Sira of Ben Ḥayyim (1973). When this Hebrew edition of Ben Sira was printed, manuscript F had not yet been discovered. To take account of that fragment once it was available,



Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 177

using Scheiber’s publication of manuscript F (1982),37 we inserted its readings in the relevant places (Sir 34[31]:24a–31d; 35[32]:1a–7b; 36[33]:1a–b; 35[32]:24a–b; 36[33]:2a–b, 4a–8b).38 The second line of our polyglot includes the Greek text according to the Ziegler edition, with the addition of Rahlfs’s variants. GI and GII differ in font size. For GII, a smaller size is used. Then the third line presents the Peshitta text of Mosul (Biblia Sacra), followed by the text of the Vulgate. We marked the single cola by placing spaces between them, and in the right margin, we noted the cola in lower case, together with the Hebrew manuscript in capital letters.

4.2 The Ben Sira Polyglot in Progress (2003–) After the Zählsynopse was published, a whole group of researchers (9–10 people) began to work on the polyglot according to their own specialism in languages. The basis was the “Studientext” which was then expanded by the addition of as much information as possible in four columns, including footnotes. Reiterer’s Gesamtzählung, based on GI, is found on the left-hand side and records every single colon separately. The second column includes each text tradition in a sepa­ rate line: first, according to the numbering in the LXX, second the Latin, third the Hebrew manuscripts, and fourth the Syriac in three different variations: Codex Ambrosianus, the London manuscript, and the text of de Lagarde together with the Mosul edition. The subsequent lines show the New Revised Standard Version, three German translations (the Einheitsübersetzung, Luther and Sauer), as well as a Spanish39 and a French translation (TOB).40 To the left of the Hebrew text we find the particular manuscript mentioned, and the last column shows the different numberings within the text editions, for example the Ben Ḥayyim text marked with a s and the Beentjes text with Be in superscript. I have myself in recent years checked the Hebrew readings against the original manuscripts. In the third line of the Syriac variants, the differences of numbering between de Lagarde and Mosul are given. Occasionally one also finds textual variations between the latter two editions. The modern translations are preceded on the left by a reference to the relevant text with its internal numbering. The footnotes contain additional infor­ mation: differences between the text editions consulted, variations, especially in the available Syriac manuscripts, notes on the presentation of the Hebrew 37 Scheiber, “Leaf,” 179–85. 38 This is still the numbering according to Ziegler. 39 La Santa Biblia (1995). 40 Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible (1988).

178 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

manuscripts, doubtful readings, differences in the text order between Greek and Hebrew, as well as some notes about the textual basis on which the modern trans­ lations have been made. As you can imagine, including all this information creates challenges for the layout and the printing processes. So we have had to reduce drastically the “Studientext” to the main versions in Syriac, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, adding only essential footnotes. In recent years, we have, with the help of the publishing house Walter de Gruyter, been seeking an adequate program which can deal with all the formatting challenges. One, still imperfect draft of how the polyglot should look like41 has the layout as follows: The main text versions, with their numbering, are centered in the middle of a double page: On the centre left the Hebrew MSS, with the marginal readings from the fragments, and with the identification of the MSS next to the page fold, are set line by line. On the far left, we see the column with the Syriac text. The right page has next to the fold Reiterer’s “Gesamtzählung”, followed in the next column by Ziegler’s Greek text and on the far right the Latin version (Vetus Latina with Neo-Vulgate variants). Every single colon is set separately. This way of presenting the text is necessary in order to track the occurrences of the smallest text units and their content in the different languages. How this has been done is described in detail in the Zählsynopse.42 What I have described up to now represents only the first part of the projected research tool. In the second part, our intention is to provide the Hebrew text of Ben Sira as a synopsis with all the variants of the relevant text editions. Such a text will assist the researcher in identifying the content and the poetic structure. It is our hope that the project will reach its full fruition within about a year and arrangements have already been made for its publication.

5 Conclusion The overall importance of this new polyglot lies not only in its contribution as a text edition, especially for the Syriac version, and in the use of the most recently discovered Hebrew fragments. It also represents a vast improvement on Vattioni; it allows the specialist to consult and compare at a glance even the smallest units of Ben Sira in all the main language traditions; and has major significance for 41 I am deliberately not adding here the drafts since there have been cases in the past in which confidential scholarly material has been published on the internet without specific permission. 42 Cf. Reiterer, Zählsynopse, 14–15.



Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 179

theologians and historians of religious ideas in providing a sound text edition of Ben Sira.

Bibliography 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. Repr. 2006. Die Bibel. Altes Testament und Neues Testament. Einheitsübersetzung. Stuttgart: KBW, 1980. Die Bibel. Nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Mit Apokryphen. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985. Biblia Hebraica, Samaritana, Chaldaica, Graeca, Syriaca, Latina, Arabica, quibus textus originales totius Scripturae Sacrae, quorum pars in editione Complutensi deinde in Antverpiensi ... extat, nunc integri, ex manuscriptis toto fere orbe quaesitis exemplaribus, exhibentur. Edited by Guido Michael Le Jay. 9 vols. in 10. Lutetiae Parisiorum: A. Vitré, 1629–1645. (= Paris Polyglot) Biblia Sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece, et Latine, Philippi II Reg. Cathol. pietate et studio ad Sacrosanctae Ecclesiae usum. Edited by Benedictus Arias Montanus. 8 vols. Antverpiae: Christopher Plantin, 1569–1572. (= Antwerp Polyglot) Biblia Sacra, Hebraice, chaldaice et graece cum tribus interpretationibus latinis. De Mandato ac Sumptibus Cardinalis D.F. Francisci Yimenez de Cisneros. 6 vols. Alcalá: Brocar, 1514–1517. (= Complutensian Polyglot) Biblia sacra iuxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta. vol. 2. Beirut: Typogr. Catolica, 1951. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem adiuvantibus B. Fischer OSB, I. Gribomont OSB, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele recensuit et brevi apparatu instruxit R. Weber OSB. II. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Repr., 2nd ed. 1975. Biblia sacra polyglotta complectentia textus originales, Hebraicum, cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Græcum: versionumque antiquarum, Samaritanæ, Græcæ LXXII interp., Chaldaicæ, Syriacæ, Arabicæ, Æthiopicæ, Persicæ, Vulg. Lat., quicquid compari poterat: cum textuum & versionum orientalium translationibus Latinis: ex vetustissimis mss. undique conquisitis, optimisque exemplaribus impressis, summâ fide collatis: quæ in prioribus editionibus deerant suppleta, multa antehac inedita, de novo adjecta, omnia eo ordine disposita, ut textus cum versionibus uno intuitu conferri possint: cum apparatu, appendicibus, tabulis, variis lectionibus, annotationibus, indicibus, & c.: opus totum in sex tomos tributum. Edited by Brianus VValtonus. 6 vols. London: Thomas Roycroft, 1655–1657. (= Walton Polyglot) Buringh, Eltjo, and Jan Luiten van Zanden. “Charting the ‘Rise of the West’: Manuscripts and Printed Books in Europe, A Long-Term Perspective from the Sixth through Eighteenth Centuries.” Journal of Economic History 69 (2009): 409–45. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba/Wisdom of the Scribe. Edición diplomática de la versión siriaco del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa/Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version

180 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel

of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. 2nd ed. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. Cowley, Arthur E., and Adolf Neubauer, eds. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11) together with the Early Versions and an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. de Lagarde, Paul A. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1861. Repr., Osnabrück: Zeller, 1972. —. Mittheilungen. Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der König-Augusts-Universität I. Goettingen: Dieterichsche Sortimentsbuchhandlung, 1884. Fischer, Alexander A. Der Text des Alten Testaments. Neubearbeitung der Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica von Ernst Würthwein. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Flint, Peter W. “Columns I and II of the Hexapla: The Evidence of the Milan Palimpsest (Rahlfs 1089).” Pages 125–32 in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. TSAJ 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Grafton, Anthony, and Megan H. Williams. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book. Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. Jenkins, Geoffrey R. “The First Column of the Hexapla: The Evidence of the Milan Codex (Rahlfs 1089) and the Cairo Genizah Fragment (Rahlfs 2005).” Pages 88–102 in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. TSAJ 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Lee, John A.L. “The Complutensian Polyglot, the Text of Sirach, and a Lost Greek Word.” BIOSCS 42 (2009): 95–108. Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell & Scott) founded upon The Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1889. [Accordance ed. hypertexted and formatted by OakTree Software, Inc., Version 2.2, 1996]. Merriam-Webster. An American Dictionary of the English Language [https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/polyglot]. Miller, Peter N. “Making the Paris Polyglot Bible: Humanism and Orientalism in the Early Seventeenth Century.” Bard Graduate Centre [http://www.bgc.bard.edu/images/ content/1/1/11737.pdf]. Norman, Jeremy. “Origen’s Hexapla: Made Possible by the Codex Form, and the First Codices to Display Information in Tabular Form (Circa 234 CE–253 CE).” [http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3814]. Norton, Gerard J. “Observations on the First Two Columns of the Hexapla.” Pages 103–24 in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. TSAJ 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Psalterium, Hebreum, Grecum, Arabicum & Chaldeum, cum tribus latinis interpretationibus & glossis. Edited and with Latin commentary by Agostino Giustiniani. Genoa: Porro, 1516. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2 vols. 9th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Studientext zu Ben Sira (in hebräischer, griechischer, syrischer und lateinischer Sprache).” FWF Research project “Ben Sira.” Salzburg: Paris Lodron Univerity, 1996. (unpublished) Reiterer, Friedrich V. et al. Zählsynopse zum Buch Ben Sira. FSBP 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. La Filología Biblica en los Primeros Helinistas de Alcalá. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1990.



Various Attempts at Producing a Ben Sira Polyglot 

 181

Samaan, Kamil W. Sept traductions arabes de Ben Sira. Europäische Hochschulschriften Theologie XXIII/492. Frankfurt: Lang, 1994. La Santa Biblia, Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento, Antigua Version de Casiodoro de Reina (1569). Madrid: Sociedades Biblicas Unidas, 1995. Sapientia Salomonis. Liber Hiesu Filii Sirach: cum praefationibus et variis capitulorum seriebus. Vol. XII of Biblia Sacra, iuxta latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem iussu Pauli PP. VI cura et studio monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe Ordinis Sancti Benedicti edita. Rome: Libreria Ed. Vaticana, 1964. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira). JSHRZ III,5. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. Scheiber, Alexander. “A Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.” Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 179–85. Sefer Ben Sira/‫ספר בן סירא‬/The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Edited by Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim. The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1973. Swete, Henry B. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. 3 vols. 4th edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. —. “Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach.” Pages 269–72, 286 in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas. Edited by Henry St. J. Thackeray. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902. Repr. and rev. ed. by Richard R. Ottley. New York: KTAV, 1968. Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible, édition à notes essentielles. Paris: Société biblique française & Cerf, 1988. Vattioni, Francesco, ed. Ecclesiastico. Testo Ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Testi I. Naples: Instituto Orientale, 1968. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum XII,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Repr. 2nd ed. 1980.

Matthew Goff

Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan The Figure and Text of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Judaism1 Abstract: The text of the book of Ben Sira, in both its content and material pre­ sentation, became increasingly similar to the Hebrew Bible in the course of its transmission. This can be better understood by appreciating the portrait of Ben Sira in rabbinic literature as a ‫ חכם‬from biblical times, an exegete of scripture not unlike the rabbis themselves, but who lived in an earlier period, from the days described in the Bible itself. The additions to the end of the book (Sir 51) suggest Ben Sira was also regarded as a producer of hymnic texts. This suggests that he may have also been regarded as a payyeṭan, a liturgical poet from the days of the Temple. Keywords: Ben Sira, biblical sage, payyeṭan, rabbinic exegete

1 Introduction It is commonplace for scholars who write on Ben Sira to struggle with a basic issue—how to distinguish when “Ben Sira” denotes the book and when it signi­ fies its author. One approach, for example, is to have “Ben Sira” refer to one and “Sirach” to the other. While clarity is in general a laudable goal, I would like to show that it is not always helpful to distinguish rigidly between the two. Not only were conceptions of Ben Sira as a sage based on texts ascribed to him, but also the text of Ben Sira was influenced by how scribes imagined the figure of Ben Sira. Appreciating rabbinic conceptions of the sage Ben Sira can, I suggest, shed light on the transmission of the text of Ben Sira. The medieval Hebrew manu­ scripts from the Cairo Genizah attest what may be called the scripturalization of Ben Sira—the transmission and presentation of the text of Ben Sira in ways that resemble and draw from the Hebrew Bible. Hymnic works were attributed to Ben Sira and added to the book in the B manuscript and talmudic depictions of Ben 1 I thank the organizers of the Cambridge conference on Ben Sira that convened in September 2016 for a stimulating and productive meeting. This essay has benefited from conversation with the participants of this conference. I also thank David Skelton for his helpful feedback on this essay. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-011

184 

 Matthew Goff

Sira as an exegete of scripture appear directly in this manuscript. Such devel­ opments may be better understood by appreciating conceptions of the figure of Ben Sira that flourished in rabbinic Judaism—in particular that he was a sage from biblical times, a rabbinic exegete, and that he may have been revered as a payyeṭan, or liturgical poet.

2 The Hebrew Ben Sira: “Biblical” Text, “Biblical” Sage Allusions to scriptural texts in Ben Sira are often understood as evidence of ancient exegesis—that the historical Ben Sira read scripture, which in turn shaped his own writing.2 While there is clearly some validity to this, there is another interest­ ing phenomenon that is, while not pervasive, nonetheless evident in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira—allusions to scripture that are clearly later additions. In Sir 40:15, for example, which compares the children of the wicked to unhealthy roots growing on rocks, the Masada text, our oldest lengthy ancient Hebrew witness to Ben Sira, likely reads ‫( [שן] צר‬literally “a narrow rock”), whereas the B text reads ‫“( שן סלע‬a craggy rock”).3 This change does not produce a substantial difference in meaning. But the expression in the B text is in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 14:4; Job 39:28), whereas the one in the Masada text is not. Ben Sira 40:15 does not substantively engage these scriptural texts. Rather, in order to convey the image of a pointed rock, a biblical idiom was added (as in 31:6; 40:30).4 This has the effect of making the language of Ben Sira more biblical in the post-Second 2 The scholarship on this topic is voluminous. For representative studies, consult Wright, “Bib­ lical Interpretation”; Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct; Snaith, “Biblical Quota­ tions.” 3 Bmg: ‫ ;שן צור‬Gk ἀκροτόμου πέτρας (“a sheer rock”). For the Hebrew of the Masada text, I am reliant on Reymond, “New Readings,” 339–43. See also Yadin, “Ben Sira Scroll,” and the tran­ scriptions and images online: www.bensira.org. 4 Wright, “Preliminary Thoughts,” 97. There may be a similar phenomenon in 40:17a, as Yadin, “Ben Sira Scroll,” 173, argued. Masada here reads ‫“( חסד כעד לא תכרת‬Goodness, like eternity, will never be cut off”), whereas B uses different language to express the same basic idea: ‫וחסד לעולם‬ ‫“( לא ימוט‬But goodness will never teeter”). Yadin claimed that the B text utilizes language from the Psalter, namely Ps 15:5 (‫ ;לא ימוט לעולם‬cf. Prov 10:30). His suggestion for 40:17 is certainly possible, particularly since MS B appears to incorporate modification shaped by the biblical text in v. 15. But the language shared by Sir 40:17a (B) and Ps 15:5 is relatively common and does not unambiguously constitute a conscious effort to bring biblical language into the text of Ben Sira. Unless otherwise noted, translations of Ben Sira are from Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, with occasional modification. Translations of the Greek text of Ben Sira are based on NETS



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 185

Temple reception of the text. This development may be understood as a type of secondary biblicization.5 There is another type, also not pervasive but nevertheless present, of later biblicization evident in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira. There are instances of an underlying ancient text which has some sort of scriptural allusion that was made more explicit in the text’s reception. Wright and others have observed this point with regard to Sir 15:14.6 The B text reads ‫“( הוא מראש ברא אדם‬At the beginning he created a human being”). This is reasonably considered an allusion to Gen 1:1. It also corresponds well to the Greek version of Sir 15:14, which reads αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον. It is reasonable to conclude that the medieval B text attests a form of the Hebrew that reliably gives an impression of the ancient Vorlage behind the Greek text. The B text gives another version of the text in the margin, which accords with its form in MS A: ‫אלהים מבראשית ברא אדם‬.7 This version includes “God” (‫ )אלהים‬and “in the beginning” (‫)בראשית‬, both of which are found not in the B version of Sir 15:14 but are in the Masoretic Text of Gen 1:1.8 Since B may reasonably be understood as attesting the older form of the verse, MS A would then preserve a later form of the text. If Sir 15:14 is reasonably understood in its B version as alluding to Gen 1:1, this is then changed in the later transmis­ sion of the text to make the reference to Gen 1:1 more explicit.9 I suspect, however, that there is more going on in this verse than a matter of scribes trying to make allusions to scriptural verses more explicit. Such alter­ ations to the text of Ben Sira shrink the distance, so to speak, between it and the Hebrew Bible. There is a similar phenomenon with regard to the material presen­ tation of the B text. It uses the circellus to connect verses to marginal comments, a technique consistent with Masoretic scribal practice evident in the Masoretic

(B. G. Wright). Translations of the Syriac rely on Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría del Escriba. 5 Van Peursen, Verbal System, 17. 6 Wright, “Biblical Interpretation,” 375; van Peursen, Verbal System, 23. 7 Bmg reads ‫[א]ל[הי]ם מבראשית‬. The Syriac for this verse is similar to the A text: ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܡܢ ܒܪܫܝܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫“( ܒܪܐ‬God from the beginning created human beings”). 8 The expression ‫ בראשית‬in Sir 15:14 (A) may also be a reference to the title of the book of Genesis itself. 9 One other example of this phenomenon in the later B manuscript is in 44:16. This verse, which is not in Masada or the Syriac, reads in the Greek: “Enoch pleased God and he was changed, an example of repentance for generations.” The B text reads, however, “Enoch was found perfect, walked with the Lord (‫)והתהלך עם ייי‬, and was taken up, a sign of knowledge for future genera­ tions.” While the Greek phrase “Enoch pleased God” (= LXX Gen 5:24) may be an allusion to the claim of MT Gen 5:24 that “he walked with God,” as Kugel, Bible As It Was, 101, argues, the phrasing of the B text is much closer to this Genesis verse (‫ )ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים‬than to the Greek.

186 

 Matthew Goff

Hebrew Bible.10 The B text also employs the soph pasuq. The forms of the text of Ben Sira discovered in the Cairo Genizah attest a form of scripturalization, whereby the text is copied and transmitted in ways that resemble the Bible. This Tendenz is evident in the scribal characteristics of other Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira. Both the E and F manuscripts use forms of the soph pasuq. The A text, which unlike B is not in stichometric arrangement, includes, as Rey has observed, the use of the soph pasuq, (occasional) vocalization, the atnach, and even ketiv/ qere.11 The A text also includes, like B, some plusses derived from the biblical text.12 The book of Ben Sira had an important, if ambiguous, status for the rabbis in the medieval period. Saʿadiah Gaon (882–942) responded in his Sefer Hagaluy to an accusation by the Karaites that he wrote it in pointed Hebrew. Implicit in their critique was that pointing should be reserved for the biblical text. Saʿadiah observed that copies of several non-biblical books, including Ben Sira, were pointed.13 He also stressed in Sefer Hagaluy the value of Ben Sira’s writings for rabbis: “As indeed the sages made use of the book of Ben Sira, and took from him instruction and beautiful words of meditation (‫)מוסר ודברי התבוננות יפים‬.”14 There is also important evidence in b. Sanh. 100b that rabbis studied and utilized texts attributed to Ben Sira. In this talmudic passage, which interprets the claim attributed to Rabbi Akiva in m. Sanh. 10.1 that one should not read the “external books” (‫)ספרים החיצונים‬, Rabbi Joseph adds that “it is also forbidden to read the 10 Yeivin, Introduction, 64. 11 For vocalization, see 11:6-8; for an example of the athnach, see 9:3a; and for the ketiv/qere, see 8:2 (all in A). See Rey, “Scribal Practices,” 107 (I originally cited a forthcoming version of this article). Note also that the prosodic version of Sir 22:22–23:9 (MS Adler 3053) is fully vocalized and employs the soph pasuq. This text is available in Marcus, “A Fifth Manuscript of Ben Sira,” 238–40. 12 The A text in Sir 11:29 utilizes Jer 5:27, while Sir 15:15 draws from Hab 2:4. The 11:29 verse oc­ curs in the lengthy collection of Ben Sira material in b. Sanh. 100b. The version of this passage in a Yemenite talmudic manuscript fills out more completely the use of Jer 5:27 in Sir 11:29. See van Peursen, Verbal System, 391; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 269; Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 387. 13 One of the key passages from Saʿadiah reads: “And when these wicked people saw that I had composed a book in Hebrew, divided into verses and provided with vowels and accents, they de­ nounced me with mean slander, and said that this is pretension to prophecy (that is, he had the pretension to imitate scripture) … But this is only their folly … for these things (the dividing of a Hebrew book into verses and providing it with vowels and accents) any man can do, as, indeed, Ben Sira did, Ben Iri, the sons of the Hasmoneans, and the Bene Africa, but none of them pretended to prophecy.” For the relevant passages from Saʿadiah, see Schechter, “Fragment of the Original Text,” 2–3; Harkavy, ‫זכרון הגאון רב סעדיה‬, 150, 162, 176. Consult also Cowley, Original Hebrew, x–xi. 14 Schechter, “Fragment of the Original Text,” 3; Harkavy, 176 ,‫זכרון הגאון רב סעדיה‬.



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 187

book of Ben Sira.”15 Nevertheless, b. Sanh. 100b goes on to provide quotations of Ben Sira that reflect usage, as Ben Wright has argued, of an anthological col­ lection of Ben Sira material.16 The passage incorporates, for example, sayings on women in chapters 26 and 42. Such an assemblage of Ben Sira verses on topics that relate to everyday life is exactly what one finds in the C manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Genizah.17 This manuscript lists, for example, verses in con­ tinuous sequence that deal with shame from chapters 41 and 20 of Ben Sira and it includes a selection of verses that give advice on wives from chapters 25 and 26. The cluster of Ben Sira verses in b. Sanh. 100b that deal with women strongly suggests that anthologized versions of Ben Sira like that of MS C were circulated and read in rabbinic circles in the medieval period. The recognition that people can acquire moral or practical guidance from studying the text of Ben Sira is par­ ticularly evident in a version of b. Sanh. 100b from the Cairo Genizah (Leningrad Antonin 899). This text includes, as does a Yemenite talmudic manuscript, the statement that the book of Ben Sira was withdrawn from use, even though it has “excellent statements” (‫ )מילי מעליתא‬that “we expound” (‫)דרשינן‬.18 The verb ‫דרש‬, used here in relation to rabbis reading Ben Sira, naturally invokes the classic rabbinic practice of biblical interpretation. At times the Talmud blurs the distinction between Ben Sira and scripture. A passage in b. B. Qam. 92b cites material very similar to Sir 13:15 (A) and claims that the passage is from the Ketuvim.19 The lengthy selection of sayings attributed to Ben Sira in b. Sanh. 100b 15 Some versions of the text also state that Rabbi Joseph says Ben Sira is “like the books of the heretics.” B. Sanh. 100b attests a concern to specify that the “external books” is a category that includes Ben Sira. Rabbi Joseph is dated to Babylonia in the fourth century and this is roughly the date of the Syriac translation of the book—the account of the rabbi’s apprehension towards the book may express concern for relying on texts that are similar to those of an emerging Chris­ tian canon, as suggested by Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 356–60. See also Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 100b.” 16 Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 100b,” 191. See also Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 388–90. 17 For a recent study of this text, see Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form.” 18 Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 360. Evidence from the Cairo Genizah of Jews reading Ben Sira also includes T-S 36.150 (1v) and T-S K3.27 (1r), each of which is a book list that includes a text attributed to Ben Sira. I thank Ben Outhwaite for these references. 19 The section includes a series of statements from the Bible that echo a popular saying “A bad palm will usually make its way to a grove of barren trees.” This statement is correlated to a bibli­ cal context. Texts are associated with it from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings (and the Mishnah as well). For the Writings section it reads: “it [the saying] is mentioned a third time in the Writ­ ings, as written: Every fowl dwells near its kind and man near his equal (‫ומשולש בכתובים דכתיב כל‬ ‫)עוף למינו ישכון ובני אדם לדומה לו‬.” Ben Sira 13:15 (A) reads ‫“( כל הבשר יאהב מינו וכל אדם את הדומה לו‬Every creature loves its kind and every man what is similar to him”). V. 16 is a doublet of this: ‫מין כל בשר‬ ‫אצלו ואל מינו יחובר אדם‬. Segal, “Evolution,” 135, identified the quotation in this talmudic passage as a conflation of Sir 13:16b and 27:9a. Note also Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 349.

188 

 Matthew Goff

includes biblical verses.20 In general, however, it is safe to say that the rabbis knew that Ben Sira was not in their Bible. Why then do rabbinic texts of Ben Sira present the book in biblical terms? A key answer, I think, is that the rabbis regarded him as ancient sage—a wise man who lived, so to speak, in biblical times. This helps explain the scriptur­ alizing reception of the text of Ben Sira that I have discussed. One verse, in my opinion, that can shed light on rabbinic views about Ben Sira is 42:15. This verse reads, in the Masada text, “I shall now recount the works of God; what I have seen, I will now declare” (‫)וזה חזיתי ואשננה‬. The B manuscript has a difference in the second foot of this verse: “What I have seen I will recount” (‫)וזה חזיתי ואספרה‬.21 Whereas the Masada text has a rare and difficult word ‫אשננה‬, the B text has ‫אספרה‬. At one level this alteration clarifies the verse by replacing an obscure word with a more straightforward one. But I suspect that there is more at work here. ‫וזה‬ ‫ חזיתי ואספרה‬is a verbatim match with Job 15:17b, as Beentjes has observed.22 The passage is from a speech by Eliphaz, who berates Job for not trusting God. Its theological tone is substantially different from Sir 42:15, the opening of a hymn that praises God’s created order. Perhaps the rationale why Job 15:17b was utilized may be identified by positing that there is an implicit reference to the phrase that immediately follows in v. 18—“what sages have told” (‫)אשר חכמים יגידו‬. It is possible that rabbis who read the text of Ben Sira understood the figure of Ben Sira as a ‫חכם‬ who speaks from the distant past.23 20 In this passage Mic 7:5 and Prov 27:1b are included among the quotations from Ben Sira. See Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 100b,” 186–87. 21 Scholars disagree as to whether ‫ אשננה‬derives from ‫“( שנן‬to sharpen,” so would thus Sir 42:15 mean something like “teach incisively”) or ‫“( שנה‬to repeat”; note that ‫ שנן‬can have this meaning in the piel). For an overview of the relevant scholarship, see van Peursen, Verbal System, 90. The Greek seems to presuppose a text that is close to B: καὶ ἃ ἑόρακα, ἐκδιηγήσομαι (“and what I have seen I will relate”). The verb ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι corresponds to the verb ‫ לספר‬in Ben Sira and else­ where in the LXX (e.g., 42:17; Hab 1:5). The Syriac has “and from what I have seen I shall narrate (‫)ܡܬܢܐ‬,” which is closer to the Masada text, apparently understanding ‫ אשננה‬as a form of ‫לשנות‬. The fact that the Greek and B forms are similar suggests that B attests a change made relatively early that was present in the Vorlage used in the translation of the text into Greek. An earlier form of the verse is in the Masada text, which is in turn similar to the Hebrew that was the basis of the Syriac translation. 22 Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 7. 23 If one keeps in mind that the reading for 42:15 in the B text reflects a change made relatively early in the course of the text’s transmission, as argued above in note 21, it follows that the verse’s implicit citation of Job 15:17b did not enter the text in the medieval period but at some earlier point. Rabbis in the medieval era reading the B form of the verse would have discerned an (unmarked) allusion to Job 15:18 (a common exegetical phenomenon in the rabbinic tradi­ tion), even if one acknowledges that the change in the B text over against Masada should not be attributed to them.



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 189

Another text that can shed light on the rabbinic reception on Ben Sira as an ancient sage is the Alphabet of Ben Sira. This text, which is often humorous and at times obscene, has been dated between the eighth and tenth centuries, written in Iraq.24 While of little value for the text of Ben Sira, this composition paints a rich and vivid portrait of the sage. He is a wise courtier who can answer correctly any question posed to him. The Alphabet of Ben Sira does not situate the sage in Maccabean or Hasmonean times. Rather it imagines Ben Sira in the court of the King Nebuchadnezzar. The text dates Ben Sira to the exilic period, a classic nar­ rative setting of the Hebrew Bible. An Arabic apocryphal text, the tale of Aphikia, similarly places Ben Sira in the court of King Solomon.25 Ben Sira becomes, as it were, a biblical sage. The trope that Ben Sira was a courtier of a great king during days recounted in the Hebrew Bible may also be evident in a possible conflation of Ben Sira and Ahiqar in the Talmud. Ahiqar, as is well known, is hailed as a sage in the court of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, both in the Elephantine wisdom text attributed to him and in Tobit (Ahiqar 2–4; Tob 1:22; cf. 14:10). In the Talmud, b. B. Bat. 98b ascribes to Ben Sira a saying that accords with a statement from the book of Ahiqar that reads “I have carried sand and loaded salt but there is nothing that is heavier than a for[eigner]; I have carried straw and lifted bran (‫ )פרן‬but there is nothing that is lighter than a resident-alien” (159–60).26 This is similar to Sir 22:14–15.27 The resemblance of the saying attributed to Ben Sira in

24 Yassif, Tales of Ben Sira; Börner-Klein, Das Alphabet des Ben Sira. 25 Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica, xi–xiii, 58–63. She offers a translation of a story preserved in a Karshuni manuscript (Fonds Syriaque 179) that is about a wife of Ben Sira by the name of Aphikia. A similar form of the story is found in an Arabic manuscript (Fonds Arabe 50). 26 This argument is made by Kister, “Margins,” 144. The key portion of b. B. Bat. 98b reads: “[By this the Mishnah] has taught us incidentally that it is not the [proper] way for a son-in-law to live at the house of his father-in-law; as it is written in Ben Sira, ‘I have weighed all things in the scale of the balance and found nothing lighter than bran; lighter than bran is a son-in-law who lives in the house of his father-in-law; lighter than [such] a son-in-law is a guest [who] brings in [with him another] guest; and lighter than such a guest [is he who] replies before he hears [the question]’” (Soncino trans.). There is also a form of the Ahiqar saying in its Syriac version (2.45): “My son, I have carried salt and removed lead: and I have not seen anything heavier than that a man should pay back a debt which he did not borrow” (translation from Conybeare, Harris, and Smith Lewis, Story of Aḥiḳar, 106–7). My translation and versification of Ahiqar follows Bledsoe, Wisdom in Distress. 27 “What is heavier than lead—what but ‘fool’ is the name for it? Sand and salt and an iron lump are less of a burden than the stupid.” The Syriac reads: “For he is much heavier than lead and what is his name but ‘fool’? Sand and salt and a burden of iron are easier to carry than to dwell with a foolish person.” No Hebrew for this verse is extant. See Di Lella and Skehan, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 314.

190 

 Matthew Goff

Baba Batra to the one in Ahiqar may be attributed to some degree of conflation between the two sages. That there would be overlap between them becomes plau­ sible when one realizes that in the Jewish reception of both figures they are leg­ endary sages from the biblical period who advised kings. This exalted view of the figure of Ben Sira helps explain, I suggest, the scripturalization of the text of Ben Sira—both in its material transmission and in its attraction to it of biblicizing material. It is not simply an issue of later scribes making more explicit allusions to scripture produced by the historical Ben Sira. As Sir 42:15 implies, those who transmitted the text of Ben Sira regarded him as a ‫ חכם‬from biblical antiquity.

3 The ‫ חכם‬Ben Sira, Rabbinic Exegete The word ‫חכם‬, to which I see an indirect allusion in Sir 42:15 (via Job 15:17-18), is of course the term the rabbis use for themselves, and they are very much a post-bib­ lical intellectual movement. Viewing a distant figure as somehow like themselves is consistent with the self-referentiality which is so common in rabbinic literature.28 In midrash, for example, characters from scripture such as Abraham cite scrip­ tural verses (e.g., Gen. Rab. 56.4), much like the rabbis themselves do. Ben Sira may be understood in the rabbinic imagination as a ‫ חכם‬in the sense of a classic rabbinic exegete. This perspective shapes the text of Ben Sira. At the bottom of page 10 (recto) of the B manuscript is a marginal note that preserves part of the passage attributed to Ben Sira in b. Sanh. 100b. The text in the margin begins with a quotation of Prov 15:15: “All the days of the poor are evil.” It then reads: “Ben Sira said (‫)בן סירא אומ׳‬: At night also. His roof is the lowest of roofs, and his vineyard is on the height of the mountain. The rain of other roofs falls on his roof, and the earth of his vineyard falls on other vineyards.”29 “Ben Sira” interprets Prov 15:15 as a rabbi would. He discerns a potential gap between the language of the biblical text (the days of the poor are difficult) and its logic (only their days?), which he wants to close. It is reminiscent of Gen. Rab. 28.5, which suggests that Gen 6:5, stating that the generation of the flood was wicked ‫כל היום‬, does not mean that they were only wicked during the daytime.30 The marginal note in question is 28 Stein, “Rabbinic Interpretation.” 29 Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 70. 30 The midrash reads: “With reference to the generation of the flood, it is written, ‘And every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day’ (Gen 6:5), whereas with reference to the ten tribes it is written, ‘Woe to them that devise iniquity and work evil upon their beds’ (Mic 2:1), implying, at night. And how do we know that they did so by day too? Because it is stated, ‘When the morning is light, they execute it’” (Soncino trans.; cf. Gen. Rab. 27.2). If this



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 191

written next to Sir 40:21–26. None of these verses discuss poverty, the topic of the marginal comment, but v. 26 reads: Wealth and strength make the heart exult but better than both of them is the fear of God. In the fear of God there is no want; whoever has it need seek no other support.

Perhaps the marginal text was added as an extension or interpretation of this statement—poverty is indeed harsh, but one needs nothing else apart from fear of the Lord. Ben Sira is imagined as commenting on his own text, through his exegesis of Proverbs. One other instance of Ben Sira as a rabbinic exegete occurs in Genesis Rabbah. Gen. Rab. 73.12 cites a form of Sir 13:25 that is quite similar to its form in MS A, our only Hebrew witness to the verse: “The heart of a person changes his face, whether for good or bad” (cf. Gen. Rab. 91.3-4).31 This is presented as something “Bar Sira said” (‫)בר סירא אומ׳‬, a more Aramaic form of the same statement used to introduce the statement attributed to Ben Sira from b. Sanh. 100b found in the margin of the B text. Both employ ‫אמר‬, the classic verb for the rabbinic exposition of scripture. Genesis Rabbah 73.12 reimagines Sir 13:25 as Ben Sira’s explication of a statement in Gen 31:2: “And Jacob feared the face of Laban.” This is part of the story of Jacob in Haran, which ends with Jacob leaving the household of Laban secretly. “Bar Sira” explains why Jacob feared the face of Laban. He teaches that the heart of a person can change his face. So, by looking at his face, Jacob knew that Laban’s heart had turned against him and that he should leave. The presen­ tation of Ben Sira in this passage attests the view that he is a ‫חכם‬, in the sense of a classic rabbinic exegete. Genesis Rabbah, a collection of Palestinian midrashim generally dated to the fourth century CE,32 suggests that this portrait of Ben Sira had developed by that time. An unusual figure, Ben Sira in rabbinic literature is presented as both a biblical and a rabbinic sage.

4 Ben Sira as a Payyeṭan One other major expansion to the Hebrew text of Ben Sira involves, I suggest, a comparable but different representation of the figure of Ben Sira—Ben Sira not as a ‫ חכם‬but as a payyeṭan. This term, derived from the Greek word ποιητῆς, is used generation was wicked both day and night, it logically follows that the generation of the flood (which was worse) was as well. 31 Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 374. 32 Stemberger, Introduction, 304.

192 

 Matthew Goff

for Jewish liturgical poets whose writings were rich in creative adaptations of bib­ lical language and imagery.33 This rabbinic movement flourished in late antiquity and beyond. One distinctive characteristic of the B text of Ben Sira is the hymnic expan­ sions at the end of the book. After 50:27, which gives the name of Ben Sira and certainly sounds like an ending to the composition, the B text has three hymnic and poetic compositions—the famous poem of 51:13–30, a hymn of thanksgiving in 51:1–12, both of which are in the Greek and Syriac, and a sixteen-line poem that is unique to MS B (51:12e+–zj+). In Sir 51:13–30, as is well-known, a male speaker discusses in the first person his life-long love for wisdom.34 It is a poetic text, in both its Qumran form, as part of the Psalms Scroll (an acrostic), and in its stichographic presentation in the B text. The inclusion of a form of this poem in the Psalms Scroll, a manuscript that was produced in the first century CE,35 strongly suggests that this hymn was not authored by the historical Ben Sira but was added later in the course of its transmission. Its inclusion in the text of Ben Sira should probably be related to the poetic and hymnic character of the final section of the book and the related trope that Ben Sira is an author who wrote this type of literature. The Masada Scroll, which also likely dates to the first century CE or slightly earlier, preserves our earliest Hebrew witness to the praise of creation in Sir 42:15–43:33. This text clearly utilizes psalms now found in the Hebrew Bible. The psalms are not cited as authoritative scripture. Rather, not unlike the Hodayot from Qumran, Sir 42:15–43:33 is Hebrew poetry that is steeped in the language of the psalms, extensively drawing idioms and expressions from them. Ben Sira 43:16–17, for example, reviews various aspects of the natural world that God con­ trols, such as hail, lightning, wind, and snow. The ancient version of the hymn from Masada lists in order hail (43:15b), mountains (v. 16b), a windstorm (‫סערה‬, among other terms) (v. 17b), and snow (v. 17c).36 The meteorological terms in this unit are also found in the same order in Ps 148:8–9. This psalm mentions in order hail, snow, a windstorm (‫ )סערה‬and mountains. The “Praise of the Fathers” (Sirach 44–49) may also be understood as a poetic composition. Its famous beginning, “I will now praise pious men,” uses the verb

33 For a good overview of this tradition, see Lieber, Yannai on Genesis. 34 The scholarship on this poem is extensive. See, for example, van Peursen, “Sirach 51:13–30”; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 247–57. 35 Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 9. 36 Askin, “Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate,” 47–50. On Ben Sira and the Psalms, see also Corley’s essay in the present volume.



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 193

‫אהללה‬, which contains the same root as the word for the Psalms ( ‫)תהלים ;הלל‬.37 While one should probably resist imposing strict or precise definitions of poetry upon this material, it is reasonable to think that ancient forms of the book of Ben Sira had in its final section texts that were understood as poetic or hymnic. The development of the conception of Ben Sira as an author of hymnic texts helps explain why other poetic works, such as Sir 51:13–30, were appended to the book, reimagined as compositions written by Ben Sira. The two other texts found after Sir 50:27 were probably not authored by the historical Ben Sira but were rather added to the book during its textual transmis­ sion. They both draw richly from the Psalms, but in ways that are quite differ­ ent from the utilization of psalms in the creation hymns. In Sir 51:1–12 a speaker praises God for having delivered him from death. Being saved from the hands of fierce enemies is a major theme. Ben Sira 51:6–8, for example, reads: “Close as I was to death—my life, to the depths of the netherworld—wherever I turned, there was no one to help me; though I looked for support, there was none. Then I remembered the Lord’s mercies (‫)ואזכרה את רחמי ייי‬, his solicitude from times long past” (cf. Ps 25:6). The “I” speaking here, with his plaintive expression of suffering, is noticeably different from the first person persona elsewhere in the book, who boasts about his possession of wisdom without ever expressing a fear of encroaching enemies.38 The poem is reminiscent in style and content to the psalms of lament, a traditional literary category for hymns in the Hebrew psalter. While the exact delineation of this category, and how many psalms should be so classified are points of debate, it is common in the Psalter for a hymn to depict a first person speaker who praises God for delivering him from his enemies. In Psalm 118, for example, a speaker asserts: “They surrounded me like bees; they blazed like fire of thorns; in the name of the Lord I cut them off! I was pushed hard, so that I was falling but the Lord helped me” (vv. 12–13). The fact that the mode of usage of psalms in Sir 51:1–12 is different from that of rest of the book, and that it comes after what easily reads as a conclusion in 50:27, suggests that this poem was added later in the course of the transmission of the book of Ben Sira.39 Ben Sira 51:1–12 is clearly an ancient hymn since versions of it appear in the Greek and Syriac forms of the composition. This suggests the Hebrew Vorlagen of these translations included forms of this poem, an indication that it became attached to the ending of Ben Sira relatively early in the transmission of the text. 37 The key Hebrew verb corresponds in the Greek to αἰνέσωμεν, in the Syriac to ‫ܐܫܒܚ‬, and in the Latin to laudemus. 38 Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 96–100. 39 Contra Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 563, who argue that it should be understood as an authentic composition of Ben Sira.

194 

 Matthew Goff

Ben Sira 51:1–12 is followed in MS B by a composition that is unique to this man­ uscript. Ben Sira 51:12e+–zj+ has been called the “hymn of the divine names.”40 It is debated whether it was composed in antiquity by Ben Sira or represents a later accretion to the book in its Hebrew transmission.41 The fact that it is followed by a poem (Sir 51:13–30) that is attested in a similar form in the Qumran Psalms Scroll shows that it is entirely possible that the text preserves at least some form of an ancient hymn although, as I will explain, at the very least such a putative ancient text was very much transformed in its later reception. The structure of the hymn in 51:12e+–zj+ is explicitly modeled after Psalm 136. Except for the last two lines, the first stich of every line of the Ben Sira hymn begins with a plural imperative to “praise” God (‫ )הודו‬and the second stich of every verse reads ‫“( כי לעולם חסדו‬for his mercy endures forever”). In Psalm 136 this is also the second stich of every verse. Only the first three lines of this hymn begin with the same imperative to praise God found in Sir 51:12e+–zj+ but the first stich of each verse, like the Ben Sira hymn, praises God. The “hymn of divine names” is reasonably understood as modeled directly on Psalm 136 but it also extends and embellishes its structure. Some of the hymn may be ancient—this is suggested by 51:12u+(i), which extols God for choosing the sons of Zadok as his priests, an assertion that may pre-date the usurpation of the high priesthood by the Has­ monean dynasty.42 But the hymn’s direct and explicit use of a form of Psalm 136 that matches its Masoretic version suggests that it took on its present form at a later date. The forms of Psalm 136 that are closer in date to the time of Ben Sira are quite different from its Masoretic form. 4QPsn 2–3 (4Q95), for example, appears to combine Pss 135:11–12 and 136:23–24 as if they were a single composition.43 A major difference between Ben Sira 51:12e+–zj+ and Psalm 136 involves the names of God. While the Ben Sira hymn adapted the structure of the bibli­ cal psalm, it changed the names for God. For example, in the second and third lines of the “hymn of divine names” (51:12g+–j+), God is called, respectively, “the God of (our) praises” and “the keeper of Israel,” whereas in Ps 136:2–3 the epi­ thets “God of gods” and “Lord of lords” describe the deity.44 Several of the divine 40 Mies, “Le Psaume de Ben Sira” (parts one and two). 41 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 569, argue that the poem was not written by Ben Sira but is nevertheless ancient on the basis of its reference to the Zadokites, as discussed in this section below. 42 Mies, “Le Psaume de Ben Sira, (Deuxième partie),” 501–2. 43 In the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11Q5 15:6–16:6) Psalm 118 follows Psalm 136 without any vacat; the two hymns, clearly distinct in the Masoretic Psalter, may be presented in the Psalms Scroll as a single composition. See Ulrich, Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 688, 714. 44 Sir 51:12g+–j+ and Ps 136:2–3 are otherwise identical. Note that the hymn’s final two lines also match Ps 148:14.



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 195

names found in Sir 51:12e+–zj+ are also to be found in the Shemoneh ‘Esreh, sug­ gesting that, regardless of when this hymn was originally composed, its content was shaped by post-Second Temple Jewish liturgical traditions.45 Shemoneh ‘Esreh and the Ben Sira hymn attest some of the same epithets for God, drawn from various biblical texts, such as “Shield of Abraham” (v. 12w+; ‫)מגן אברהם‬, a phrase echoing Gen 15:1 (cf. Ps 115:11). Thus, Ben Sira 51:12e+–zj+ is a very good example of imaginative biblical intertextuality—it incorporates language from a range of biblical texts into a new structure derived from Psalm 136. Some of the language in this poem may even derive from the book of Ben Sira, a possibility that would indicate a strong interest in this work by composers of liturgical poetry.46 A hymnic quality to the B text is also evident at the very end of the manu­ script (51:30). This manuscript ends with a subscription that reads “Blessed be the Lord forever and praised be his name from generation to generation (‫ברוך ייי‬ ‫)לעולם ומשובח שמו לדר ודר‬. Thus far the words of Simeon, the son of Yeshua, who is called Ben Sira. The Wisdom of Simeon, son of Yeshua, son of Eleazar, son of Sira. May the name of the Lord be blessed from now to eternity.” The phrase “Blessed be the Lord forever,” while admittedly very common language, is likely a citation of Ps 89:53, where it is found verbatim, accompanied by “Amen, Amen”—a fitting end for a liturgical poem. Psalm 89:53 also works well as a verse to cite in a colo­ phon because it is the very last verse of the last psalm of one of the Masoretic divi­ sions of the Psalter (Book 3).47 This phrase is not in the version of Sir 51:30 found in the Qumran Psalms scroll but is in the Syriac. The statement at the very end of the B text, however, is not found in any other textual witness: “May the name of the Lord be blessed from now until eternity” (‫)יהי שם ייי מבורך מעתה ועד עולם‬. This language is verbatim in Ps 113:2. This is reasonably understood as a citation from the Psalter that was added to the end of the book of Ben Sira during the rabbinic transmission of the text.48 The hymnic additions to Ben Sira in chapter 51, which are at times modeled after and cite biblical psalms, constitute a clear difference when compared to the 45 Mies, “Le Psaume de Ben Sira, (Première partie),” 362–63. 46 For example, the praise of David in both the “hymn of divine names” and the “Praise of the Fathers” emphasizes the horn (‫ )קרן‬of David (51:12zg+; 47:5, 11; cf. Pss 18:3; 112:9). For other termi­ nological connections between this poem (and the other works in Sir 51) and the rest of the book, see Mies, “Le Psaume de Ben Sira, (Deuxième partie),” 482–92. 47 I thank Noam Mizrahi for this observation. 48 It is not uncommon in the colophons of texts from the Cairo Genizah to include biblical vers­ es. The colophon of T-S F3.29 (which dates to 1089/90), for example, combines the name of the scribe Abraham b. R. Shabbetai with citations from 1 Sam 25:29 and Prov 9:11. I am grateful to Jean-Sébastien Rey for this point. He (“Scribal Practices,” 108–10) argues that this individual could be the copyist who produced manuscript A.

196 

 Matthew Goff

engagement with the Psalms that one finds in the hymns in the latter section of Ben Sira, such as the creation hymns in Sir 42:15–43:33. These poems, as dis­ cussed above, do not quote from the Psalms or have such explicit engagement with them as in the additions to chapter 51. Rather, the creation hymns include more indirect allusions to and utilizations of hymns. The more direct engagement with texts from Psalms in the compositions in Ben Sira 51 are reasonably under­ stood as a phenomenon that occurred during the reception of the book of Ben Sira rather than at its composition. The additions to the end of the book of Ben Sira in the B manuscript are con­ sistent with a Tendenz discerned earlier in this essay that the book of Ben Sira in its rabbinic reception undergoes a type of scripturalization, with changes taking place that make the text of Ben Sira increasingly similar to that of the Bible. This happens at the ending of the composition vis-à-vis the Psalter rather more than with regard to other biblical books. Earlier, I argued that some modifications to the book of Ben Sira in its rabbinic reception are shaped by the view that he is a ‫ חכם‬from biblical times. The expansions to the ending of the book in the B text may, I suggest, reflect another portrait of the figure of Ben Sira that developed in rabbinic circles—that he was a payyeṭan. This would explain the attribution to him of hymnic works that are rich in biblical intertextuality and extensive utilization of the Psalter. It is clear from this investigation that the phenomenon of attributing hymns to Ben Sira happened relatively early, since several of the poetic texts in question are attested in the Greek and Syriac forms of the book. But later rabbis, as the medieval Genizah manuscripts indicate, continued and endorsed this process, and, as we have seen, in their own way incorporated cita­ tions from the Psalter to enhance the hymnic quality of the ending of the book. Also consistent with the conception of Ben Sira as a payyeṭan is a subject that is in need of more research—that the book of Ben Sira or at least parts of it were utilized by composers of liturgical poetry. Cecil Roth observed in 1952 that some poetry used in the synagogue service was inspired by material from the latter sections of Ben Sira.49 He argued, for example that poetry by the Palestin­ ian payyeṭan Yose ben Yose (fourth or fifth century) utilized parts of the “Praise of the Fathers,” especially Sir 44:21–23; 45:12–13, 29.50 If payyeṭanim were reading Ben Sira in late antique Palestine, with the poetry of this book shaping their writ­ ings, it is quite likely that some of them would have imagined Ben Sira to be one

49 Roth, “Ecclesiasticus.” See also Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 353. 50 Roth, “Ecclesiasticus,” 176, who, offered similar arguments with regard to the usage of Ben Sira 50 by payyeṭanim (pp. 171–74). He also observed (p. 177) that there is a very strong parallel between Sir 50:20–21 and m. Yoma 6.2.



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 197

of their own, albeit from an earlier time.51 This conception of the sage may have contributed to the hymnic and Psalter-derived additions to the ending of the book evident in the B manuscript.

5 Conclusion A type of scripturalization of the book of Ben Sira is evident in its rabbinic recep­ tion. Changes are made to the text, in both its content and material presentation, that make the composition increasingly similar to the Hebrew Bible. This develop­ ment can be better understood, as I have tried to show, by understanding concep­ tions of the sage Ben Sira that flourished in rabbinic Judaism. Depictions of Ben Sira as a rabbinic exegete, as Genesis Rabbah suggests, were circulating in Pales­ tine by the fourth century. The trope that Ben Sira was an author of hymnic texts, a figure to whom such texts could be attributed and appended to the book of Ben Sira, is a relatively early development, as is evident in the Greek and Syriac forms of the book. But later rabbis continued this process and Palestinian payyeṭanim by at least the fifth century regarded the text of Ben Sira as a source that could be utilized in the production of their own liturgical poetry. The Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira from the Cairo Genizah illustrate not only that texts of Ben Sira were read and copied in the medieval period but also that that they were presented in ways that resonate with the biblical text—and that the hymnic ending of the book was expanded in ways that directly engage the Hebrew Psalter. These develop­ ments regarding the text of Ben Sira were shaped by conceptions of the figure of Ben Sira—that he was regarded as a ‫ חכם‬from biblical times and, perhaps, also as a payyeṭan of old—a liturgical poet from the days of the Temple.

Bibliography Askin, Lindsey A. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira: Considering the Evidence of Textual Reuse in Sir 43:11–19.” DSD 23 (2016): 27–50. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, VTSup 68. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Bledsoe, Seth. Wisdom in Distress: A Literary and Socio-Historical Approach to the Aramaic Book of Ahiqar. JSJ Supplements. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Börner-Klein, Dagmar. Das Alphabet des Ben Sira: Hebräisch-deutsche Textausgabe mit einer Interpretation. Wiesbaden: Marix, 2007. 51 Lieber, Yannai on Genesis, 120–21; Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira,” 361.

198 

 Matthew Goff

Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen, eds. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Edició diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción Española e inglesa/Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. 2nd ed. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. Conybeare, Frederick C., James R. Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis. The Story of Aḥiḳar. From the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913. Corley, Jeremy. “An Alternative Hebrew Form of Ben Sira: The Anthological Manuscript C.” Pages 3–22 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. Cowley, Arthur E., and Adolf Neubauer. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX. 15 to XLIX. 11). Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Gibson, Margaret Dunlop. Apocrypha Arabica. London: Clay and Sons, 1901. Goff, Matthew. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Harkavy, Abraham E. ‫זכרון הגאון רב סעדיה על פיומיו וספריו‬. St. Petersburg: Tip. Bermana i Rabinovicha, 1891. Kister, Menahem. “On the Margins of Ben Sira.” Leshonenu 47 (1983): 125–46. [Hebrew] Kugel, James L. The Bible As It Was. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJSR 30 (2006): 347–92. Lieber, Laura S. Yannai on Genesis: An Invitation to Piyyut. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2010. Marcus, Joseph. “A Fifth Manuscript of Ben Sira.” JQR 21 (1931): 223–40. Mies, Françoise. “Le Psaume de Ben Sira 51,12a–o. L’Hymne aux Noms divins (Première partie).” RB 116 (2009): 336–67. —. “Le Psaume de Ben Sira 51,12a–o. L’Hymne aux Noms divins (Deuxième partie).” RB 116 (2009): 481–504. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. van Peursen, Wido T. “Sirach 51:13–30 in Hebrew and Syriac.” Pages 357–74 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. OLA 118. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. —. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 41. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Scribal Practices in the Ben Sira Hebrew Manuscript A and Codicological Remarks.” Pages 99–114 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach/Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner et al. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 66. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. Reymond, Eric D. “New Readings in the Ben Sira Masada Scroll (Mas 1h).” RevQ 26/103 (2014): 327–43. Roth, Cecil. “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service.” JBL 71 (1952): 71–78. Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11. DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Schechter, Solomon. “A Fragment of the Original Text of Ecclesiasticus.” Expositor, 5,4 (1896): 1–15.



Ben Sira—Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyeṭan 

 199

Segal, Moshe Z. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira.” JQR 25 (1934–35): 91–149. Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. BZAW 151. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Snaith, John G. “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus.” JTS 18 (1967): 1–12. Stein, Dina. “Rabbinic Interpretation.” Pages 119–35 in Reading Genesis: Ten Methods. Edited by Ronald Hendel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Wright, Benjamin G. “B. Sanhedrin 100b.” Pages 183–93 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, by Benjamin G. Wright. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “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, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. —. “Preliminary Thoughts about Preparing the Text of Ben Sira for a Commentary.” Pages 89–109 in Die Septuaginta – Text, Wirkung, Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. WUNT 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Yadin, Yigael. “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.” Pages 151–252 in Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999. Yassif, Eli. Tales of Ben Sira in the Middle Ages: A Critical Text and Literary Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by Ernest J. Revell. MasS 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980.

Vered Noam

Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective Abstract: Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers and panegyric of the high priest Simeon son of Yohanan exemplifies two distinct Jewish genres of priestly glorification. One genre is tales underscoring the twofold role of high priests as both religious agents of the people in the Temple and their leaders in political life. The second category is a short review of world history through a succession of biblical heroes, leading up to the priestly worship in the Jerusalem Temple. The rabbis astutely adopted, imitated and revised these two genres, in order to support the creation of the novel religious culture of the rabbinic era. They depicted the priestly pro­ tagonists as early rabbis and transformed the succession of past heroes begin­ ning with Genesis to lead from Sinai to the sages of the Mishnah. Keywords: Ben Sira, high priest, Jerusalem Temple, Simeon son of Yohanan

1 Praise of Simeon, Son of Yohanan Ben Sira’s “Hymn in Praise of the Fathers” (Sir 44–50)1 culminates in the magnif­ icent description of the high priest Simeon son of Yohanan, “greatest among his kindred, the glory of his people” (50:1).2 He is described both as a national leader who renovates the Temple, fortifies its precincts and digs a reservoir in Jerusalem (50:1–4), and as a high priest officiating splendidly in the Temple (50:5–21). The long chain of biblical heroes that precedes this ideal priest-ruler renders him heir to the “godly people, our ancestors,” “rulers,” “counselors,” “prophets,” “sages,” and “composers” of Israel’s past (44:1–6).3

1 On the Praise of the Fathers see, for example, Mack, Wisdom; Lee, Studies in the Form. 2 All the citations follow Skehan’s translation in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom. On the common scholarly identification of this Simeon with Simeon II, mentioned by Josephus, and with the rab­ binic Simeon the Righteous, see Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 201–4; Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 344-54. For a different opinion, identifying him with Simeon I, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 137–57. For our purposes, the historical setting of the “original” Simeon the Righ­ teous is not the issue, but rather the strategies used in Ben Sira for his glorification, and the way these strategies, as well as the legendary figure of Simeon himself, were employed by the rabbis. 3 Yahalom, “Angels,” 38–39, assumes that this entire unit is in fact a eulogy of Simeon follow­ ing his death, modeled after a common pattern, extant in midrash and in ancient piyyuṭim, in which the deceased is placed in a chain of biblical figures. A common motif of these eulogies is the notion that since even the greatest men on earth have died, death is inevitable. This idea is https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-012

202 

 Vered Noam

Beginning at the dawn of humanity, with Enoch and Noah, the author implic­ itly argues through this framework that Simeon and the everlasting covenant with his descendants (50:24), who will eternally minister before God in the Jerusalem Temple, are in fact the very purpose of creation and the climax of human history. This idea is suggested again in the concluding verses of the poem (50:22–24), jux­ taposing God’s very creation of humanity, “who makes humans grow from their mother’s womb”, with the eternal covenant with Simeon’s priestly offspring: “may he fulfill for him the covenant with Phinehas […] for his descendants, while the heavens last.” The prominence of priests both in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers and in the book at large (7:30–31; 24:10) has often been noted in scholarship.4 The author devoted more lines to Aaron (45:6–22) than to any other figure in Israel’s past,5 and elaborated twice on the everlasting covenant with Phinehas (45:23–24; 50:24). Martha Himmelfarb points out that Ben Sira attributes royal features to his priestly figures. She notes the royal dimension in the majestic appearance of both Aaron and Simeon, and points to idioms relating to kings in the biblical context that are ascribed to priests by Ben Sira, as well as to the similarity between Sime­ on’s projects in Jerusalem (50:1–4) and those of Hezekiah (48:17–22). Himmelfarb remarks, pace earlier scholars, that this double-dimensioned description of the high priest derives from Ben Sira’s historical circumstances, when the official head of the Jewish people in the eyes of the foreign rulers was the high priest.6 clearly formulated in Sir 49:14–16. See also Kister, “Jewish Aramaic Poems,” 130–34. For further elaboration on 49:14–16 see Kister, “Some Notes,” 180–81. 4 On the centrality of priesthood in the book, and the common identification of Ben Sira as a priest, see the bibliography collected by Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 49, notes 2–3. 5 See Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 312. 6 Himmelfarb, “Wisdom of the Scribe,” 89–99, follows several scholars who claim that Ben Sira believed, contrary to the dominant biblical view, that Israel has no need of a king and that the ideal ruler should be a high priest. She bases her conjecture, inter alia, on the superiority of the priestly covenant over the Davidic one, as ostensibly stated in 45:25 (see also, e.g., Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 514). The reconstruction of this verse, however, is very problematic, and according to other opinions, no such comparison is to be found there. On the contrary, the very mention of the Davidic covenant following the priestly covenant of Phinehas (45:23–24), a single deviation from the chronological order of the “ancestors” and preceding its expected place, in the passage dedicated to David and his promised everlasting dynasty (47:1–11), underscores Ben Sira’s commitment to the vision of Davidic kingship (see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 316; Kister, “Horn of David,” 197 n. 27; Kister, “Contribution,” 367 and n. 239, 374 n. 257). See also Wright, “Ben Sira on Kings,” 76–91; and the review of scholarship by Brutti, Development, 279–84. Schneider’s suggestion (Appearance of the High Priest, 49–96), that the ecstatic description of the high priest represents a theophany, and that the high priest is conceived as a celestial entity and as an ex­ tension of the divine, is in my opinion too far reaching and not sufficiently validated by the text itself.



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 203

The current article argues that Ben Sira’s praise of Simeon, including its two aspects: (a) the high priest acting in both the sacred and the political sphere; (b) the high priest as the conclusion and culmination of creation and human history, are not unique to Ben Sira. Rather, the entire unit is the manifestation of a common Second Temple priestly topos, prevalent in various forms and genres, which employed the double status of the high priests in the Persian, Hellenis­ tic and Roman periods,7 as well as the biblical history, to convey a theological message. In the second part of the article, I shall demonstrate how this priestly heritage was emulated, adapted and remolded in order to serve the novel rab­ binic ethos and its new protagonists, the rabbis.

2 The Two Spheres of Priestly Activity Recently, Tal Ilan and I, with three additional researchers, have completed a com­ prehensive study that examines all the parallel anecdotal traditions concerning postbiblical persons and events during the Second Temple period, from the con­ quest of Alexander the Great to the destruction of the Temple, preserved in Jose­ phus’s writings and in rabbinic literature.8 Our research has consistently shown that the parallels in both corpora are the vestiges of a shared infrastructure, that is, of an ancient repository of Jewish legends that served the historian and also reached the redactors of rabbinic literature centuries later.9 This conclusion sets the stage for the characterization of a “lost Atlantis,” as it were, of Jewish legends that preceded both Josephus and the rabbis. The classi­ fication of this collection has revealed several, defined genres, each with its own distinctive content, style, and thrust. I have argued for the existence within this framework of a genre that I have defined as “Priestly Temple-Legends.” These are temple- and priesthood-oriented stories, describing episodes in the history of the Jerusalem Temple and apparently transmitted in priestly circles.10 A definitive example, which may serve as a prototype of this genre, is the famous legend that essentially opens the Josephan account of postbiblical history 7 On various scholarly opinions regarding the double role and the extent of authority of high priests from the Persian until the Roman period, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas; and additional bibliography in Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 9 n. 1. 8 Ilan and Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis. 9 See Noam, “Lost Historical Traditions,” 991–1017. See now also Noam, Shifting Images, 17–26. 10 Schneider, Appearance of a High Priest, also seeks to reconstruct the Second Temple priestly worldview, but his study is focused on the mythic and mystic aspects of this conjectural “Temple ideology” and its heirs in medieval Judaism.

204 

 Vered Noam

(Ant. 11.304–347), that is, the story of the encounter between Alexander the Great and the high priest. Versions of this tradition also appear in the two distinct edi­ tions of the rabbinic Scholium—the Hebrew commentary appended to The Scroll of Fasting—which in its turn is cited in the Talmud.11 Josephus first relates how the Samaritan Sanaballetes, along with thousands of Samaritans, greet Alexander at Tyre, submit to his sovereignty and receive his consent for the building of the Samaritan temple. Alexander then marches towards Jerusalem, furious with the Jews for having assisted Darius (Ant. 11.321– 326). According to the legendary rabbinic versions, the Samaritans covet, and even receive, the Jerusalem Temple. The climax of the story, according to both versions, is the encounter of the great conqueror with the Jewish high priest: For when Alexander while still far off saw the multitude in white garments, the priests at their head clothed in linen, and the high priest in a robe of hyacinth-blue and gold, wearing on his head the mitre with the golden plate on it on which was inscribed the name of God, he approached alone and prostrated himself before the Name and first greeted the high priest […] (Josephus, Ant. 11.331)

Later Alexander explains to his entourage: It was not before him that I prostrated myself but the God of whom he has the honor to be high priest, for it was he whom I saw in my sleep in his current image, when I was at Dium in Macedonia, and as I was considering with myself how I might become master of Asia, he urged me not to hesitate but to cross over confidently, for he himself would lead my army and give over to me the empire of the Persians. (Ant. 11.333–334)12

The rabbinic version is quite similar: He saw Simeon the Righteous wearing priestly garments. He descended from his chariot and bowed down before him […] He said to them: I see his image when I go to wage war and then I win.13

11 Scholia O and P, 21 Kislev. See Noam, Megillat Taʽanit, 262–65; b. Yoma 69a and parallels. This tradition, in both the Josephan and Talmudic versions, has been extensively discussed in the scholarly literature. See for example Cohen, “Alexander the Great”; Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 113–56; Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 97–106; Ben Shahar, “The High Priest and Alexander the Great,” 91–144; Ben Shahar, “Jews, Samaritans and Alexander,” 403–26. 12 Translations of Josephus are according to Marcus, Josephus (LCL). 13 According to Scholium O, Noam, Megillat Ta‘anit, 262, author’s translation. The slight dif­ ferences regarding this scene between Scholia O, P and the Babylonian Talmud are not of our concern here.



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 205

What the storyteller wishes to underscore, pace the biblical worldview,14 is that the celebrated Greek conqueror’s successes on the battlefield were actually con­ tingent on the decrees of the God of Israel, who resides in the Jerusalem Temple. That small local Temple in the forlorn hilly landscape, on the western outskirts of the collapsing Persian Empire, is in fact the real center and the true core of tumultuous universal events.15 Due to the high priest’s dual role as both a reli­ gious and a political leader,16 he functions as a protagonist in both discrete plots: the earthly, political encounter with the great conqueror on the one hand, and the parallel heavenly arena on the other. In the rabbinic version, the high priest— named Jaddus by Josephus—is identified by the rabbis with the vague, meta-his­ torical image of “Simeon the righteous,” a figure that probably originated with Ben Sira’s hero, who actually lived some thirteen decades later than Alexander’s conquest.17 Our next tradition is related to events taking place more than two centuries later, against the background of the young Hasmonean state.18 In spite of the dif­ ferent setting, the motifs and message of the story are very similar to what we have just seen. (282) Now about the high priest Hyrcanus an extraordinary story is told (λέγεται) how the Deity communicated with him, for they say (φασὶ γάρ) that on the very day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the temple, burning incense as a high priest, heard a voice saying that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. (283) And on coming out of the temple he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually hap­ pened. This, then, was how the affairs of Hyrcanus were going (Josephus, Ant. 13.282–283).

The backdrop is a military campaign being waged by John Hyrcanus’s sons in Samaria in 107 BCE. This victory is apparently mentioned in Megillat Ta‘anit too,19 alongside other achievements of John Hyrcanus.20 This is not the sole attribution of the gift of prophecy to John Hyrcanus in Jewish sources: it appears elsewhere in 14 See for example Amit, “Dual Causality.” 15 Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 113–54, esp. 135–36; 145–46, offers a different analysis. 16 As opposed to Schneider’s claim that the storyteller wished to hint that the image of the high priest is a representation of God himself (Appearance of the High Priest, 105–6). 17 See Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 214. 18 For a more detailed treatment of this tradition see Noam, “Heavenly Voice,” 157–68, and see below. 19 The twenty-fifth of Marḥeshwan (Noam, Megillat Taʽanit, 45, 243–49). 20 The fifteenth and sixteenth of Sivan, (Noam, Megillat Taʽanit, 44, 196–97); the twenty-first of Kislev (ibid., 46, 262–65). In all three cases, mentioned here and in the previous footnote, the two Scholia are not aware of the original event and offer alternative—and erroneous—historical reasons for the Scroll’s holidays, among them the Alexander legend discussed above.

206 

 Vered Noam

Josephus,21 and Qumran scholars have suggested that a negative echo of the tra­ dition attributing prophecy to John Hyrcanus may have survived in 4QTestimonia (4Q175).22 Additional allusions to Hyrcanus’s prophetic powers might be found in the mentions of a prophet from the descendants of Levi in the Testament of Levi 8.15 and 18.2.23 Although our story involves a military episode outside of Jerusalem, it focuses on a religious event that takes place in the depths of the Temple, and its protago­ nist is a high priest rather than a military figure. This story also indicates that the main arena is not Israel and its enemies, but rather the God-Israel relationship: that is why the true protagonist is the religious, not the military, leader. Nonethe­ less, the high priest is not detached from the external military events, for it was his sons who were engaged in the military action. Almost identical in style and content, this tradition also appears in rabbinic literature. To this rabbinic parallel we shall shortly return. Preserved in the rabbinic Tosefta we find a similar tradition concerning a heavenly voice in the temple, which treats yet another historical incident—the annulling of Caligula’s decree mandating the bringing of an idol into the Temple in 41 CE, as recounted by Philo, Josephus and Tacitus:24 Simeon the Righteous heard a davar (“a word”) issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing, “the [pagan] cult which the enemy ordered to bring into the Temple is can­ celled, and Gasqelges [Gaius Caligula] has been killed and his decrees have been annulled’. Now it was in Aramaic that he heard it (t. Soṭah 13.6).

Another revered high priest, unsurprisingly named—again!—“Simeon the righ­ teous,” also merits a heavenly message in the temple, this time heralding the death of a hateful Roman emperor and the abolition of his idolatrous decree. In the O Scholium of Megillat Ta‘anit for the 22nd of Shevat, there appears an expanded version of this story:

21 Ant. 13.299–300; 322–323; J.W 1.68. 22 For details, bibliography, and a comprehensive discussion, see Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 63– 89. 23 De Jonge, Testaments, 34, 45. Charles actually links the Testament of Levi’s description of the voice heard by the priest from the Temple (18.6) with our story of the heavenly voice in Josephus and rabbinic sources. See Charles, APOT, 2:309; see also Thoma, “John Hyrcanus I,” 136–39. But see Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments, 179–80, who identify Christian motifs in this passage. 24 Philo, Legat. 186–348; Josephus, J.W. 2.184–203; Ant. 18.257–309; Tacitus, Histories 5.9. For a historical discussion see Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini legatio; Bilde, “Roman Emperor Gaius”; Schwartz, Agrippa I, 77–89.



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 207

In the days of Kloskos [Gaius Caligula] they [the Romans] issued a decree to erect an idol in the temple and word reached Jerusalem on the eve of the festival of Sukkot. Simeon the Righteous said to the people: Celebrate your festival with joy; nothing [will come out] of what you have heard. On the night following the first day of the festival, he climbed on to the roof of the hall of the temple and proclaimed: “He whose honor dwells in this house, just as He performed miracles for our fathers in every generation, so too will He perform miracles for us in this time […]” And Simeon heard a voice from the Holy of Holies: “the (pagan) cult that the enemy ordered brought into the Temple is cancelled, and Gasqelges [Gaius Caligula] has been killed and his decrees have been annulled.”25

In this story too, the high priest officiates in the Temple, but at the same time he acts both as a prophet and as a leader who “takes care for his people,” to para­ phrase Ben Sira 50:4, and encourages them in times of crisis. By way of interim summation, we may conclude that the two facets of Sime­ on’s figure in Ben Sira are present in these priestly legends too. Two spheres are contrasted in these stories: an external, military-political sphere, and an internal, metaphysical sphere involving the relationship between the God of Israel and his nation. As the mediator between the Israelites and their God in the Temple sphere, and as a figure also involved, directly or indirectly, in the political or mil­ itary events, the high priest bridges the two loci.

3 Priestly Legends through a Rabbinic Lens Surprisingly enough, the rabbis adopted, and integrated into their literature, several definitively priestly stories that reflect no rabbinic presence or leader­ ship. However, by their integration into a rabbinic framework, these stories were carefully manipulated to fit the novel ethics of the rabbinic era, as may readily be observed through a series of stories on heavenly voices, embedded in the Tosefta (t. Soṭah 13.3–6). After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit ceased from Israel; nevertheless, they announced to them [heavenly mes­ sages] by means of a bat qol (“heavenly voice”). a. On one occasion, some Sages had gathered in the upper chamber of Gurya’s house in Jericho; when a bat qol issued and said to them, “There is a man 25 Translation according to Tropper, Simeon, 210. On the rabbinic tradition see Noam, Megillat Taʽanit, 283–88; Tropper, Simeon, 209–12; Kister, “Scholia,” 454–59; and recently Noam, “A Stat­ ue in the Temple,” 453–84.

208 

 Vered Noam

among you who is worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit but his generation is unworthy of it.” They all looked at Hillel the Elder. b. On another occasion they were sitting in Yavneh; and they heard a bat qol saying, “There is in your midst a person who is deserving of the Holy Spirit, but his generation is unworthy of it”. They all looked at Samuel the Small… c. John the High Priest heard a davar issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing, “The children (‫ )טליא‬who went to wage war against Antioch have been victorious.” They noted down the time and the day and it tallied with the hour they were victorious. d. Simeon the Righteous heard a davar issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing, “the (pagan) cult which the enemy ordered to bring into the Temple is cancelled, and Gasqelges [Gaius Caligula] has been killed and his decrees have been annulled.” Now it was in Aramaic that he heard it. We have already encountered the third tradition (c), which is parallel to the one recounted by Josephus on John Hyrcanus I, and the fourth tradition (d), which treats the Caligula decree. In these temple-tales, a “word”—an ancient term that predates bat qol—is delivered to high priests in the temple, in what may be defined as Second Temple Middle Aramaic. Functionally closer to biblical prophecy, this davar treats dramatic national events—a victory in war or the annulment of a royal edict. In contrast, the first two traditions, which use the term bat qol, are fundamentally different. They deal with rabbis rather than priests, and are situ­ ated in the places where rabbis gather, rather than in the Temple. In them, the bat qol speaks Hebrew, and the topic is the worthy attribute of an individual rabbi. Taken together, these features clearly indicate a different, earlier origin for the latter two stories, as compared with the collection into which they were inserted. They are probably priestly traditions from the Second Temple period, which attribute the last vestiges of prophetic power to the priests. The inclu­ sion of one of these two traditions in Antiquities is indeed clear evidence of its pre-rabbinic date. On the other hand, the first two stories, concerning the bat qol at Jericho and Yavneh, represent a secondary “rabbinic” stage of development, in which such events were transferred to the rabbinic world. The heavenly voice received a fixed designation—bat qol—but it is a pale shadow of the original: it no longer proclaims dramatic, national salvation, but rather the spiritual attributes of a rabbi. The rabbis indeed incorporated the story of John and the heavenly voice into their literature but, on the other hand, quickly created mirror images of prophetic powers exercised by rabbis in the attics where they gathered. Thus, the ancient traditions of a “word” heard by Temple priests appear in a string of stories on heavenly voices heard by rabbis. The message concerning the rabbis reflects an



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 209

intriguing phenomenon: although individual rabbis merit the gift of prophecy, their generation is unworthy. This means that the storytellers inserted an opposite message into these “prophecies,” essentially making them reveal the end of the age of prophecy. Thus, the context into which the story of John Hyrcanus was inserted undermines the message of the story itself. While the ancient story por­ trays a leader and high priest as a successor of the biblical prophets, the rabbinic context announces a removal of the scepter from the priest to the rabbis, from prophecy to wisdom and, last but not least, the transformation of John into a rabbi among other rabbis.26 This finding is in distinct harmony with the treatment of John Hyrcanus else­ where in rabbinic literature.27 In the Mishnah, John serves as an example of an honored man (m. Yad. 4.6), an illustrious high priest (m. Parah 3.5), and a sage who sets halakic regulations (m. Ma‘aś. Š. 5.15 = m. Soṭah 9.10).28 Whereas Second Temple sources—Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Megillat Ta‘anit, the legend embedded in the Tosefta, and also an ancient midrash embed­ ded in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, prophesying John’s victory over his enemies29— convey an image of John Hyrcanus as a general, a prophet, and a high priest, rabbinic literature appropriates him for its own world. It is silent regarding his secular leadership, conquests, and military accomplishments,30 drawing instead the portrait of an admired high priest, and mainly of an early sage, who issues regulations. It thus incorporates his figure into the paradigm of the early rabbis. 26 Kister, “Notes,” 183–86, demonstrated an intriguing example of the rabbinic tendency to re­ place priestly figures with rabbis. Whereas Ben Sira alludes to Deut 6:5 when he mentions the ob­ ligation to revere God’s priests (7:27–31), the rabbinic midrash used the same verse to underscore the imperative to respect the teachers of halakah as God’s true representatives. 27 For surveys of rabbinic references to this figure, see for instance Alon, “Attitude of the Phari­ sees,” 26 n. 22; Thoma, “John Hyrcanus”; Gafni, “Hasmoneans”, 270–71. 28 It happens only later, in post-Tannaitic sources, that some reservations regarding this fig­ ure and his actions are voiced (y.  Maʿaś.  Š.  5.8, 56d; y.  Soṭah 9.11, 24a; b.  Ber 29a). See Alon, “Attitude of the Pharisees,” 27–28 n. 22. Interestingly, Josephus presents a similar ambivalence. Whereas his overall approach to Hyrcanus is extremely positive, he recounts one exceptional tra­ dition (Ant. 13.288–298), probably cited from an earlier, Jewish-Pharisaic source, that criticizes Hyrcanus. See, for example, Mason, Flavius Josephus, 213–45; Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 53–59, 160–7. This tradition also appears in rabbinic literature (b. Qidd. 66a), but there it is associated with his son, King Jannaeus. See Noam, “Story of King Jannaeus.” 29 Pseudo-Jonathan to Deut 33:11, see Geiger, Urschrift, 479. 30 A single exception is found in Scholium P on Megillat Taʿanit for the third of Tishri (Noam, Megillat Taʿanit, 94, 235–38) = b. Roš Haš. 18b, which cites a date formula that was used for judi­ cial writs and promissory notes. This formula used to indicate the years according to John Hyr­ canus’s rule. However, the formula itself is probably an authentic Hasmonean one (see 1 Macc 13:42; Ant. 13.214), whereas the rabbinic story is concerned with its abolition (see Schwartz, “Pharisaic Opposition,” 47–48).

210 

 Vered Noam

4 The High Priest as the Culmination and Purpose of Creation Now, let us return to the second intent of Ben Sira’s praise of Simeon—his place­ ment at the end of a chain of biblical heroes and as the culmination and purpose of creation.31 This strategy is also well attested in the subsequent generations. Cecil Roth pointed out in the nineteen-fifties that the ‘Avodah piyyuṭim tradition­ ally recited in synagogues on the Day of Atonement, describing the sacrificial service in the Temple on this solemn occasion, resemble, in all their recensions— dating from late antiquity to medieval times—Ben Sira 44 and 50. They all “begin with a cursory survey of the history of humanity from Adam downward, culmi­ nating […] in the organization of Divine worship under Aaron and his sons,” and conclude with a panegyric of the High Priest, in a style and wording remarkably similar to that of Ben Sira’s praise of Simeon, 50:5–10. Roth assumed that not only the concluding hymns of these poetic works, but also their prologues, recounting the biblical human history, are modeled after Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers, including some intriguing verbal similarities. He inferred that some primitive, original form of ‘Avodah, which preceded all these liturgical compositions, must have made major use of Ben Sira.32 In other words, this second feature of Ben Sira’s praise of the high priests must also have become a topos at a fairly early period. I would even dare to suggest, given the irregularity of both the Praise of the Fathers and the panegyric of Simeon within the overall character of Ben Sira as part of wisdom literature, that these literary pieces might have been examples of a genre extant as early as the second century BCE, rather than the founders of such a genre.33 This conjecture is further supported by a Qumranic piece of “sacred history,” as interpreted by Menahem Kister. 5Q13 frags 1 and 2—first published by Józef T. Milik and further joined together by Kister, who also suggested some improved readings and reconstructions—is a short review of biblical history, mentioning [probably Adam and Enoch]; Noah; Abraham; Isaac; Jacob; Levi and Aaron. As Kister has pointed out, the text appears to be dealing with God’s election of human beings in narrowing circles, with Aaron’s election as its climax. Kister stresses the existence of generally similar historical surveys “in the sermons, poetical works, and prayers of the second temple period,” with Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers 31 Mermelstein, Creation, 37–42. 32 Roth, “Ecclesiasticus,” 172. See also Kister, “Notes,” 126 n. 4; Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 58–59, 85–96. 33 For a similar assumption see Schneider’s single statement in Appearance of High Priest, 87, but a different view emerges elsewhere in the book, as in, for example, 59.



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 211

as the most elaborate example. On the other hand, he emphasizes the closer sim­ ilarity between the Qumran fragment and the earliest ‘Avodah poems in terms of the “narrowing circles,” a motif that does not exist in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers.34 The inevitable conclusion is that ‘Avodah piyyuṭim are not necessarily contingent on Ben Sira. Rather, both Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers and the later liturgical poems must have derived from an early Second Temple literary type, also attested elsewhere. This priestly, poetic model included the basic compo­ nents of God as creator, a historical survey of biblical images ending with Aaron, and then a description of the high priest—be it Aaron himself or another prom­ inent high priest—officiating in the Temple. The occasion of the priest’s service is also changeable—the Day of Atonement (as in ‘Avodah poems); sacrificing the daily tamid (Ben Sira);35 or the sectarian rite of the annual covenant (as in the Qumran fragment). This similarity notwithstanding, we should be aware of the uniqueness of the rabbinic-liturgical offshoot of this tradition, namely the inclusion in the syn­ agogue service of a large bulk of normative mishnaic-halakic material concerning the detailed description of the Temple service on the Day of Atonement.36

5 The Chain of the Fathers through a Rabbinic Lens We earlier pointed out that early priestly legends, exhibiting the twofold role of admired priestly figures as political and religious leaders, were on the one hand adopted, but on the other hand adjusted, by rabbinic authors and editors. Inter­ estingly, the rabbis reacted in a similar way to the other vehicle of Ben Sira’s priestly praise, namely the “Succession of the Fathers” preceding, and lending authority to, the figure of his hero. Whereas in liturgy, which is naturally more conservative in terms of language, content and literary formulae, this genre was preserved in the ‘Avodah piyyuṭim (albeit with considerable addition of rabbinic halakah), in Tannaitic literature the tradition was more shrewdly employed and transformed. 34 Kister, “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah,” 143. See there reference to biblical precursors of such histor­ ical reviews. 35 Scholars are divided as to the occasion described in Ben Sira. See Ó Fearghail, “Sir 50,5–21”; Gurtner, “The ‘House of the Veil.’” 36 On the tension between the priestly and rabbinic elements in the ‘Avodah piyyuṭim see Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 86.

212 

 Vered Noam

Much has been written on the unique character of tractate Avot as a rabbinic emulator of the biblical and post biblical wisdom literature,37 including references to its similarities to Ben Sira.38 Besides noting Avot’s very nature as a collection of didactic sayings, its major themes, its unique style and the repeated identifi­ cation of the Torah with universal wisdom, all prevalent in Ben Sira, scholars have pointed out the striking similarity of the very caption Avot as “fathers of the Mishnah,” to the epithet “Fathers” used by Ben Sira for his biblical heroes.39 In spite of this resemblance, scholars are divided as to whether Avot should be regarded as a branch of the wisdom tradition, or as an integral part of rab­ binic literature. Gerhard von Rad contended that, as opposed to rabbinic liter­ ature, “the Torah is not a subject of particular interest to Sirach […] it is rele­ vant only in so far as it is to be understood on the basis of […] the great complex of wisdom teachings.”40 Amram Tropper has observed that “Whereas Ben Sira merely equates Torah with wisdom in a superficial manner, the rabbis identify universal wisdom with their particular Torah traditions.”41 Ishay Rosen-Zvi has convincingly shown that “the same value system which undergirds the Mishnah – is at play in Avot”, and surmised that Avot is “a reflection on the wisdom tradi­ tion, designed in order to apologize for and promote the ethos of Torah study.”42 The same rabbinic strategy of relevance to Avot at large—the transformation of the wisdom style into a vehicle of rabbinic ethos—is recognizable with respect to Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers. Amram Tropper compares Ben Sira’s outline of biblical history with Avot chapter 5, which mentions Adam, Noah, Abraham, “our fathers in Egypt,” and miracles wrought in the temple.43 Avot 5 is, however, not a chronological review, but rather a collection of numerical sayings. In my view, the real parallel to Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers occurs in the famous chain of transmission in the first chapter of Avot (m. Avot 1.1-12):44 37 Bibliography on Avot in general has been collected by Lerner, “Tractate Avot,” 275–76; Trop­ per, Wisdom, 1–16. On the relation of Avot to the wisdom tradition see Tropper, Wisdom, 51–61, previous bibliography in 51 n. 2; 61 n. 51; and Rosen-Zvi, “Wisdom Tradition,” 181–90. 38 Gottlieb, “Pirqe Abot,” 152–64; Tropper, Wisdom, 57–59; Rosen-Zvi, “Wisdom Tradition,” 184–87. 39 Rosen-Zvi, “Wisdom Tradition,” 189–90. 40 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 247. 41 Tropper, Wisdom, 58. 42 Rosen-Zvi, “Wisdom Tradition,” 189. 43 Tropper, Wisdom, 58. 44 Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 23–67, views this chain of transmission as an adaptation of an early Tannaitic literary genre of such chains, into which the author has inserted additional links, the Great Assembly (based on Neh 8–10) and Simeon the Righteous among them. The basic model is also influenced, according to Tropper, by a Hellenistic literary genre of successions; see also idem, Wisdom, 166–72. Tropper does not compare it to Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers, or to



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 213

Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets, And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly. They said three things […] Simeon the Righteous was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He would say: “On three things does the world stand: On Torah, on the Temple service, and on deeds of loving kindness. Antigonos of Sokho received [the Torah] from Simeon the Righteous… Yose b. Yoezer of Seredah and Yose b. Yohanan of Jerusalem received [it] from them… Joshua b. Perahiah and Mattai the Arbelite received [it] from them… Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shatah received [it] from them… Shemaiah and Abtalion received [it] from them... Hillel and Shammai received [it] from them.45

This chain, like Ben Sira’s outline, begins with biblical heroes, in order to apply their outstanding status to postbiblical figures. Interestingly, both lists include the magnificent figure of the (probably same) high priest named Simeon. None­ theless, the personalities chosen to open and close the two lists are very differ­ ent. Whereas Ben Sira celebrates the righteousness of almost every dominant and favorable biblical figure, the rabbis include only those who are somehow con­ nected with the “receiving” and “passing on” of the Torah. Their list typically opens with Moses in Sinai, rather than with Adam or the Patriarchs. Whereas for Ben Sira the peak of humanity is the high priest, for the rabbis the end of the rab­ binic chain beginning with Moses at Sinai are Hillel and Shammai, regarded in some Tannaitic sources as the “real” outset of the Tannaitic period (t. ‘Ed. 1.1) and as “fathers of the world” (m. ‘Ed. 1.4). Whereas the divine intent in the creation of humanity, according to Ben Sira and the ‘Avodah liturgy, is the emergence of the priests, Avot 1.1, as shown by Moshe David Herr, intentionally skips any mention of priests, or their biblical role as teachers of the Torah.46 Ben Sira’s Simeon is never praised for Torah study or teaching,47 but rather for his care of the people any other Jewish Second Temple predecessor. Boyarin, Border Lines, 74–86, compared the Abot chain to the notion of apostolic succession in nascent Christianity and dated it to the end of the second century CE. 45 Translation according to Neusner, Mishnah, revised. 46 Herr, “Continuum,” 43–56. For similar views, see the references in Tropper, Wisdom, 59 n. 100, though Tropper himself objects to the notion of a deliberate, polemical omission of priests from the chain of transmission in Avot, relying on the insertion of the high priest Simeon into the chain. As I try to show throughout the current article, the rabbis did integrate priestly heritage into their own literature, but invented shrewd ways of fitting it to their novel rabbinic ethos. Thus, they deleted the priests as Torah teachers and transmitters from the sequence, but used the legendary figure of Simeon in a rabbinized version. 47 Kister, “Contribution,” 374, suggested that Ezra was deliberately omitted from Ben Sira’s list of protagonists of the Persian period (Zerubbabel, Jeshua son of Jozadak, Nehemiah, Sir 49:11– 13), since this list included builders of Jerusalem and the Temple, as an introduction to Simeon’s actions in this regard. Ezra, as a scribe and teacher of Torah, was not a suitable backdrop for the political figure of Simeon.

214 

 Vered Noam

and for his temple service. In contrast, the Simeon of Avot is “of the remnants of the Great Assembly,” characterized in Avot 1.1 as promoting judgment, teaching and legislation, the typical rabbinic roles.48 He counts temple worship as one, markedly not the first, of the “three things on which the world stands,” the Torah being first and foremost among them (m. Avot 1.2).49 Finally, while for Ben Sira Simeon is the culmination of the entire outline of figures, in Avot he is merely another link in the rabbinic chain, leading towards the Tannaim.50

6 Conclusion Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers and panegyric of the high priest, Simeon son of Yohanan, most probably exemplified rather than generated two distinct Jewish genres of priestly glorification during Second Temple times. One genre consists of tales underscoring the twofold role of high priests as both religious agents of the people in the Temple and their leaders in political life, defending them and the Temple in times of crisis. Vestiges of this type of story are preserved in Josephus and in rabbinic literature. The second category is a short review of world history through a succession of biblical heroes, leading towards the priestly worship in the Jerusalem Temple. This topos is evident in the many variations of the liturgi­ cal ‘Avodah of the Day of Atonement, testifying to an early prototype. The rabbis astutely adopted, imitated and revised these two genres. They inte­ grated the priestly legends into a series of rabbinic stories, depicted their priestly protagonists as early rabbis, obscured their political resume and underscored their religious and especially legislative activity. Rabbinic literature adopted also the second strategy of Ben Sira—the Praise of the Fathers—but manipulated it. Instead of legitimizing the high priest Simeon through a succession of past heroes beginning with Genesis, the system was adjusted to lead from Sinai to the sages 48 Tropper, Wisdom, 25–26. Kister, “Contribution”, points out “the great contrast” between the political image of Simeon in Ben Sira, which required the omission of Ezra (see the previous note), and his rabbinic image in Avot, which, on the contrary, required his affiliation with the “great assembly” ascribed to Ezra’s days. 49 See Tropper’s witty suggestion (Wisdom, 69–79) that the wisdom saying ascribed to Simeon was inspired by the three blessings recited by the high priest after the Torah reading on the Day of Atonement (m. Yoma 7.1), and thus embodied both priestly and rabbinic values. 50 See also Rosen Zvi, “Wisdom Tradition,” 189–90. Tropper, Wisdom, 65–66, argues that the location of Simeon at the end of the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira caused the rabbinic readers to place him within their chain at the transition from the biblical to the rabbinic era. In light of this assumption, one would expect Tropper to interpret the Avot chain in light of the Ben Sira sequence, but see note 44 above.



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 215

of the Mishnah. Ironically, the rabbis invoked the legendary hero of the priestly era, “Simeon the Righteous,” reproduced his image, and implanted it in multiple historical contexts, in order to support the creation of the novel religious culture of the rabbinic era.

Bibliography Alon, Gedalyahu. “The Attitude of the Pharisees to Roman Rule and the House of Herod.” Pages 18–47 in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Trans. By Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. Amit, Yairah. “Dual Causality – An Additional Aspect.” Pages 105–21 in In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Ben Shahar, Meir. “Jews, Samaritans and Alexander: Facts and Fictions in Jewish Stories on the Meeting of Alexander the Great and the High Priest.” Pages 403–26 in Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great. Edited by Kenneth R. Moore. Brill’s Companions to Classical Reception 14. Leiden: Brill: 2018. —. “The High Priest and Alexander the Great.” Pages 91–144 in Josephus and the Rabbis. Edited by Tal Ilan and Vered Noam. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017. (Hebrew) Bilde, Per. “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem.” ST 32 (1978): 67–93. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Brutti, Maria. The Development of the High Priesthood during the Pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology. JSJ Supplements 108. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Charles, Robert H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus.” AJS Review 7–9 (1982–83): 41–68. De Jonge, Marinus. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. PVTG 1.2. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2008. Gafni, Isaiah M. “The Hasmoneans in Rabbinic Liteature.” Pages 261–75 in Yemei beit ḥashmonai: Meqorot, siqqumim, parshiyot nivḥarot ve-ḥomer ezer. Edited by David Amit and Hanan Eshel. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1995. (Hebrew) Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer, 1857. Gottlieb, Isaac B. “Pirqe Avot and Biblical Wisdom.” VT 40 (1990): 152–64. Gurtner, Daniel M. “The ‘House of the Veil’ in Sirach 50.” JSP 14 (2005): 187–200. Herr, Moshe D. “Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission.” Zion 44 (1979): 43–56. Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Wisdom of the Scribe, the Wisdom of the Priest, and the Wisdom of the King According to Ben Sira.” Pages 89–99 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity. FS George W. E.

216 

 Vered Noam

Nickelsburg. Edited by Randal A. Argall et al. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Hollander, Harm W., and Marinus de Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Ilan, Tal, and Vered Noam. Josephus and the Rabbis. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017. (Hebrew) Kalmin, Richard L. Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Kister, Menahem. “5Q13 and the ‘Avodah: A Historical Survey and its Significance.” DSD 8 (2001): 136–48. —. “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 303–78. —. “The Horn of David and the Horn of Salvation.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 4 (1985): 191–207. —. “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira.” Pages 160–87 in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. —. “Notes on the Book of Ben Sira.” Leshonenu 47 (1983): 125–46. —. “The Scholia on Megillat Taʽanit.” Tarbiz 74 (2005): 451–77. —. “Jewish Aramaic Poems from Byzantine Palestine and Their Setting.” Tarbiz 76 (2007): 105–84. Lee, Thomas R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. SBLDS 75. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. Lerner, Myron B. “The Tractate Avot.” Pages 263–81 in The Literature of the Sages. Edited by Shmuel Safrai. CRINT 2.3. Assen: van Gorcum, 1987. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Marcus, Ralph. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books 9–11. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937. Marcus, Ralph. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books 12–13. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943. Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. StPB 39. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Mermelstein, Ari. Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. JSJ Supplements 168. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Mulder, Otto. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. JSJ Supplements 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Noam, Vered. Megillat Taʽanit: Versions, Interpretation, History, with a Critical Edition. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003. (Hebrew) —. Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. —. “The Story of King Jannaeus (b. Qiddushin 66a): A Pharisaic Reply to Sectarian Polemic.” HTR 107 (2014): 31–58. —. “A Statue in the Temple.” Pages 453–84 in Josephus and the Rabbis, vol. 1. Edited by Tal Ilan and Vered Noam. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017.



Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective 

 217

—. “Lost Historical Traditions: between Josephus and the Rabbis.” Pages 991–1017 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Edited by Joel Baden et al. JSJ Supplements 175,2. Leiden: Brill, 2017. —. “Why did the Heavenly Voice Speak Aramaic? Ancient Layers in Rabbinic literature.” Pages 157–68 in The Faces of Torah: Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade. Edited by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal et al. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Ó Fearghail, Fearghus. “Sir 50, 5–21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole Offering?” Bib 59 (1978): 301–13. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “The Wisdom Tradition in Rabbinic Literature and Mishnah Avot.” Pages 172–90 in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Hindy Najman. JSJ Supplements 174. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Roth, Cecil. “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service.” JBL 71 (1952): 171–78. Schneider, Michael. The Appearance of the High Priest: Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology: From Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient Jewish Mysticism. Sources and Studies in the Literature of Jewish Mysticism 30. Los Angeles, CA: Cherub Press, 2012. (Hebrew) Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. TSAJ 23. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck: 1990. —. “On Pharisaic Opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy.” Pages 44–56 in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. WUNT I, 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958. Repr., 1997. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smallwood, Mary E. Philonis Alexandrini legatio ad Gaium. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Thoma, Clemens. “John Hyrcanus I as Seen by Josephus and other Jewish Sources.” Pages 136–39 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. StPB 41. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Tropper, Amram D. Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 84. Leiden: Brill, 2013. —. Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East. Oxford Oriental Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004. von Rad, Gerhard. Wisdom in Israel. London: SCM Press, 1972. Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship” Pages 76–91 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Edited by Tessa Rajak et al. HCS 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. Yahalom, Joseph. “Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic in Late Antiquity.” JJS 47 (1996): 33–44.

 III The Poetry of the Book

Eric D. Reymond

The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C Abstract: The version of Ben Sira attested in the medieval manuscript commonly labeled “MS C” is not simply a random assortment of Ben Sira’s maxims. Rather, MS C preserves unique poems and poetic units whose structure complements the themes and ideas of these individual compositions. Furthermore, the material preserved in MS C seems to reflect a predilection for word play and a tendency to use metaphor at the beginning of poetic units. These findings suggest that the person responsible for this manuscript or version was attentive not only to the ideas found in Ben Sira’s text, but also to their literary expression. Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, medieval manuscript, wordplay

1 Introduction The Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript conventionally labelled “MS C” (whose various folio pages bear the following shelf marks and tags: T-S 12.867, T-S 12.727 + T-S AS 213.4, frag. G. Combs [DSD 17], BAIU [Bibliothèque Alliance Israélite Universelle] ID 2, frag. Gaster [JQR 12]) is unlike the other Ben Sira manuscripts for a number of reasons. In particular, we should note of MS C that 1) it is relatively small in size; 2) it consists of a selection of Ben Sira’s maxims; 3) it presents the proverbs out of the typical order that is attested in the other manuscripts and versions; 4) it focuses on “social topics” and avoids “doctrinal passages.”1 Other characteris­ tics that seem important, include the fact that it (unlike MSS Mas, B, E, F) is not written stichometrically, and it includes no marginal alternatives. The study of Ben Sira’s poetry has often focused on specific constructions or devices (e.g., inclusio, metaphor, wordplay) or specific poems (e.g., Sir 51:13–30).2 My own book-length study of Ben Sira’s poetry focused especially on its paral­ lelism, that is, the structure of the poems relating to the meaning of the words, 1 For a longer list of MS C’s qualities, see Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 21–22; the quota­ tions are drawn from his list on page 22. 2 See the many studies of Skehan, “Sirach 40:11–17”; Skehan, “Staves and Nails”; Skehan, “Structures in Poems”; Skehan, “Acrostic Poem.” Note Di Lella’s summary of features in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 63–74 (originally published as “Poetry of Ben Sira”). Articles that treat individual poems include Di Lella, “Fear of the Lord”; Di Lella, “Sirach 10:19–11:6”; Di Lella, “Sir­ ach 51:1-12”; Di Lella, “Use and Abuse.” To these can be added: Seger, “L’Utilisation”; Reymond, “Sirach 51:13–30 and 11Q5”; Reymond, “Wordplay.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-013

222 

 Eric D. Reymond

their grammar, and sounds.3 In that study, I focused on just one manuscript, the Masada scroll. I chose the Masada scroll because it was the oldest witness to the Hebrew text of a substantial length and because it offered a convenient way of limiting my analysis. Where relevant, I filled in much of the material missing from Mas with the version(s) from MS B and its margins. This mixing of material from different manuscripts was useful to my study and, I believe, allowed me to observe the consistency with which parallelism appears throughout Ben Sira and throughout the different manuscripts. Nevertheless, it is my impression that owing to their unique characteristics, each manuscript evidences a slightly differ­ ent text and, with this, a slightly different poetic idiom. Although the differences between Mas and MS B are few in relation to their poetic structures, devices, and overall character, the differences between MS C and the other Hebrew manu­ scripts are potentially greater. The present study is an attempt to investigate the poetry as evidenced in just this one manuscript, MS C. To illustrate the poetry of MS C, I will investigate three consecutive poetic units or paragraphs that occur at the beginning of the manuscript as it is pre­ served today. Respectively, these concern the topics of humility, embarrassment, and arrogance. The study of these three units will then allow us to make some broader generalizations about the poems of MS C. In general, it will be seen that the poetic units usually display ideas or themes distinct from those of the verses found in the other manuscripts and versions. This is generally due to the selec­ tion of verses and their sequencing in MS C. In addition, it is sometimes the case that MS C contains words not found in the other manuscripts, words which con­ tribute to the idea or theme of the poetic unit. Many other subtler differences also contribute to giving the poems and words a unique emphasis. How many of these differences reflect the work of the compiler of the text as found in MS C is unknown, but, despite this, it is not unreasonable to say that the person respon­ sible for the text is partially responsible for its poetry.

2 History of Research Portions of MS C were first published in 1900, by Solomon Schechter, Israel Lévi, and Moses Gaster.4 In 1960 two more leaves were published by Jefim Schirmann, and then in the last decade, yet two more leaves by Shulamit Elizur.5 In these 3 Reymond, Innovations. 4 Schechter, “Further Fragment”; Lévi, “Fragments”; Gaster, “New Fragment.” 5 Schirmann, “Additional Leaves”; Elizur, “New Leaves.” A fragment of MS C containing Sir 25:8 and 25:20–21 was published by Scheiber, “Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript.” Due to the obscurity



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 223

publications, the primary focus has been, of course, on the publication and expli­ cation of the text. No extended descriptions of the poetry are found. All the same, past analyses of the manuscript and the texts preserved in it do illuminate our understanding of the poetry. Pancratius Beentjes’s study of the manuscript, “Hermeneutics in the Book of Ben Sira,” documented how the compiler responsible for the text of MS C has grouped the maxims thematically into sections.6 The compiler has followed the general sequence of verses and chapters found in other manuscripts, but has felt free to take some verses out of their original order and to insert them in different places. Usually, general statements precede more specific instructions and certain words repeat from verse to verse, sometimes in an anaphoric construction.7 For example, in the passage concerning shame/embarrassment, Beentjes notices that the compiler has juxtaposed verses from different parts of the book (in order: Sir 41:16b–c; 4:21; 20:22–23; 4:22–23). The first verse, 41:16b–c, is a general state­ ment on shame and introduces the following unit. The same verse, in its original placement (in chapter 41), also introduces a poem. Furthermore, verses 20:22–23 are integrated into their context not only by echoing the preceding verses through the repetition of the word ‫“ בושת‬shame” (also in 41:16b–c and 4:21), and the niphal form of ‫“ כלם‬to be humiliated” (elsewhere only in Sir 41:16b–c), but also by begin­ ning with ‫יש‬-clauses, as the verse that precedes does (i.e., 4:21).8 Jeremy Corley, building on some of these observations, again emphasizes that the text of MS C exhibits a repetition of words not necessarily found in other manuscripts, some of which repetition results in anaphora.9 In relation to the same passage described above, he observes that other words are also repeated between the different verses, including ‫“( נפש‬soul”), ‫“( נׂשא‬to lift”), ‫“( פנים‬face”), which repetition brings greater coherence to this unit.10 He also notes how the person responsible for MS C’s text has included verses from elsewhere in Ben Sira as introductory prefaces to thematic sections, even when these do not directly mention the following theme. For example, he suggests that Sir 36:24 on discern­ ment between “delicacies of a gift” and “delicacies of deception” introduces the following passage on friendship.11 Corley also mentions that approximately a fifth of the publication and some mistakes in the transliteration, Di Lella published his own edition of this fragment (“Newly Discovered”). 6 The article first appeared as Beentjes “Hermeneutics,” but more recently appears as chapter 24 in Happy the One, 333–47. 7 See, e.g., Beentjes, Happy the One, 335–36. 8 Beentjes, Happy the One, 336. 9 Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 8–14. 10 Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 9. 11 Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 11.

224 

 Eric D. Reymond

of the verses in MS C derive from introductory or concluding sections of other poems and that many of the pericopes mention death at their conclusion.12 Both Beentjes and Corley emphasize the creative part played by the compiler of the text of MS C, who has created new poetic units by juxtaposing material from different parts of the book. Both scholars indicate how these changes to the text alter the larger message communicated by the text. A broad effect of these changes is that the text of MS C emphasizes the practical dimensions to wisdom training, avoiding many references to the deity and to broader, more abstract theological concerns like “fear of the Lord.”13 In a previous article, I too have noticed differences between MS C and the other manuscripts.14 In particular, I (like Corley before me), have noted that in its passage on speech MS C seeks to express a dramatically different idea about verbal communication than that attested in MS A.15 The version in MS C seems to argue that being long-winded or wordy can be a good thing, can be one’s “saviour” (‫)מפליטו‬. MS A, on the other hand, likely representing the original idea, argues that it is better to choose words carefully and speak only when necessary and appropriate; a person’s speech, it says, can be their “downfall” (‫)מפלתו‬. The argument in MS C is partially enhanced and emphasized by the repetitions of words within the verse, repetitions that are not found in MS A. So, for example, in MS C, one finds in Sir 5:10: ‫היה סמוך על דברך ואחר יהיה דבריך‬ be resolute about your speech and afterwards your words will come. Contrast this with MS A: ‫היה סמוך על דעתך ואחר יהי דברך‬ be resolute according to what you know and afterwards may your speech come.16

12 Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 20. 13 Beentjes, Happy the One, 342; Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 22. 14 Reymond, “Fast Talk,” 253–73. 15 See Corley, “Alternative Hebrew Form,” 9–10. 16 Texts are based on photographs of the manuscripts available at the following websites: “The Book of Ben Sira” [Online: www.bensira.org] (by Gary A. Rendsburg and Jacob Binstein); “Fried­ berg Genizah Project” [Online: https://fgp.genizah.org]; “Cambridge Digital Library: Cairo Ge­ nizah” [Online: http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/genizah]; and “Genizah Collection of the Bodleian Libraries” [Online: genizah.bodleian.ox.ac.uk]. I have also consulted the following edi­ tions and commentaries: Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique; Smend, Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch; Smend, Sirach, erklärt; Ben-Ḥayyim, Book of Ben Sira; Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira; Abegg and Towes, “Ben Sira”; Rey, “Sagesses hébraiques.”



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 225

The repetition of the word ‫ דבר‬seems at first glance redundant in MS C; upon reflection, however, it seems to contribute to the general emphasis on speech in this unit. If one contrasts the two versions, the verse in MS C seems to suggest that one should concentrate on the manner of communication just as much as (if not more than) its content. Even more striking is the repetition in MS C at Sir 5:11: ‫היה נכון בשמועה טובה ובארך ענה תענה נכונה‬ be prepared in hearing well but in length you should certainly answer cor­ rectly. Contrast this with the version of MS A: ‫היה ממהר להאזין ובארך רוח השב פתגם‬ be someone quick to give ear but in patience return a response. In MS C, the niphal participle of ‫ כון‬is repeated as is the root ‫ענה‬, though no word is repeated in MS A. Furthermore, the recommendation to speak “in length,” seems quite different than the advice to speak with patience. The repetition of words seems to demonstrate one way in which a person speaks “in length.”17 Thus, the uniqueness of the poetry of MS C is partially related to its juxta­ position of otherwise separate verses. Coherence is created by a consistent set of lexemes across these verses, sometimes where the juxtaposed verses share common syntax, word order, and/or lexemes. In some cases, the alteration of wording within verses seems to reflect the theme of the poem or verse paragraph in which it is placed. In what follows I will elaborate on these features in MS C.

3 Specific passages Before reading these passages, one preliminary matter, related to the delimitation of poetic units, must be addressed. MS C does not indicate where poetic units or verse paragraphs begin and end. I have isolated three such units based on the common topic or theme in each group of verses. Nevertheless, it is also possible 17 Although this idea, in MS C at Sir 5:11, seems likely to be secondary, the original expression being closer to that of MS A, it is not always the case that MS C in expressing greater repetition represents the later form of the text. Note, for example, that in this same passage in Sir 5:9, the parallelism is more pronounced in MS C and less so in MS A (note, e.g., the repetition of the lamed preposition followed by ‫ כל‬in both cola in MS C vs. the single appearance of this sequence in 9a in MS A). Nevertheless, the Greek and Syriac seem to reflect the parallelism (especially the presence of ‫ )לכל‬as found in MS C, not that of MS A.

226 

 Eric D. Reymond

to read some of these verses as independent of those that surround them. The isolation of such poetic units is a highly subjective enterprise, as I have indicated elsewhere.18 At the least, it seems that the compiler of MS C’s text often juxta­ poses sets of verses with distinct topics; the result is that it seems easier to posit transitions between potential poetic units. In the end, it should be remembered that finding patterns in and connections between discrete items, even where no pattern or connection actually exists, is a common human tendency.19 It seems reasonable to think that even if the compiler of MS C’s text did not intend certain topically similar verses to be read together, a contemporary reader might read these verses together as a single larger unit.

3.1 “Humility” (MS C I [T-S 12.867] recto, lines 5–11 and I verso, line 1 = Sir 3:17–18, 21–22): The first full poetic unit one encounters in MS C, as preserved today, is on the general topic of humility. Although not represented stichometrically in the manu­ script, it is represented below in this manner to facilitate comprehension. ‫ בני את כל מלאכתיך בענוה הלוך  ומאיש מתן תאהב‬ 3:17 ׄ ‫ בני גדול אתה כן ׄתשפיל נפשך   ובעיני אלהים‬ ‫תמצא חן‬ 3:18 ‫ פלאות ממך אל תחקור         ורעים ממך אל ֯ת ֯דרוש‬ 3:21 ‫ באשר הורשיתה התבונן        ועסק אל יהי לך בנסתרות‬ 3:22 3:17 My child, go with all your wealth in humility (or ... complete [‫ ]*כלה‬all your work...), and you will be loved more than a person of gift(s). 3:18 My child, (in as much as) you are great, lower yourself,20 and in the eyes of God you will find grace. 3:21 Things too wondrous for you do not plumb, and what is too lofty (‫ *ראים > רעים‬or ‫ )*רמים‬for you do not investigate. 18 Reymond, Innovations, 12–14; and New Idioms, 13–18. 19 The phenomenon has various categories and names, like apophenia and the clustering illu­ sion. 20 In verse 18, what MS C preserves as ‫ בני‬may be a mistake for ‫*כפי‬. The words of the MS C text could be read as a simple unmarked comparison, similar to that which begins Jer 3:20 (Rey, “Sagesses hébraiques,” 33). Still, such comparisons are relatively rare. Note, furthermore, the Greek translation which makes the comparison explicit through the initial pronoun: ὅσῳ μέγας εἶ “the greater you are.” Cf. the Syriac bkl d’yt drb b‘lm’, which Calduch-Benages et al. (Wisdom of the Scribe, 74) translate “In face of all that is great in the world.” The Hebrew expression ‫*כפי‬ may be elliptical for ‫ ;כפי אשר‬see Mal 2:9. Note also the similar mistake in MS C at Sir 6:8 of ‫ בפני‬for ‫( כפי‬which is attested in MS A).



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 227

3:22 In that which you are permitted contemplate, but you have no business among the hidden things.21 Before continuing to the poetic analysis some explanation is required regarding the text and its translation. In verse 17a, I assume that the expression is similar in sense to that found in MS A: ‫“ בני בעשרך התהלך בענוה‬my child, in your wealth, conduct yourself in humility.” In contrast to the version in MS A, the verse in MS C apparently attests a long form of the imperative of ‫הלך‬. In addition, it uses the preposition ‫ את‬to convey accompaniment and the noun ‫ מלאכה‬to express wealth (a sense also found, e.g., in Gen 33:14; Exod 22:7, 10; 2 Chr 17:13; and 1QS 6:19, where it is parallel to ‫)הון‬.22 The imperative form ‫ הלוך‬is, of course, surprising here. (The form cannot be an infinitive absolute since it does not occur first in its clause.)23 Although the same form is implied in the ketiv to Prov 13:20 (‫ )הֹלֵוְך‬and at least five

21 It is, of course, unclear what exactly “hidden things” refers to. It seems likely that it was inter­ preted as referring to different things in different eras. In the late Second Temple era it could easi­ ly be interpreted as referring to the apocalypticism found in various well-known texts like Daniel and Enoch. Somewhat later in the first centuries of the first millennium, it might have been read as referring to Hellenistic cults. In the Middle Ages, a reader might associate the “hidden things” with hekhalot mysticism. Note, in relation to this, that Sir 3:21–22 is quoted in various rabbinic sources (e.g., Babylonian [b.  Ḥag. 13a] and Palestinian [y.  Ḥag. 2.1 = 77c] Talmuds and other Amoraic literature [Gen. Rab. 8.2]) in relation to similar concerns; it seems even to be alluded to in m. Ḥag. 2.1. See Labendz, “Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature,” 369–71. 22 It is also possible to construe the phrase ‫ את כל מלאכתיך‬as an accusative phrase marking the goal of the walking, akin to the phrase in Deut 1:19: ‫“ ונלך את כל־המדבר הגדול והנורא ההוא‬we crossed that great and fearsome desert.” This would result in the translation: “... go to your occupation in humility.” Still, several problems encumber this possibility. The first is the fact that the qal of ‫ הלך‬hardly ever occurs with the direct object marker (Deut 1:19 is the exception); it is much more common to find an accompanying ‫ את‬preposition (hence the translation offered just above). Note that in Prov 13:20 the form ‫ הֹלֵוְך‬is followed by the phrase ‫“( את־חכמים‬go with the wise”). Second, the word ‫ מלאכה‬most commonly indicates what is made or done (i.e., it can be translated “ware” or “work”). It only rarely indicates a more abstract conception of a person’s occupation or business and never, to my knowledge, the place where this business occurs. Third, what is the underlying sense that such a reading presupposes? Why be humble on the way to work and not actually while working? Alternatively, if the verb ‫ הלך‬should be construed in the sense of “to go after, pursue,” similar to the apparent sense it has in the phrase ‫“ הלך רוח‬one who goes after wind” (Mic 2:11), one is left to wonder about the underlying metaphor. Does one really follow after or chase work in Hebrew? 23 Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction, 593–94. On the infinitive in Ben Sira, see Smith’s synop­ sis, “Infinitive Absolute.”

228 

 Eric D. Reymond

times in the Babylonian Talmud, as well as a handful of times in later literature,24 still, the entire colon seems awkward in its expression.25 The oddities of this colon may be resolved if we assume metathesis of conso­ nants in the verb; that is if we assume ‫ הלוך‬is written for an intended ‫“ *כלה‬com­ plete.”26 Although the version in MS A contains the hithpael, ‫התהלך‬, this should not force us to preserve ‫ הלוך‬in MS C. In MS A, the verb fits its context.27 Note also that the version of this passage in MS A contains several words and phrases that seem like later interpolations (see below). The suggestion of ‫ *כלה‬is also mar­ ginally supported by the Greek, which contains the imperative διέξαγε “settle, conduct.” Although the verb διεξάγω can indicate arranging or conducting one’s affairs, it also has the sense of bringing a dispute or controversy to an end.28 The combination of the piel of ‫ כלה‬with ‫( מלאכה‬in the sense “work”) as object is found in Gen 2:2; Exod 40:33.29 By stating that one should complete one’s work or tasks in humility, it implies that humility should be applied to the entire process. This explanation at once may help to explain the underlying sense of the colon and the unusual form of the imperative.30 In 3:21, we find the word ‫“ רעים‬evil” which does not fit the context. Segal early on proposed that the earlier word from which ‫ רעים‬derived was perhaps ‫רמים‬, the participle of the verb ‫רום‬, allowing for the translation “what are too exalted for you.”31 This is a good possibility. Alternatively, it seems possible that the word ‫רעים‬ derives from the singular participle “high” or “exalted” in an Aramaic like-form, 24 See Maagarim (Online: maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il, 1/8/2016 [dates are listed in the se­ quence day/month/year]). Maagarim parses these MH forms as imperatives. It seems likely that the use of the infinitive absolute of ‫( הלך‬i.e., ‫ )הָלֹוְך‬in place of an imperative in passages like Isa 38:5 and 2 Sam 24:12 encouraged the usage of this apparent “long” form of the root. 25 Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom, 158) suggest that it is perhaps derived from a retroversion from the Greek (τὰ ἔργα σου), given that ἔργον commonly translates ‫מלאכה‬. 26 Segal (“Additional Leaves,” 320) suggested perhaps the intended word might have been the piel of ‫( הלך‬as in Qoh 11:9), though, as I understand it, this does not produce a sense substantially distinct from the qal. Note the translation of ‫ הלך‬in Qoh 11:9 in the NRSV: “follow.” If the verb was piel, it might be similar in sense to the pael of hlk in Syriac “to conduct, lead.” The hiphil would perhaps be somewhat closer to what we might expect “make your work go,” though even this seems awkward. 27 The Syriac expresses a similar idea. 28 See LSJ, s.v., def. 2. 29 The qal form of the verb also occurs with ‫ מלאכה‬as object in 1 Chr 28:20; 2 Chr 29:34. 30 It should also be mentioned that mistakes involving metathesis are found throughout the Ben Sira manuscripts, including MS C (e.g., in Sir 20:30 we find ‫“ תולעת‬worm,” though the context clearly implies the word ‫“ תועלת‬profit, use,” known from MH: ‫חכמה טמונה ואוצר מ[סותר] ומה תולעת‬ ‫“ בש[תיהם‬hidden wisdom and con[cealed] treasure, what is the use in these two [things]?”). The same proverb is attested in Mas and MS B, Bmg at Sir 41:14. 31 Segal, “Additional Leaves,” 32.



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 229

with a confusion of ayin for an intended aleph, the earlier form being ‫ ראים‬with the pronunciation rā’ēm.32 The confusion of ayin and aleph is seen multiple times in the manuscripts (e.g., ‫“ הע‬o” in Sir 41:2 Mas [= ‫“ האח‬ah” MS B] for an intended ‫[ *הא‬i.e., ‫ הֵא‬or Aramaic ‫ ;]הָא‬and ‫ רועה‬in Sir 46:15 MS B for ‫“ *רואה‬seer”). Note also that the perfect of ‫ רום‬is spelled ‫ ראים‬multiple times in the Targums (e.g., Tg. Jon. at 2 Kgs 14:10; Ezek 19:11; 28:2, 5, 13, 17; 31:5, 10; Hos 13:6), the frequency of which may have encouraged a similar spelling for the form underlying ‫רעים‬. Finally, note that in the Palestinian Targums (Tg. Neof. and the Fragmentary Targums), one finds ‫ רום‬spelled with an ayin: ‫“ ארעם‬raise!” at Exod 14:16 (= ‫ טול‬in Tg. Onq.; = ‫ארים‬ in Tg. Ps.-J.).33 Although, all things considered, one might expect a plural form (i.e., ‫)רמים‬, a singular form is not excluded given the singular participle ‫“ מכוסה‬that which is hidden,” attested in MS A’s version of the same colon. As for the poetic structure, we should observe first that the omission of verses 3:20 and 3:23–4:20 has given the unit more coherence.34 For example, the omis­ sion of these verses helps isolate 3:17–18, 21–22 since the following unit in MS C then addresses improper shame, a theme quite distinct from that of 3:17–18, 21–22. By contrast, Sir 3:26 and following in MS A addresses arrogance, which is rather close to that of the preceding verses. More than this, however, the unit coheres owing to several structural fea­ tures, which, it should be mentioned, are not found in the corresponding unit from MS A. In particular, note the consistent structure of the cola, where the verb or verb + object comes last in all the cola except the very last (23b). In addition, note the semantic connection between the lexemes ‫“ מלאכה‬work, wealth” in 17a and ‫“ עסק‬business, occupation” in 23b, a link that is enhanced through the 2. m. s. pronominal suffix which complements each noun. These structural features, in turn, complement and even create the meaning of the unit. In essence, the sequence of verses and the common structure of the cola have the effect of linking humility with the avoidance of esoteric speculation, a connec­ tion that is not as prominent in the corresponding passage from MS A. The con­ sistency in verb placement links the self-conscious act of humbling oneself to the eschewal of esoteric speculation. Notice also that both acts are done (at least in 32 As for other Aramaic influences on morphology in Ben Sira, note, for example, the apparent Aramaic form of the infinitive construct: ‫“ להשתענות‬to be supported,” in Sir 44:8 (MS B). The same infinitive has also been tentatively explained as a mixture of two forms, ‫ להשתעות‬and ‫ ;לענות‬see Kister, “Additions,” 53 n. 68; Dihi, “Innovations,” 701. 33 For the Fragmentary Targums, see Klein, Fragment-Targums, 1:169. Note also ‫ ארעם‬in the Frag­ mentary Targums at Num 20:11 (ibid., 1:197); ‫ ארעימית‬in the Fragmentary Targums at Gen 39:18 (ibid., 1:62). 34 Verse 19 is also obviously not included, but this is from GII and is not present in MS A either. Therefore, it is possible that the compiler of MS C did not have 3:19 in the first place.

230 

 Eric D. Reymond

the rhetoric of the poem) in proportion to one’s power and prestige: “(in as much as) you are great” and “what is too lofty for you.”35 In addition, although there is no specific reward associated with the shunning of these “hidden things,” the juxtaposition of verses and common structure hint that one will experience the same benefits as those garnered through self-conscious humility, namely being loved and finding grace. Finally, the chiastic alignment of the lexemes ‫מלאכה‬, translated above “wealth” but connoting also work and occupation, in 17a and ‫“ עסק‬business” in 23b, subtly underlines the point of the entire unit: work (or study) done in humility is permitted, but that which is not is forbidden.36 In order to better appreciate the distinction between the verses in MS C and the corresponding passage in MS A, I give below the text of the similar passage from MS A I (T-S 12.863) recto, lines 8–14 (presented stichometrically, though the manuscript has them in continuous text): ‫ בני בעשרך התהלך בענוה     ותאהב מנותן מתנות‬ 3:17 ‫ מעט נפשך מכל גדולת עולם    ולפני אֵל תמצא רחמים‬ 3:18 ‫ רבים רחמי אלהים          ולענוים יגלה יגלה סודו‬ 3:20 ‫ פלאות ממך אל תדרוש       ומכוסה ממך אל תחקור‬ 3:21 ‫ במה שהורשית התבונן       ואין לך עסק בנסתרות‬ 3:22 ‫ וביותר ממך אל תמר         כי רב ממך הראית‬ 3:23 ‫ כי רבים עשְתונֵי בני אדם      ודמיונות רעות מתעות‬ 3:24 3:17 My child, in your wealth, conduct yourself in humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts. 3:18 Humble yourself apart from all the great things of the world,37 and before God you will find compassion. 3:20 Great is the compassion of God and to the humble his counsel is revealed. 3:21 Things too wondrous for you do not investigate, what is hidden from you do not plumb. 3:22 In that which you are permitted contemplate, but you have no business among the hidden things.

35 This link is, of course, not found in MS A, which contains ‫ מכוסה‬instead of ‫ ;רעים‬nor is ‫ גדול‬used in relation to the person addressed. Note also in MS C the semantic link between ‫“ גדול‬great” in verse 18 and ‫ *ראים‬or ‫( *רמים‬i.e., ‫“ )רעים‬what is lofty” in verse 21. 36 The significance of this parallelism is increased if ‫ הלוך‬is a mistake for ‫“ *כלה‬complete,” in which case we would translate ‫“ מלאכה‬work.” 37 Most commentators interpret ‫ עולם‬here as “world” (e.g., see Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique 2, 6; Smend, Sirach, erklärt, 28). This fits with the sense of the Syriac, as well as the general context. Perhaps the phrase could be construed in a causal sense: “humble oneself due to all the great things of eternity.”



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 231

3:23 And, in what is greater than you do not rebel,38 for you have been shown what is beyond you.39 3:24 For many are the thoughts of humans, the wicked fantasies that lead (them) astray. Here, there are important differences between the verses preserved in both man­ uscripts. In verse 17, MS C has ‫ מלאכתיך‬while MS A has ‫עשרך‬. The words of MS A in at least one case seem to parallel an expression from Aramaic: ‫ תמצא רחמים‬from verse 18. This expression is not found elsewhere in the Bible, the DSS, or in the Mishnah. It would seem, rather, that this expression is a calque of (or at least influenced by?) Aramaic ‫שכח רחמין‬, which occurs numerous times in the Targums as a translation of Hebrew ‫מצא חן‬. The same Aramaic expression is also found in the Syriac to this verse. This does not prove that the phrase ‫ תמצא רחמים‬is nec­ essarily due to a later scribe, but it does make one suspicious.40 This suspicion increases when we note that the preceding phrases from verse 18 also seem like possible later interpolations. The phrase ‫מעט נפשך‬, as Smend notes, is similar to the MH sense of ‫( מעט עצמך‬the verb in the piel), “to make oneself smaller.”41 The phrase that follows this also seems suspect: ‫מכל גדולת עולם‬. The word ‫ עולם‬would seem to have the sense “world” though this is a meaning found only in MH and in Aramaic.42 Furthermore, the entire colon seems somewhat awkward in its context though it parallels closely the Syriac translation. The Greek is much closer to the version in MS C, which seems less awkward. Although the omission of verse 3:20 in MS C may be explained as due to the com­ piler’s reticence toward mentioning God and his actions, the omission of this and the following verses 23–24 may also be motivated by a wish to create a new text with a clearer, more direct message. In MS A, the first three verses, 3:17–18, 20, concern humility in general, only the last colon of which speaks of knowledge or wisdom in any way (lit., “his counsel”). The next four verses in MS A, Sir 3:21–24, address improper curiosity or pursuit of what 24a describes as the “evil fantasies” of humans. In MS A, the verses seem to group themselves into two short verse paragraphs or units and seem to stand apart from each other. For example, the first unit (i.e., Sir 3:17–18, 20) contains words from the root ‫“ ענה‬to be humble” at the paragraph’s 38 Or, “be embittered” or “speak.” 39 Notice the contradictory assertions that are placed side-by-side: one should not transgress one’s limitations, though this has already been done in God’s revelation. The point here seems to be that it is not a human prerogative to investigate what is beyond them intellectually, though contemplation of such is permitted when it is revealed by God. 40 See also Beentjes, Happy the One, 234. 41 Smend, Sirach, erklärt, 18. 42 The last word of the Syriac, ‘lm’, must mean “world.”

232 

 Eric D. Reymond

beginning (‫“ ענוה‬humility” v. 17a) and ending (‫“ ענוים‬the humble” v. 20b). As well, it contains words related to love (‫ )אהב‬and compassion (‫ ;)רחמים‬not to mention wealth (‫ עשרך‬and ‫)מתנות‬. The following unit (Sir 3:21–24) refers to esoteric teach­ ings in multiple places (‫“ מכוסה‬that which is hidden”; ‫“ נסתרות‬hidden things”; ‫“ דמיונות רעות מתעות‬wicked fantasies that lead astray”); in addition, it contains two 2. m. s. hophal perfect forms, that are even phonetically similar (‫“ הורשית‬you are permitted” and ‫“ הראית‬you have been shown”). Only in the second verse para­ graph does one see a consistency in verb placement (with five of the eight cola exhibiting verb or verb + object at the end of the colon). The link between the two short paragraphs is due to their juxtaposition as well as different correspondences, including the mention of “great things of the world” in verse 20 and “wonders” in verse 21.43 Other correspondences include the common structure of verses 20 and 24 (together with the repetition of ‫)רבים‬, which under­ lines the distinction between divine compassion and human arrogance. Other than this, however, the verses of each respective poetic paragraph seem closer to each other than to the verses from the adjacent paragraphs and the connection between humbling oneself and avoiding esoteric speculation is not as strong.

3.2 “Embarrassment” (MS C I [T-S 12.867] verso, lines 2–11 and II [T-S 12.727] recto, line 1 = Sir 41:16; 4:21; 20:22–23; 4:22–23) ‫ לא כל בושת נאה לשמור     ולא כל הכלם נבחר‬ 41:16 ‫ יש בשת משאת עון         ויש בשת חן וכבוד‬4:21 ‫ יש מאבד את נפשו מבושת    ובאולת פנים יורישנה‬ 20:22 ‫ יש נכלם ומבטיח רעהו     וקונהו שונא חנם‬20:23 ‫ אל תשא פנים לנפשיך       ואל תבוש למכשול לך‬4:22 ‫ אל תמנע דבר בעיתו         ואל תקפוץ את חכמתך‬4:23 41:16 Not every shame is worthy of holding on to, not every humiliation is appropriate.44 4:21 There is a shame that causes one to bear guilt, and a shame (that causes one to bear) grace and glory.45 43 Note too other more insignificant correspondences like the use of ‫ רב‬in verses 20, 23, and 24. 44 More literally: “not every humiliation is a preferred one.” See Kister, “Some Notes,” 167–68. He observes that this notion of positive shame, which he translates “bashfulness,” is also found in later rabbinic literature. 45 The word ‫ משאת‬could also be a noun “burden,” in construct, resulting in the translation “there is a shame (that is) a burden of guilt.” The second colon may also be understood to say



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 233

20:22 There is one who destroys himself through shame, and in folly from appearance he loses himself (lit., loses it).46 20:23 There is one who is humiliated and so promises his friend (what he cannot provide),47 and thus he acquires an enemy for no reason. 4:22 Do not be embarrassed about yourself,48 and do not feel ashamed to the point of your own stumbling. 4:23 Do not withhold a word in its time, do not shut away your wisdom. As for the structure of the poetic unit in MS C, the repetition of words from one verse to the next, some of which occur in verse-initial position, has already been mentioned by others, as already discussed. Within the individual verses, one finds still further repetitions and nuances. These also help to complement the topic of these verses in a way not found in either Sir 4:20–24 or Sir 41:16b–42:8. In the two cola of 41:16b–c, the repetition of particles (‫ לא‬and ‫)כל‬, the semantic similarity of words (e.g., ‫“ בושת‬shame” and ‫“ הכלם‬humiliation”), and the common sequence of syntactic elements throw into relief the question that hides behind the verse’s assertion, namely: how can “shame” be ‫“ נאה‬seemly, fitting,” or ‫נבחר‬ “preferred”? “Shame” (i.e., ‫ )בשת‬in the Bible is consistently a negative thing, felt by the enemies of God (e.g., Isa 42:17; Ps 132:18) or those who suffer unfortunate circumstances (e.g., Isa 54:4; Ps 69:20). Presumably, it is positive for Ben Sira because it can inspire correct behaviour in the thoughtful and pious, as is laid out more explicitly in chapter 41, where to be ashamed of the right things is to ‫ומצא חן‬ ‫“ בעיני כל חי‬find grace in the eyes of all the living” (Sir 42:1d Mas, MS B).49 “there is a shame of grace and glory.” The Greek reflects this latter sense. This sense for the colon, of course, further stretches the meaning of “shame,” since ‫ כבוד‬. . . ‫“ בשת‬shame of ... glory” is an oxymoron. The Syriac, on the other hand, implies a gapped verb: mṭwl d’yt bhtt’ dbry’ ḥṭh’ w’yt bhtt’ d’yqrh ṭybut’ “because there is a shame which creates sins and there is a shame which (creates) its glory and goodness” (Calduch-Benages, et al., Wisdom, 80). 46 The phrase ‫אולת פנים‬, although unique to this passage, seems at least superficially similar to the expression ‫“ בשת פנים‬shame of face” (Ezra 9:7; 2 Chr 32:21). It seems likely to me that Ben Sira is playing on this more common expression and that the word ‫ פנים‬refers to what is at stake in being disgraced (or honored), in essence what we call one’s “image.” 47 The hiphil of ‫ בטח‬has the sense “to promise” in MH, a sense also found in the Greek transla­ tion to this verse (ἐπαγγελλόμενος). 48 On the expression ‫אל תשא פנים‬, see Kister, “Some Notes,” 169–72. Alternatively, the phrase could mean “do not show partiality against yourself.” Note that the version in MS A attests the ‫על‬ preposition, which fits this sense better. If this is the correct understanding, then it also makes sense given the preceding statement of making promises due to timidity. 49 See also Kister, “Some Notes,” 167–68.

234 

 Eric D. Reymond

In the next verse, 4:21, again the repetition of words (‫ יש‬and ‫)בשת‬, common syntactic elements and word order highlight the semantic associations of the words, especially in this case the contrast between ‫“ עון‬guilt” on the one hand and ‫“ חן וכבוד‬grace and glory” on the other. As in 41:16b–c one is led to question the exact meaning, nature, and significance of ‫בשת‬, “shame.” The shame that causes one to “bear grace and honour” must be, in one sense, the kind of shame that might also cause one to “bear guilt,” since the threat of bearing guilt inspires one to act in an honourable way. All the same, the juxtaposition of the two types of shame in this kind of construction (“there is a shame ... and there is a shame ...”) implies that the shame that results in guilt is something different from the shame related to grace and glory. We are left not knowing what characterizes the two types of shame. However, the similar lexemes and structure (even similar sounds) between 4:21a and 20:22a suggest that the shame that causes one to bear guilt is also the shame that leads one to destroy oneself. The somewhat obscure expression in 20:22b, which seems to imply that a concern for one’s image or “face” (in con­ trast, one assumes, to a concern for the truth) is destructive, further punctuates this point. Finally, the next verse, 20:23, provides a concrete example of how shame can prove destructive: it can turn a friend into an enemy. Here, too, the underlying similarity between the initial cola (between 20:22a and 20:23a) under­ scores the connection between the wrong kind of shame and destruction. The final two verses, 4:22–23, contain the specific instructions for the student. The last verse does not mention shame, but instead insists that one should communicate and share wisdom at the appropriate moment. This conclu­ sion connects with the expression of 20:23 such that the poetic unit, as a whole, seems concerned with how shame or embarrassment negatively impacts commu­ nication, and the consequences of this. This theme then also resonates with the idea expressed in the unit on speech (Sir 5:9–13) that one’s speech can sometimes come to one’s aid, when needed. As stated before, the emphasis on different types of shame is essentially similar to the poem of Sir 41:16a–42:8, but in MS C shame is presented more dra­ matically as something that can destroy, cause enmity, produce stumbling. In Sir 41:16a–42:8, no negative effects like this are mentioned. The specific theme of this poetic unit in MS C is also not present, of course, in the parallel passage of chapter 4 in MS A I (T-S 12.863) verso, lines 8–12, which reads: ‫ בני עת המון שמר   ופחד מרע    ואל נפשך אל תבוש‬4:20 ‫ כי יש בֹׁשֶאת משאת עון          ויש בשת חן וכבוד‬4:21 ‫ אל תשא פניך על נפשך          ואל תכשל למכשוליך‬4:22 ‫ אל תמנע דבר בעולם            אל תצפין את חכמתך‬4:23 ‫ כי באומר נודעת חכמה           ותבונה במענה לשון‬4:24



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 235

4:20 My child, watch (for) the time of tumult (‫ )המון‬and fear evil, do not be ashamed of yourself. 4:21 For, there is a shame that causes one to bear guilt, and a shame (that causes one to bear) glory and grace. 4:22 Do not be embarrassed to your own detriment (lit., against yourself), do not stumble at your obstacles. 4:23 Do not forever withhold (your) speech, do not hide your wisdom. 4:24 For, by a word wisdom is made known, and understanding by the answer of the tongue. In 4:20, the word ‫ המון‬is likely an interpolation and the colon reads more naturally “observe the (right) time and fear evil,” which sense matches those of the Greek and Syriac. In any case, this poetic unit in MS A does not cohere in the same way that the similar unit does in MS C. On the more superficial level, there is no anaphora in MS A as there is in MS C, with the repetition of ‫ יש‬in 4:21; 20:22–23. In MS A, we also do not find a chain of obscure and/or counterintuitive statements like those found in MS C. On a deeper level, in MS A there is no emphasis on the negative consequences of being embarrassed for the wrong reasons. Again, the text of MS C expresses a unique idea.

3.3 “Arrogance” (MS C II [T-S 12.727] recto, lines 2–11 and II verso, lines 1–2 = Sir 4:30–31; 5:4–7) ‫ אל תהי כאריה בביתך          ומתפחז בעבודתך‬ 4:30 ‫ אל תהי ידך מושטת לשאת       ובעת השב קפודה‬4:31 ‫ אל תאמר חטאתי ומה יהיה לו     כי ייי ארך אפים הוא‬5:4 ‫ אל סליחה אל תבטח           להוסיף עון על עון‬5:5 ‫ ואמרת רבים רחמיו           לרוב עוונותי יסלח‬5:6 ‫ כי רחמים ואף עמו            ועל רשעים יניח רגזו‬ ‫ אל תאחר לשוב אליו           ואל תתעבר מיום ליום‬5:7 ‫ כי פתאום יצא זעמו            ובעת נקם תספה‬ 4:30 Do not be like a lion in your home, and one acting without restraint in your work. 4:31 Let your hand not be stretched out to take, but clenched in the time of giving back. 5:4 Do not say “I have sinned but what will happen?

236 

 Eric D. Reymond

For, the Lord is patient.”50 5:5 Do not trust forgiveness, adding iniquity to iniquity. 5:6 You might say “his compassion is great, he will forgive the multitude of my iniquities.” But, compassion and anger are with him, and upon the wicked he lets his rage rest. 5:7 Do not delay to return to him, and do not put (it) off from day to day. For, suddenly his wrath comes forth, and in the time of vengeance you will be swept away. Here, it is uncertain whether or not the two verses, 4:30–31, should be construed as one independent unit, or as an introduction to the following verses that address those who excuse their own iniquity by assuming God’s ultimate forgive­ ness. If the verses should be read together, as I believe, then the unifying topic would be arrogance, the initial verses illustrating this topic through a metaphor and a specific example of arrogant behavior. This reading of the verses is encour­ aged by several factors, including the specific vocabulary of 4:30 (‫“ אריה‬lion” and ‫“ מתפחז‬one who acts without restraint”) and the exclusion of Sir 4:25–29 and 5:1–3. The image of a lion here likely is original to this Ben Sira verse. “Lion” is also reflected in the Greek. In contrast, the reading of MS A (also reflected in the Syriac) is ‫“ ככלב‬like a dog,” which may derive from a misreading of an earlier ‫כלביא‬ “like a lion.”51 In any case, in MS C the image of a lion clearly signals a shift in topic from the preceding verses that deal with embarrassment and timidity. In the second colon, the hithpael participle ‫ מתפחז‬likely refers to behaviour that is unchecked or uncontrolled. The reference to a lion and wanton behaviour fits especially well with verses 5:4–7, since wantonness may easily be explained as a result of an attitude like that described in these verses. Verse 4:31 is the only verse that implies a more explicit example of such wanton behavior. Verses 5:4–6 only refer to sin and iniquity. This allows a reader to infer that the sinful, iniquitous behavior is related to theft or misappropriation. This verse also helps link verses 4:30–31 with 5:4–7 thanks to two repetitions: the verb ‫ שוב‬occurs in 4:31b and 5:7a; the phrase ‫“ בעת‬in the time of” occurs in 4:31b and 5:7d. Verses 5:4–6 as a whole represent a somewhat unexpected expression. Sinners are typically not represented as being self-conscious of their transgression nor as 50 On this passage, see Beentjes, Happy the One, 56–60. 51 See, e.g., Smend, Sirach, erklärt, 46.



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 237

expressing their expectation of God’s patience. In addition, the language of these verses, like those of the preceding poetic units, contains several unexpected and ambiguous phrases. For example, the phrase “the Lord is patient” in 4b could also be read as the speaker’s response to the sinner’s presumptuous question that precedes in 4a. In this case, God’s patience would refer to his ability to wait and punish someone at a later time. In 5:6, the statement “his compassion is great” is put in the mouth of the sinner, though in the Bible this is a phrase uttered by the pious (e.g., by David 2 Sam 24:14 = 1 Chr 21:13; by the speaker of Ps 119:156), and, in fact, occurs in this more typical sense in Sir 3:20 (MS A). Then, in 5:6d we find another strange collocation: God causes his “rage” to “rest” over the wicked. The Hebrew noun ‫ רגז‬also denotes agitation and tumult, while the cognate verb indicates trembling or agitated motion. One does not expect this noun to be used with the verb ‫נוח‬, unless it is to indicate the cessation of anger or tumultuous movement, as in Isa 14:3 (where we find the hiphil of ‫)נוח‬. In 6d, instead, the hiphil of ‫ נוח‬is used to indicate the target of God’s anger.52 A similar idiom does not occur with ‫ נוח‬in the Bible or the DSS. The mention of “rest” in 6d then contrasts with the following commands that urge the listener to act quickly given the speed with which God’s wrath is expressed. The omission of verses also has an effect on this unit. As evidenced in MS A I (T-S 12.863) verso, lines 13–22, these verses address imperious and arrogant behavior. The full passage, through 5:3, is presented so the reader can compare the two versions more easily. ‫ אל תסרב עם האל        ואל אלהים היכנע‬4:25 ‫ אל תבוש לשוב מעון      ואל תעמוד לפני שבלת‬4:26 ‫ אל תצע לנבל נפשך       ואל תמאן לפני מושלים‬4:27 ‫ אל תשב עם שופט עול      כי כאשר כרצונו תשפט עמו‬4:27+ ‫ עד המות היעצה על הצדק   וייי נלחם לך‬ 4:28 ‫ אל תקרא בעל שתים      ואל לשונך אל תרגל‬4:28+ ‫ אל תהי גבהן בלשוניך     ורפי ורשיש במלאכתך‬4:29 ‫ אל תהי ככלב בביתך      ומוזר ומתירא במלאכתך‬4:30 ‫ אל תהי ידך פתוחה לקחת    וקפוצה בתוך מתן‬4:31 ‫ אל תשען על חילך        ואל תאמר יש לאל ידי‬5:1 ‫ אל תשען על כוחך        ללכת אחר תאות נפשך‬ ‫ אל תלך אחרי לבך ועיניך   ללכת בחמודות רעה‬5:2 ‫ אל תאמר מי יוכל כוחו     כי ייי מבקש נרדפים‬5:3

52 One wonders if the strangeness of this expression led to a scribe’s confusion such that the parallel expression in Sir 16:11 contains not ‫ יניח‬but rather ‫יגיה‬. The entire verse (16:11) reads in MS A:‫כי רחמים ואף עּמו ונושא וסולח ועל רשעים יגיה רגזו‬.

238 

 Eric D. Reymond

4:25 Do not act imperiously with God, humble yourself to God. 4:26 Do not be ashamed to turn from iniquity, do not stand before a river. 4:27 Do not subordinate yourself to a fool,53 nor be obstinate before rulers. 4:27+ Do not dwell with a wicked judge, for, according to his whim, you will make judgments with him.54 4:28 To death, fight for justice,55 then the Lord will fight for you. 4:28+ Do not be called duplicitous, with your tongue do not slander.56 4:29 Do not be proud in your speech, nor slack and lazy in your work.57 4:30 Do not be like a dog in your house, one loathsome and feared in your work. 4:31 Do not let your hand be open to take, and closed in the midst of a gift. 5:1 Do not depend on your wealth, do not say, “I have authority.” Do not depend on your power, to follow your desires. 5:2 Do not follow your heart and your eyes to follow wicked desires.

53 The verb ‫ תצע‬is a piel jussive of ‫צעה‬, “to stoop, tip” (BDB); alternatively “your soul” could be the subject of the verb, in which case, one would understand the verb to be in the qal. 54 This verse is a doublet of 8:14. 55 The verb ‫ היעצה‬represents the only Hebrew attestation of this verb, ‫עצה‬, a verb found more commonly in Aramaic meaning, e.g., in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic “to oppress, restrain” in the peal and, in Syriac, “to resist, fight back” in the ethpeel. 56 This verse is a doublet of 5:14. The verb ‫ רגל‬in the qal takes the preposition ‫ על‬+ the word ‫לשון‬ in Ps 15:3 and 4Q525 2:2 + 3:1; ‫ ב‬precedes “tongue” in Sir 5:14 (MS A II Recto, line 4). Given this distribution, it seems likeliest that ‫ אל‬here is a mistake for ‫על‬, or, at the least, another example of ‫ אל‬being used where we might expect ‫על‬. 57 In the word ‫ רשיש‬in MS A, the first shin is marked with what appears to be cancellation dots above and below it, implying the reading ‫ריש‬, though the sense of this word is hard to grasp in this context: “poverty in your work,” “head (= Aramaic ‫ )ריש‬in your work,” “poison (= Aramaic ‫ )ריש‬in your work.” The word ‫ רשיש‬corresponds to παρειμένος “neglectful” in the Greek and nšyš “weak” in the Syriac.



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 239

5:3 Do not say “Who can prevail upon my power, for the Lord seeks those who are pursued?”58 First, let us recognize that the text of MS A (just like that of MS C) has an integrity and can be read on its own, apart from any concern with reconstructing the orig­ inal form of Ben Sira. For example, in relation to 4:30, although the expression “do not be like a dog” may not be original, it fits the context of MS A, where the following colon qualifies this image as relating to being loathed and feared. Fur­ thermore, read with the following verse, 4:31, the image of a hand not releasing a gift reminds one of a dog unwilling to surrender food it has been given. If verses 4:25–29 were included in MS C, the image of a lion (as found in 4:30 MS C and presumed to be part of the original text) would not form an introduc­ tion, but rather a conclusion, especially given the close parallelism between the ends of 29b and 30b (‫ במלאכתך‬in 29b and ‫בעבודתך‬/‫ במלאכתך‬in 30b MS A/MS C), a par­ allelism also expressed in the Greek and Syriac. In MS C, of course, as it stands, it is impossible that 4:30 functions as part of a conclusion. It must either be part of an independent two-verse unit, or an introduction to the following set of verses, as explained above. The omission of 5:1–3 in MS C is also of some significance. These verses, although concerning the general topic of arrogance, detail specific kinds of pre­ sumption. They are not as clearly linked as verses 4–6. By isolating just this latter group of verses, together with verse 7, the compiler of MS C has created again greater coherence.

4 Conclusion In studying the three passages from MS C, we have noticed several consistent traits that should be described. First, the verses found in MS C often are selected and arranged in a manner that produces a coherent text or poetic unit. These units are frequently different from the corresponding units in other Hebrew manuscripts or versions, and are no doubt distinct from the original form of Ben Sira’s text. The ideas they seek to communicate are unique to MS C, although they are not entirely unlike ideas found in other parts of Ben Sira’s book (e.g., the second passage discussed above, on embarrassment, and the underlying idea 58 The translation reflects the obscurity of the Hebrew expression, which is also found in Qoh 3:15. Here, presumably it indicates that God looks after the oppressed, though it might have a different sense in Qohelet. See Fox, Time to Tear Down, 213–14; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 165–66.

240 

 Eric D. Reymond

of the longer poem in 41:16–42:8). As described by past scholars, various lexical repetitions and links between the re-organized verses lend coherence to these poetic units and help express their unique themes. It was observed above that sometimes word order further contributes to this (e.g., in the verb or verb + object occupying the colon-final position in the first text read). Several other traits need also to be mentioned. In particular, note that many of the verses in the three poetic units discussed above contain oxymoronic sayings or at the least statements or expressions that seem to play with language (e.g., ‫ גדול אתה כן ׄתשפיל נפשך‬Sir 3:18;‫ ולא כל הכלם נבחר‬Sir 41:16; ‫ ויש בשת חן וכבוד‬Sir 4:21; ‫ ועל רשעים יניח רגזו‬Sir 5:6). These expressions are by and large also found in the other Ben Sira Hebrew manuscripts, so we cannot say that the compiler of MS C’s text is responsible for them, but it does seem important to note that such phrases are not found in much of the material that is omitted from chapters 3, 4, and 5. Furthermore, in the other portions of MS C, one finds many cases where the text seems to imply a kind of wordplay (often where different underlying senses of a given root are played on). Such seems to suggest that the compiler of MS C’s text was sensitive to and interested in this kind of attention to words. In the last text studied above, we noticed a metaphor at the beginning of a longer unit (i.e., the lion of 4:30). In several passages from MS C, a longer poetic unit begins with a metaphor of some kind. Note, for example, the metaphor of scattering and following paths in 5:9 which introduces the unit that extends to 5:13. In the very next unit, the metaphor of a palate (in Sir 36:24) introduces a longer unit that contains the following verses 6:5–6; 37:1–2; 6:7, 9–10, 8, 12–15. In Sir 7:17, the metaphor of a worm helps introduce the following unit that contains 7:20–21, 23–25. Note also the metaphor of “treasure” in Sir 20:30–31 that precedes the longer passage on the fool in Sir 21:22–23, 26; 22:11–12.

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G., and Casey Towes. “Ben Sira.” In Accordance 9.5. Altamonte Springs, FL: Oak Tree Software, 2007, 2009. 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. 2nd ed. VTSup 68. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2006. —. “Hermeneutics in the Book of Ben Sira: Some Observations on the Hebrew Ms. C.” EstBib 46 (1988): 45–59. —. “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006.



The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C 

 241

Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeeb. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba/Wisdom of the Scribe. Edición diplomática de la versión siriaco del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa/Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003. Corley, Jeremy. “An Alternative Hebrew Form of Ben Sira: The Anthological Manuscript C.” Pages 3–22 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Dihi, Haim. “The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira.” Ph.D. diss., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 2004. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Fear of the Lord as Wisdom: Ben Sira 1,11–30.” Pages 113–33 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. —. “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza.” Bib 69 (1988): 226–38. —. “The Poetry of Ben Sira.” ErIsr 16 (1982): *26–*33. —. “Sirach 10:19–11:6: Textual Criticism, Poetic Analysis, and Exegesis.” Pages 157–64 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyer and Michael O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. —. “Sirach 51:1-12: Poetic Structure and Analysis of Ben-Sira’s Psalm.” CBQ 48 (1986): 395–407. —. “Use and Abuse of the Tongue: Ben Sira 5,9–6,1.” Pages 33–48 in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit... ”: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit: Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Anja A. Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Elizur, Shulamit. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 79 (2007): 17–28. (Hebrew) English trans., DSD 17 (2010): 13–29. Fox, Michael V. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Gaster, Moses. “A New Fragment of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1900): 688–702. Kister, Menahem. “Additions to the Article ‘Notes on the Book of Ben Sira.’” Leshonenu 53 (1988): 36–53. (Hebrew) —. “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira.” Pages 160–87 in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Klein, Michael L. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, according to Their Extant Sources. 2 vols. AnBib 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJSR 30 (2006): 347–92. Lévi, Israel. L’Ecclésiastique ou la sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu, édité traduit et commenté. Première partie (ch. XXXIX,15, à XLIX,11). BEHER 10,1. Paris: Leroux, 1898. —. L’Ecclésiastique ou la sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu édité traduit et commenté. Deuxième partie (III,6, à XVI,26; extraits de XVIII, XIX, XXV et XXVI; XXXI,11, à XXXIII,3; XXXV,19, à XXXVIII,27; XLIX,11, à fin.). BEHER 10,2. Paris: Leroux, 1901.

242 

 Eric D. Reymond

—. “Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscrits hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique.” REJ 40 (1900): 1–30. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Sagesses hébraiques de l’époque hellénistique: Éditions, traductions, commentaires, perspectives historiques et linguistiques; Tome 2: Le manuscrit A de Ben Sira, Édition critique, traduction et notes paléographiques et philologiques.” PhD diss., Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg, 2012. Reymond, Eric D. New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5(= 11QPsa). SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 31. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2011. —. Innovations in Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism and the Poems of Sirach. SBLStBL 9. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2004. —. “Sirach 51:13–30 and 11Q5 (=11QPsa) 21.11–22.1.” RevQ 23/90 (2007): 207–31. —. “Fast Talk: Ben Sira’s Thoughts on Speech in Sir 5:9–6:1.” RevQ 26/102 (2014): 253–73. —. “Wordplay in the Hebrew to Ben Sira.” Pages 37–53 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Schechter, Solomon. “A Further Fragment of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1900): 456–65. Scheiber, Alexander. “A Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.” Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 179–85. Schirmann, Jefim. “Some Additional Leaves from Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew.” Tarbiz 29 (1960): 125–34. (Hebrew) Segal, Moshe Z. “Additional Leaves from Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew (J. Schirmann, Tarbiz 29, pp. 125–34).” Tarbiz 29 (1959–1960): 313–23. Seger, Nicolas, “L’utilisation de la polysémie des racines hébraïques chez Ben Sira.” Ph.D. diss., Strasbourg: Université Strasbourg 2, 2005. Seow, Choon-Leong. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13–30.” HTR 64 (1971): 387–400. —. “Sirach 40:11–17.” Pages 129–31 in Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom. CBQMS 1. Worcester, MA: Heffernan, 1971. —. “Staves and Nails and Scribal Slips (Ben Sira 44:2–5).” BASOR 200 (1970): 66–71. —. “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24.” CBQ 41 (1979): 365–79. 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. —. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Smith, Mark S. “The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey.” Pages 256–67 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Jeremy Corley

Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter Abstract: Many similarities exist between the psalms and Ben Sira. His descrip­ tive hymns of praise (e.g., Sir 39:12–35) echo the psalms of praise (e.g., Psalm 33), and his individual thanksgiving (Sir 51:1–12) exhibits parallels with thanks­ giving psalms (e.g., Psalm 40). His nationalistic prayer (Sir 36:1–22) recalls the Psalter’s communal laments (e.g., Psalm 79), and his Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44:1–50:24) has parallels with historical psalms (e.g., Psalm 105). Motifs from the royal psalms (e.g., Psalm 89) find an echo, not only in his portraits of kings (e.g., Sir 47:2–22), but also in his depiction of priestly figures (e.g., Sir 50:1–24). Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, communal laments, hymns of praise, royal psalms

The psalms were among the most popular biblical texts within Judaism during the Second Temple period, and hence it is unsurprising that Ben Sira often echoes the Psalter. Indeed, in the 1899 publication of the Genizah fragments by Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor, Schechter finds sixty-eight psalm references within the Hebrew MSS of Ben Sira, by comparison with forty-five Proverbs references.1 While some of the sage’s psalm references are deliberate allusions, others may simply be instances of suitable poetic diction, as in the later piyyuṭim. Indeed, Schechter considered Ben Sira as the first of the payyeṭanim.2 In the Second Temple era, the Psalter was central to the Jerusalem Temple liturgy, to which Ben Sira was close, and many references to sacrifice and Temple occur in his work.3 Significantly, he praises priestly figures such as Aaron, Phine­ has, and his own contemporary Simeon. Indeed, Stefan Reif observes that “Ben Sira undoubtedly takes the matter of worship beyond that of most of the Hebrew Bible.”4 Twice in the Greek text (Sir 47:9; 50:18) we find the term for “psalm singer,” written as ψαλμῳδός in Sinaiticus but ψαλτῳδός in Alexandrinus. Ben Sira praises David for having provided psalmody to beautify the liturgy at the sanctuary: “In all his work he gave thanksgivings, to God Most High [in a word] of glory. With all his heart he was loving his Maker, and every [day he 1 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 13–25; cf. Burton, “Sirach,” 46. 2 Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 32. 3 Egger-Wenzel, “Change,” 69. 4 Reif, “Prayer,” 338. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-014

244 

 Jeremy Corley

praised him] always. The playing of songs before [the altar], and the sound of [music] with harps he set in order. [He gave splendour to feasts, and set in order appointed times year] by year. With his praising of his holy name, before morning he would sing for joy in the sanctuary” (Sir 47:8–10 HB/Segal).5 Psalms are also mentioned in the description of the high priest Simeon performing Temple sacrifice: “And the song gave its sound, and over the multi­ tude they made joyful singing sweet. And all the people of the land sang joyfully, in prayer before the Merciful One” (Sir 50:18–19 HB).6 If we accept Alexander Di Lella’s conclusion, based on the detailed liturgical report in Sir 50:5–21 that “Ben Sira frequently witnessed Simeon’s officiating at the Temple services,” we would have additional support for the sage’s familiarity with the psalms that accompa­ nied the Temple liturgy.7 Although various scholars have observed psalm allusions and echoes within Ben Sira’s poetry, there has been little concentrated analysis of their sig­ nificance.8 The most detailed monograph is that of Michael Reitemeyer, who carefully examines what he calls “psalm theology” in Ben Sira, especially in Sir 14:20–15:10 and 38:34–39:35.9 He also observes the sage’s wider parallels to the three Torah Psalms (Pss 1, 19, 119).10 In addition, at the opening of his article on the notion of Torah in Sir 32:14–33:3, Jan Liesen remarks upon “the occurrence of many psalm-like texts as well as prayers in the Wisdom of Ben Sira together with many hymnic elements in its language.”11 Recently Catherine Petrany has devoted a monograph to the wisdom psalms, in which she includes a brief dis­ cussion of Ben Sira’s prayers, stating: “The relationship between instruction, prayer, and praise in the Book of Sirach represents an important counterpoint to the self-same interplay of discourses in the Book of Psalms.”12 Finally, in 2017 Marko Marttila published an essay on the sage’s use of various psalmic genres, 5 Text completed according to Segal, Sefer, 324. For the final Hebrew word I read ‫“( מקדש‬sanctu­ ary,” HBmg), where the text of HB reads ‫“( משפט‬judgment”). In this article, all biblical translations (including Ben Sira) are mine. Because of textual problems, I often specify the text form of Ben Sira: HQ = Qumran; HAB = Genizah MSS A and B; G = Greek; S = Syriac. Where possible, references are to Hebrew Ben Sira, but discussions of detailed textual problems are beyond the scope of this article. 6 Segal, Sefer, 542, but I follow his correction (based on the Greek) of the final two words of 50:18 (p. 546). 7 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 550; cf. Burton, “Sirach,” 63. 8 For lists of parallels between Psalms and Ben Sira, see Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 13–25; Fullerton, “Studies,” 128–36; Middendorp, Stellung, 72–75. 9 Reitemeyer, Weisheitslehre, 91–265 (Sir 14:20–15:10); 266–407 (Sir 38:24–39:35). 10 Ibid., 185–205. 11 Liesen, “Background,” 197. 12 Petrany, Pedagogy, 62–69 (quotation from 62).



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 245

with a special focus on the national lament in Sir 36:1–22 and the Hebrew litany following Sir 51:12 in Genizah MS B.13

1 Genres of Psalm Poetry The present study will build on the form-critical studies of Hermann Gunkel on the Psalms, and of Walter Baumgartner on Ben Sira.14 Already in 1914, following Gun­ kel’s 1913 article “Psalmen,” Baumgartner published a landmark article on the literary genres in Ben Sira’s book. In first place he identified the wisdom instruc­ tion, which he regarded as the major genre. In the hymnic category he observed proper hymns (Sir 39:12–35; 42:15–43:33), as well as “a hymn that Wisdom sings about herself in the heavenly assembly” (Sir 24:1–22) and the “profane hymn” of the Praise of the Ancestors, celebrating human beings rather than God (Sir 44:1–50:24).15 Within the genre of individual thanksgiving he mentions the sage’s thanksgiving song (Sir 51:1–12), where he includes the subsequent Hebrew litany found in the Genizah MS. In the category of communal lament he considers the sage’s nationalistic prayer (Sir 36:1–22), while he notes that the personal prayer (Sir 22:27–23:6) has motifs from the individual lament. He also suggests that two wisdom poems have the form of an allegorical love story (Sir 14:20–27; 51:13–21). Baumgartner’s article observes that the final chapters of the book exhibit a shift away from sapiential instruction towards material closer to the Psalter:16 The last part [of the book], from 42:15 onwards, consists with dwindling exceptions com­ pletely of alien genres [i.e., non-wisdom genres] [...]. Thus towards the end, the book aban­ dons its didactic character and becomes lyric poetry [...]. Among the lyric genres are now ordinarily those with a religious content: hymns, thanksgiving songs, and laments – the same genres that also make up the majority of the Psalter.

Baumgartner explains that the increased amount of non-sapiential material is due to the sage’s complex role, whereby he is “simultaneously scribe, legal expert, psalmist, and imitator of the ancient prophets.”17 Despite evident genre differences, the sapiential book of Ben Sira has three prayers, whereas the hymnic Psalter includes several wisdom poems. A fuller comparison indicates that there is a wider overlap in genre. The following table 13 Marttila, “Ben Sira’s Use.” 14 Gunkel, “Psalmen”; Gunkel and Begrich, Einleitung; Baumgartner, “Gattungen.” 15 Baumgartner, “Gattungen,” 172 (translation mine), 173. 16 Baumgartner, “Gattungen,” 192–93 (translation mine). Cf. Gilbert, “Prayer,” 125. 17 Baumgartner, “Gattungen,” 193 (translation mine).

246 

 Jeremy Corley

considers ten categories, though some are related. While the psalm classifica­ tions are based on the work of Gunkel, they incorporate adaptations from Claus Westermann and my own thinking.18 To be sure, this form-critical analysis is not intended to impose a rigid categorization of passages, but rather to serve as a window onto the diversity of literary genres present in the text. Poetic genre

Psalter

Ben Sira

Descriptive hymn of praise

E.g., Psalms 33, 104, 149

Sir 18:1–14 G; 39:12–35 G; 42:15–43:33 HBM

Declarative song of thanksgiving E.g., Psalms 40, 116, 138

Sir 51:1–12 HB

Litany of praise

E.g., Psalm 136

Litany following Sir 51:12 HB

Communal lament/petition

E.g., Psalm 79, 83

Sir 36:1–22 HB

Individual lament/petition

E.g., Psalms 39, 141

Sir 22:27–23:6 G

Wisdom composition (acrostic and non-acrostic)

Acrostic (e.g., Psalm 37); non-acrostic (e.g., Psalm 49)

Acrostic Sir 51:13–30 HBQ; non-acrostic (e.g., Sir 14:20–15:10 HA)

Torah poem

Psalms 1, 19, 119

E.g., Sir 32:14–33:3 HB

Fear of God poem

Psalms 112, 128

E.g., Sir 1:11–30 G; 34:14–20 G

Historical composition

E.g., Psalms 105, 106

Sir 44:1–50:24 HB

Royal composition

E.g., Psalms 72, 89

Sir 47:2–22 HB

It is an oversimplification to state that the Psalms praise God, whereas Ben Sira 44–50 praises human beings.19 To be sure, as Westermann has observed, many psalms are devoted to the praise of God—not only the descriptive hymns of praise and the declarative songs of thanksgiving, but also the conclusions of nearly all the laments.20 Yet, just as the final acrostic in the Book of Proverbs praises a human being, the capable woman (Prov 31:10–31), so a few psalms celebrate the Torah student (Psalm 1) or the God-fearing person (Psalms 112 and 128). In a com­ parable fashion, although many of Ben Sira’s poems (e.g., Sir 44:1–50:24) praise the devout or the wise, his book includes several poems praising God, whether in descriptive hymns of praise for creation (Sir 39:12–35; 42:15–43:33) or a declarative song of thanksgiving (Sir 51:1–12), while even the national lament (Sir 36:1–22) 18 Westermann, Praise. 19 Lee, Studies, 25. 20 Westermann, Praise, 79.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 247

emphasizes the praise of God near its conclusion (Sir 36:19). As a result, whereas the Book of Proverbs is the biblical work that strongly influenced most of Sir 1:1– 42:14, the final ten chapters actually exhibit more influence from the Psalter.

2 Thanking and Praising Here we will consider three descriptive hymns of praise (Sir 18:1–14; 39:12–35; 42:15–43:33). First of all, within Sir 18:1–14 (where the Hebrew text is lost), there are a few statements that echo psalmic thinking. Within Sir 18:4–5, the mention of God’s unfathomable marvels recalls Ps 145:37, a rhetorical question parallels Ps 106:2. The question in Sir 18:8 G echoes Ps 8:5, while the reference to the short­ ness of human life (Sir 18:9–10 G) is reminiscent of Ps 90:10, though both motifs also occur in Ps 143:3–4.21 Finally, God’s compassion for human frailty (Sir 18:12– 13 G) is a theme recalling Ps 103:8–14. According to Jan Liesen, Sir 39:12–35 may be classified as “a hymnic wisdom poem, or a didactic hymn.”22 He observes several parallels between Sir 39:12–35 and Psalm 149.23 For instance, Sir 39:18 HB declares: “Under him his pleasure suc­ ceeds, and there is no stopping of his salvation,” echoing Ps 149:4: “For the Lord takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with salvation.” Moreover, the description of God’s power to punish in Sir 39:30 HB refers to “a sword of ven­ geance to destroy,” echoing Ps 149:6–7, which mentions that the Israelites have “a two-edged sword in their hand, to perform vengeance against the nations.” Furthermore, Sir 39:29 speaks of disasters created “for judgment,” while Ps 149:9 refers to military victory over enemies, enabling Israel to perform “judgment” among them. Theophil Middendorp proposes that a model for Sirach 39 was provided by Psalm 33, another descriptive hymn of praise.24 The Greek of Sir 39:15 begins: “Ascribe greatness to his name, and give thanks in praise of him,” and the verse is continued in the first preserved line for this section of HB: “With songs on the harp and all stringed instruments, and thus say with a joyful shout.” This call to praise God is reminiscent of Ps 33:2–3: “Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre, and with the ten-stringed harp make music to him. Sing to him a new song, play skilfully with a joyful shout.”25 It is also possible that Sir 39:16–17 HB echoes Ps 21 Burton, “Sirach,” 48–49. The present article uses the Hebrew verse numbering for the psalms. 22 Liesen, Praise, 39. 23 Liesen, Praise, 113 (source of parallels mentioned in this paragraph). 24 Middendorp, Stellung, 75. 25 Middendorp, Stellung, 72.

248 

 Jeremy Corley

33:6–7, though textual problems prevent certainty.26 Nevertheless, Ben Sira’s poem differs by focusing on God’s purposeful creation, whereas the Psalm cele­ brates divine justice. Sirach 39:12–35 includes other general psalm echoes. A possible reminiscence of the first Torah Psalm (Ps 1:3) occurs in Sir 39:13 G, which compares the devout students to a tree planted beside the stream of water. The call to praise in Sir 39:14 G (“Like frankincense waft forth fragrance”) echoes the sentiment expressed in Ps 141(140):2 G: “May my prayer be directed like incense before you,” while the following statement in Sir 39:14 G (“Bless the Lord for all his works”) reworks Ps 103(102):22 G: “Bless the Lord, all his works.” The refrain in Sir 39:16, 33 HB states: “The works of God are all good,” somewhat reminiscent of the assertion in Ps 111:2: “Great are the works of the Lord.” Lastly, the concluding call in Sir 39:35 HB (“Bless the name of the Holy One”) has a faint echo of Ps 145:1: “I will bless your name for ever and to eternity.”27 Moreover, Sir 42:15–43:33 is the sage’s song of praise for creation, including echoes of descriptive hymns of praise (e.g., Psalms 104 and 147) and of a song of praise that recounts four cases of deliverance from trouble (Psalm 107). Thus, Sir 42:16 HM declares: “The glory of Adonai fills his works,” which seems to combine an echo of Ps 104:31: “May the glory of the Lord be forever. May the Lord rejoice in his works,” together with Isa 6:3: “His glory is what fills all the earth.” The description of ice, frost and snow in Sir 43:13–20 echoes Pss 147:16–18 and 148:8, while the praise for deep-sea wonders in Sir 43:23–26 recalls Pss 104:24–26 and 107:23–32. For instance, Sir 43:24–25 HB states: “Those going down to the sea will recount its extent. In the hearing of our ears we will be astonished. Wonders are there, marvels of his working.” The language clearly echoes Ps 107:23–24: “Those going down to the sea in ships, workers of trade on mighty waters—they have seen the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.”28 Lastly, the statement of Sir 43:28 HB: “Let us magnify him further since we cannot fathom him, and he is greater than all his works,” echoes Ps 145:3: “Great is the Lord and extremely praiseworthy, and there is no fathoming of his greatness.” Ben Sira draws heavily on the Psalter in his declarative song, thanking God for delivering him from mortal danger (Sir 51:1–12 HB).29 Among the texts echoed here are three declarative psalms of thanksgiving (Psalms 40, 116, 138) and two individual prayers for deliverance (Psalms 25 and 71). The song’s opening verse 26 Segal, Sefer, 262; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 456–57. 27 Fullerton, “Studies,” 130. 28 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 495. 29 Despite textual questions, the references here will be to the Genizah Hebrew MS. For text-crit­ ical discussion see Di Lella, “Sirach 51:1–12,” 395–407.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 249

(“I will give thanks to you, my God, my Father [or: God of my father]. I will recount your name, refuge of my life,” Sir 51:1) echoes a declarative song of thanksgiving: “I will give thanks to you with all my heart [...] And I will give thanks to your name” (Ps 138:1–2). Thereafter, some motifs within the song echo Psalm 40, which is another declarative psalm of thanksgiving. When Ben Sira thanks God for res­ cuing him from “the lips of those straying to falsehood (‫( ”)שׂטי־כזב‬Sir 51:2), the phrase recalls its unique occurrence in the Hebrew Bible within the declarative thanksgiving in Ps 40:5: “Happy is the person who has made the Lord his trust, and has not turned to the proud and those straying to falsehood (‫)שׂטי־כזב‬.” Ben Sira acknowledges divine help in saving him (“from the hand of those seeking my life,” Sir 51:3), just as the psalmist declares: “Let them be abashed and put to shame, those seeking my life to sweep it away” (Ps 40:15). Other aspects of Ben Sira’s hymn echo Psalm 116, an additional declarative song of thanksgiving. The phrase in Sir 51:2 (“From the hand of Sheol you delivered my foot”) recalls the thanksgiving in Ps 116:8: “For you delivered my soul from death, [...] my foot from stumbling.” Moreover, the statement in Sir 51:11 (“Then the Lord heard my voice, and he gave ear to my supplications”) is reminiscent of Ps 116:1: “I love the Lord, because he heard the voice of my supplications.” Some elements of Ben Sira’s song echo Psalm 25, which is a prayer for deliv­ erance. The same divine title, “God of my salvation” (‫ )אלהי ישעי‬appears in Sir 51:1 and Ps 25:5, while the language of Sir 51:8 (“And I remembered the mercies of the Lord, and his kindnesses which have been from of old”) closely resembles Ps 25:6: “Remember your mercies, O Lord, and your kindnesses, because they have been from of old.”30 Further elements of the song are reminiscent of the individual lament in Psalm 71. Thus, the declaration of Sir 51:2 (“You redeemed my soul from death”) recalls the lament’s hopeful conclusion in Ps 71:23: “My lips will shout for joy [...], and my soul which you have redeemed.” In addition, the sage’s declara­ tion in Sir 51:3 (“From many distresses you have saved me”) echoes the assertion of Ps 71:20: “You, who have made me see many evil distresses, will again revive me.” The song’s opening verse (Sir 51:1) utilizes two divine titles from one psalm: “God of my salvation” (‫ )אלהי־ישעי‬from Ps 27:9, and “refuge of my life” (‫)מעוז־חיי‬ from Ps 27:1.31 Ben Sira’s later statement in Sir 51:6 (“And my soul reached to death, and my life to Sheol, to the depths”) recalls the poignant lament in Ps 88:4, 7: “My life reached to Sheol [...]. You have placed me in the pit of the depths.” The sage’s thanksgiving goes on to report: “And I extolled the Lord: ‘You are my Father, for 30 Di Lella, “Sirach 51:1–12,” 404; Mopsik, Sagesse, 325. Five of the seven Hebrew words in each statement are related. 31 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 565.

250 

 Jeremy Corley

you are the warrior of my salvation’” (51:10), employing language once used by the Davidic king according to Ps 89:27: “He will call to me: ‘You are my Father, my God and the rock of my salvation.’” The concluding phrases in Sir 51:11–12 HB (“I will praise your name always [...]. And I will bless the name of the Lord”) echo the descriptive psalm of praise in Ps 145:1–2: “And I will bless your name for ever and to eternity [...]. And I will praise your name for ever and to eternity.”32 Finally, a distinctive idiom occurs in Sir 51:5, where the sage reports that God saved him “from scheming lips and smearers of deception (‫)שקר טפלי‬.” The exact phrase appears in Job’s complaint against his would-be comforters: “Indeed you are smearers of deception (‫)שקר טפלי‬, worthless physicians all of you!” (Job 13:4). However, the basic idiom also appears in the statement of Ps 119:69, which also parallels Ben Sira’s context: “The presumptuous have smeared deception against me (‫)טפלו עלי שקר‬.” Thus, we may have a double allusion here, especially since the verb “smear” (‫ )טפל‬occurs elsewhere only in Job 14:17. After Sir 51:12, the Genizah Hebrew MS includes a litany of thanksgiving (Sir 51:12e+–zj+ HB), which is omitted in the Greek and Syriac versions. It is usually claimed that this litany dates from before the replacement of the Zadokite high-priesthood by the Maccabean high-priesthood, starting with Jonathan around 152 BCE (1 Macc 10:21), since it has the statement: “Give thanks to the one who chooses the sons of Zadok to serve as priests, for his kindness is forever” (51:12u+ HB).33 Interestingly, the Zadokites are also given an important role in the Qumran community (1QS 5:2, 9), and 1QSb 3:22–23 refers to the “sons of Zadok” as “the priests whom God has chosen to strengthen his covenant.”34 While much of the litany’s theology resembles other parts of Ben Sira’s book, the poetic style seems rather different, and the authorship of the litany is disputed.35 In its location, whether authentic to Ben Sira or a later addition, the litany serves to fulfil the declaration made at the end of the previous thanksgiving song: “Therefore I give thanks (‫ )הודיתי‬and I praise, and I bless the name of the Lord” (Sir 51:12 HB). The litany opens with the words of Ps 136:1: “Give thanks (‫ )הודו‬to the Lord, for he is good, for his kindness is forever” (51:12ef+). Whereas Psalm 136 consists of twenty-six bicola ending in the same phrase: “for his kindness is forever,” the litany includes fourteen bicola concluding with this phrase, such as: “Give thanks to the shield of Abraham, for his kindness is forever” (51:12wx+).36 32 Fullerton, “Studies,” 130; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 567. 33 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 569. 34 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 1: 107. 35 Authentic according to Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 35; Smend, Weisheit, 503–4; Segal, Sefer, 356. Inauthentic according to Peters, Buch, 414; Di Lella, Text, 104; Schrader, Leiden, 74–75. 36 Marttila, “Ben Sira’s Use,” 369-83.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 251

Some of the divine titles are borrowed from the Psalms, such as “Israel’s guard” (Ps 121:4; Sir 51:12i+) and “Mighty One of Jacob” (Ps 132:2, 5; Sir 51:12za+). The litany ends by citing Ps 148:14: “He has exalted a horn [= power] for his people—praise for all his devoted ones, for the children of Israel, the people close to him. Alleluia!” (51:12zg+–zj+). However, some lines of the litany seem more like later rabbinic poetry. Thus, m.  ʾAvot 3.1 and 4.29 warn of future judgment before the “King of the kings of kings,” just as the litany employs the divine title “King of the kings of kings,” meaning the King over the earth’s greatest kings (Sir 51:12ze+). Indeed, Stefan Reif observes: “With the exception of the reference to the Zadokites, all the expressions have precise parallels or at least equivalents in the rabbinic liturgy, especially the ʿamidah.”37

3 Crying out in Lament Because Ben Sira’s work is usually considered a sapiential text, akin to the Book of Proverbs, the sage’s sharp nationalistic complaint (Sir 36:1–22 HB) seems to sound a jarring note, and hence has sometimes been considered a later inser­ tion.38 However, when we recognize the extent of influence exerted by the Psalter on Ben Sira, we can more clearly see that this poem indeed belongs to his authen­ tic work.39 In fact, this national prayer resembles Psalms 79 and 83 in calling for divine vengeance. Part of Ben Sira’s prayer is an expansion of Ps 9:21: “Place fear on them, O Lord. Let the nations know that they are mortal,” and also of Ps 79:6: “Pour out your wrath on the nations who do not know you, and on the kingdoms which do not call on your name,” since the sage prays: “Place dread of you upon all the nations [...] And they will know, as we know, that there is no God except you [...] Rouse up anger and pour out wrath [...] And all the ends of the earth will know that you are God [of eternity]” (Sir 36:2, 5, 8, 22 HB).40 Moreover, the petition: “Gather all the tribes of Jacob, and let them inherit as in the days of old” (Sir 36:13, 16) partly echoes an earlier national lament: “O God, with our ears we heard, our ancestors recounted to us, the deed you did in their days, in the days of old” (Ps 44:2). The prayer for Jerusalem in Sir 36:18 (“Have mercy on the town of your sanc­ tuary, Jerusalem, the place of your residence”) echoes a phrase from Ps 33:14 orig­ 37 Reif, “Prayer,” 334; cf. Segal, Sefer, 356–57. 38 Middendorp, Stellung, 125; Collins, Wisdom, 111; Schrader, Leiden, 87. 39 Marböck, “Gebet,” 165; Wright, “Nations,” 134; Palmisano, Salvaci, 49; Marttila, “Ben Sira’s Use,” 360–68. Surveys of scholarship in Marttila, Nations, 124–30; Palmisano, Salvaci, 25–49. 40 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 421.

252 

 Jeremy Corley

inally applied to the heavenly sanctuary: “From heaven the Lord gazes [...] From the place of his residence he watches” (Ps 33:13–14).41 When Sir 36:22 requests: “Hear the prayer of your servants, according to your favour towards your people,” the sage echoes Ps 106:4: “Remember me, in your favour to your people.”42 Lastly, the concluding motif, that “all the ends of the earth will know that you are God [of eternity]” (Sir 36:22), echoes the final verse of another communal lament (Ps 83:19): “and they will know that you alone, whose name is the Lord, are Most High over all the earth.”43 A poetic, petitionary lament appears in Sir 22:27–23:6, exhibiting a few resem­ blances to individual lament psalms, though the general concern for self-disci­ pline is sapiential. Núria Calduch-Benages explains: “The person who recites the prayer (a disciple or perhaps Ben Sira himself) asks God for help in avoiding sins of the tongue and unruly passions.”44 Although the unaltered Hebrew text is absent from the Genizah MSS, a reworked rhyming version appears in Genizah MS Adler 3053, published in 1931 by Joseph Marcus.45 According to the Adler MS, this prayer begins: “Place over my mouth a guard, and over my lips a complete seal” (a rhymed reworking of Sir 22:27), with an echo of the Psalmist’s petition: “Set a guard for my mouth, Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips” (Ps 141:3), as well as Ps 39:2: “I said: I will guard my ways from sinning with my tongue.”46 Also, according to the Adler MS, this prayer addresses the Deity: “God (‫)אל‬, my Father (‫)אבי‬, and Lord of my life” (cf. the Syriac of Sir 23:1, 4),47 echoing the prayer of the Davidic king reported in Ps 89:27: “You are my Father (‫)אבי‬, my God (‫)אלי‬, and the rock of my salvation.” Finally, according to the Adler MS, this prayer ends: “Let not a strong appetite rule over me” (cf. Sir 23:6), echoing the sentiment of the Psalmist’s petition: “Do not let any iniquity have dominion over me” (Ps 119:133).

4 Learning Wisdom and Torah Most psalm commentators accept the form-critical genre of the wisdom psalm, though the exact identification is often disputed and a few scholars have even 41 Palmisano, Salvaci, 260–61. 42 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 423. 43 Palmisano, Salvaci, 196. 44 Calduch-Benages, “Emotions,” 157. 45 Marcus, “Fifth,” 238–40. 46 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 322. 47 Whereas the Syriac version understands two separate divine titles (“God, my Father”; cf. Sir 51:10), the phrase could instead be a construct chain, “the God of my father”; cf. Segal, Sefer, 137.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 253

rejected the entire category.48 According to Leo Perdue, the Psalter has eleven wisdom psalms, consisting of three Torah psalms (Psalms 1, 19, 119); three instruc­ tional psalms (Psalms 32, 34, 37), two proverbial psalms (Psalms 112, 127), two reflective psalms (Psalms 49 and 73), and one sapiential creation hymn (Psalm 111).49 This can serve as an approximate classification, though I regard Psalm 112 (one of Perdue’s two proverbial psalms) as a “fear-of-God psalm.” Ben Sira scholars refer to an interrelated theological triad of wisdom, law, and fear of God (Sir 1:25–27 G; 9:14–16 G; 19:20 G; 21:11 G).50 This religious triad appears in Sir 33:1–2 HB: “Evil will not strike one who fears the Lord, except in testing, and again he will escape. One who hates Torah will not be wise.” Such a triad develops connections made in the Psalter (Pss 19:7–9; 119:74, 79, 98), as well as in the Book of Proverbs (Prov 2:1–5). In particular, one of the Torah psalms links law, fear of the Lord, and the means of becoming wise (Ps 19:8, 10): “The law of the Lord is complete, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is reliable, making the simpleton wise; [...] the fear of the Lord is pure, remaining forever.”51 Moreover, Psalm 111 has a comparable triad in its praise of God: “Reliable are all his precepts [...] The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps 111:7, 10). When the Syriac of Sir 1:14 makes a similar affirmation (“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”), the text probably draws on Ps 111:10 in combination with Prov 9:10 (and perhaps Prov 1:7). Within Ben Sira’s wisdom poem in Sir 14:20–15:10 HA, Johannes Marböck observes multiple parallels with Psalm 1.52 For instance, the poem’s beginning in 14:20 HA (“Happy the mortal who will meditate [‫ ]יהגה‬on wisdom”) recalls the opening of Psalm 1 (“Happy is the person [...] whose delight is in the Torah of the Lord, and on his Torah he will meditate [‫ ]יהגה‬day and night” (Ps 1:1-2). Note that Sir 14:20 also echoes one of the wisdom psalms: “The mouth of the righteous person will meditate [‫ ]יהגה‬on wisdom” (Ps 37:30). Moreover, when Sir 15:8–9 HAB declares of wisdom: “She is far from scoffers [‫[ ]לצים‬...]. Praise is not fitting in the mouth of a wicked person [‫]רשע‬,” the reader is reminded of Ps 1:1: “Happy is the person who has not walked in the advice of the wicked [‫[ ]רשעים‬...] and has not sat in the seat of scoffers [‫]לצים‬.” In other sapiential poems, Ben Sira applies to wisdom the imagery used for the Torah in Psalms 19 and 119.53 Just as the commandments are “more desirable than 48 Perdue, Sword, 152–53. 49 Ibid., 165. 50 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 76. 51 Klein, “Half Way,” 151–52. 52 Marböck, “Wirkungsgeschichte,” 94–96. Cf. Reitemeyer, Weisheitslehre, 185–90. 53 Reitemeyer, Weisheitslehre, 195.

254 

 Jeremy Corley

gold” (Ps 19:11; cf. 119:72, 127), so wisdom provides “golden garments” (Sir 6:29 HAQ), and just as the commands are “sweeter than honey” (Ps 19:11; cf. 119:103), so is the experience of wisdom (Sir 24:20 G).54 In the admonition to humble learn­ ing (“Things too wonderful for you do not seek, and what is hidden from you do not investigate”), Sir 3:21 HA echoes two psalm verses expressing humble amaze­ ment at God’s wonders: Ps 131:1 (“I have not gone after great things, or things too wonderful for me”), and Ps 139:6 (“The knowledge is too wonderful for me, so elevated that I cannot attain to it”).55 The final poem of Ben Sira’s book (Sir 51:13–30) is a twenty-three-line alpha­ betic acrostic describing the sage’s successful quest for wisdom, personified as a female figure. While the acrostic form appears in several biblical books (e.g., Lamentations and Proverbs), it is most frequent in the Psalter.56 Admittedly, the primary influence on Sir 51:13–30 is the acrostic on the capable woman (Prov 31:10–31), since both poems celebrate the finding of a female life companion, whether physical or symbolic.57 However, the great acrostic Torah poem (Psalm 119) may have served as a secondary influence. While the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11Q5) preserves the first half of Ben Sira’s acrostic and its final two words, the Genizah MS contains a rather corrupt form of the whole song, possibly retro­ verted from the Syriac.58 Here I refer to the preserved Hebrew text and ignore the complex textual problems. It is widely assumed that the female figure sought by the sage is wisdom, since the term occurs twice in the Genizah MS (Sir 51:15, 25 HB) as well as twice in the Greek (Sir 51:13, 17), while the near-synonym “instruction” occurs thrice in the Greek (Sir 51:23, 26, 28) and the Genizah MS has “study” in Sir 51:23. Moreover, a connection between law and wisdom may be hidden within the wordplay in Sir 51:14 HQ, where the sage says of personified wisdom: “She came to me in her beauty” (‫בתרה‬, usually understood as a defective form of ‫)בתוארה‬. However, the word ‫ בתרה‬could also be interpreted as a defective form of ‫בתורה‬, so that wisdom “came to me in Torah.”59 The poem’s opening alphabetic vocabulary is sometimes shared with the great acrostic Torah Psalm (Ps 119). For instance, the hiphil verb ‫“( הטה‬incline,” from root ‫ )נטה‬begins the he-line in the Torah acrostic at Ps 119:36 (with object: 54 Ibid., 193, 200. 55 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 160 (Ps 131:1); Mopsik, Sagesse, 73 (Ps 139:6). 56 Soll, Psalm 119, 5–34; Watson, Poetry, 190–200; Seybold, Poetik, 76–79. 57 Soll, Psalm 119, 16–17; Corley, “Study,” 180–81. 58 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 577. For a recent textual study, see Reymond, Idioms, 21-50. Al­ though the poem’s authenticity has been questioned (e.g., Goff’s article in the present volume), I agree with Reymond (p. 22) in regarding it as the work of Ben Sira himself. 59 Reymond, Idioms, 31.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 255

“my heart”) and in the wisdom acrostic at Sir 51:16 HQ (with object: “my ear”). The suffixed noun ‫“( פי‬my mouth”) begins the pe-line in the Torah acrostic at Ps 119:131 (“I opened wide my mouth [‫ ]פערתי פי‬and I sigh”) and in the wisdom acrostic at Sir 51:25 HB (“I opened my mouth [‫ ]פערתי פי‬and I spoke of her”). Most strikingly, within the poem’s first line in the Qumran Psalms scroll, “I was a youth before I wandered, and I sought her” (Sir 51:13 HQ), the first-person verb ‫“( תעיתי‬I wandered”) exactly matches the first-person verb in the closing line of the great Torah psalm, where another shared verb “seek” (‫ )בקש‬also appears (Ps 119:176): “I have wandered like a lost sheep; seek your servant, for I have not forgotten your commands.” The fact that Ben Sira’s final wisdom poem echoes the great Torah psalm makes sense because the sage elsewhere connects wisdom and Torah: “One who hates Torah will not be wise” (Sir 33:2 HBF). Sometimes the phraseology of the poem’s Qumran form echoes other psalms, as when Sir 51:15 HQ (“My foot trod in uprightness/level ground”) recalls Ps 26:12: “My foot stands in uprightness/level ground.” Moreover, the phrase in Ps 71:17, “O God, you have taught me from my youth,” is echoed in Sir 51:15 HQ: “For from my youth I have known her.” In addition, the sentiment of Sir 51:20 HQ (“I purified my hands towards her”) is reminiscent of a processional psalm, specifying the kind of person ready for worship as being “clean of hands and pure of heart” (Ps 24:4). The three Torah psalms (Psalms 1, 19, 119) are often classified among the wisdom psalms.60 An interesting structural feature is the use of 8-line poems in relation to the Torah. This aspect is most visible in the great Torah psalm (Psalm 119), arranged in twenty-two alphabetic sections of eight lines each, but in a lesser way it is also evident in the main Torah section of Psalm 19, consisting of eight poetic lines (Ps 19:8–11). A similar 8-line structure appears in Ben Sira’s opening wisdom poem (Sir 1:1–10 G), and in a poem celebrating the reliability of the Torah rather than dreams (Sir 34:1–8 G), as well as in the final praise section of the great canticle of creation (Sir 43:27–33 HB/G), concluding with the word “wisdom.” Interestingly, Ben Sira’s portrait of Moses (Sir 45:1-5) also consists of a poem of eight lines, ending with the statement that God granted Moses “the law of life and understanding” (Sir 45:5 HB). According to Sir 45:5 HB Moses was given God’s Torah so as “to teach in Jacob his statutes, and his testimonies and his judgments to Israel,” a formulation echoing God’s revelation described in Ps 147:19 (“He declares his word[s] to Jacob, his statutes and judgments to Israel”).61

60 Perdue, Sword, 165. 61 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 511; Mopsik, Sagesse, 283.

256 

 Jeremy Corley

One of Ben Sira’s main Torah poems is Sir 32:14-33:3 HB, where Jan Liesen sees a shared background with the Torah psalms.62 Just as Sir 32:15 HB asserts: “One who seeks Torah will obtain it,” and Sir 32:23 HB declares: “One who does this keeps the command,” so Ps 119:44–45 says: “I will keep your Torah always, forever and to eternity. I will walk in spaciousness, for I seek your precepts.” Whereas Sir 32:24 HB teaches: “One who observes Torah is keeping himself,” Ps 119:34 says: “Make me understand, and I will observe your Torah, and I will keep it with all my heart.”63 In addition, the sage uses the anarthrous term ‫“( דבר‬word”) for the Torah (“an understanding person will understand the Word,” Sir 33:3 HB), as in the great Torah psalm (Ps 119:42, 49).64 Biblical scholars have often regarded Torah psalms as belonging in a cate­ gory with wisdom psalms, but to both these literary genres, we can perhaps add a third category of “fear of God psalms.” Just as Ben Sira devotes a few poems to the fear of the Lord (e.g., Sir 1:11–30 G; 34:14–20 G), so there are two psalms dedi­ cated to the fear of God (Psalms 112 and 128). In fact, Will Soll calls Psalm 112 “an alphabetic encomium of ‘the man who fears the Lord.’”65 While Psalm 112 twice says of the God-fearing person: “His righteousness endures forever” (Ps 112:3, 9), Sir 40:17 HM teaches: “Kindness for ever will not be cut off, and righteousness will be established forever.”66 Psalm 128 also celebrates the blessings received by the God-fearing man: “Happy is every [man] fearing the Lord, the one walking in his ways” (Ps 128:1). Psalm 128:3 employs a botanical simile in its praise of the God-fearing man: “Your sons (‫ )בניך‬shall be like shoots of olive trees (‫ )כשתלי זיתים‬around (‫ )סביב‬your table.” This botanical image recurs in the portrait of the high priest Simeon in Sir 50:12 HB: “Around (‫ )סביב‬him was a crown of sons (‫)בנים‬, like shoots of cedars (‫)ארזים כשתלי‬ in Lebanon.”67 Ben Sira’s allusion to Ps 128:3 suggests that Simeon embodied the meaning of fear of the Lord. Like the God-fearing head of a family, Simeon pre­ sided over his sons (and perhaps the other priests) in a familial way, though the family table is here replaced by the sacrificial altar. Moreover, the sage’s allusion replaces olive trees with cedars by adding an echo of Ps 92:12–13: “The righteous one will flourish like a palm tree; like a cedar (‫ )כארז‬in Lebanon he will grow great.

62 Liesen, “Background,” 197. Within Sir 32:14–33:3, the word “Torah” could also denote “in­ struction.” 63 Liesen, “Background,” 205. 64 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 399. 65 Soll, Psalm 119, 15. 66 Gregory, Signet Ring, 180. 67 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 553; Segal, Sefer, 345. In Sir 50:12, where HB has “sons,” G has “brothers”; cf. Mulder, “Elements,” 280–81.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 257

Those planted (‫ )שתולים‬in the house of the Lord, in the courts of our God, will flourish.”68 When outlining the advantages of fearing the Lord, Sir 1:11–13 G promises rewards that match God’s gifts to the victorious king in Psalm 21(20), including glory (Sir 1:11; Ps 21:6), gladness (Sir 1:11–12; Ps 21:7), length of days (Sir 1:12; Ps 21:5), and blessing (Sir 1:13; Ps 21:4, 7). In addition, when listing the benefits of the fear of God, Sir 34:19 G promises: “The eyes of the Lord are upon those loving him,” echoing the statement of Ps 33(32):18 G: “The eyes of the Lord are upon those fearing him” (cf. Sir 15:19 G).69 Furthermore, the description of God as “shelter” and “guard” (Sir 34:19 G) recalls Ps 121(120):4–5, while the mention of God enlight­ ening eyes (Sir 34:20 G) echoes what is said of the Torah in Ps 19(18):9 G.

5 Remembering History Whereas a few psalms praise the Torah student (Psalm 1) or the God-fearing person (Psalms 112 and 128), the lengthy Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44:1–50:24) celebrates the loyal predecessors of the sage and his audience. As parallels pro­ posed for Sirach 44–50, Thomas Lee discusses three historical psalms of praise (Psalms 105, 135, and 136), as well as two historical psalms of judgment (Psalms 78 and 106), before concluding: “Just as Sirach 44–50 is distinct from the hymn form of Psalms 105, 135, and 136 in that it celebrates particular men rather than the deeds of the Lord, so too it is differentiated from Psalms 78 and 106 [...] by its descriptions of the obedience and disobedience of individuals [rather than of the whole people].”70 Another difference lies in the historical scope, since Psalms 105 and 106 only cover events from the Genesis patriarchs until the entry into the land, with a major focus on the exodus, whereas Sir 44:1–50:24 recounts history from the Genesis patriarchs right up until the author’s own time.71 Yet despite such differences, there are some similarities in motifs. Both Psalm 105 and the Torah section of Ben Sira’s poem (Sir 44:17–45:26 HB) strike the positive note of praise for Pentateuchal history, with parallels occurring in the mention of the covenant with Abraham (Ps 105:9; Sir 44:20) and the special role of Moses (Ps 105:26; Sir 44:23–45:1). Ben Sira’s reference to the signs worked by Moses in Egypt (“By his words he hastened signs,” Sir 45:3 G) faintly echoes 68 Hayward, Temple, 66. 69 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 410. 70 Lee, Studies, 23–28; quotation from pp. 28–29. 71 The scope of Psalm 78 mostly resembles Psalms 105 and 106, but it adds a final section con­ tinuing the history as far as King David.

258 

 Jeremy Corley

the Greek of Ps 105(104):27 (“He set among them the words of his signs”). The par­ alleling of “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬and “statute” (‫ )חק‬in Ps 105:10 is copied in Sir 44:20 and 45:24. Psalm 105:26 and Sir 45:16 both refer to the divine choice of Aaron, though Ben Sira also mentions God’s choice of Moses (Sir 45:4). In addition, the start of the doxology concluding the praise of Simeon in Sir 50:22 HB (“Now then, bless the Lord, God of Israel, who does wonderful things on the earth”) echoes the admonition in Ps 105:5 (“Remember his wonderful things that he has done”), as well as the litany of praise in Ps 136:4 (“[Give thanks] to the one alone doing great wonderful things”). The wording of the Praise of the Ancestors also includes phrases borrowed from Psalm 106. Thus, when Sir 45:23 HB celebrates Phinehas (“In his zeal for the God of all, he stood at the transgression72 of his people, because his heart made him willing, and he atoned for the children of Israel”), it echoes the retell­ ing of Israelite history in Ps 106:30: “And Phinehas stood and prayed, and the plague was stopped.” The idiom also echoes the description of Moses’ interces­ sory action in Ps 106:23: “He stood before him at the transgression, to turn back his wrath from destroying.” In addition, the sage calls Aaron “a holy one” (‫)קדוש‬ in Sir 45:6 HB, echoing Psalm 106:16 which refers to “Aaron, the holy one of the Lord.”73 The opening of the doxology ending the praise of Phinehas in Sir 45:25 HB (“So now then, bless the good Lord, who crowns you with glory”) recalls two psalms that praise God for the natural world. Ben Sira’s phrase combines an echo of Ps 65:12 (“You crown the year with your goodness”) and a reminiscence of Ps 8:6 (“You crown him with glory and splendour”).74 Then, within the doxologies concluding the sections on Phinehas and Simeon, Ben Sira twice expresses a wish for the presumed priestly audience: “May he give you wisdom of heart” (Sir 45:26; 50:23 HB). The exact phrase “wisdom of heart” (‫ )חכמת לב‬has a rich biblical background, beginning with its sole previous use to denote the skill granted by God to Bezalel and Oholiab for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 35:35). In the context of leadership the reader is also reminded of King Solomon’s prayer for “an understanding heart to judge your people” (1 Kgs 3:9), rewritten by the Chron­ icler as a request for “wisdom and knowledge” (2 Chr 1:10). Finally, however, there is an additional reference to a sapiential lament psalm: “The days of our years—in 72 Whereas the term ‫ פרץ‬is usually understood as “breach” (NRSV) in Ps 106:23 and Sir 45:23 HB, I propose to interpret it as meaning “transgression” (cf. the cognate verb in Hos 4:2; CD 20:25), similar to the Greek “turning” (τροπή). 73 Segal, Sefer, 313; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 511. For the view that the Hebrew term “Holy One” refers to God, see Reiterer, “Role,” 30–31. 74 Segal, Sefer, 317.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 259

them are seventy years, and if with strength eighty years [...] To number our days, so make known [to us], and we will bring a wise heart” (Ps 90:10, 12). Within the survey of Israel’s history in the Praise of the Ancestors, Ben Sira mentions four cases where prayer led to divine deliverance. Andrzej Demitrów explains the sage’s teaching on prayer: “Four people significant for the past of the chosen people can be indicated as its representatives: Joshua (Sir 46:1–10), Samuel (Sir 46:13–20), David (Sir 47:1–11), and Hezekiah (Sir 48:17–25).”75 Indeed, the sage employs similar language to portray Joshua, Samuel, David, and Heze­ kiah (alongside Isaiah), invoking God at a time of a crisis and receiving a favor­ able hearing (46:5–6; 46:16–18; 47:5; 48:20).76 In the cases of Joshua and David, the Genizah text says: “For he called to God Most High,” and slightly different phrases report the prayers of Samuel and Hezekiah alongside Isaiah. Since Samuel is one of these four characters, Ben Sira may have been echoing Ps 99:6: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, and Samuel among those calling his name. They were calling to the Lord, and he himself would answer them.” The sage’s celebration of the high priest Simeon employs celestial imagery in Sir 50:6 HB: “Like the stars of light between the clouds, and like the full moon at festival days.” This imagery possibly echoes Ps 148:3: “Praise him, sun and moon! Praise him, all stars of light!”77 Ben Sira’s poem also uses arboreal imagery in Sir 50:10 HB: “Like a verdant olive tree full of berries, and like an oil-bearing tree sat­ urating the branch.” Here the simile, “like a verdant olive tree” (‫)כזית רענן‬, exactly borrows a unique phrase from Ps 52:10, where the Psalmist expresses confidence in God: “But I am like a verdant olive tree (‫ )כזית רענן‬in God’s house. I trust in God’s kindness forever and ever.”78 The high priest Simeon is suitably described as being in the Temple and trusting in God, and thus becoming as fruitful as an olive tree. Ben Sira makes use of the royal psalms in view of their promises of divinely authorized leadership for Israel. Thus, his portraits of David and Solomon both include echoes of Psalm 89. The statement about David in Sir 47:11 HB that the Lord “exalted his horn” recalls Ps 89:25: “In my name his horn will be exalted,” but by adding the specification “forever” (Sir 47:11 HB), the sage is alluding to the promise of the eternal survival of the Davidic dynasty (Ps 89:29, 37). Simi­ larly, the conclusion to the praise of Solomon in Sir 47:22 HB (“[However, God] 75 Demitrów, Quattro oranti, 473. 76 On these four texts see Palmisano, Salvaci, 341–44. Whereas Sir 48:20 HB might suggest that those praying are the Jerusalemites of the time, 2 Chr 32:20 mentions the prayer of Hezekiah and Isaiah; cf. Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 152. 77 Segal, Sefer, 344; Mopsik, Sagesse, 315; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 552. 78 Mulder, Simon, 143. The phrase “verdant olive tree” occurs elsewhere only in Jer 11:16.

260 

 Jeremy Corley

will not forsake loyalty”) echoes the reference to the Davidic covenant in Ps 89:29 (“Forever I will keep my loyalty for him”).79 Sometimes the echo is subtle, as in Sir 47:2 HB: “As fat is lifted up (‫ )מורם‬from the holy offering, so was David from Isra­ el.”80 In its primary sense, this imagery refers to the Temple service, comparing David to choice fat from the sacred offerings, lifted up for presenting to God on the altar (Lev 4:8; 10:19). However, the hophal verb form ‫( מורם‬causative passive of ‫ )רום‬also corresponds to the report of God’s choice of David in Ps 89:20–21 (using the hiphil, or causative active, of the verb): “I have lifted up (‫ )הרימותי‬a chosen one from the people. I have found David my servant.”81 The Praise of the Ancestors alludes to another royal psalm (Psalm 72) in connection with Abraham and Phinehas. Following a bicolon omitted from the Genizah MS by homoioteleuton, the Greek text of Sir 44:21 foresees that Abra­ ham’s descendants will inherit “from sea to sea and from the river to the end of the earth,” echoing the prayer of Ps 72(71):8 for the Davidic king: “May he have dominion from sea to sea and from the river to the end of the earth.”82 Later, within a phrase omitted from the Genizah Hebrew, the Greek text of Sir 45:26 prays for wisdom for the descendants of Aaron and Phinehas “to judge his people in righteousness,” echoing the prayer in Ps 72(71):2, that the king may “judge your people in righteousness.”83 Lastly, the opening of the doxology concluding the praise of Simeon in Sir 50:22 HB (“Now then, bless the Lord, God of Israel, who does wonderful things on the earth”) echoes the beginning of the final doxology in Ps 72:18 (“Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, alone doing wonderful things”). Although some royal psalms (especially Psalm 89) are echoed in the Praise of the Ancestors for an expected reference to the great kings, allusions occur more often with an unexpected application to ruling priestly figures. Ben Sira borrows royal language from the psalms in his description of two priestly char­ acters, the first high priest Aaron and Ben Sira’s contemporary Simeon. Thus, the sage echoes the language of Ps 21:4 by depicting Aaron receiving a “golden crown” (‫)עטרת פז‬, a feature that suggests his royal status (Sir 45:12 HB).84 More­ over, a significant promise to the Davidic king appears in Ps 89:29–30: “I will keep my loyalty for him forever, and my covenant will be reliable for him, and I

79 Completion of lacuna from Segal, Sefer, 327. 80 Smend, Weisheit, 448; cf. Segal, Sefer, 324. 81 Segal, Sefer, 324; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 525. 82 Segal, Sefer, 309. 83 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 514. 84 Beentjes, “Countries,” 142; Reiterer, “Role,” 42.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 261

will appoint his descendants forever, and his throne like the days of heaven.”85 In combination with an expected priestly text about the covenant with Phine­ has (Num 25:13), Ben Sira also alludes to this Davidic promise in connection with Aaron (as well as Simeon). After recounting Moses’s anointing of Aaron as priest, Ben Sira employs Davidic language, since the wording of Sir 45:15 HB (“And it became an eternal covenant for him and for his descendants, like the days of heaven”) echoes Ps 89:30 (“And I will appoint his descendants forever, and his throne like the days of heaven”).86 Notably, the Hebrew praise of Simeon (Sir 50:1–24) ends with the same phrase (“for his descendants, like the days of heaven”: Sir 50:24 HB) as occurs in Sir 45:15 HB when describing Aaron.87 In fact, the reference to Ps 89:29–30 is even stron­ ger in Sir 50:24 HB: “May he make reliable his loyalty with Simeon, and may he establish for him the covenant of Phinehas, which will not be cut off for him, and for his descendants, like the days of heaven.” Although this verse refers to God’s covenant with Phinehas from the Torah (Num 25:13), the ideological framework draws more extensively on the Davidic royal ideology expressed in Psalm 89. Thus, Ben Sira has deliberately applied kingly language to Israel’s major priestly leaders, both past and present. Evidently, he has incorporated some royal fea­ tures into his portrayal of Simeon, because during his high priesthood Simeon held civil power as well as religious authority in Jerusalem (Sir 50:1–4).88 From the same royal psalm, the praise of Simeon draws the element of astro­ nomic imagery, used in Ps 89:37–38 to promise an eternal royal succession to David: “His offspring shall be forever, and his throne will be like the sun (‫)כשמש‬ before me. Like the moon (‫ )כירח‬it shall be established for ever, and the witness in the sky is reliable.” Comparable imagery occurs within Ben Sira’s description of Simeon (Sir 50:6-7 HB): “Like the stars of light between the clouds, and like the full moon (‫ )כירח‬at festival days, and like the sun (‫ )כשמש‬glowing toward the Temple of the King, and as the bow that is seen in the cloud.” Sirach 50:17 also borrows a divine title from Ps 89:19, which describes the Deity as “the Holy One of Israel.” Although many of the sage’s earlier psalm references (e.g., calls to praise God) may simply be poetic echoes of biblical language, the clustered parallels to

85 While the reference is to Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam 7:1–17), that text differs from Psalm 89 by avoiding the term “covenant.” 86 The Hebrew phrase “like the days of heaven” appears elsewhere only in Deut 11:21. 87 Beentjes, “Countries,” 142. 88 Hengel, Judaism, 1.270.

262 

 Jeremy Corley

Psalm 89 in the portrait of the high priest Simeon are deliberate allusions because of their density, interpretability, and distinctive features (e.g., special imagery).89 Psalm 89

Ben Sira 50:1–24 HB

“Like the sun [...] like the moon” (Ps 89:37–38)

“Like the moon [...] like the sun” (Sir 50:6–7)

“The Holy One of Israel” (Ps 89:19)

“The Holy One of Israel” (Sir 50:17)

“My loyalty [...] my covenant [...] his descendants [...] like the days of heaven” (Ps 89:29–30)

“His loyalty [...] the covenant of Phinehas [...] for his descendants, like the days of heaven” (Sir 50:24)

Because of such echoes of royal psalmody, Robert Hayward states: “Ben Sira has in some measure transferred to Simon and the Zadokite dynasty royal attributes which were once characteristic of the House of David.”90

6 Conclusion This study has pointed out many similarities, as well as some differences, between the Hebrew poetry of the psalms and Ben Sira. The parallels that exist between Ben Sira and various psalms are most frequent within the latter chapters of the sage’s book. In particular, the thanksgiving and lament prayers within Ben Sira’s work exhibit parallels, both conceptual and verbal, though it is rare for Ben Sira’s psalm allusions to match the sequence of the text alluded to. Not surprisingly, Ben Sira’s descriptive hymns of praise (e.g., Sir 39:12–35) often echo the psalms of praise (e.g., Psalm 33), his individual thanksgiving (Sir 51:1–12) exhibits parallels with individual thanksgiving psalms (e.g., Psalm 40), his nationalistic prayer (Sir 36:1–22) recalls the Psalter’s communal laments (e.g., Psalm 79), and his Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44:1–50:24) has some parallels with the historical psalms (e.g., Psalm 105). It is also unsurprising that Ben Sira’s focus on the triad of wisdom, law, and the fear of God often echoes psalms dealing with the same topics, though it is striking that the Torah psalms (e.g., Psalm 119) have influenced his wisdom poems (e.g., Sir 51:13–30). Interestingly, motifs from the royal psalms (e.g., Psalm 89) are frequently echoed, not only in Ben Sira’s portraits of the kings (e.g., Sir 47:2–22) but especially in his depiction of priestly figures (e.g., Sir 50:1–24). 89 Skemp, “Avenues,” 45. The exact Hebrew comparisons “like the sun” and “like the moon” occur only in Ps 89:37–38 and Sir 50:6–7. 90 Hayward, Temple, 51.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 263

At least in some cases, it is evident that the parallels are intentional, as in Ben Sira’s declarative song of thanksgiving in Sir 51:1–12 HB. Here we find multiple echoes of three declarative psalms of thanksgiving (Psalms 40, 116, 138), as well as two individual prayers for deliverance (Psalms 25 and 71). The parallels are easily interpretable because the situations are similar, since three of the psalms give thanks for deliverance already received while the other two are prayers for divine deliverance. In addition, there are a few distinctive traits, such as the phrase “those straying to falsehood” (‫)שׂטי כזב‬, which occurs only in Ps 40:5 and Sir 51:2. However, because psalmic language was so widespread, it is generally unusual to find clearly distinctive phraseology. More often, Ben Sira echoes the forms, motifs, and vocabulary of the psalms as a means of expression, rather than specifically quoting them as an object of textual study. It is interesting to consider Ben Sira’s selective use of the psalms, above all favoring Psalms 89 and 119. Out of the royal psalms, as far as I can see, he passes over the coronation hymn, found in Psalm 110). Instead, he echoes two other psalms celebrating the Davidic line (Psalms 72 and 89), especially within his portrayals of priestly figures such as Simeon. Out of the Torah psalms, he fre­ quently echoes the acrostic Psalm 119, especially in his final wisdom acrostic (Sir 51:13–30). Indeed, the importance of the Torah for Ben Sira is evident in the mul­ tiple echoes of Psalm 119 in various contexts within his book. The idiom of smear­ ing deception (Sir 51:5) echoes Ps 119:69, while the prayer that negative forces may not rule over him (Sir 23:6) echoes the sentiment of Ps 119:133. Moreover, the first-person verb ‫“( תעיתי‬I wandered”) from Ps 119:176 (at the psalm’s conclusion) is echoed in Sir 51:13 HQ (at the poem’s opening). By way of contrast, he makes rel­ atively few allusions to the individual laments, which constitute about one-third of the Psalter. This may be the reason why he generally alludes more often to the second half of the Psalter than the first half. Ben Sira tends to avoid exact scriptural quotations, instead reshaping the earlier material for his own context. Thus, he often blends two passages, as in the reference to Simeon’s “crown of sons” being like “shoots of cedars in Lebanon” (Sir 50:12), which combines the description of the God-fearing man in Ps 128:3 (“Your sons shall be like shoots of olive trees”) with the depiction of the righteous person in Ps 92:12 (“Like a cedar in Lebanon he will grow great”). Similarly, the admonition to humble learning in Sir 3:21 HA combines echoes of Ps 131:1 and Ps 139:6. To be sure, this study is only an initial exploration into connections between the Psalter and Ben Sira, but it indicates great possibilities for showing

264 

 Jeremy Corley

how Ben Sira selectively and creatively utilized earlier authoritative texts which became accepted as scriptural.91

Bibliography Baumgartner, Walter. “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach.” ZAW 34 (1914): 161–98. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “‘The Countries Marvelled at You’: King Solomon in Ben Sira 47,12-22.” Pages 135–44 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. —. “Hezekiah and Isaiah: A Study on Ben Sira 48,15-25.” Pages 145–58 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Burton, Keith W. “Sirach and the Judaic Doctrine of Creation.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1987. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Emotions in the Prayer of Sir 22:27–23:6.” Pages 145–76 in Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions. Edited by Stefan C. Reif and Renate Egger-Wenzel. DCLS 26. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Corley, Jeremy. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” Pages 155–82 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Demitrów, Andrzej. Quattro oranti nell’elogio dei padri (SIR 44-49). Opolska Biblioteka Teologiczna 124. Opole, Poland: Redakcja Wydawnictw Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2011. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Sirach 51:1-12: Poetic Structure and Analysis of Ben Sira’s Psalm.” CBQ 48 (1986): 395–407. —. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “The Change of the Sacrifice Terminology from Hebrew into Greek in the Book of Ben Sira.” BN 140 (2009): 69–93. Fullerton, Kemper. “Studies in the Psalter.” The Biblical World 37/2 (1911): 128–36. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998. Gilbert, Maurice. “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance.” Pages 117–35 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. 91 My thanks are due to Stefan Reif, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and James Aitken for the invitation to the Cambridge conference, to the conference participants for useful discussion, and to Bradley C. Gregory and Maurice Gilbert for helpful comments on a draft of this article.



Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter 

 265

Gunkel, Hermann. “Psalmen.” RGG, 1st ed. (1913), 4:1927–1949. Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933. Hayward, C. T. Robert. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. London, SCM, 1974. Klein, Anja. “Half Way between Psalm 119 and Ben Sira: Wisdom and Torah in Psalm 19.” Pages 137–56 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and Andrew D. Teeter. JSJ Supplements 163. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Lee, Thomas R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. SBLDS 75. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986. Liesen, Jan. “A Common Background of Ben Sira and the Psalter.” Pages 197–208 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. —. Full of Praise: An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12–35. JSJ Supplements 64. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Marböck, Johannes. “Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions in Sir 36,1-22 im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras.” Pages 149–66 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer. Herders Biblische Studien 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1995. —. “Zur frühen Wirkungsgeschichte von Ps 1.” Pages 88–100 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer. Herders Biblische Studien 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1995. Marcus, Joseph. “A Fifth Ms of Ben Sira.” JQR 21 (1931): 223–40. Marttila, Marko. “Ben Sira’s Use of Various Psalm Genres.” Pages 356–83 in Functions of Psalms and Prayers in the Late Second Temple Period. Edited by Mika S. Pajunen and Jeremy Penner. BZAW 486. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. —. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Mopsik, Charles. La Sagesse de Ben Sira. Lagrasse: Verdier, 2003. Mulder, Otto. “New Elements in Ben Sira’s Portrait of the High Priest Simon in Sirach 50.” Pages 273–90 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. —. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. JSJ Supplements 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. “Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!” Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1–17. AnBib 163. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. Perdue, Leo G. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Petrany, Catherine. Pedagogy, Prayer, and Praise: The Wisdom of the Psalms and Psalter. FAT 2/83. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Reif, Stefan C. “Prayer in Ben Sira, Qumran and Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 321–41 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.

266 

 Jeremy Corley

Reitemeyer, Michael. Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob: Psalmentheologie im Buch Jesus Sirach. BBB 127. Berlin: Philo, 2000. 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. Reymond, Eric D. New Idioms Within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (= 11Q Psa). SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 31. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2011. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Schrader, Lutz. Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches. BBET 27. Frankfurt: Lang, 1994. Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer Ben-Sira Hashalem. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972. Seybold, Klaus. Poetik der Psalmen. Poetologische Studien zum Alten Testament 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skemp, Vincent. “Avenues of Intertextuality between Tobit and the New Testament.” Pages 43–70 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Soll, Will. Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting. CBQMS 23. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1991. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1986. Westermann, Claus. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1981. Wright, 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. JSJ Supplements 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Núria Calduch-Benages

Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira A Case Study of Sir 21:1–10 Abstract: Rather than studying one metaphor in particular, or various types of metaphors (e.g., zoological, botanical, astronomical, liturgical), or else a single type of metaphor, we intend here to concentrate our attention on Sir 21:1–10 as a case study. After a brief look at some formal questions concerning the text, we shall examine the more important images (similes and metaphors) that Ben Sira uses in this religious instruction and that serve as examples of sin. With his use of figurative vocabulary, the sage enters himself into a direct relationship with the sapiential genre. Keywords: Greek Sirach, metaphor, poetic imagery, simile, sin

In 2008, in the Theological Faculty of Sicily at Palermo, Antonino Minissale opened his presentation on the metaphor of “falling” in the book of Ben Sira with these words: 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 other books 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 person­ ality and the particular sensibility in which his thought is soaked.1

As far as I know, Minissale was the first scholar to interest himself in the poetic imagery in Sirach in a focused way, giving it some attention as long ago as 1988. This interest has also come to be shared by other scholars such as, for example, Jeremy Corley,2 and, in recent years, I too have published various studies on the subject.3 1 Minissale, “Metaphor of ‘Falling,’” 253. Twenty years before this publication, in 1988, in his little book Siracide. Le radici nella tradizione (77–79), he made a list of words used by Ben Sira in a figurative sense, classifying them into different areas (e.g., the world of animals, plants, min­ erals, nature, human activity, words concerning clothing, objects and various products) but did not provide a more detailed analysis. 2 Corley, “Similes,” esp. 94–106. 3 Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 55–71; “Garment Imagery,” 257–78; “Ben Sira 24:22—De­ coding a Metaphor,” 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-015

268 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

Rather than studying one metaphor in particular (Minissale), or various types of metaphors (zoological, botanical, astronomical, liturgical, as Corley has done), or else a single type of metaphor (Calduch-Benages), we intend here to concentrate our attention on Sir 21:1–10 as a case study. After a brief look at some formal questions concerning the text, we shall examine the more important images (similes and metaphors) that Ben Sira uses in this religious instruction and that serve as examples of sin. With his use of figurative vocabulary, the sage enters himself into a direct relationship with the sapiential genre.

1 Text, Delimitation and Structure of Sir 21:1–10 Without any claim to be exhaustive, we shall proceed to examine the text, the delimitation and the structure of Sir 21:1–10. Our aim is not to make a complete textual and literary analysis of the passage but to provide essential information on these questions with a view to a more detailed study of the poetic imagery.

1.1 Text and Translation Since the Hebrew text of Sir 21:1–10 is not available to us,4 our investigation is based on the Greek version according to Ziegler’s edition.5 In what follows we also provide our own translation, with textual notes. 1 Τέκνον, ἥμαρτες, μὴ προσθῇς μηκέτι καὶ περὶ τῶν προτέρων σου δεήθητι.6 2 ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὄφεως7 φεῦγε ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας· ἐὰν γὰρ προσέλθῃς, δήξεταί σε·

4 Even if not directly relevant to our passage, we should take note of a fairly recent discovery. In 2007, a bifolium of MS C was discovered containing some fragments (vv. 22, 23, 26) of Sir 21:11–28, the pericope following ours; cf. Elizur, “A New Fragment”; “Two New Leaves”; Egger-Wenzel, “Sira-Fragment”; Rey, “Un nouveau bifeuillet”; Palmisano, “Sulla recente scoperta.” 5 Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. For the Syriac version (Syr.), cf. Calduch-Benages, Ferrer and Liesen, Wisdom of the Scribe, and for the Latin (Lat.), cf. Thiele, ed., Sirach. 6 Verse 1 is missing in Syr. Before δεήθητι, the Lucianic recension (L–248) reads ὁλοσχερῶς ἐπιστρέψας, “after you have been converted from everything” and Lat. adds ut tibi remittatur. 7 Syr. lacks the image of the serpent which, in the variant of Basil the Great (III 541), is set in close relationship with the woman: ἀπὸ προσώπου γυναικὸς ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὄφεως φεῦγε, “flee from the sight of a woman as from the sight of a serpent” (cf. vv. 3-4 Syr.).



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 269

ὀδόντες λέοντος οἱ ὀδοντες αὐτῆς8 ἀναιροῦντες ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων. 3 ὡς ῥομφαία δίστομος πᾶσα ἀνομία,9 τῇ πληγῇ αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐστιν ἴασις. 4 καταπληγμὸς καὶ ὕβρις ἐρημώσουσιν πλοῦτον·10 οὕτως οἶκος ὑπερηφάνου ἐκριζωθήσεται.11 5 δέησις πτωχοῦ ἐκ στόματος ἕως ὠτίων αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ κατὰ σπουδὴν ἔρχεται.12 6 μισῶν ἐλεγμὸν ἐν ἴχνει ἁμαρτωλοῦ, καὶ ὁ φοβούμενος κύριον ἐπιστρέψει ἐν καρδίᾳ. 7 γνωστὸς μακρόθεν ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν γλώσσῃ, ὁ δὲ νοήμων οἶδεν ἐν τῷ ὀλισθάνειν αὐτόν.13 8 ὁ οἰκοδομῶν τὴν οἰκίαν ἀυτοῦ ἐν χρήμασιν ἀλλοτρίοις ὡς συνάγων τοὺς λίθους αὐτοῦ14 εἰς χῶμα.15 9 στιππύον συνηγμένον συναγωγὴ ἀνόμων, καὶ ἡ συντέλεια ἀυτῶν φλὸξ πυρός. 10 ὁδὸς ἁμαρτωλῶν ὡμαλισμένη ἐκ λίθων, καὶ ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτων αὐτῆς βόθρος ᾅδου.16 1 My son, have you sinned? Do so no more, and pray [“seek pardon” is understood] for your past [sins]. 2 Flee from sin as from the sight of a serpent, for if you get near, it will bite you; its [sin’s] teeth are lion’s teeth 8 Syr. reads: “Falsehood is as the teeth of a lion.” 9 In Syr., from v. 3 to v. 4, the subject of the phrase is the prostitute. 10 According to Smend, “πλοῦτον ist auffallend, man erwartet, ‘Palast’, ‘Burg’, oder ‘Stadt’” [πλοῦτον is striking; one expects ‘palace’, ‘castle’ or ‘city’] (Weisheit, 189). 11 To avoid the repetition of the verb ἐρημόω in 4b (cf. Rahlfs: ἐρημωθήσεται), Ziegler conjec­ tures: ἐκριζωθήσεται (= Syr. and Lat.). 12 Syr.: “and rises before the judge of the ages”; cf. Peters, Jesus Sirach, 170. 13 Syr. reads: “the wise person recognises the wicked from afar and immediately puts him to the test.” 14 Rahlfs: ἀυτοῦ τοὺς λίθους. Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 191: “Vermutlich gehört ἀυτοῦ an das Ende; es ist umgestellt, weil es zu εἰς χειμῶνα nicht passte [Probably ἀυτοῦ belongs at the end; it has been moved because it does not fit with εἰς χειμῶνα].” 15 In contrast to Rahlfs (εἰς χειμῶνα, “for the winter” = Lat.), Ziegler reads εἰς χῶμα, “for the grave” (cf. Syr.: “heap of stones,” “rubble”). His reading corresponds with the variant in L’ Mal.: εἰς χῶμα ταφῆς ἀυτοῦ, “for the mound of his grave.” 16 Lat. reads: et in fine illorum inferi et tenebrae et poena. Verses 9–10 are very different in Syr.: “Like a sandy ascent for an old man’s feet (= 25:20), so the strength of the wicked is compared to [eternal] fire. The path of the perverse is a hurdle/obstacle for himself because its end is a deep cistern.”

270 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

which destroy human lives. 3 All transgression of the Law is like a two-edged sword, there is no healing for its wound. 4 Threats17 and arrogance strip away wealth; thus the house of the proud will be destroyed. 5 The prayer of the poor person rises from his mouth to his [the Lord’s] ears and his judgment comes swiftly. 6 The one who scorns reproof is on the way of the sinner, but the one who fears the Lord is converted in his heart. 7 From afar, the presumptuous18 in speech is recognised, but the sensible one is aware of his slipping. 8 The one who builds his house with the money of others is like one who heaps up stones for his grave. 9 The assembly of the lawless is a heap of tow, and their end is a flame of fire. 10 The path of sinners is cleared of stones, but at its end is the pit of Hades.

1.2 Delimitation The delimitation of Sir 21:1–10 is only partly disputed. There are no disagreements about the beginning. The formula τέκνον (my son), together with the initial question ἥμαρτες (have you sinned?), of v. 1 introduce a new subject. If, in the previous passage (Sir 20:27–31), Ben Sira is reflecting on the appropriate use of wisdom, his speech from Sir 21:1 onwards takes on an explicitly religious content. He speaks about sin (ἥμαρτες, v. 1; ἁμαρτίας, v. 2; ἁμαρτωλοῦ, v. 6; ἁμαρτωλῶν, v. 10), understood as the transgression of the Law (ἀνομία, v. 3; ἀνόμων, v. 9). Defining the end of the text, on the other hand, seems to be a more contro­ versial question, even if the majority of scholars,19 including the present one, 17 The abstract καταπληγμός (Lat. cataplectatio), a hapax in the LXX, represents a type of human behavior (the same goes for ὕβρις, Lat. iniuriae). It refers to the person who instils terror through threatening acts or words, parading his wealth and his power (cf. Wagner, Hapaxlegomena, 228–29). 18 Lit.: “powerful in words.” Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom, 307), translate as “the ready speak­ er” (one skilled with his tongue), while others think of gossip: “der Beredten” (Smend, Weisheit, 190); “chi fa sfoggio di parole” (“who shows off in his speech”) (Minissale, Siracide, 113); “der Schwätzer” (Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 114). In the light of the context, we prefer rather “presump­ tuous/arrogant.” 19 For example, Smend (Weisheit, 187); Box and Oesterley (“Sirach,” 387); Peters (Jesus Sirach, 170–71); Spicq (“L’Ecclésiastique,” 669); Segal (Sefer ben Sira’, 125); Minissale (Siracide, 112-13);



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 271

hold that the passage finishes in v. 10. The reasons are as follows: the inclusion between ἥμαρτες and ἁμαρτωλῶν (vv. 1 and 10); the conclusive character of v. 10 where the tragic fate of the sinner is revealed; the new theme that is developed, starting from v. 11 and continuing until v. 28 (the contrast between the wise man and the fool; cf. Sir 20:13–17 and 20:27–31); and, finally, the similarity between Sir 21:11 and Sir 19:20, both of which verses mention the close relationship between wisdom, fear of the Lord and the observance of the Law, and both of which are formulated as an initial introduction. Alonso Schökel, Snaith, Morla Asensio, and Palmisano are of a different view.20 According to them, Sir 21:11 is to be understood as a concluding verse (with the classic summary of wisdom/fear/law) that is simultaneously setting the scene for the following section on the wise man and the fool. Yet another delimitation is offered by Haspecker21, who extends the Gottesfurchtperikope (as he considers our text) as far as v. 12. His argument is based, on the one hand, on the thematic relationship between vv. 11 and 12, which form a conclusion to the whole peri­ cope, and, on the other, on the change of style that begins at v. 13 (with the use of comparisons in almost every verse).

1.3 Structure Scholars are not particularly interested in the structure of the pericope and usually do not justify their division of the text. Let us make one observation in this connection: even if in their commentaries they hardly ever coincide in their arrangement of the first seven verses, these scholars tend to consider Sir 21:8–10 as the concluding section of the passage.22 Without entering into discussion with them, we present in what follows our proposals concerning the structure. In our opinion, Sir 21:1–10 is made up of three units (vv. 1–3, vv. 4–7, vv. 8–10) of similar length.23 The first two units each contain 4 bicola (2+2+2+2) and the third only 3 bicola (2+2+2). In all three, there is at least one term derived from the root ἁμαρτ-: the verb ἁμαρτάνω and the substantive ἁμαρτία in the first, the adjective Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom, 308); Sauer (Jesus Sirach, 160); Kaiser (Weisheit, 49); Schreiner (Jesus Sirach, 113) and Marböck (Jesus Sirach, 254–55) among others. 20 Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 216; Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 106; Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 108; Palmisano, Siracide, 205. 21 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 161, n. 85. 22 Cf., for example, Smend, Weisheit, 187; Peters, Jesus Sirach, 170–71; Duesberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 182 and 184; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 162; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 255. 23 Cf. Spicq, “L’Ecclésiastique,” 669–71. He follows the same division of the text but without offering any explanation.

272 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

ἁμαρτωλός in the second, and the substantive ἁμαρτωλοί in the third. The first and the third units have in common a word derived from νόμος (ἀνομία and ἀνομοί respectively), an abundance of images in contrast to the central unit where the language is more doctrinal, and, finally, a negative tone in each individual colon. This last aspect contrasts markedly with the alternation between negative and positive which characterises vv. 4–7. Let us look at it in detail: 4a (-), 4b (-), 5a (+), 5b (+), 6a (-), 6b (+), 7a (-), 7b (+). This confirms the following rhythm: negative/ negative, positive/positive, negative/positive, negative/positive. At the level of content, the first unit (vv. 1–3) is a warning against sin because of its terrible consequences; the second unit (vv. 4–7) describes the contrast between the sinner and the wise person who fears the Lord, and the third unit (vv. 8–10) cautions against the fatal destiny that awaits the sinner.

2 Poetic Imagery in Sir 21:1–10 The profusion of images is characteristic not only of Sir 21:1–10 but of the entire section Sir 21:1–22:18, which Di Lella entitles “Sin and Folly of Various Kinds.” Just as there is a predominance of yeš-proverbs (There is…) in Sir 19:20–20:26, our section is distinguished by the Sentenzen mit plastischen Vergleichen24 beginning from v. 2 (there are about twenty in total). We shall now focus on those images of Sir 21:1–10 which, in our view, have a richer and more suggestive importance.25

2.1 Serpent’s Bite, Lion’s Teeth (Sir 21:2) 21:2a

ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὄφεως φεῦγε ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας·

21:2b

ἐὰν γὰρ προσέλθῃς, δήξεταί σε·

21:2c

ὀδόντες λέοντος οἱ ὀδοντες αὐτῆς

21:2d

ἀναιροῦντες ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων.

After the exhortation to avoid sin and to take the path of conversion (Sir 21:1), Ben Sira describes the pernicious power of sin and its devastating effects by way 24 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 162. 25 We shall pass over the images belonging to the second unit of the passage: the “house in ruins” (Rahlfs: ἐρημωθήσεται, but Ziegler’s conjecture: ἐκριζωθήσεται, v. 4) and the “slipping with the tongue” (ὀλισθάνειν, v. 7).



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 273

of two connected images drawn from the animal world: the serpent and the lion. The first image is in fact a simile (we note the presence of ὡς at the beginning of 21:2a). The sage urges his pupil to flee from sin, just as one flees from the serpent as soon as one sees it. He goes on to explain the reason (cf. γáρ in 21:2b) for his warning (surely obvious to all his listeners): if one gets near a serpent, one will not be able to escape its bite (δήξεταί σε). The biblical tradition teaches that the dangerous nature of serpents is due to the way in which they attack, which is wholly without warning (Qoh 10:8), and to their ability to inject lethal poison into a wound when they bite or attack (Num 21:6, 8, 9). In Sir 21:2ab, without mentioning the poison,26 the sage places the emphasis on the deadly bite, of which even snake charmers were some­ times victims (Ps 58:4; Jer 8:17; Sir 12:13). In some texts, the serpent’s bite/poison becomes an image for the military power of a tribe (Gen 49:17), for the wicked state of humanity (Deut 32:33; Ps 140:4), for the excesses of wine (Prov 23:32), for the day of the Lord (Amos 5:19), or for the foreign oppressor (Isa 14:29). Many biblical texts speak of the serpent, whether in a material or a figurative sense (we have cited only a small selection). However, the mention of the serpent in Sir 21:2ab refers particularly to Gen 3:1–5, where “the most subtle of all the wild creatures which God had made” (v. 1) appears personified, speaking with the woman and inducing her to sin. Even if Ben Sira makes no direct allusion to the Genesis account—something which answers perfectly to his way of using Scripture27—it is very probable that Gen 3:1–5 was the principal source of inspira­ tion here. As Sauer rightly notes, “Dort wie hier bewirkt die Nähe der Schlange Versuchung und Vergehen. Dort wie hier geht es um Leben oder Tod [There as here, the approach of the serpent brings with it temptation and transgression. There as here, it is a matter of life or death].”28 Following the serpent, the lion comes on the scene. In Sir 21:2cd, sin is compared with the king of the animals. By contrast with 21:2ab, the sage here avoids the use of any particle: the first colon contains the image “its [sin’s] teeth [are] lion’s teeth,” and the second brings it into focus with a participial phrase: ἀναιροῦντες ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων, “which destroy human lives.” In addition to its roar, the lion is distinguished for its ferocity, two qualities which put it among the most dangerous of animals: “The lion roars: who will not fear?” is the threat which the prophet launches against Israel (Amos 3:8); “Save me from the lion’s jaws” prays the psalmist in his distress (Ps 22:22a). Instead of the roar, the jaws 26 The only text where the sage mentions the serpent’s poison is Sir 25:15: “There is no poison worse than that of the serpent and no hatred worse than that of a woman” (Ziegler’s edition). 27 Cf. Gilbert, “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis,” 90. 28 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 161.

274 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

or the claws, Ben Sira mentions the lion’s teeth,29 perhaps to emphasise in a very graphic way its dangerous nature which is exceeded only by the wicked woman!30 In Joel 1:6, the teeth of the lion refer to a “a nation powerful and without number,” a metaphor employed by the prophet to indicate the plague of locusts that has devastated the country (cf. 1:4); and, in Ps 57:5, the psalmist laments that he is lying among lions (understood as his enemies) whose teeth are spears and arrows that destroy, dismember and devour their prey. Returning to the book of Ben Sira, among the eight texts that mention the lion (Sir 4:20; 13:19; 21:2; 25:16; 27:10; 27:28; 28:23; 47:3), there is one where, as in Sir 21:2cd, there is a comparison between sin and the lion. This is Sir 27:10, a text that to some extent complements ours. If, in Sir 21:2cd, the sage is focusing attention on the lion’s teeth, here he is, instead, presenting the lion as lying in wait for his prey (cf. Gen 4:7). In the same way, sin lies in wait for the evil-doers, lit.: “those who practise injustice.”31 By means of a comparison with the serpent and the lion, the sage illustrates in a very striking way the constant threat that sin represents for human beings. Its attack is unexpected and violent, and its effects are lethal. The conclusion, therefore, is obvious: the only way of avoiding the danger is to steer clear of it.

2.2 Two-edged Sword, Incurable Wound (Sir 21:3) 21:3a

ὡς ῥομφαία δίστομος πᾶσα ἀνομία,

21:3b

τῇ πληγῇ αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐστιν ἴασις.

In Sir 21:3, the images continue even if they are of a different nature from the ones preceding them. With the mention of a two-edged sword and a wound that cannot be healed, we pass from the animal world to the world of war.32 However, this is not the only change to be noted. If the grammatical subject of the phrase in 21:2 was ἁμαρτία (“sin”), it is now replaced by ἀνομία (“iniquity,” “transgression

29 The strong teeth of the lion are made up of three types, which allow them to choke their prey, break its bones and devour its flesh. 30 Cf. Sir 25:15: “I prefer to dwell with the lion and the dragon than to dwell with a treacherous woman.” 31 Cf. Sir 27:28: “Ridicule and reproach for the proud, revenge lies in wait for him like a lion.” 32 A possible parallel to Sir 21:1–3 might be 1QHa col. 13, esp. lines 11–13, which connect the three motifs: lions, snakes and swords (cf. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. I, 76). I am indebted to Noam Mizrahi for this information.



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 275

or disobedience of the Law”).33 Taking into account the context and the parallel arrangement of the text, the two terms may be considered almost synonymous. Here too, as in 21:2a, we have a simile. The image of the sword is introduced by the comparative particle ὡς in the first colon and is then developed further in the second colon with the image of the wound. In both cola, what is striking is the very severe, almost drastic, tone of the discourse, which does not contemplate any exception to what has been said. If the presence of the adjective πᾶσα before ἀνομία is to be noted in 21:3a, in 21:3b the negative formulation of the phrase stands out (τῇ πληγῇ αὐτῆς οὐκ ἔστιν ἴασις). Both elements reveal the grave con­ sequences of acting against the Law. Ben Sira compares all iniquity to a two-edged sword. This is obviously a military image because the sword—and, in particular, the very sharp two-edged variety—are instruments of war that are employed to destroy the enemy. However, as Joshua Berman rightly showed in 2002, the expression recorded in the text “bears a metaphorical or figurative meaning pertaining to orality.”34 In Sir 21:3, as Segal claims, ῥομφαία δίστομος is probably a translation of the Hebrew ‫“( חרב פיות‬sword of mouths”). This identical expression is found in Prov 5:4 and with slight variations also in Judg 3:16 (‫חרב ולו שני פיות‬, “a sword, which has two mouths”) and Ps 149:6 (‫חרב פיפיות‬, “a sword of mouths”).35 While all these texts employ the expression “sword of mouths” as a play on words in a context bound up with the power of the word, in Sir 21:3 Ben Sira uses the said expres­ sion in a different context, more concretely, in an instruction about sin (cf. Gen 3:24). On the other hand, the oral image is also present in our text. It makes a first appearance in 21:2 (the bite of the serpent and the teeth of the lion) and continues in 21:3a with the “sword of mouths.” Unfortunately, the “overt oral reference”36 of this expression is lost when it is translated into our modern languages with the blade replacing the mouth.37 “The blade of a sword”—observes Fox38 in his commentary on Prov 5:4—“is thought of as a ‘mouth’ that ‘eats’ its victims”; and

33 According to Segal (Sefer ben Sira’, 125), ἀνομία here is translating ‫ פשע‬as in 41:18 (cf. MSS B and Mas). In 49:2, it translates ‫( הבל‬cf. MS B), and, in 23:11 and 46:20, texts where the Hebrew is missing, Segal reconstructs ‫ שבועה‬and ‫ עון‬respectively (Sefer ben Sira’, 139 and 321). 34 Berman, “Sword of Mouths,” 299. 35 The word ‫ פיפיות‬is an intensive plural form of the substantive ‫פה‬. Cf. Berman, “Sword of Mouths,” 300. 36 Berman, “Sword of Mouths,” 302. 37 German: “ein zweischneidiges Schwert”; Dutch: “ein tweesnijdend zwaard”; French: “un glaive à deux tranchants”; Spanish: “una espada de doble filo”; Italian: “una spada a doppio taglio”; Catalan: “una espasa de doble tall.” 38 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 192.

276 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

it is precisely in this image that Ben Sira conceives sin. In the words of Joshua Berman, the two-edged sword is represented as a “mouth of danger.”39 Like the bite of the serpent or the lion, the wound (πληγή) of the two-edged sword is incurable (Sir 21:3b) and leads inexorably to death. In chapter 25, Ben Sira twice mentions a wound of the heart (πληγὴ καρδίας). However, although considered one of the worst things that could happen (Sir 25:13 G/H) and com­ pared to the treacherous woman (Sir 25:23 G),40 it does not have the lethal effects caused by the two-edged sword. According to Alonso Schökel, the double blade signifies that the sword wounds whomever tries to escape and is turned against the one who handles it.41 Sauer’s commentary is along the same lines: Keine Bewegung des Schwerts bleibt ohne Erfolg. Sowohl beim Vorwärtshauen als auch beim dem Zurückholen entfaltet es seine Wirkung. Davon ist aber gleichzeitig auch der betroffen, der dieses Schwert führt. Ist es nicht achtsam, dann wird er sich durch die zurück­ holende Bewegung selbst leicht verletzen können [No movement of the sword remains without effect. It works whichever way it is wielded, forward or backwards. Consequently, however, the one who wields the sword is taken by surprise at that very moment. If he is not careful, he can be injured slightly by the backward movement.]42

The same “boomerang” effect is brought about by iniquity: it turns against the one who practises it.

2.3 Stones for the Grave (Sir 21:8) 21:8a

ὁ οἰκοδομῶν τὴν οἰκίαν ἀυτοῦ ἐν χρήμασιν ἀλλοτρίοις

21:8b

ὡς συνάγων τοὺς λίθους αὐτοῦ εἰς χῶμα.

After the pause in Sir 21:4–7, the comparisons return. From v. 8 to v. 10, the images employed, taken from the world of nature (stones [twice], tow, fire, path, pit), follow one another in a crescendo until they reach a climax with the pit of the abyss. By means of these comparisons, Ben Sira illustrates how the behavior of the wicked person (8a: the unjust rich person; 9a: the lawless; 10a: the sinners) is destined for final ruin. If in the first unit the figurative language was used to 39 Berman, “Sword of Mouths,” 298. 40 On the other hand, MS C does not mention the “wound of the heart”: “Hesitant hands and wobbly knees; [such a] woman will not render her husband happy.” 41 Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 215. 42 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 161.



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 277

describe sin, now the emphasis is placed on the persons who commit it, that are sinners.43 The first image (heaping up stones) is debated owing to a textual problem (εἰς χειμῶνα vs εἰς χῶμα) that has been suitably signalled in the presentation of the text.44 The one who builds his house, that is, enriches himself (cf. Ps 49:17), with money that does not belong to him, and that was gained unjustly, is compared (cf. ὡς in 8b) to one who heaps up stones.45 What is debated is the purpose of this action. Are the stones being heaped up for winter, for the grave or as rubble? Those scholars who choose the first reading46 differ in their interpretation of the image. Some consider that “stones” stand for “wood,” which is what is really needed in winter for protection against the cold. In this case, heaping up stones for winter would be an attack on foolish and improvident behavior. “A particu­ larly useless way to prepare for the future,” comments Snaith.47 Others associate the expression “heaping stones” with the construction of a house. But since the winter is not a suitable time to build because of the damp, the building will be precarious and unstable and so will not last. We pass now to the second reading which is more common. According to this, the text is referring to burial mounds, the way in which the ancients buried their dead.48 First, they dug the ditch, then deposited the corpse in it, and, finally, covered it with earth and stones. In this case, the image is communicating a very harsh message: to accumulate wealth at the cost of others means signing one’s own death warrant in life. Those who act like this, comments Di Lella, “are build­ ing their ‘funeral mound’ (v. 8b), i.e. they shall die prematurely as punishment for their exploitation of the disadvantaged.”49 More on the fringes is the third reading, which is defended, for example, by Israel Peri.50 According to him, the ruins (Schutthaufen) were the heaps of stones that were dragged into the wadis of the Negev by the winter rains. When the rains 43 I thank Benjamin G. Wright for this observation. 44 Cf. note 15. 45 Wilhelm Smits (Ecclesiasticus vulgatae editionis, 228) sees in this verse an allusion to the deaths of Achan (Josh 7:26) and Absalom (2 Sam 18:17). 46 Knabenbauer, Commentarius, 238; Spicq, “L’Ecclésiastique,” 670; Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 108. 47 Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 106. 48 Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 191; Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 388; Peters, Jesus Sirach, 172; Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 106; Segal, Sefer ben Sira’, 125 (like Smend, he supposes the Hebrew ‫גל‬, “heap”); Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 216; Skehan and Di Lella, Weisheit, 304; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 160; Kaiser, Weisheit, 50; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 249. 49 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 309. 50 Peri, “Steinhaufen,” 420–21; cf. Duesberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 182: on the basis of the Syr. (“ruins”) the authors translate “for his own ruin.”

278 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

were over, the stones remained heaped up in the wadi (which was dry during the summer) until the next rainy season. It is useless, therefore, to gather stones and place them in wadis because, in the end, the force of the water will drag them away. The same goes for the goods of the unjustly wealthy. Schreiner too trans­ lates the Greek text with “für einen Schutthaufen [for a heap of rubble].” This is what he says in his commentary:51 Bildhaft wird die Unbeständigkeit und Vergänglichkeit eines Lebensentwurfs ausgesagt, der nicht solide gebaut ist, der sich auf Unrechtstaten stützt. Mit Geld, das einem nicht gehört, das man an sich angebracht hat, läßt sich kein dauerhaftes Haus, keine Existenz gründen [This is a graphic statement of the instability and transitory nature of a life plan that is not solidly built, but rests on injustice. No permanent house can base its existence on money that does not belong to one, that one has misappropriated].

All three of these readings are plausible. However, it seems to us that the second (“for his grave”) is to be preferred because it is best suited to the context in which sin is linked with death. We should note the sequence of images in the second colon of each verse: stones for the grave (8b); flame of fire (9b); pit of the abyss (10b).

2.4 Heap of Tow, Flame of Fire (Sir 21:9) 21:9a

στιππύον συνηγμένον συναγωγὴ ἀνόμων,

21:9b

καὶ ἡ συντέλεια ἀυτῶν φλὸξ πυρός.

In Sir 21:9a, with a fine play on words that Segal has reconstructed in Hebrew,52 Ben Sira compares an assembly of the wicked (συναγωγὴ ἀνόμων, ‫)צבור רשעים‬ with a heap of tow (στιππύον συνηγμένον, ‫)נערת צבורה‬. Tow is the waste material issuing from the combing of plants like cotton, hemp or linen. Discarded as of little worth, this too is usually thrown on the fire (cf. Dan 3:46). This will also be the destiny of the ἄνομοι (wicked, evil, transgressors, lawless). Insubstantial as a bundle of tow (cf. Judg 16:9), they will end up being consumed by fire. This is the irrevocable sentence of the sage: “[and] their end is a flame of fire” (Sir 21:9b).

51 Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 115. 52 Segal, Sefer ben Sira’, 125.



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 279

The connection between the wicked/sinners and fire is frequent in biblical texts. In Sirach, we find it in 8:1053, in 11:32 G54 and in 16:6. In the first two texts, the fire expresses the irresistible and destructive passion that overwhelms the sinner; in 16:6, on the other hand, it becomes an instrument of divine judgement, even if God is not mentioned: “Against an assembly of sinners (‫בעדת רשעים‬, ἐν συναγωγῇ ἁμαρτωλῶν) fire is kindled, upon a godless people wrath blazes up.” The careful reader notices in the text an allusion to Num 16:30–35,55 which recounts God’s punishment against the rebels who are revolting against Moses and Aaron: first, the earth opens wide its mouth and swallows Dathan and Abiram alive with their families, and, then, a fire comes forth from God and devours Korah’s band. Fire as an expression of divine judgement is also found in several prophetic texts, among which we would point to Isa 1:31 on account of its figurative affinity with Sir 21:9. In this Isaianic text, too, the powerful or strong person (because he trusts in idols) is compared with tow, just like the evil in our text. Both share the same fate: burning until they are consumed. In our opinion, the message that Ben Sira wishes to transmit in Sir 21:9 does not presuppose any divine intervention or any eschatological inference; on the contrary, it is situated within the human horizon. It could be summarised as follows: the wicked are as unstable and transitory as a bunch of tow in the fire. Di Lella goes further in his commentary: “The images of tow and blazing fire are meant to suggest the impermanence of the wicked in the present life, and not their punishment by fire in the afterlife.”56

2.5 Path without Stones, Deep Pit (Sir 21:10) 21:10a

ὁδὸς ἁμαρτωλῶν ὡμαλισμένη ἐκ λίθων,

21:10b

καὶ ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτων αὐτῆς βόθρος ᾅδου.

53 MSS A and D: “Do not profit through the possessions of the wicked (G: Kindle not the coals of a sinner), lest you be burned in the flame of his fire.” 54 MS A: “A spark of fire kindles many coals and a man of Belial lies in wait (G: a sinner plots) to shed blood.” 55 Cf. Num 11:1–2, where fire is employed by God as a punitive instrument in response to the laments of the people. 56 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 309.

280 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

We have reached the climax of a passage marked by the contrast of life/death. It is no accident that the instruction proper begins with the verb “sin” (21:1a) and concludes with an image connected with death (21:10b: “the pit of Hades”). In Sir 21:10a, the behavior of sinners is compared to a path ὡλισμένη ἐκ λίθων. This expression is not easy to translate because of the rare combination ὁμαλίζω (“make even”) + ἐκ. In fact, ἐκ λίθων seems, as Smend noted,57 an error derived from the Hebrew ‫מאבן‬. In our view, the Greek expression refers to a path cleared of stones, and hence smooth and easy to negotiate.58 Segal too has under­ stood it in this way in his reconstruction of the Hebrew text where he renders ὡλισμένη ἐκ λίθων with ‫“( מסקלת‬free from stones”), pual participle of the verb ‫סקל‬ (cf. Isa 62:10; 5:2).59 However, not all authors follow this interpretation. According to some,60 this expression is meant to indicate a paved path, covered with stones. Also the Latin text reads thus: via peccantium complanata lapidibus.61 Others offer a variant of this reading and think of a path made of polished stones.62 Whatever the case, the three readings, even if different, express the same message: the path of sinners is apparently a path without obstacles and convenient to negotiate. In Sir 21:10b, the author completes the image by revealing its negative side. The path is smooth but deceptive because it leads to death. The text seems to have been inspired by Prov 14:12 (= 16:25) even if the vocabulary is different: “There is a path that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to the pathways of death.” Here, as in our text, we have an attestation of the link between the life (moral conduct) of a person and the destination of this path (death). The same goes for Prov 7:27 (cf. 5:5; 9:18) where the dwelling of the adulterous woman is presented as the abode of the underworld, a place from which there is no turning back: “Her house is the road to the kingdom of the dead which leads down into the dwellings of death.” The expression βόθρος ᾅδου “the pit of Hades” is probably translating ‫“ שחת שאול‬the

57 Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 191; Stummer, “Via peccantium,” 44. Moreover, MS 248 reads: ὑπό and Max. (Maximus the Confessor) ἀπό. 58 Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 191: “von Steinen frei gemacht”; Duesberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 184: “levigata di pietre”; Kaiser, Weisheit, 50: “von Steinen befreit”; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 162: “glatt und ohne Steine”; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 115: “frei von Steinen.” 59 Segal, Sefer ben Sira’, 125. Cf. Kahana, Ben Sira’, 483: ‫ מסקלת מאבן‬and Harṭom, Ben Sira’, 76: ‫מחלקת מאבנים‬. 60 Peters, Jesus Sirach, 170 and Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 249: “mit Steinen gepflastert”; Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 108: “bien pavimentado.” 61 Cf. Stummer, “Via peccantium,” 40–44. On the question of the paved roads of the period, cf. Smend, Weisheit, 191; Stummer, “Via peccantium,” 41; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 162. 62 Cf. Minissale, Ecclesiastico, 115: “di pietre lisce”; Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 216: “de piedras lisas”; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 304: “smooth stones”; Palmisano, Siracide, 205: “di pietre levigate.”



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 281

pit of Sheol/the abyss.”63 Thus, Sheol is being described in its spatial dimension: it is like a pit, a ravine into which one can fall (cf. ‫“ שוחה עמקה‬deep pit” in Prov 22:14; 23:27). As heir to the Old Testament tradition, Ben Sira conceives Sheol not as a place of retribution (cf. 21:11b Lat.), but as the abode of the dead.64 One survives there while leading an empty existence, without significance, inert, without even the possibility of praising God (cf. Ps 6:6; 88:5). This is the life and fate of sinners.65

3 Conclusion The themes tackled in Sir 21:1–10 (sin, repentance, pardon) are not new (cf., for example, 17:25–32), but what characterises our passage is not its content but its literary form. In these ten verses, as a good teacher, Ben Sira combines the pro­ verbial element with the theological one in a magnificent way. In other words, he speaks of sin by using very powerful figurative language. Drawn from the worlds of animals, nature and war, the images are familiar to the hearers/readers, even that of the lion.66 All of them have a negative value and are very varied in form. Convinced as he is of the danger of sin, Ben Sira wants to convince his pupils as well. As Di Lella puts it, with these words he wants to evoke in his readers “a horror of sin.”67 Even if we share Di Lella’s reading in a pedagogic key, our study allows us to add other aspects relating to the use of poetic imagery and its rhetorical func­ tions. In line with the older sapiential tradition (cf. Proverbs), Ben Sira loves to teach by means of verbal images. In this way, he establishes analogies between the events of nature and the various situations of human life—two orders rather different, but paradoxically very close. The reasons that impelled him to adopt figurative language in his teaching could be numerous. According to Corley, these include “indicating structure, making the sayings memorable, intensifying the 63 Cf. Segal, Sefer ben Sira’, 125. 64 Differently, Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 256. He discovers in the text, together with 21:9b and 7:17b G “ein Blick in eine Welt jenseits des Todes [a glimpse into a world beyond death].” 65 In Sir 21:9-10 Duesberg and Fransen glimpse “gli empi ‘che hanno abbandonato la Legge dell’Altissimo’ (41:8) adottando i costumi ellenici [the ungodly ‘who have abandoned the Law of the Most High’ (41:8) by adopting Hellenic customs]” (Ecclesiastico, 184). 66 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 200: “Es ist nicht verwunderlich, daß er auf einen Löwen zu sprechen kommt; denn dieser lebte zu seiner Zeit noch in dem dichten Untergehölz im Jordangraben, war also auch damals noch eine gefürchtete Erscheinung [It is not surprising that he speaks about a lion: for, in his time, lions lived in the thick undergrowth of the Jordan valley, and so were also still a feared phenomenon].” 67 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 309.

282 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

emotion, provoking thought, expressing ambiguity, and creating beauty.”68 In our opinion, the images in Sir 21:1–10 match all these reasons in one way or another. Together with other criteria, the concentration of images in vv. 2–3 and 8–10 indicate the structure of the pericope. The play on words in v. 9 (heap of tow/ assembly [i.e. heap] of the evil) facilitates a memorisation of the text. The tremen­ dous force of the images in vv. 2–3 (serpent’s bite, lion’s teeth, incurable wound) not only raises the emotion of the hearer/reader to the point of making him or her experience fear in the face of sin, but, at the same time, encourages him or her to reflection. The same goes for vv. 8–10. If, on the one hand, the recourse to funereal or macabre images (grave, flame of fire, pit of the abyss) instils a pro­ found respect in the hearer/reader, the dark perspective of death, on the other hand, presses him or her into thinking seriously about his or her own behaviour. Finally, the image of a path cleared of stones, with which the behavior of the sinner is compared in 21:10a, creates a certain interpretative ambiguity that is immediately resolved in 21:10b. In conclusion, the instruction on sin in Sir 21:1–10 is a good illustration of the didactic resources of Ben Sira (direct and personal address, contrast between the wise person and the sinner, proverbial style, variety of syntactical forms) and, most particularly, of his poetic sensitivity, which is evinced by his use of a series of very attractive images. The combination of all these elements ensures that the sage succeeds in transmitting his teaching in an effective way without abandon­ ing literary beauty.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis. Proverbios y Eclesiástico. Los Libros Sagrados VIII/1. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1968. Berman, Joshua. “The ‘Sword of Mouths’ (Jud. III 16; Ps. CXLIX 6; Prov. V 4): A Metaphor and Its Ancient Near East Context.” VT 52 (2002): 291–303. 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. 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 zum Anfang des 2. Jh. n. Chr. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer and Andrea Taschl-Erber. WUNT 367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. —. “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.

68 Corley, “Similes,” 94. He is referring to both the similes and the sound patterns.



Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira 

 283

—. “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. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2014/15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. Wisdom of the Scribe. Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. 2nd ed. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2015. 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. Duesberg, Hilaire, and Irénée Fransen. Ecclesiastico. La Sacra Bibbia volgata latina e traduzione italiana dai testi originali illustrate con note critiche e commentate a cura di Mons. Salvatore Garofalo. Antico Testamento sotto la direzione di P. Giovanni Rinaldi C. R. S. Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1966. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Ein neues Sira-Fragment des MS C.” BN 138 (2008): 107–14. Elizur, Shulamit. “A New Fragment from the Hebrew Text of the Book of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 76 (2008): 17–28 (Hebrew). —. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010): 13–29. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1-11.” Pages 89–99 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. Harṭom, Eliyahu S. Ha-Sefarim ha-Ḥiṣonim: Ben Sira’. Tel Aviv: “Yavneh” Publishing House, 1963. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1967. Kahana, Avraham. Ha-Sefarim ha- Ḥiṣonim. Vol. 2 of Divre Shime‘on ben Sira’. Jerusalem: Mayer Lambert, 1937. Repr., 1970. Kaiser, Otto. Weisheit für das Leben. Das Buch Jesus Sirach. Übersetzt und eingeleitet. Stuttgart: Radius, 2005. Knabenbauer, Joseph. Commentarius in Ecclesiasticum cum appendice: textus “Ecclesiastici” hebraeus descriptus secundum fragmenta nuper reperta cum notis et versione litterali latina. Cursus Scripturae Sacra in Vet. Test. pars II, in libros didacticos VI. Paris: Lethielleux, 1902. Marböck, Johannes. Jesus Sirach 1–23. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2010. Minissale, Antonino. Siracide (Ecclesiastico). Nuovissima versione della Bibbia dai testi originali 23. Roma: Paoline, 1980. —. Siracide. Le radici nella tradizione. LoB 1.17. Brescia: Queriniana, 1988. —. “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. Morla Asensio, Víctor. Eclesiástico. Texto y Comentario. El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 20. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1992.

284 

 Núria Calduch-Benages

Palmisano, Maria Carmela. “Sulla recente scoperta di due nuovi fogli ebraici del ms C del libro del Siracide.” Bogoslovni vestnik 70 (2010): 517–29. —. Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi 34. San Paolo: Cinisello Balsamo (MI), 2016. Peri, Israel. “Steinhaufen im Wadi (zu Sirach 21,8).” ZAW 102 (1990): 420–21. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010. (Hebrew) Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblgesellschaft, 1979. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Un nouveau bifeuillet du manuscrit C de la Genizah du Caire.” Pages 387–416 in Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Hans Ausloos et. al. BETL 224. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach. Übersetzt und erklärt. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schreiner, Josef. Jesus Sirach 1–24. NEchtB, Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung 38. Würzburg: Echter, 2002. Segal, Moshe Zvi. Sefer ben Sira’ ha-Šalem. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes by †Patrick W. Skehan. Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Smits, Wilhelm. Ecclesiasticus vulgatae editionis versione belgica. Notis grammaticalibus, literalibus, criticis &c. praemisso prolegomeno, elucidatus, authore F. Wilhelmo Smits. Antverpiae et Amstelodami: apud Alexandrum Everaerts et apud Gerardum Tielenburg, 1749. Snaith, John G. Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Stummer, Friedrich. “‘Via peccantium complanata lapidibus’ (Eccli 21,11).” Pages 40–44 in Colligere Fragmenta. Festschrift Alban Dold zum 70. Geburtstag am 7. 7. 1952. Edited by Bonifatius Fischer and Virgil Fiala. Texte und Arbeiten I/2. Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1952. Spicq, Ceslas. “L’Ecclésiastique.” Pages 529–841 in La Sainte Bible: texte latin et traduction française d’après les textes originaux avec un commentaire exégétique et théologique. Edited by Louis Pirot and Albert Clamer. Vol. 4. Paris: Letouzey & Ané 1943. Thiele, Walter, ed. Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. 11/2. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987. Wagner, Christian. Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach. BZAW 282. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII.2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira The Basics Abstract: 120 years after the discovery of the first Hebrew manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, it is time to identify the central theological and philosophical ideas of the book of Ben Sira. Its methods of argumentation, literary treatment of themes. and type of poetry can be better understood against the background of such ideas. Many parts of Ben Sira are not preserved in Hebrew, but such an ideological analysis will make it possible to reconstruct the Hebrew underlying the Greek and Syriac versions, thus revealing a Vorlage that is closer to the think­ ing of Ben Sira. Keywords: Ben Sira, creation, Hellenism, philosophical concepts, theological ideas

A long period of time has now passed during which scholars have examined the (originally: Hebrew) text of Ben Sira and the many problems of its transmission in the various languages (especially Greek and Syriac).1 Since there are already several variants in the Hebrew, one is often confronted with the problem as to which is the more original. The large number of hapax legomena demonstrates that the Greek version is not a simple translation. Thus, where the Hebrew text is not, or is only partially, preserved, the Greek version is often not really helpful. For solving questions that remain open, it may be useful to consider Ben Sira’s work as a whole since many questions go beyond any individual text and reach back to the personality of Ben Sira, the poet and sage. Despite numerous earlier investigations, this question has never been discussed in a manner comparable to that followed in this article. Some aspects touch upon questions that Wischmeyer has already posed,2 but the search is for detailed information and allusions in 1 The author of this article has also been working in this field since the beginning of his research on Ben Sira; see Reiterer, Urtext. In the meantime—up to the recent past—there are many relevant investigations; cf. Muraoka and Elwolde, Hebrew; Muraoka and Elwolde, Sirach; Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers; Reiterer, “Text,” 26–28; Rey and Joosten, Texts. 2 Cf. Wischmeyer, Kultur. On the other hand, I consider that investigations into the question of whether or not Ben Sira was a priest as not particularly productive. All these investigations https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-016

286 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

the book that describe the theological and sapiential ideas of Ben Sira. We are seeking Ben Sira’s nervus rerum. To that end, we intend to describe important aspects of his way of thinking, as well as his understanding of the world, the creation, and human beings.

1 Preliminary Methodological Considerations Every artist, including Ben Sira, follows his intuitions. He feels moved internally to make a statement. He employs traditional means of expression, and uses those, according to his abilities and techniques, in a conventional form on the one hand, but also in a surprisingly redesigned fashion on the other. This applies, for example, to the use of poetic forms, the choice of vocabulary, and the employ­ ment of images.3 Some of these techniques may be learnt. Ultimately, however, the achievement of profound and fresh insights is dependent upon the adoption of an appropriate methodology. Examples from music may help to explain what I am striving after. Many people study different compositional techniques in music colleges. There are a limited number of possible combinations which can be created out of their efforts, without affecting the harmony of the result. Some students master the rules quite well. Such mastery does not, however, always produce artists whose work endures for centuries. Such composers as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, adhered very strictly to the inner rules of compositional technique but this is not what led to their creation of outstanding works of art. This was mostly done intuitively and without explicit intent. Technical perfection, as well as often the unusual use of basic principles of composition, are decisive for the melodies, which are in many instances surprising. Many of the outstanding composers would wonder what rules they had observed if they were confronted with the compositional interpre­ tations of their works by modern performers. Conductors, although they have mastered the rules of conducting, are still attempting to interpret—often also intuitively—the compositions in their own that assert his priestly background start from positions which do not take into account the fact that Ben Sira does not master the terminology that is central to the priesthood and the relevant concepts. Also his reserved attitude towards the cult shows that he sees the relevant concepts differently from the cultic personnel. Ben Sira is an observer of the priesthood, like every person who attends worship; for supporting references, see Reiterer, “Aaron’s Polyvalent Role.” 3 Studies on the style of Hebrew poetry use many examples from the book of Ben Sira, because he is considered a master of stylistics and poetry; cf. Alonso Schökel, Manual; Watson, Poetry; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 63–81; Reymond, Innovations; Corley, “Rhyme.”



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 287

way. Worldwide, major works have been, and are, performed hundreds or thou­ sands of times. For the critic, there may be differences in the interpretation, and in the degree of perfection attained by the performance, but on the whole the artists and the conductors are working within a well-defined and describable system. Interpretation is also an art form in itself. Interpreting techniques can provide the substance of a research project. For example, three universities are currently working on a large, international project to explore Herbert von Kara­ jan’s interpretation techniques and his understanding of various composers. One might assume that these are not crucial innovations, but only variants on the level of interpretation. And then an artist appears, such as the conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt, who offers completely new points of view: his is a revolu­ tion in interpretation. He explains his new approach to well-known compositions by arguing that he is doing no more than tracking down the author’s original intention. He does not take on board the conventional, and now common, tech­ niques of interpretation but often takes account of every overlooked trifle in com­ posers’ manuscripts for the overall interpretation of their works. Such a meth­ odological approach results in a novel approach to interpretation; we can now appreciate new aspects that might have been missed for many years. Another encouraging example is the 2017 Cambridge edition by David Trippett4 of a previ­ ously unknown opera (“Sardanapale”) by Franz Liszt. A close study of the com­ poser’s character and the specificity of his composition technique has made pos­ sible the successful completion of an important piece of research. I am trying to do something similar with Ben Sira. The poetic analysis of an author from antiquity differs, however, from the interpretation just described from the world of music, because I cannot do what is possible in music. There, each voice has to fulfill its own task within a polyphonic song. Each one differs from the others, but the result is a harmony, when all the voices fulfill certain criteria (for example, adhering to the measure, that is, the same key). When dealing with Ben Sira’s way of thinking, I am in an awkward situation. If I choose one topic, I would have to tackle all the other topics, in order to accomplish a rounded and undistorted representation. Ben Sira thinks as a person, in whom various mental concepts, as I have assumed them, cannot be separated, even if he expresses them in different literary units. Of course, he did not set out to provide an analysis of himself. He did not intend to offer a systematic theory of his own 4 See the announcements in: Deutschlandradio Kultur, Zeit Online, 7 March 2017: “New York (AFP) Es ist eine kleine Sensation: Ein Wissenschaftler der Universität Cambridge hat eine Oper des ungarischen Komponisten Franz Liszt restauriert. Dabei war nur ein Akt aus dem Werk erhal­ ten. Und es gab ein zweites Problem: Liszt hatte eine äußerst unleserliche Handschrift.” Teletext ORF 8/3/2017.

288 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

thinking. He speaks simply as a poet. It is my aim to identify central elements that motivate him as a wisdom teacher, and to comprehend the nature of his poetic art. Insight is gained in this way into what he really wished to say. I will also locate criteria that identify trends within some difficult formulations, such as in multiple textual alternatives, and that will make it possible to decide which of the variants is more likely to represent the author’s intention.

2 God and Wisdom as a Pattern We begin our analysis with a thesis: statements about God are fundamental to Ben Sira. What is the nature of God, and how does he act? From our investigation it becomes clear that this is not just a thesis, but a description of the facts. The central themes are clarified by answering two questions. Who is God and what role does he have? Ben Sira therefore begins his book with a central description of God. It is at the heart of the Wisdom teacher’s theology.5 God himself is wise (εἷς ἐστιν σοφός: 1:8). Since Ben Sira has, with this statement, identified “wisdom” as a basic fact, he has, with the very first words of his work, emphasized its origins: “All wisdom—from the Lord, and with him she is forever”6 (Sir 1:1). For Ben Sira it is not only important that wisdom is a direct initiative of God, but that she is also his creation. Therefore, he emphasizes that she was created before anything else (Sir 1:4). Wisdom is at the first non-material level of God’s creation. Therefore, we arrive at the first focus: the non-material levels are the first priority. It is a rea­ sonable assumption that there are also material levels. Since this comparison is a further principle of Ben Sira, the subject will soon be discussed.

3 Human Impulse to Master Wisdom Now back to the basics about wisdom. Ben Sira explains wisdom as “under­ standing” and “insight” (1:4b: σύνεσις φρονήσεως). Why? Is not “wisdom” as a fact sufficient? No! For Ben Sira, one must understand the “root” (ῥίζα) in its broad semantic range. To understand wisdom is to know its origin and its inner strength. The root is the source of growth for everything that is generated. Ben 5 For Sir 1:1–10 cf. Reiterer, “Pillars,” 29–31; Beentjes, “Wisdom.” 6 The English citations are from the NRSV. If another translation is selected (cf. NAB, NJB, NETS), this is explicitly noted. However, the translations also offer “smoothings” (here, for example, “is” is added, although no verb is given in the nominal sentence), and frequent corrections.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 289

Sira does not make statements, but rather presents rhetorical questions with sapiential and theological content: “The root of wisdom (σοφίας)—to whom has it been revealed, / and her subtleties—who (τίς) knows [them]?”7 (Sir 1:6). This question is preceded by two other rhetorical questions: The sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, / and the days of eternity— who (τίς) counts [them]? The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, / and the abyss, and wisdom (σοφίαν) who (τίς) searches [them] out? (Sir 1:2–3) It is striking that Ben Sira begins his book with questions, as demonstrated in 1:2-3. Now we can ask why Ben Sira poses questions at the very beginning and does not start with clear statements. By way of these questions, Ben Sira on the one hand awakens the reader’s attention and on the other hand immediately refers to ultimate matters. Ben Sira wants those who study his work to join him mentally. It is not enough in Ben Sira’s eyes to recognize his doctrine and to deal with interesting and also contemporarily important questions, as in a Platonic dialogue, for the sake of spiritual joy. This can be done inwardly, at a distance, and, as it were, playfully. Ben Sira would like his wisdom to be formative in every­ day life, in the development of personality and in society.8 He himself says that he is issuing an invitation9 for listeners to acquire wisdom with him and in his teacher’s house: “Come aside to me, you untutored, and take up lodging in the house of instruction” (Sir 51:23 NAB). This quotation, from the last chapter of the book, is a concluding insertion that takes us back to the beginning of the book.

3.1 Looking for Wisdom? So what is the point of this third question about wisdom’s root in Sir 1:6? To answer this, one should look back at the previous two questions. Ben Sira chooses exam­ ples from the cosmos (sand of the sea/drops of rain/height of heaven/breadth of the earth/abyss) which all exceed the capacity of human insight and which are 7 The object “them” is an addition by the translator in vv. 2 and 3. 8 Cf. Reiterer, “Significance.” 9 The invitation to come to the ‫( בית מדרש‬Sir 51:23) shows the influence of the Greek custom of dealing with interesting philosophical questions in panels. The literary description of such rounds of discussions is perfected in Plato’s dialogues. In the Bible, there are other examples of this Greek influence: “She [Prov 9:1: ‎‫ ָח ְכ ָמה‬/σοφία] has sent out her servant-girls, she calls from the highest places in the town, ‘You that are simple, turn in here!’ To those without sense she says, ‘Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Lay aside immaturity, and live, and walk in the way of insight’” (Prov 9:3–6).

290 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

beyond human accessibility. In addition, there is the question of the duration of time. All these factors should cause an interested person to delve more deeply into the realities around him or her and into the limits of human life. Anyone who ponders this will be led to profound knowledge. For anyone who precisely considers the questions against the historical background of Ben Sira, his questions suggest the answers in a cryptic fashion. Whoever deals with such ancient writings as Ben Sira will recall Ps 90:4a concerning the difference between God and humanity: “A thousand years in your eyes are merely a yester­ day.” And whoever ponders his own short life, will not be afraid, but will gain in wisdom, and indeed become a wise person: “Teach us to count our days aright, that we may gain wisdom of heart (‎‫( ”) ְלבַב ָח ְכ ָמה‬Ps 90:12 NAB). Such thoughts require humanity’s willingness to cope intensively with these questions. The tool for this is actually simple: Thinking! Pondering is, in itself, a valuable skill, for which the worshipper implores God: “Give me understanding (‎‫ ֲהבִינֵנִי‬/συνέτισόν με)” (Ps 119:125)—once again an indication that this ability is a gift of God. But the individual, too, can contribute to the development of this ability, as the first Psalm maintains: ‎“… their delight is the instruction of the LORD (‎‫ְתורת י ְהוה‬ ֥ ַ ‫)ּב‬, and on his instruction they meditate day and night (‫ְתורתו י ֶ ְהּגֶה יומָם ָו ָליְלָה‬ ָ ‫( ”)ּוב‬Ps 1:2). God ָ for life. And what that means in a concrete himself provided a prescription (‎‫)ּתֹורה‬ sense may be understood only when one is occupied continuously and profoundly with God’s instructions.The question raised in the final verse of Ps 107:43a is to be understood as an encouragement to deal with the central questions of life in this way: “Who is wise (‎‫ ?)מִי־ ָח ָכם‬Such a one should take this to heart …” (NJB). So I can become wise if I constantly think about God’s instructions! Can I also acquire independent access to wisdom with the help of such thought; can I discover the root of wisdom? Ben Sira’s allusion to the hierarchy within divine creation is decisive proof of his view that humanity is subordinate to wisdom: “Wisdom was created before all other things (προτέρα πάντων), and prudent understanding from eternity (ἐξ αἰῶνος)” (Sir 1:4). However, Ben Sira is not the only biblical author who deals with the importance and exploration of wisdom in the Hellenistic period. This theme hovers “in the air” during the Hellenistic era. A similar question was asked in Job 28:20: “Where then does wisdom (‎‫ ַה ָח ְכ ָמה‬/ἡ δὲ σοφία) come from? And where is the place of intelligence (‎‫ּבִינָה‬/τῆς συνέσεως)?” Further, we may refer to the matters raised in Bar 3:29–30: “Who has gone up to the heavens and taken her (ἐπιστήμη; v. 37a [NRSV v. 36a]), or brought her down from the clouds? Who has crossed the sea and found her, bearing her away rather than choice gold?” With regard to humanity’s independent achievement of understanding, there is another statement in Job that brings us down to earth: “It is hidden (‫ ) ְונֶ ֶע ְלמָה‬from the eyes of all living (‎‫( ”) ֵמעֵינֵי כָל־ ָחי‬Job 28:21a). Human abilities and capacities are as limited as their lifespan, and remain so.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 291

One can understand Baruch’s conclusion in this context, and it seems hope­ less for humans: “None knows the way to her, nor has any understood her paths. Yet he who knows all things knows her; he has probed her by his knowledge (τῇ συνέσει αὐτοῦ)” (Bar 3:31–32b).10 But there is one who knows wisdom and has access to her: “God knows the way to her; it is he who is familiar with her place” (Job 28:23 NAB). He is the one who can see the distant boundaries of the earth; he is the one who looks upon everything that is under the heavens: “For he beholds the ends of the earth and sees all that is under the heavens” (Job 28:24 NAB). What is more, insight into, and knowledge of, wisdom are of greater value than superiority over material creation. On the day of the creation of wind, water, and ָ her [v. 20: ‎‫ ָח ְכ ָמה‬or ‫ ]ּבִינָה‬and declared her (‎‫ ;) ַוי ְ ַסּפ ְָרּה‬he established rain, “he saw (‎‫)ר ָאּה‬ her (‎‫) ֱהכִינָּה‬, and searched her out (‎‫( ”) ְוגַם־ ֲחק ָָרּה‬Job 28:27). It may thus be confidently maintained that an awareness of the absolute limitation of human knowledge was commonplace in the Hellenistic period, and therefore also, of course, in the environment of Ben Sira. But how should one react to this situation? Should we give up? Should we develop an independent human autonomous sophia-discus­ sion, as was done in the Greek world? Ben Sira continues to speculate and to look closely at people. His conclusion is different. Interim result: Only God knows the way to (real) wisdom. Humans may seek wisdom with the help of God. They will find her only when they are led to her by God.

3.2 Exploratory Impulse and the Overestimation of Human Abilities In this section, we turn to a biblical theme that would not be included within the context of wisdom according to modern scholarly categories. Ben Sira already 10 Nowadays it is thought that σοφία is the word that has to be chosen when the subject of wisdom is mentioned. Although it was almost implicit that σοφία was being thematized, σύνεσις and ἐπιστήμη were also placed at the center. But there are reasons for this choice of words in Bar 3:9-37; cf. Reiterer, “Tugenden,” 80–81, 102–109, 115: “Im Korpus stehen gehäuft Termini, die geistige Fähigkeiten und Fertigkeiten beschreiben: 4mal σύνεσις, 3mal ἐπιστήμη, 2mal φρόνησις, 2mal σοφία und einmal als Kontrastbegriff ἀβουλία. Wenn man die Parallele in 3:9a.b hinzu­nimmt erhöht sich das Vorkommen von φρόνησις auf drei. Insgesamt ergeben sich 12 ein­ schlägige Verwendungen. Beim letzten Vorkommen in 3:37a wird festgehalten, dass die Erkenntnis (ἐπιστήμη) Jakob / Israel … geschenkt wird. … Die Gabe ist demnach der Abschluss und die Zwölfzahl ist voll. Man wird in der Zahl ein Symbol sehen: In 3:9b begann die Entfaltung mit φρόνησις und jetzt ist der Schlusspunkt erreicht. Die Zahl 12 zeigt an, dass die Intention am Ziel angelangt ist ...”

292 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

found in his scriptures a methodological viewpoint regarding the opportunities of acquiring wisdom. There, the internal relationships are not differentiated in so developed a fashion as they are by Ben Sira himself, but the result is both simple and yet also very attractive: tranquillity from inside. The notion of rest is of high value for Ben Sira,11 a counterpart to the politically, militarily and religiously trou­ bled time in which he lived. So we also need to refer to the ancient writings to understand the connections that Ben Sira found there. “O LORD, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me. O Israel, hope in the LORD” (Ps 131:1b–3a NAB).

Where, under these conditions, may a solution be found for uncovering the root of wisdom? What does the Psalm say? (a) God is set in the center; he is even the only hope for human beings, both for the individual and for the whole people. Trust in the Lord, because he cares for you as a mother, who satisfies her child by breastfeeding and thus also removes the child’s inner unrest. (b) Stay modest in your attempt to solve those questions that exceed your abilities. (c) If you are sat­ isfied with the fact that there are levels of existence that exceed your abilities, and if you consign the solution of such problems to God, then you attain inner peace. Whether we are aware of it or not, these thoughts lead us into the work of Ben Sira. We come to one of its most important topics. The following problem is one of the first detailed topics in the book of Ben Sira: the difference between strength and weakness, honor plus self-assertion, and the value of humbleness. Let us take these step by step. In Sir 3:1–16 he is concerned with one’s relationship with elderly parents. Their own small children learn from them how to behave correctly towards the even older generation. Whoever has learned to do the right thing will behave well towards his own parents. In this context, one may recog­ nize that the younger generation, in its full vitality, is superior to the older one. But this superiority must not take advantage of the grandparents’ decreasing strength: “Do not glorify yourself by dishonoring your father, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you” (Sir 3:10). Ben Sira takes a position different from that found in the Hellenistic envi­ ronment. There we hear from Achilles, the ideal hero of the past, that he prefers swift and public fame to a long, but unspectacular, reign in his father’s kingdom. 11 Cf. Reiterer, “Pillars,” 44; the theme of “innere Ruhe des Weisen [inner tranquillity of the sage]” remains of significant value, as one can see in Philo; cf. Niebuhr, Nesselrath, and Hirsch-Luipold, “Anmerkungen,” 118.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 293

The norm on which he focusses is: αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων (“Always being the best and staying outstanding to others,” Homer, Il. 6.208 and 11.784).12 Ben Sira knows of such behavior of the younger and stronger towards the older and weaker. He refuses to gain honor at the expense of others. The reason lies in his faith, since Ben Sira takes account of an even greater differ­ ence, namely the one between humanity and God. Ben Sira’s starting-point is the omnipresent creation, which to him implies the creation of wisdom, the material cosmos and the human being. In the context of the creation of humankind, Ben Sira emphasizes life’s limitation from the very beginning (“Limited days of life he gives him;” Sir 17:2a NAB). Ben Sira expressly refers to thoughts from the scrip­ tures, such as the Psalms, as quoted above. Against this background, Ben Sira immediately deals with the theme of “humility,” after the section on respectfully treating one’s parents. My child, perform your tasks with humility; then you will be loved by those whom God 17 accepts. 18 The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself; so you will find favor in the sight of the Lord. 20 For great is the might of the Lord; but by the humble he is glorified. Neither seek what is too difficult for you, nor investigate what is beyond your power. 22 21 Reflect upon what you have been commanded, for what is hidden is not your concern. 23 Do not meddle in matters that are beyond you, for more than you can understand has been shown you (Sir 3:17–23).

Ben Sira does not state categorically the actual occasions to which his warning refers. But he adds clear guidelines for assessing the right ranking. (a) It is a matter of gaining recognition and affection (3:18b: εὑρήσεις χάριν/‫̈ܪܚܡܐ‬ ݂ ‫)ܬܫܟܚ‬, not with humanity but with God. (b) God is superior to all and everything, and the human attitude towards him can survive only in “humility.” (c) The humble person can try to explore independently all sorts of things within his environ­ ment. This is an allusion to the philosophical and scientific research carried out in the Hellenistic world, especially in Alexandria.13 People should be very careful in the matter of close examination. They should not attempt to explore all those things that exceed human capacity. (d) With this argument, Ben Sira wishes to deny the philosophical idea that humanity is occupied with something that is at present still hidden, namely, areas that exceed human capacity owing to the superiority of God. Ben Sira does not reject close study in other areas. On the contrary, it is almost an imperative to engage in research, but not such research that demands too much of a human (ἃ προσετάγη σοι ταῦτα διανοοῦ: “The things that have been prescribed for you, think about these,” 3:22a). 12 Cf. Reiterer, “Jerusalem,” 272–73. 13 Cf. Engster, “Forschung,” 29–63.

294 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

Ben Sira supports a cautious optimism in the matter of research. However, Ben Sira expects there to be danger or risk, that a person will become almost obsessed, and will thus exceed his level of competence.

3.3 Another Look at Human Limitations Ben Sira therefore feels motivated to further reveal his basic thesis from a different perspective. Of course, he begins his relevant reflections with God and with his power over creation: “He who lives forever (ὁ ζῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) created (ἔκτισεν) ݁ (or explored: ‫ܩܐ‬ ‫( ”)ܥܠܡܐ‬Sir ݂ ) the whole universe (τὰ πάντα κοινῇ/‫ܟܘܠܗ‬ ݂ ‫ܡܬܒ‬ 18:1). His first step in the argument is already well-known and often mentioned: God’s eternity is in contrast to the temporal limitations of creation and humanity. Ben Sira explains his view of the different levels of time with a simile: “Like a drop of water from the sea and a grain of sand, so are a few years among the days of eternity (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ αἰῶνος)” (Sir 18:10). Ben Sira sharply contrasts the immea­ surable eternity of God with the temporal limitations of humankind. Ben Sira expressly emphasizes the restricted nature of everybody’s lifespan: “The number of days in their life is great if they reach one hundred years” (Sir 18:9). Again it is striking that Ben Sira takes his points of comparison from the material world: a drop of water and a grain of sand. He shows with his examples that the universe can serve a specifically didactic function. But again there is an unexpected restriction. On one’s own, independently, no one has the capacity to relate the works of God: “To none has he given power to proclaim his works” (Sir 18:4a). We need to explore why Ben Sira speaks like this. For with this thesis, Sira expresses some opposition to the frequent calls through which worshippers acknowledge the benefit and aid they have received from the Lord by emphati­ cally, publicly and enthusiastically praising God’s great acts and his admirable deeds. In such acts of worship, the prayers are described as “singing aloud a song of thanksgiving, and telling all your wondrous deeds” (Ps 19:7). The references from the Psalms presuppose that people acknowledge and accept God as God: “All the earth worships you; they sing praises to you, sing praises to your name. Come and see what God has done: he is awesome in his deeds among mortals” (Ps 66:45). But what if many people do not acknowledge Israel’s Lord as God and also do not worship him? This is the situation in which Ben Sira lives. Many of the Jews in the time of Ben Sira were believers, but the majority of his world was influenced by Hellenism. The attractions of the Hellenistic way of life were great, and many sympathized with the ideas of Hellenism and the Hellenistic culture. The situation is similar to that lamented in 1 Macc 1:43: “Many even from Israel



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 295

gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath.” Most Hellenes had little, or even any, idea of Judaism. The Hellenists had their own techniques in the religious, social, philosophical and scientific fields. Their understanding of the world was achieved entirely without a belief in the Creator God, YHWH. Ben Sira deals with philosophical statements that operate without the Lord. This may be seen in the further considerations he offers in 18:1–14. We have seen that God denies his works independent wisdom (Sir 18:4). Ben Sira, however, sees still other obstacles to close human study. He asks the question: “Who can measure his [God’s] majestic power?” (Sir 18:5a). A Hellenistic scholar would have said immediately: “I can!” Ben Sira, on the other hand, has a negative assessment of the intensity and finality of human cognitive ability: “When human beings have finished, they are just beginning, and when they stop, they are still perplexed (ἀπορηθήσεται)” (Sir 18:7). The verb ἀπορέω is not easy to explain. The corresponding noun has been rendered in English as “aporia” and we try to explain it in an indirect way. The general content of the word indicates that one has arrived at the end of a path and does not know how to proceed. Literally, it is about the ability to comprehend. One finally has a useful answer to earlier questions that is meaningful. But how does it go on from there, to a situation in which I do not even know the questions and problems? How should I answer questions, of which I am only slightly aware, or only barely suspect? Not only humanity’s lifespan, but also its faculties, are too limited to explain ultimate contexts. If, however, one takes one’s thoughts much further, to a profound level, humans do not even then find an absolutely certain understanding of ultimate contexts and the questions of true meaning—unless they accept the primacy of God. Ben Sira argues that the way of dealing properly with questions of meaning is by analysing and accepting the divine concept of creation: “It is not possible to diminish or increase them, nor is it possible to fathom the wonders (τὰ θαυμάσια) of the Lord“ (Sir 18:6). The translations reflect the problems facing the modern translator and modern biblical interpreter. For the word θαυμάσιος refers to some­ thing that is “wonderful, marvelous, excellent, amazing, admirable.” Ben Sira does not mean the modern sense of a wonder as it is translated in NRSV, NAB or NETS (a better translation would be “the marvels” [NJB] in the sense of miracle). The translators think of “wonders,” while Ben Sira only sees the outstanding dimension of God’s work. What he means is the normal creation, and not something outside of the normal. Ben Sira wants to say that the unique creation is, from God’s point of view, a wonderful thing for humanity, and that people should accept it as excellent and admirable. However, because the Creator as a creator is completely superior to humanity—humankind is not a creator—there are natural

296 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

limits to the human evaluation of such amazing powers. Everybody must still admit that creation is much bigger, more powerful and more inscrutable. Human­ ity always acts within the limited framework of the creation. The sphere of God, who is responsible for that creation, is inaccessible to humankind. This knowledge does not rule out human understanding, nor make it obso­ lete. It shows that the world of God supports human beings when they them­ selves—sometimes even frightened and insecure—seek a firm ground for their existence. For then they will reach their spiritual and religious home: “The com­ passion of the Lord is for every living thing” (Sir 18:13b). Interim result: God is the Creator and God is eternal. His creation is wonderful and astonishing. Humankind has only a limited lifespan. Human beings should seek and search in their short life, but at the same time they have to keep in mind that their results are of limited range.

3.4 Never Act without Reflection How should I behave when I know that all my thinking and striving are limited? How to draw conclusions within the limitations of life and study? From the begin­ ning, it is clear that human thought and action are fragmentary, and remain so. Would it not be better to give up immediately? Ben Sira presupposes this question. His recommendation is: do not be passive, but be very, very careful! Calculate the different results that may later occur. Above all, try to find the right attitude. Ben Sira unfolds these themes by way of opposites: “Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift? Both are to be found in a gracious person. A fool (μωρός) is ungracious and abusive, and the gift of a grudging giver makes the eyes dim” (Sir 18:17–18). The keyword μωρός demonstrates that we are dealing with issues in the field of “sagacity” when we strive to be cautious in life. Basically, it is crucial that one carefully considers first, and only then acts. Furthermore, we should strive to act properly before we (unwittingly) do something that is wrong: “Before you speak, learn (μάνθανε); and before you fall ill, take care of your health” (Sir 18:19). Consider not only the action in itself, but examine the possible consequences before you undertake something. One should be willing to take account of new viewpoints and to learn something fresh, and this will achieve good results. “In the time of plenty think of the time of hunger; in days of wealth think of poverty and need. From morning to evening conditions change; all things move swiftly before the Lord” (Sir 18:25–26). Thinking before acting is accompanied by a correct attitude towards God: be humble! “Before falling ill, humble yourself; and



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 297

when you have sinned, repent. … do not be like one who puts the Lord to the test” (Sir 18:21, 23b). Is there an instrument or tool that I can use in order to avoid doing wrong? Ben Sira knows a solution: it is wise caution. One can find the right path with the help of wisdom and precaution. “One who is wise (ἄνθρωπος σοφός) is cautious in everything (ἐν παντί)” (Sir 18:27a). He therefore praises those happy individ­ uals who strive for wisdom. In addition, Ben Sira promotes—unobtrusively—the dissemination of wisdom: “Every intelligent person (πᾶς συνετός) knows wisdom (ἔγνω σοφίαν), and praises (δώσει ἐξομολόγησιν) the one who finds her” (Sir 18:28). This observation, and his other reflections, have prompted Ben Sira to formulate a brief and concise sentence in 32(35):19ab which is an absolutely classic saying: “If there is no plan (‫בלא עצה‬/ἄνευ βουλῆς/̣‫—)ܕܠܐ ܡܠ̣ܟܐ‬do nothing (‫אל תפעל דבר‬/μηθὲν ποιήσῃς/‫)ܠܐ ܬܥܒܕ‬, then you’re not angered by your deeds” (Sir 32[35]:19ab). This saying is formulated in remorseful and sharp-edged terms. The generality of the proverb is striking: ‫( דבר‬μηθέν) stands here without any restriction. It is clear that these words contain a principle, not a casual remark. Ben Sira’s intention is clear from the context of the poem. The two preceding verses read: “The violent rejects reproof, he distorts the law according to his requirements. The sage (‫[ איש חכם‬B/E/F; in F ‫ חכם‬is missing) does not hide wisdom (‫)לא יכסה חכמה‬, however (‫ו‬-adversativum), the mocker does not control his tongue” (Sir 32[35]:17–18). Ben Sira turns, as if by chance, to another theme: Do not hide wisdom! All people should benefit in life through wisdom. This subject is examined below, in section 5 (Worthlessness of Hidden Wisdom). Interim result: One of the principles formulated in Ben Sira’s thought is the requirement to consult early. It is not only clever but necessary to think and consult before all actions and words.

4 Oppositions in the Order of Creation Ben Sira takes his own theses seriously. He does not construct an explanation of the world, but he rather observes the creation of God and assembles the laws and regularities inherent in creation. He draws conclusions from these, which he passes on within his doctrine. The examination of two passages will provide illustrative, central and defining examples.

298 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

4.1 Differences as a Principle (Sir 42:15–25) We return to the beginning of the book. Among the items enumerated there are the sand of the sea/drops of rain/height of heaven/breadth of the earth/abyss (Sir 1:2–3), and it is emphasized that wisdom was created temporally before these elements of nature. The result is that both wisdom and nature are created by God. There is an order in creation. We now investigate the second level, the material creation, since it precedes humankind’s creation. In this area, there are obvious traces of the concept of God. Ben Sira deals with God’s works and with God himself in 42:15–25. The sage introduces the idea that he intends to pursue with the following remarks: “I will now call to mind the works of God (‫מעשי אל‬ [Mas, B]/τὰ ἔργα κυρίου), and will declare what I have seen” (Sir 42:15a.b). We may therefore expect at this point some information about our current question; but there are surprises. (a) Creation as a teacher: Ben Sira uses verbless clauses to form the first sentences. It is, therefore, a statement, and not a matter for discussion, approval or rejection. His findings are as follows: “By the Lord’s speech (‫[ באמר אדני‬Mas])14 [exist] his works and the manufacturer of his will (‫[ פעל רצנו‬Mas, B]) [is] his teaching/inst­ ruction (‫[ לקחו‬Mas, B])” (Sir 42:15c.d). Ben Sira starts with the fact that the Lord accomplishes his work of creation through his speech. This theologoumenon is not a new one, as Ps 33:6 indicates. This work of God corresponds to his will. A new feature is that this speech of God as well as his works are not only factual entities, but also have a didactic function. God provides a lesson to those who see and also understand his works. Therefore, one can learn from these works. (b) God’s superiority: Ben Sira describes what God is able to do. He has exclusive skills and areas of activity that exceed those of people: “[All his marvelous works (‫כל נפלאתיו‬/πάντα τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ)], the Lord Almighty has 17 established so that the universe (τὸ πᾶν) may stand firm (‫להתחזק‬/ἐστερέωσεν) … 18

He searches out the abyss (‫תהום‬/ἄβυσσον); he understands their innermost secrets.

For the Most High knows all that may be known; he sees from of old the things that are to come. He discloses what has been and what is to be, and he reveals the traces of hidden things 19 (‫מגלה חקר נסתרות‬/ἀποκαλύπτων ἴχνη ἀποκρύφων). No thought escapes (‫לא נעדר‬/οὐ παρῆλθεν) him, and nothing (‫כל דבר‬/οὐδὲ εἷς λόγος) is 20 hidden from him (‫ולא חלפו‬/οὐκ ἐκρύβη). 14 The variant in MS B is “by God’s speech (‫ ;”)באומר אלהים‬Gk. reads: ἐν λόγοις κυρίου.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 299

All these things live and remain forever; everything is preserved (‫ )הכל נשמר‬to meet a par­ 23 ticular need (‫לכל צרוך‬/ἐν πάσαις χρείαις).” The Greek version adds “and all obey (καὶ πάντα ὑπακούει)” (Sir 42:17cd, 20, 23).

Ben Sira emphasizes that God is infinitely superior to his works. These exist because he provides them with ability and power (42:17). God knows all his works, spatial and temporal (Sir 42:18–19). This is because “no understanding does he lack; no single thing escapes him” (Sir 42:20; NAB). (c) The power of wisdom: After these thoughts, Ben Sira leaves the works of God and turns back to God himself: “He has set in order (‫ )תכן‬the [splendid] deeds of his mighty wisdom (‫[ חכמתו‬Mas]/‫[ גבורת‬B]; 21 τὰ μεγαλεῖα τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ ἐκόσμησεν); he is from all eternity one and the same (‫אחד הוא‬ ‫ ;מעולם‬ὡς ἔστιν πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). With nothing added, nothing taken away (‫[ לא נאסף ולא נאצל‬Mas]; οὔτε προσετέθη οὔτε ἠλαττώθη); no need of a counselor/teacher for him (‫[ ולא צריך לכל מבין‬B]; οὐ προσεδεήθη οὐδενὸς συμβούλου)!” (NAB; Sir 42:21ac).

What is Ben Sira teaching here about God and wisdom’s relationship with God? The first thing to note is that parts of the Hebrew and Greek versions have signif­ icant differences. Since it cannot be definitively determined which version better reflects Ben Sira’s intention, both traditions are to be considered. Wisdom is closely related to God. Wisdom has its own power; it is not only an abstract, but also a powerful entity. You can fasten onto (‎‫ )תכן‬this wisdom as an object. The verb ‫ תכן‬is found in the context of the theology of creation. According to Ps 75:4, God fixed (‫ )תכן‬the pillars of the earth. Isa 40:13 again uses the verb in connection with the spirit of God and rejects the notion that the spirit of God requires spiritual support: “Who has directed the spirit (‫ )מִ ֽי־תִּכֵ ֥ן‬of the LORD (‎‫ְהוה‬ ֖ ‫)א‬, or as his coun­ ֑ ָ ‫ֶת־רּו ַח י‬ selor has instructed him?” The spirit of God is, according to the words of the prophet, firm and stable. The same is true of wisdom according to Ben Sira: God gives strength to wisdom. Ben Sira refers to the ‫—גבורה‬the strength and power—of divine wisdom. Wisdom contains in itself strength. It is something like an instrument of God. God has brought into a functioning order (ἐκόσμησεν) what wisdom had real­ ized, according to the Greek version (cf. the English word “cosmos”). As master of the world, God shows that he is the Lord over all circumstances—even excep­ tional ones (τὰ μεγαλεῖα) according to human judgment. The theological evalu­ ation is the same in both the Hebrew and Greek versions. The judgment of God is: you may not take anything away, nor is there any need to add anything. The result is perfect. Confirmation of the perfect divine action is evidently a matter of contemporary concern (see above 3.3 on Sir 18:6 and Qoh 3:14). If we compare the

300 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

development of contrasting theological ideas and religious practices in the Hel­ lenistic era, Israel’s concept of God stands out agreeably from these in its clarity and inner cohesion. It is, through its unique nature, a part of that identity which provides an inner security for the believing Israelites; this even also applies to a pessimist like Qoheleth.15 In the Hebrew version, a theological statement follows: God is the only one— ‫( אחד הוא מעולם‬42:21). This emphasis on the monotheistic concept is necessary because the matter of how individual gods are to be seen remains largely unclear in the polytheistic environment. By contrast, the role of God is wholly clear for Ben Sira: there is only the LORD as God, and he is the only one (God). Further­ more, the dimension of time, prevalent in God, is also emphasized as unique: this is eternity (‫אחד הוא מעולם‬/ὡς ἔστιν πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; v. 21). In Hebrew, it is obvious that ‫ עולם‬refers to God. The Greek version becomes ambigu­ ous because of the particle ὡς.16 The intention of the Greek may be summarized in a general statement: “That’s how it has always been, and so, too, will it always remain in the future.” What is meant is that the works of wisdom are effective throughout the history of creation, but always under the patronage of God. One may ask, on the other hand, whether ὡς ἔστιν is a reference to God, and for its part it further points to ἐκόσμησεν. If this is what is intended, the argument leaves behind the subject of wisdom and stresses that God has always made the order of creation and he guarantees it. Once again, we must point to time and its duration—with regard to God and with regard to humanity—recalling that the divine sphere essentially differs at this point from the sphere of humankind. As we have seen above, the temporal limita­ tion of human life has led to Ben Sira’s insight that individuals should consider very well before doing anything. With God it is quite different: he does not need anyone else to understand or comprehend everything in its totality (‫ ; לכל מבין‬42:21d). The verb ‫ בין‬points to a central passage in Isaiah 40, where human inability is noted

15 Cf. “He (= ‎‫אֱֹלהִים‬/ὁ θεός Qoh 3:10) has made everything (‎‫אֶת־הַכ֥ ֺל ע ָ ָׂ֖שה‬/τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν) suita­ ble for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I know that there is nothing bet­ ter for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live; moreover, it is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil. I know that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it (‎‫אין לְהו ִ֔סיף ּומ ֶ ִּ֖מּנּו‬/ ֵ֣ οὐκ ἔστιν προσθεῖναι καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀφελεῖν); God has done this (‎‫ׂשה‬ ָ ֔ ‫ֱלהים ָע‬ ֣ ִ ‫ ְו ָהא‬/καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν), so that all should stand in awe before him” (Qoh 3:11–14). Although the verb ‫עשׂ‬ ‫ ה‬occurs, one cannot speak of a creational theology in Qoheleth comparable to that of Ben Sira. 16 NRSV and NAB do not include ὡς in the translation; NETS translates ὡς with “since.” Vari­ ants exist in the Greek MSS here.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 301

in order to indicate that only God himself has the ability to achieve total insight: ‎‫( אֵ ֥ין ֵ ֖חקֶר לִתְ בּונָתֽ ֹו‬Isa 40:28). Further related thoughts are examined by the prophet: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? 13 Who has directed the spirit of the LORD, or as his counselor (‎‫; ֲעצ ָ֖תֹו‬ σύμβουλος) has instructed him? 14 Whom did he consult (‎‫ ;אֶת ִ ֤מי נֹו ָע ֙ץ‬συνεβουλεύσατο) for his enlightenment (‎‫) ַויְבִי ֵ֔נהּו‬, and who taught him the path of justice? Who taught him knowledge ֶ συνέσεως)? (Isa 40:12–14). (‎‫)דַ֔ ַעת‬, and showed him the way of understanding (‎‫ד ֶ֥רְך ּתְ בּונ֖ ֹות‬/ὁδὸν

12

For reasons of content, as well as arising from the parallel terminology, we suggest that Ben Sira has re-thought, in his own way, theological notions that he found in the prophet’s work. Like the prophet, Ben Sira emphasizes that God does not need any counselor. Both statements are based on a monotheistic concept. Ben Sira, however, intensifies the prophetic arguments. He adds that creation is a reference to the ordering hand of God. No work of creation is dispensable and nothing can be added to creation. It discloses a completed divine plan: “Each creature is preserved to meet a particular need” (Sir 42:23). The order within the cosmos impresses Ben Sira. He asks about the origin and the basis of this order: where did these two come from? They originate in God, who is the only one superior to everyone. The writings of the Hellenistic majority, and the ideas of the Greeks, maintain that the gods always consult each other. One can read about this in the Iliad and the Odyssey, the most important works that characterize Greek spirituality from the very beginning of school edu­ cation. As Hesiod describes it, the cosmogony is a gradually developing order, which is accomplished less frequently in harmony, but more usually by way of conflicts between different gods and goddesses. Plato also dealt with cosmology in his dialogue with Timaeus. Timaeus reaffirms that one has not to implore the gods (Tim. 27cd) to obtain a correct understanding of creation. Ben Sira decidedly rejects such an idea: God has no adviser. God does not need any counselor, says the prophet, and so says Ben Sira. Ben Sira traces the inner structure of the order, which God has realized through his powerful wisdom. He finds basic rules that have become a determining factor for his thinking and his world view: All things come in pairs ([‫[ כלם [שנים שנים‬Mas]; πάντα δισσά), one opposite the other (‫זה‬ ‫לעמת זה‬/ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός), and he has not made some of them (‫[ ולא עשה מהם‬Mas, B]; οὐκ ἐποίησεν) for nothing (‫שוא‬/ οὐδὲν ἐλλεῖπον). 25 Each supplements the virtues of the other (‫זה על זה חלף טובם‬/ἓν τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐστερέωσεν τὰ ἀγαθά) (Sir 42:24, 25a).

24

302 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

Ben Sira particularly sees cosmic realities as created things and, generally speak­ ing, not physical, material phenomena, as the verbs ‫ עשה‬and ποιέω demonstrate. Ben Sira assigns the act of creation to God, having formerly traced it back to wisdom, and evaluates wisdom as a part of God: she is a side of God, as she can be experienced in creation. Therefore, the further description of wisdom is at the same time a description of the order to be found in creation. A central observation is that the two realities of creation correspond to one another. Each of these facts is opposed to the other, with the particle ‫ לעמת‬and the word κατέναντι indicating an antithetical tendency. However, the blurred formu­ lation leaves it open whether two similar or equivalent conditions are here being described. Ben Sira also provides a definition of the opposing idea: ‫טובם‬, that is, τὰ ἀγαθά. What emerges is that the correspondence, or the counter-reading, serves to reveal the value of the particular fact. One may extend the conclusion: the actual evaluation can be reached only by way of such a comparison.

4.2 Same Basis—Different Effects (Sir 33:7–15) How is it possible that different evaluations may be made if they are based on initial dispositions that are completely identical? These evaluations are generally valid. In the different assessment of days, Ben Sira sees a convincing example of the explosive nature of his question. The first observation: it is undisputed that all the days of the year begin with the sunrise. The second observation: but it is always the same sun that rises in the morning. Conclusion: it is therefore logical that all days are equal. Factual assessment: Ben Sira, however, observes distinc­ tive differences in everyday life and in the evaluation of days that is more broadly customary. Ben Sira’s observation is evidently based on that evaluation of the days that he finds in Gen 1:1–2:3. In regular recurrence, a period of seven days ends with the seventh day. The Sabbath—that is the seventh day—is treated and evaluated quite differently from the six days preceding. This period and this peri­ odization basically determine the rhythm of human life. This is shown by the instructions for the Sabbath (cf. Exod 16:23–30; 31:12–17). These rules are fixed by God. It should be borne in mind that the human world is included in these fun­ damental considerations, so that after the differentiation has been made it would also be possible to apply it to the evaluation of people. In fact, this is the case, as we shall soon see. Ben Sira deals with this central topic in several steps.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 303

4.2.1 Foundation of the Order in the Inanimate World As we have seen, Ben Sira begins with the question: “Why is one day more impor­ tant than another, when it is the sun that lights up every day?” (Sir 33:7). He imme­ diately provides a first answer to the introductory question in v. 7 at 33:8: “By the Lord’s [σοφία]/wisdom (‫[ בחכמת י ָיי‬E, F]/‫ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܒܚܟܡܬܗ‬/ἐν γνώσει κυρίου) they ݂ were distinguished, and there are festivals among them.” In this context, it is worth noting that Ben Sira apparently refers to the feasts: compare the seventh day (Gen 2:13) and the structuring of time through the feasts (to fix it, however, the moon is also used in Gen 1:14). And yet he says nothing about creation. Why does Ben Sira not say that the order in creation is the norm for understanding order itself? For Ben Sira there is not only the order of creation, but behind the order of creation there is wisdom’s order. God’s wisdom fixed the basic order, which is valid for nature and humankind. The central keyword “wisdom” is verified by the Hebrew and Syriac versions. Now it is noteworthy that γνῶσις was used in the Greek and not σοφία. This indicates that the translator of Ben Sira is well aware of the Hellenistic usage of the Greek language, and he therefore emphasizes the rational level of order. He is thinking of the rational dimension (that is, of reason). God himself fixes standards. These are mandatory. The sage obviously clari­ fies, on the basic level, the matter of differences and contradictions. The days are different because God evaluates them differently (Sir 33:9): “He has blessed (‫ ברך‬/‫ ) ݁ܒܪܟ‬the one, the others he made ordinary days.” Diversity is obviously an arrangement explicitly made by God. Again, it should be noted that the Greek version inserts a clarification for the educated Hellenistic reader, since it inserts “some he dignifies (ἀνύψωσεν)” [NAB] before “and sanctifies (ἡγίασεν).” It is obviously not self-evident to the Greek reader that a day becomes a special day when God has blessed it. Here the Old Testament concept differs from the Greek-Hellenistic interpretation of religious facts.

4.2.2 Foundation of Order in the Human World As already stated, an analysis of the primordial cosmic order leads to comparable analyses of human existence. Again, Ben Sira begins with a fact: all humans are made of clay. The point here is not that the “earthly” creation is seen as some­ thing inferior. Rather, it is a question of differences among equals, and it is not formulated as a question, but as a statement: “All human beings (17‫וכל איש‬/ ‫̈ܒܢܝ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ ܟܠܗܘ ݂ܢ‬/ἄνθρωποι πάντες) are from the ground (‫חמר‬/!‫ܡܢ ܛܝܢܐ ܐܬܥܒܕܘ‬/ἀπὸ 17 Cf. Marcus, Hebrew, 16.

304 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

ἐδάφους), and humankind was created (‫נוצר‬/‫ܐܬܒܪܝ‬ ݂ /ἐκτίσθη) out of the dust (‫מן‬ ‫עפר‬/‫ܡܢ ܥܦܪܐ‬/ἐκ γῆς)” (Sir 33:10). What is clear, despite all the small differences in the Hebrew, Greek and Syriac texts, is that humanity has been created (par­ ticularly emphasized in Syr.), and that all people have the same starting point, namely the (inanimate) earthly matter. How then can there be differences within people, given that God is the same Creator of all humans? The key to the differentiation again lies in the wisdom of God (‫ ייי‬18‫חכמת‬/ ‫ܕܐܠܗܐ ܒܚܟܡܬܗ‬/ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης). “In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them (διεχώρισεν αὐτούς) and appointed their different ways (ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν)” (Sir 33:11). This thesis leads Ben Sira to consider how to assess ethical antitheses among people. All opposites arise out of the intention of God’s wisdom: Some he blessed and exalted, and some he made holy and brought near to himself; but some he cursed and brought low, and turned them out of their place. Like clay in the hand of the potter, to be molded as he pleases, so all are in the hand of their Maker, to be given whatever he decides (Sir 33:12–13).

These statements appear pessimistic at first sight. They seem to be an early form of “kismet” as an unchangeable destiny. This thesis of Ben Sira cannot be further investigated here. He does not mean a definitive determination, so that someone who is once a sinner, for instance, is a sinner forever. Such an unchangeable destiny would leave no room for change and improvement. Ben Sira argues rather that everybody can wipe out their sins through good deeds: “For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and will be credited to you against your sins” (Sir 3:14). If the thesis in Sir 33:10 describes a destiny fixed and determined by God, then there would be no way out of sin. But, apart from Sir 3:14, Ben Sira makes many references to people abandoning the way of sin (e.g., Sir 5:7; 17:2526). Therefore, one must find another solution for a proper understanding of his intention. Ben Sira appeals to the sense of responsibility that every human has. We read in Sir 15:16: “He [v. 11: ὁ κύριος] has placed before you fire and water (‫אש‬ ‫ומים‬/πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ); stretch out your hand for whichever you choose (‫באשר תחפץ‬ ‫שלח ידיך‬/οὗ ἐὰν θέλῃς ἐκτενεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου).” It is, therefore, the decision of the individual person, made of earth, to choose either the destructive fire (= sin) or creative water (= life-sustaining faith and benefits). Ben Sira sees in the order of creation a concept of opposites. These are bound­ ary markers, and indicate the extremes, as he lists them in the theses of Sir 33:14:19 18 Cf. Marcus, Hebrew, 16. 19 Cf. the investigation in Reiterer, “Herr,” 110–16.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 305

14a opposite evil—good, 14b and opposite death—life; 14c so opposite the devout—the sinner. In 33:14 he lists three pairs of opposites in nominal clauses. Contrasting examples stand alongside examples with opposing content. In Ben Sira’s eyes, these are basic facts that no longer need to be discussed. Everybody should consider these limits in his actions and thinking. Anyone who ignores these lines will endanger himself. Above we investigated references showing the great difference between God’s understanding and human intellect. Therefore, we can only conclude: if a person does not see these basic dimensions of creation, this is a precise proof of the limitation of human insight and does not contradict the facts.

4.2.3 A Step further… Ben Sira goes a step further, seeing in this contrast a fundamental description of all the works of God: “Look at all the works (‫כל מעשה‬/ἔμβλεψον εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔργα) of the Most High; they come in pairs (‫כולם שנים שנים‬/δύο δύο), one the opposite of the other (‫זה לעומת זה‬/ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός)” (Sir 33:15). Obviously the appearance of pairs is something special within the field of opposites. Interim findings: Opposition is a necessity, because the entire creation is organized according to the will of the Creator. Exclusive or inclusive, contrasting or comple­ mentary, polarity is a fact that arises out of the order of creation. It is important to note that there are conclusions to be reached about the type of arguments in Ben Sira’s work. One may hold, and it may also be justifiably argued, that a confron­ tation is presented in each antithetical parallelism. That is correct. But Ben Sira offers a new dimension with these thoughts, by representing as indispensable any opposition, since it is caused by the basic order of creation.

5 The Worthlessness of Hidden Wisdom The connection between God and wisdom is evident. But what role does wisdom play for the wise Ben Sira? We return to the beginning of the book. The wisdom teacher has already said at the end of the very first literary unit: “It is he who created her; […] he poured her out upon all his works, upon all the living accord­ ing to his gift; he lavished her upon those who love him” (Sir 1:9–10). Basically

306 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

one may see a blueprint of divine wisdom in every aspect of creation. But there is an additional action that God takes for humanity: the Creator has given wisdom to all people. What role does wisdom play in human life? In addition to the note in 32(35):18a, according to which you should do nothing without prior consideration (see above 3.4: Never Act without Reflection), further evidence demonstrates that the public presence of wisdom is a principle for Ben Sira. Various recommendations in Sir 20:26 end with the words: “A liar’s way leads to dishonor, his shame remains ever with him” (Sir 20:26). Then Ben Sira changes the topic: “A wise man advances himself by his words, a prudent man pleases the great” (Sir 20:27). There then follow hints on the success and potential risks for the wise person. This small section ends with the following words, which must be understood as a general maxim: “Hidden wisdom and unseen treasure—of what value is either? (NAB) Better the man who hides his folly than the one who hides his wisdom” (Sir 20:30–31).

Ben Sira presents treasures and wisdom on the same level of values. He thus shows that wisdom has a very high priority. However, the values are only fully effective when they are publicly perceived. Only when they take effect in the public domain, do they then develop their full potential. There is another note on the different weight of wealth in comparison with wisdom: in Sir 20:31 treasure is no longer mentioned; Ben Sira focuses on wisdom. We find further evidence relating to this subject in Sir 41:14–15. This aphorism is isolated. It is preceded by thoughts about death (41:14) and the finiteness of human life (41:5–13). Then, after Sir 41:14–15, Ben Sira deals with shame. The fol­ lowing verses are between these two themes: “Hidden wisdom and unseen treasure—of what value is either? Better are those who hide their folly than those who hide their wisdom” (Sir 41:14–15).

These thoughts make good sense as a link between the two issues. Ben Sira shows that wisdom may not be hidden in the face of death and in the face of shame. Shame is the antithesis of glory, and in the Hellenistic world, honor is of higher value than life. Interim result: Ben Sira sees wisdom as something very precious. It sits, together with riches, at the top of a hierarchy of values. The effect unfolds but only if it is presented publicly. Wisdom is central. How do you get wisdom? Is it innate? Is it fate? Is it the prerogative of elites?



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 307

6 Acquiring Wisdom “If you wish it, you can become wise” (Sir 6:32). For Ben Sira, there are no essen­ tial social conditions for becoming wise. Indeed no conditions are possible, because according to Sir 1:10 wisdom is a gift of God to humans. Human beings cannot direct gifts from God. In 6:32 the optimistic view is stated that everyone can be wise and educated, if there is a genuine desire: “If you are willing (‫אם תחפוץ‬/ ‫ܬܨܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬/ἐὰν θέλῃς), my child, you can be disciplined (‫תתחכם‬ ݂ ‫ܬܬܚܟܡ‬/παιδευθήσῃ), ݂ ‫ܬܣܝܡ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ‬/ἐὰν ἐπιδῷς τὴν ψυχήν σου) you and if you apply yourself (‫ואם תשיים לבך‬/‫ܠܒܠܟ‬ ݂ will become clever (‫תערם‬/‫ܬܗܘܐ ܥܪܝܡ‬/πανοῦργος ἔσῃ).”

Whoever has such a wish, will ask what one must do in order to be wise? Ben Sira appends his program for becoming wise: listen to the advice of Ben Sira (6:23), ask, study (6:27), listen to wise people (6:33 + 6:23), strive to be among the wise (6:34), and arrange your place within wisdom (6:25). 6:23: “Listen, my son, and heed my advice; refuse not my counsel” (NAB). 6:27: “Search her out, discover her; seek her and you will find her. Then when you have her, do not let her go” (NAB). 6:33: “If you are willing to listen, you will learn; if you give heed, you will be wise” (NAB). 6:34: “Frequent the company of the elders; whoever is wise, stay close to him” (NAB). 6:25: “Offer your shoulder to her burden, do not be impatient of her bonds” (NJB).

These are secular recommendations. All these statements could be included in Hellenistic instructions for education. But the conclusion has no parallel in the concepts of a Hellenistic environment: Reflect on the precepts of the Lord, let his commandments be your constant meditation; then he will enlighten your mind, and the wisdom you desire he will grant (Sir 6:37).

This argument sets narrow limits on the independent acquisition of wisdom. An honest and intensive effort by the student is essential. But ultimately it is God’s work if you become wise. Interim findings: Because wisdom is so important, the question arises how to acquire it. Whoever wishes to be wise receives practical instructions from Ben Sira on how to acquire personal wisdom. At the same time, Ben Sira notes that God’s care is even more than any human effort. God is Lord over wisdom, which ultimately remains a gift from him.

308 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

7 The Collected Principles in Ben Sira’s Book These principles that I have just described are in my view the same principles that Ben Sira—consciously or unconsciously—follows in his work. This may be illustrated by a few select examples.

7.1 Unexpected Thoughts Ben Sira always thinks in contrasts and opposites. Sometimes these are only alluded to, so that a modern reader finds a tension within the text. Again and again, unexpected thoughts appear, which Ben Sira does not further develop in the context, so that they appear to be inconsistencies. One example is Sir 42:15–25, which has been dealt with above (4 Oppositions in the Order of Creation). There I quoted Sir 42:18, but I omitted a part of that biblical text. The complete quota­ tion reads: “He searches out the abyss (‫תהום‬/ἄβυσσον) and the human heart (‫ולב‬/ ‫ܘܠܒܐ‬ ݂ /καρδίαν); he understands their innermost secrets.” The word “[human] heart” was omitted above because there is an argumentative gap. At first glance, the mention of ‫ לב‬does not mean anything to the reader, since Ben Sira does not consider it any further in the context. It seems to be an erratic thought that has somehow slipped into the words of the poet, despite the fact that the thought interrupts the context. This “secondary idea” is no coincidence, but corresponds to Ben Sira’s oppo­ sitional thought pattern. While concentrating essentially on the subject of the cre­ ation of the inanimate material world, Ben Sira is obviously also thinking at the same time about the human material world.20 Now, whoever rereads the text with Ben Sira’s way of thinking in mind, will be inspired by the “secondary theme”: the creation of human beings. Ben Sira does not pursue this topic any further in Sir 42:18. However—considering Ben Sira’s implicit thesis—one can under­ stand the decisive point of comparison that he is stressing when, in the context of cosmic creation, he also touches on the human area. What he wants to say is: the fact is that people are ultimately not transparent and predictable. The reason for this judgment is that human reflections and actions seem so unexpected and contradictory. But this state of affairs is only a problem for people because for God there is no secret, and he always knows how to evaluate human acting and think­ ing. In this scholarly investigation, however, it is essential to recognize the need 20 There are other special features in Ben Sira. He sometimes uses the vocabulary in a different way from the traditional sense. Therefore, his formulations are frequently ambiguous. This as­ pect has been studied by Seger, “L’utilisation”; cf. Reymond, “Wordplay.”



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 309

for secondary, or only implied, aspects, to be properly treated in the thinking of Ben Sira when his main point is also applied to such “secondary ideas.”

7.2 The Composition of Subjects The presentation of themes in the form of opposites is one of Ben Sira’s princi­ ples. This special feature occurs throughout his book.

7.2.1 An Example: Death Ben Sira speaks about death in 41:14.21 In his reassuring and balanced way, he is striving towards the following principle: “Fear not death’s decree for you; remem­ ber, it embraces those before you, and those after” (Sir 41:3). Ben Sira explains this theorem or doctrine with further arguments (41:4). The most important argu­ ment is that God has determined humankind’s fate (“This is the Lord’s decree for all flesh”). Ben Sira has prepared for this thesis by way of an educational intro­ duction. He presents the ideas in the form of antitheses: “O death! How bitter the thought of you for the man at peace amid his possessions, for the man unruffled and always successful, who still can enjoy life’s pleasures” (41:1; NAB)

And the opposite: “O death! How welcome your sentence to the weak man of failing strength, tottering and always rebuffed, with no more sight, with vanished hope” (41:2; NAB)

7.2.2 An Example: Wealth22 It is easy to demonstrate that the sage’s attitude toward wealth is largely nega­ tive: for example, “Such, then, are the wicked, always carefree, increasing their wealth” (NAB and NRSV: “they increase in riches”—Ps 73:12). In Sir 13:21–23, Ben Sira includes highly critical and distressing comments on the rich. They are always successful and ruthless. Nevertheless, there are many who attach them­ 21 1. Contrasts: 41:1ad [four cola] versus 41:2ad [four cola]; 2. A comparison: thesis on the basis of realities—basic judgment with explanation, i.e. 1–2 [eight cola] versus 41:3–4 [two cola and four cola]. On 41:1–2 see further the essay by Mizrahi in the present volume. 22 Cf. Beentjes, “Jug.”

310 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

selves to the rich and applaud them. Ben Sira provides an unexpected counterposition to these negative observations. He is not opposed to wealth, but in Sir 13:2423 he imposes conditions on the accumulation of wealth: “Wealth is good when there is no sin; but poverty is evil by the standards of the proud” (NAB).

7.2.3 An Example: Manual professions—Scribe and Sage In 38:25–30, Ben Sira describes four professions (farmer, artist, blacksmith, potter). He sums these up favorably: “Without them no city could be lived in, and wherever they stay, they need not hunger” (38:32 [NAB]). He juxtaposes these professions with allusions to the Hellenistic world in which the wise scribe deals with faith, religion and study of the law (38:34–39:11): The scribe’s profession increases his wisdom; whoever is free from toil can become a wise man. […] (he) devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High! He explores the wisdom of the men of old and occupies himself with the prophecies (38:24, 34c.d; 39:1 [NAB]).

These wise scribes teach the right attitudes to education and development, and to the Lord. They ensure the people’s social welfare and its sound functioning. Thus Ben Sira provides an antithesis. There is no mistaking his sympathy for the scribes. But both groups are essential for the functioning of society.

7.3 The Composition of the Book I now offer some remarks on the book’s underlying notions that are indepen­ dent of the arrangement of the text itself. Since I regard chapters 1, 24 and 51 as key passages, I can define the textual arrangement as a successful external, and educationally sublime, support for the basic ideas: Ben Sira writes in 1:1–10 that wisdom is with the Lord and that only he is wise. The Lord himself is inscrutable to humans, and remains so. He exceeds all human capacity of knowledge. The Lord created wisdom and he has disseminated it among his works, particularly humans. The following two theses are now further deployed: (a) the first main 23 13:24a.b ‫( טוב העושר אם אין עון ורע העוני על פי זדון‬MS A). 13:24a.b ἀγαθὸς ὁ πλοῦτος ᾧ μή ἐστιν ἁμαρτία καὶ πονηρὰ ἡ πτωχεία ἐν στόματι ἀσεβοῦς. 13:24a.b bona est substantia cui non est peccatum +in conscientia+ et nequissima paupertas in ore impii. ̈ ̈ 13:24a.b ‫ܚܛܗܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܝ݀ܫܐ ܡܣܟܢܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܓܢܒ‬. ‫ܚܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܛܒ ܥܘܬܪܐ ܕܐܠ‬.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 311

idea: the origin and purpose of wisdom in Sir 24:1–22; (b) and the second main idea: its orientation among human beings in Sir 51:13–30. (a) Wisdom speaks in 24:1–22. She is therefore seen to be acting as an independent entity that, inter alia, can also talk. Speaking is a personal power. She describes her origins and existence from a time before creation. She serves in the presence of the Lord. God determines her for Jacob/Israel. “And I took root among a glori­ fied people, in the portion of the Lord is my inheritance” (Sir 24:12 [NETS]). (b) Ben Sira says in Sir 51:13–30 that he has striven for wisdom since his youth. He himself is a good example that a person who wishes it can become wise. He is so excited by wisdom that he will never desist from it. He invites his audience to join him in his beth midrash. There they can freely acquire wisdom. “Come close to me, you ignorant (NJB) and lodge in the house of instruction” (51:23) […] “I open my mouth and speak of her: gain, at no cost, wisdom for yourselves” (51:25 NAB). Finally, one reads the following sentence: “The Lord gave me my tongue as a reward, and I will praise him with it” (51:22). It is no surprise that one may recognize here a meaningful, consistent and well organized plan.

8 Summary How does Ben Sira think, and why does he write as he does? On what basis does Ben Sira develop his arguments? What are his concepts of God, the world, people, and the daily existence of humanity? Which trailblazing rules does Ben Sira find in his scriptures and in his reflections on God, the world and people? What are the values that inspire Ben Sira to develop his doctrine, as he does in his work? Is it possible to describe the principles according to which Ben Sira is characterized as sage, believer, and analyst in his time? These are the questions that underlie this investigation. Now we may present the results: –– Starting point—Deus creator: God is the only ONE, he is always present. He made a cosmos immaterialis (for example: life and wisdom) and a cosmos materialis (e.g., sun and stars). God’s creation is perfect. There is nothing to add, and nothing to take away, so that there is no deficiency, and no super­ abundance. –– Starting point—Cosmos creatus: The world is created and has an inner order established by God. –– Starting point—opposites: They are an essential part of the inner order of the cosmos. These oppositions are part of the divine intention.

312 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

–– Starting point: God operates through, and with the help of, wisdom. God is the Creator and likewise God is the Lord of wisdom. Therefore the non-ma­ terial levels are very significant throughout the whole book of Ben Sira. Fur­ thermore, the idea that God is primarily a judge plays a very minor role in the entire work. –– Starting point—Homo creatus: God is the creator of human beings. The lifes­ pan and the range of human knowledge are limited. Human finiteness and limitation are positive impulses to profound reflection. They justify the urge to do close study. Such study has to be undertaken but will always be within its human limits. –– Starting point—Homo philosophicus: wisdom is a value given by God. Every­ body can be wise when he is concerned to achieve this. It is a human duty to become wise. Wise people have to offer this wisdom to others, for hidden wisdom is worthless, like hiding a jewel that God had donated to human beings. Ben Sira is consistent: he has founded a teaching house. –– Starting point—Homo religiosus: although God does not seem to be immedi­ ately to hand, either in thought or action, he is nevertheless always present. Ben Sira calls the natural religious attitude “fear of God.” But one should better render this as: “respect for God.”24 –– Starting point—Homo ethicus: never do anything without first considering the result. Every human action has ethical and moral implications.That is why Ben Sira is often unexpectedly seen to change the levels of references. He turns from the general, sometimes material, level to the level of religious responsibility. –– Starting point—Responsibility: responsibility is shown above all in the eval­ uation of deeds and in attitudes towards God (hence the frequent mention of fault and sin). Such responsibility has implications for ethical and cultic behavior, so that there may sometimes be a preference for the social dimen­ sion over that of the formal cult. –– Starting point—Allusions and unexpected thoughts in the text: Ben Sira cannot say everything he wants to say. In order to imply, or to include, a mul­ titude of additional themes and problems, he chooses the methods of allu­ sion and antitheses. Ben Sira has discovered this normative contrast by ana­ lysing God’s creation. This Weltanschauung characterizes his arguments and the totality of his poetry. The antithetical structures within creation and the antithetical nature of human life are reflected in his choice of style and in the manner in which he portrays his themes. His allusions permit the interpreta­ tion of the difficult texts that they have inspired. 24 See the arguments in the valuable investigation of Egger-Wenzel, “Faith.”



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 313

–– Ben Sira and Hellenism: many arguments would not have been present in the book of Ben Sira, if the Hellenistic interpretation of God, the world, and humanity had not presented an existential problem in his time. Ben Sira does not polemicize in an aggressive way. He has developed his thoughts, which are often contrary to the Hellenistic view of the world, but he opts to present his message in a positive manner. God, the orderly structures fixed by God, and the creation, play central roles in Ben Sira’s thinking and argumentation. They constitute examples of how Ben Sira surpasses polytheistic ambiguity: for the gods, the role of humanity and the latter’s responsibility are repre­ sented in the writings of the Greeks with different content. Ben Sira’s unspo­ ken comparison shows the specificity of his doctrine. Incidentally, he does not mention the gods of the Greeks. His aim is to reject their spiritual-histor­ ical position, by way of his fresh and powerful arguments.25 Since he argues positively, a positive world-view results. In my view, the developed principles are central, both for the thought of Ben Sira, as well as for his treatment of the issues. This also applies to his type of poetry, which sometimes includes surprising new aspects. His principles shape his approach to wisdom, its overall conception, and ultimately its public presenta­ tion. Although I have presented only a few examples, Ben Sira’s underlying plan also applies broadly to the structure of the whole book. Each relevant justifica­ tion may be derived from the text, not from any abstract construction. In sum: “It is not only important what is said but how it is said.” The method of presen­ tation provides instructions for understanding and interpretation. The implicit indications given by the artist reveal the rules for his interpretation; this method of understanding “high art” applies not only to music, but also to biblical texts.

25 Besides the relevant allusions in the present study, στέφανος ἀγαλλιάματος (Sir 1:11) is an ex­ cellent example of how Ben Sira transformed Hellenistic values for his own theological agenda. “On the level of wisdom Sira does not oppose the garland, but he adopts its symbolic quality, subordinating it to his own ideas;” cf. Sir 1:11: “The fear of the Lord is glory and exultation, and gladness and a crown of rejoicing (στέφανος ἀγαλλιάματος). Sira opens up an additional field for the garland passing its so far accepted applications (e.g. athletics, war, art), namely—to put it in Greek—philosophy (φιλοσοφία), or—to say it in Biblical terms—wisdom (σοφία); … Sira knows that the garland is an expressive symbol in the Hellenistic world, but also with his own people. Probably that is why he adopts the garland in his wisdom argumentation as a significant sign of honour, acknowledgement, and worship. … Sira’s specifically kyriological explanation: worshipping kyrios is at stake” (Schöpflin and Reiterer, “Garland,” 38).

314 

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. SubBi 11. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “‘How Can a Jug be Friends with a Kettle?’ A Note on the Structure of Ben Sira Chapter 13” Pages 77–86 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. ―. “‘Full Wisdom is from the Lord.’ Sir 1:1–10 and Its Place in Israel’s Widsom Literature.” Pages 139–54 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. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Faith in God’ Rather than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding.” Pages 211–26 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, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004. Engster, Dorit. “Wissenschaftliche Forschung und technologischer Fortschritt.” Pages 29–63 in Alexandria. Edited by Tobias Georges et al. Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studia 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Marcus, Joseph. The Newly Discovered Original Hebrew of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 17xxxiv, 1). The Fifth Manuscript and A Prosodic Version of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxii, 11xxiii, 9). Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1931. Muraoka, Takamitsu, and John F. Elwolde, eds. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11–14 December 1995. STDJ 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ―. Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ―. Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997, STDJ 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1999). Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, and Rainer Hirsch-Luipold. “Anmerkungen zur Übersetzung.” Pages 112–34 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Scripta antiquitatis posterioris ad ethicam religionemque pertinentia 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. 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 Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. ―. “‘Alles hat nämlich der Herr gemacht’ – Das Telos der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.” Pages 95–136 in Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christanity in Honour of Hans Klein. Edited by Tobias Nicklas and Korinna Zamfir. DCLS 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. ―. “Zwischen Jerusalem und Alexandria: Alttestamentlicher Glaube im Umfeld hellenistischer Politik und Bildung.” Pages 245–84 in Alexandria. Edited by Tobias Georges et al. Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studia 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ―. “Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom.” Pages 27–50 in Construction, Coherence and Connotations: Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature. Edited by Pierre J. Jordaan and Nicholas P. L. Allen. DCLS 34. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.



The Theological and Philosophical Concepts of Ben Sira 

 315

―. “The Sociological Significance of the Scribe as the Teacher of Wisdom in Ben Sira.” Pages 218–43 in Sages, Scribes, and Seers. The Sage in the Mediterranean World. Edited by Leo Perdue. FRLANT 219. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. ―.“Text und Buch Ben Sira in Tradition und Forschung: Eine Einführung.” Pages 1–57 in Bibliographie zu Ben Sira. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer et al. BZAW 266. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. ―.“Verstehst du die Tugenden der Klugheit? Anfragen zu Gott und zum Wert der von ihm geschenkten Einsicht.” Pages 77–125 in Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. DCLS 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. ―. „Urtext“ und Übersetzungen. Sprachstudie über Sir 44,16–45,26 als Beitrag zur Siraforschung. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 12. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1980. Rey, Jean-Sébastien, and Jan Joosten, eds. The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmission and Interpretation. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Reymond, Eric D. Innovations in Hebrew Poetry. Parallelism and the Poems of Sirach. Studies in Biblical Literature 9. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ―. “Wordplay in the Hebrew to Ben Sira.” Pages 37–53 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmissions and Interpretation. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Schöpflin, Karin, and Friedrich V. Reiterer. “The Garland: A Sign of Worship and Acknowledgement. A Hellenistic Symbol in Late Old Testament Books.” Pages 17–40 in Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits et al. DCLY 2016/2017. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Seger, Nicolas. “L’utilisation de la polysémie des racines hébraïques chez Ben Sira.” PhD diss., Université de Strasbourg, 2005. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques. JSOTSup 170. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Wischmeyer, Oda. Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach. BZNW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995.

 IV The Language of the Book

Jan Joosten

The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah Abstract: The Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira contain a layer of Hebrew writing composed from scratch in the Middle Ages, as well as some phrases created by medieval copyists unfamiliar with the Second Temple Hebrew of their Vorlage. When these secondary elements are sifted out, to the extent they can be, one is left with a text whose language is still remarkably diverse. The present article presents an attempt at categorizing linguistic phenomena characteristic of this variety. Keywords: Ben Sira, Biblical Hebrew, Cairo Genizah, linguistic diversity, Post­ biblical Hebrew

1 Introduction When fragments of Ben Sira from the Cairo Genizah were first published, they were hailed as the remains of the lost Hebrew original. But not everyone was convinced of their authenticity. Famous Semitists found the Hebrew of the new manuscripts unconvincing and preferred to view the texts as medieval retrover­ sions from Syriac, Greek or Persian.1 The debate dragged on for some decades. In an article published in 1955, the great Hebraist H. L. Ginsberg stated that if ever pre-Arab Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira should come to light they would be found “to be as unlike H [i.e. the Cairo manuscripts] as imaginable.”2 The dis­ covery of the Masada fragments nine years later, in 1964, laid this claim to rest. The Masada Scroll (Mas), dated to the first century CE at the latest, differs only in details from Genizah manuscript B, although the manuscripts are separated by around a thousand years. Since the publication of Mas, almost all Hebrew schol­ ars have accepted that the Genizah manuscripts are for the most part not to be understood as back-translations, but that they descend by scribal transmission from the original Hebrew work.3 1 See Torrey, “Genizah Sirach,” 22–23; van Peursen, Verbal System, 57–59. 2 Ginsberg, “Original Hebrew.” 3 The hypothesis that the texts go back to manuscript discoveries in the Judean desert in the eighth century, defended by Alexander Di Lella and others, is attractive, although it cannot be proven definitively: see Di Lella, “Qumran.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-017

320 

 Jan Joosten

An example will illustrate the value of Mas in authenticating the Genizah manuscripts, while demonstrating some of the problems involved: Sir 41:14

ׄ Mas ‫[ח]כמה טמונה ושימה מסותרת מה תעלה בשתיהם‬ ‫ חכמה טמונה ואוצר מוסתר מה תועלה בשתיהם‬B Hidden wisdom and concealed treasure, what is the use of either of them?

There is some variation between the two texts. The orthography is slightly more defective in Mas. In addition, the texts use different words for “treasure”: Mas has ‫שימה‬, a postbiblical word borrowed from Aramaic, while B reads the biblical ‫אוצר‬. The grammar suggests that the reading of Mas is the original one, since B’s reading creates a somewhat jarring lack of grammatical gender concord between the two hemistichs. Not too much weight should be accorded to this, however. Similar cases of word-substitution occur also between the Genizah manuscripts, and sometimes even between readings included in one and the same manuscript. Note that ‫( סימה‬though written with samek, not sin) is found in a marginal reading in B to this verse: ‫ וסימה מסותרת‬glossing ‫ואוצר מוסתר‬. The example documents how Mas typically confirms B, with a few diver­ gences that are not easy to explain. Although Mas is the older manuscript, the more primitive text form is not always found there. Linguistic variation seems to be bound up in the textual transmission of Ben Sira almost from the start.

2 Medieval Hebrew in the Genizah Manuscripts The basic authenticity of the Genizah manuscripts does not mean that, as Israel Lévi wrote around the turn of the twentieth century, “in the main the work of Ben Sira has been preserved just as it left his hands.”4 All the Genizah manuscripts exhibit corruptions and mistakes, some obvious and some almost impossible to fathom. To linguists, these defects are a nuisance, but they do not really interfere significantly with their work. An erroneous reading, or a suspect one, may be disregarded: ‫ אל תדע חרושי על אח‬Sir 7:3a (A) The Greek and Syriac versions here have something like: “do not sow on furrows of unrighteousness,” a thought that fits well the second hemistich: “lest you reap it sevenfold.” How A’s text came into being, and what the scribe thought it meant, is hard to say.5 4 Lévi, “Sirach,” 389–90. 5 See also, e.g., Sir 4:14b A; 32:12a B, F.



The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah 

 321

More difficult to handle are cases of intentional updating and rewriting. In 41:14 quoted above, ‫ שימה‬and ‫ אוצר‬are synonyms drawing on distinct language systems: ‫ אוצר‬is the usual word for “treasure” in BH, while ‫ שימה‬is a loanword from Aramaic, unattested in Hebrew texts before the Hellenistic age.6 The variation is not due to a scribal mistake, but to conscious reformulation: either “moderniz­ ing” (‫ אוצר‬ ‫)שימה‬, or “reclassicizing” (‫ שימה‬ ‫ – ;)אוצר‬deciding between these alternatives is difficult. The change may have been made by scribes, but it may conceivably go back to variant editions created by the author or his entourage. In some instances, entire verses or half-verses are transmitted in two different versions, one closer to biblical diction, the other more representative of Postbib­ lical Hebrew: Sir 4:31 ‫ אל תהי ידך פתוחה לקחת וקפוצה בתוך מתן‬A ‫ אל תהי ידך מושטת לשאת ובעת השב קפודה‬C Let not your hand be stretched out to receive and closed when it comes to giving. The diction of A is close to Deut 15:7–9, while C has markedly later vocabulary: ‫נשא‬ “to receive” (instead of ‫)לקח‬, ‫“ הושיט‬to stretch out,” ‫“ קפד‬to contract” (probably an Aramaism, although the root is attested in Isa 38:12). The phenomenon of doublets has been much discussed. Until the 1970s, most scholars thought the general drift in textual history was from a more biblical style to a more popular type of proto-Mishnaic diction. The publication of the Masada Scroll suggested, however, that the evolution might sometimes go in the opposite direction: while B has the biblical ‫אוצר‬, Mas exhibits the distinctly postbiblical ‫שימה‬. There are several other examples of this constellation. This has led some to a different opinion: the original text may have been written in a postbiblical idiom that had developed in the time of Ben Sira, while biblicizing diction was introduced by later scribes. This is an interesting suggestion. It explains several divergences between Mas and B, but it cannot serve as a general theory. Note the following doublet: Sir 30:17 ‫ טוב למות מחיי שוא ונוחת עולם מכאב נאמן‬B1 To die is better than to lead a worthless life, and eternal rest than constant pain. ‫ טוב למות מחיים רעים ולירד שאול מכאב עומד‬B2 It is better to die than to lead a bad life, and to descend to Sheol than to suffer constant pain. The doublet here is transmitted in the text of MS B. As has been recognized by several scholars, the notion of “descending” in B2, expressed by means of the typ­ 6 The word is attested in Hebrew Tobit at 4:9 (4Q200 2:9) and in the Words of the Luminaries (4Q504 7:9).

322 

 Jan Joosten

ically Mishnaic infinitive ‫לירד‬, stems from a misinterpretation of ‫“ נוחת‬rest” on the basis of the Aramaic root ‫“ נחת‬to descend.” This almost certainly means that the second reading is a secondary reformulation. One can explain how the second version was created out of the first, but not vice versa. In this verse, the later Hebrew represents a secondary reformulation. In most doublets, however, it is difficult to prove the priority of one version over the other. The best solution is probably to reject global theories and to accept that rewriting could have gone in different directions: an opaque biblical word or expression might have been modernized, and a late Aramaicizing word or expres­ sion could have been reformulated in Classical Hebrew. Both processes seem to have affected the textual history from an early stage. Some of the doublets were explained by Israel Lévi as retroversions on the basis of the Syriac version. This approach is possible, and would explain some very puzzling expressions in the Genizah manuscripts. As van Peursen has shown, however, the Syriac retroversion theory does not solve all the problems it seeks to address and the question must remain moot.7 There is nevertheless one exception: the retroversion theory is widely accepted for the Psalm in Sir 51:13– 30, where it works over a longer stretch of text and where manuscript B diverges widely from the Hebrew version contained in the Psalms Scroll from Qumran (11Q5). Thus the use of the demonstrative pronoun ‫“ אילו‬these,” a Mishnaic equiv­ alent of ‫( אלה‬used in all other instances in Ben Sira), may safely be regarded as secondary in 51:24.

3 Linguistic Variety The Genizah manuscripts contain a thin layer (including all of 51:13–30) of Hebrew writing composed from scratch in the Middle Ages, as well as some phrases created by medieval copyists unfamiliar with the Second Temple Hebrew of their Vorlage. When these secondary elements are sifted out (to the extent they can be identified), one is left with a text whose language is still, in diachronic perspective, remarkably diverse. Let us try to identify some prominent features.8

7 Van Peursen, “Alleged Retroversions.” 8 In what follows, Biblical Hebrew will be used as a standard against which to measure Ben Sira’s language. The procedure is problematic for many reasons: the biblical corpus is itself very diverse, and “Biblical Hebrew” is arguably not a language at all, but a conglomerate of various dialects and chronolects. The distinction between “Classical” (CBH) and “Late” Biblical Hebrew (LBH) mitigates this objection, but only to a certain extent. LBH, in particular, is itself rather



The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah 

 323

3.1 Late Biblical Hebrew Ben Sira shows clear alignment with “Late Biblical Hebrew”: the language of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel and Qoheleth.9 Many words attested in the Bible only in these books also make appearance in Ben Sira:10 ‫“ אנס‬to force” (Sir 31:21; Esth 1:8) ‫“ זן‬kind, sort” (Sir 37:28; Ps 144:13; 2 Chr 16:14) ‫ ישט‬hiphil “to stretch out” (Sir 4:31; 7:32; 31:14, 18; Esth 4:11; 5:2; 8:4) ‫“ מדע‬knowledge” (Sir 3:13; 13:8; Eccl; Dan; 2 Chr) ‫“ נבואה‬prophecy” (Sir 44:3; 46:1, 13, 20; Ezra; Neh; 2 Chr) ‫“ סוף‬end” [noun] (Sir 8:18; 11:27; Joel; Eccl; 2 Chr) ‫“ פתגם‬word” (Sir 5:11; 8:9; Qoh 8:11; Esth 1:20) ‫“ צרך‬need” (9 x Sir; 2 Chr 2:15) ‫“ שרביט‬scepter” (Sir 37:18; Esth 4:11; 5:4; 8:2) And note the following grammatical features: ‫“ לאין‬without” (Sir 51:4; Ezra 9:14; 12 Chr) piel forms of hollow roots (Sir 8:6 ‫ ;בוש‬13:23 ‫ ;פוג‬many times in LBH [‫קום‬, ‫)]חוב‬ ‫ יותר‬adverb “more” (Sir 3:23; 10:27, 31; 7 x Eccl; Esth 6:6) ‫ עם‬with infinitive in a temporal meaning (Sir 38:23; 40:14; Ezra 1:11) ‫“ בכן‬then” (Sir 13:7; 32:2; Qoh 8:10; Esth 4:10) ‫“ מצא‬to find to be” (e.g. Sir 46:20, “he was found intelligent”; Neh 9:8 “you found his heart faithful”). All these features likely emerged in Hebrew during the Babylonian or Persian periods at the earliest. They are not old inherited terms unattested only by acci­ dent in the older biblical books. Many of them are borrowed from Aramaic, and some from Persian (‫זן‬, ‫)פתגם‬. In the Bible they are strictly limited to the LBH corpus. For most of them, a “classical” BH counterpart is attested (e.g. ‫“ סוף‬end” in LBH corresponds to ‫“ קץ‬end” in classical Hebrew; ‫“ לאין‬without” corresponds to ‫“ בלי‬without”). The LBH features do not demonstrate that Ben Sira was particularly fond of the late books of the Hebrew Bible. Rather, they reflect the literary Hebrew fash­ ionable in his time. The earliest samples of LBH may go back to the fifth century (notably parts of Nehemiah), but much of the LBH corpus is closer in time to Ben diverse. Yet it is important to start somewhere. The results of the approach will, it is hoped, help justify it. 9 Kutscher, History, 88. For the definition of LBH, see Hurvitz, Lexicon. 10 No effort has been made to be exhaustive.

324 

 Jan Joosten

Sira (and the Hebrew parts of Daniel are later than Ben Sira). LBH and Ben Sira overlap and therefore naturally exhibit some of the same linguistic features.

3.2 Postbiblical Hebrew Other late words in Ben Sira—again, most of them borrowed from Aramaic—are not found in LBH. Note the following:11 ‫“ בריה‬creature” (Qumran Aramaic 4Q529 1:11) ‫“ גלול‬gravestone” ‫“ ותיק‬trusty” ‫“ ממון‬money” (CD 14:20; 1QS 6:2) ‫“ עולם‬world” (Sir 3:18) ‫“ עסק‬business,” “to be busy”12 ‫ רשה‬huphal “to be permitted” (CD 11:20) ‫“ שבח‬praise” [noun] (11Q5 19:16 ; the verb is LBH) ‫“ שותף‬partner” (QA 4Q563 1:3) ‫“ תגר‬merchant,” “to trade” ‫“ תקל‬to stumble” (QA), ‫“ תקלה‬stumbling block” All of these words are well known from Mishnaic Hebrew, but absent from the biblical corpus and, except where indicated, absent from the Qumran texts too.13 Note also the following items of grammar: ‫ אין‬with suffix pronoun in a nominal clause whose predicate is a substantive (Sir 50:25) ‫“ כיוצא בו‬as befits him” (Sir 38:17; cf. 10:28) Some of these features are no doubt absent from the Hebrew Bible simply because there was no occasion to use them. The LBH authors who used the verb ‫“ שבח‬to praise” presumably also knew the noun ‫“ שבח‬praise.” But most of these features would seem to have emerged in Hebrew too late to be used in the LBH books.

11 Again, no effort has been made to be exhaustive. For an exhaustive list of lexical innovations in Ben Sira, see Dihi, “Innovations.” 12 The word is also attested at Sir 7:25 with the meaning “strife,” which is found in the Hebrew Bible written with sin, rather than samek (Gen 26:20: ‫)עשק‬. 13 It is surprising to observe that Ben Sira has no indisputable Greek loanwords. At Sir 47:15 Lévi and the edition of the Hebrew Academy read ‫ותקלס֯ ב֯מרום שירה‬, thus seemingly attesting the Greek loanword ‫“ קלס‬to praise.” Others read the word as ‫תקלט‬.



The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah 

 325

Conversely, one or other of these elements may reflect the Hebrew of medie­ val scribes.14 However, as a type, these postbiblical features are far too prominent in all the Ben Sira manuscripts to permit an attribution to medieval rewriting. The correct evaluation of these items seems to be that they demonstrate the book’s relative age. Ben Sira is later than most LBH books and uses a more evolved type of Hebrew.

3.3 Reclassicizing While the elements enumerated in the preceding sections lend the texts a dis­ tinctly postclassical flavor, one also finds many classical features in Ben Sira. As a rule, the classical counterpart occurs alongside the late features: apart from LBH ‫“ סוף‬end,” one also finds CBH ‫“ קץ‬end,” and, in addition to ‫“ זן‬sort,” one also finds the earlier synonym ‫מין‬. One might argue, perhaps, that the joint presence of purportedly “biblical” and “postbiblical” elements in Ben Sira is simply indicative of the age of the book: earlier features are giving way to later features, but have not yet entirely disappeared. However, this view cannot account for all classical features occur­ ring in Ben Sira. Some of the classical features require a different explanation. A striking phenomenon is the presence of classical features never encoun­ tered in Late Biblical Hebrew. A good example is the particle ‫“ פן‬lest.” This par­ ticle is found 85 times in CBH and 48 times in other books of the Hebrew Bible, but only once in LBH, in a passage the Chronicler copied from 1 Samuel (1 Chr 10:4 // 1 Sam 31:4). Such a distribution suggests that the particle became obsolete in the Babylonian period and was no longer actively used after the return from exile. The grammatical function of ‫ פן‬was expressed with other particles (notably ‫)אשר לא‬. In Ben Sira, ‫ פן‬is found many times, however, and similarly in Qumran Hebrew. Several other items have a similar distribution, notably ‫“ טרם‬before,” ‫“ אולם‬but,” and ‫“ אף כי‬all the more so.” The distribution of these features seems to indicate a kind of revivification of classical forms of Hebrew in the Hellenistic period. Having studied the scriptures intensively, the later author feels entitled to reuse words and expressions that he found there even if they are no longer part of the living practice of Hebrew. 14 Above we noted that the demonstrative ‫“ אילו‬these” in Sir 51:24 almost certainly reflects me­ dieval composition. The infinitive ‫ לירד‬in 30:17, the only one of its type (based on the form of the imperfect in weak verbs) in the entire book, was also revealed to belong to a secondary layer— although not necessarily post-Second Temple. For other possible examples of Medieval Hebrew, see Segal, “Language,” 109–12.

326 

 Jan Joosten

Possible confirmation of this hypothesis can be found in some surprising differences between the usage in Ben Sira and the earlier one found in the bib­ lical books. In CBH, ‫ פן‬is, like all modal particles, invariably constructed with the “long form” of the imperfect: one says ‫“ ּפֶן־ּתַ ֲעלֶה‬lest you bring up,” never ‫פן תעל‬. In Ben Sira, the short form (or jussive) occurs twice: Sir 7:3b ‫פן תקצרהו שבעתים‬ …lest you reap it sevenfold.15 The long form would be ‫ תקצרנו‬here; suffixes with he represent the short form.16 Although this may be a copyist’s error, it more likely shows us a Hebrew author of the Hellenistic period striving to write good classical Hebrew but slipping up while he does so.

3.4 Pseudo-classicisms This brings us to the phenomenon of pseudo-classicism.17 In several passages in Ben Sira, the manuscripts attest words and expressions whose scriptural prove­ nience is clear, but whose usage diverges in a way that suggests some form of reanalysis. In an earlier publication, I pointed to the expression ‫פי שנים‬, which in Biblical Hebrew always refers to two parts of a larger whole (e.g., Deut 21:17, on the heritage of the first-born), but in Ben Sira is used twice in the meaning “double, twice as much.” As it appears, the classical expression fell out of use, and its meaning was forgotten; it was then “recovered” (falsely) on the basis of close study of the passages in which it occurs. Pseudo-classicisms are found also in LBH, where they are rare, and in Qumran Hebrew, where they are very numerous. Identifying pseudo-classicisms in Ben Sira is tricky, because the author likes to play with his intertexts, and divergences in meaning or form may in some cases be intentional. Sir 11:4 Do not scoff at the ones whose day is bitter.

‫‏‏ואל תקלס במרירי יום‬AB

The similarity to Job 3:5 ‫ירי י ֹֽום‬ ֵ ‫‏ י ְ ַבעֲתֻ֗ הוּ כִּ ֽמ ִ ְ֥ר‬is obvious, but so is the difference between the two passages: while in Job the lexeme is kimrir(im) “darkness (?),” Ben Sira 15 The other case of a short form occurs in 30:13 Bmg, after the ‫ פן‬in Btxt. 16 Joosten, Verbal System, 12. 17 Joosten, “Pseudo-classicisms.”



The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah 

 327

reflects reanalysis as ke + merirey (so also the Rabbinic Targum to Job 3:5: ‫היך מרירי‬ ‫)יומא‬. It may be that Ben Sira knew the correct analysis of Job 3:5 but decided to use the phrase differently. But it is equally possible that he did not know it, and that his erudite intertextuality is based on a “wrong” understanding. Several other instances of pseudo-classicism may be pointed out: ‫ התמהמה‬in a sense based on the noun ‫ מהומה‬in Sir 12:16 ‫ יש לאל יד‬wrongly interpreted in Sir 14:1118 ‫“ צור‬creator” in Sir 4:6 (contrast ‫“ צור‬rock” in Deut 32:4 and elsewhere) ‫“ עזב‬to pardon” as antonym of ‫“ עזב‬to abandon” in Sir 3:13 (contrast ‫“ עזב‬to help” in Exod 23:5). These instances situate Ben Sira on a trajectory leading from LBH to QH. During the Hellenistic period, literary Hebrew manifests a growing tendency to reclassi­ cize. Literati made a concerted effort to understand Biblical Hebrew better and to follow it as much as possible in new religious compositions.

3.5 Ancient Hebrew Vocabulary and Phraseology not Borrowed from Scripture Although much of Ben Sira’s Hebrew is markedly late, and some of it reflects artificial reclassicizing, the book also transmits some early forms of Hebrew not found in the Bible (at least not in the version we know). A good illustration is the following description of snowfall: Sir 43:17b ‫ וכארבה ישכן רדתו‬Mas ‫ וכארבה ישכון דרתו‬B (Mas) like locusts settling is its descending (B) like locusts settling on their dwelling The simile is reminiscent of a passage in the Ugaritic epic of Kirta, in the descrip­ tion of a military campaign: CAT 1.14 IV 29 km irby tškn šd “like locusts settling on the steppe” Both the syntax of the simile, and the semantics of the verb ‫שכן‬, suggest that Ben Sira is here following an earlier pattern—not Kirta, of course, but a similar com­ position containing the phrase.

18 Joosten, “Pseudo-classicisms,” 154–55.

328 

 Jan Joosten

Other indications of Ben Sira’s independent knowledge of ancient Hebrew are his use of old words unattested in the biblical corpus: note ‫“ אשיח‬reservoir” (Sir 50:3), attested in the form ‫ אשוח‬in the Mesha Stele (KAI 181 1:9), and probably also ‫ עצה‬niphal “to make an effort” (Sir 4:28) and ‫ שרק‬hiphil “to shine” (Sir 43:9; 50:7).19 Admittedly, it is not always possible to tell whether words found in Hebrew only in Ben Sira are originally Hebrew or borrowed from Aramaic.

4 Evaluation Most scholars who have tried to explain the linguistic diversity present in the Ben Sira manuscripts have attributed it to the presence of various hands: later rephrasing of classical expressions (and entire verses) in a more modern idiom, or conforming of Ben Sira’s proto-Mishnaic diction to a more biblical style, or hap­ hazard modification in multiple stages. The enumeration of features attempted above suggests a different view. Most of the diversity exhibited in the manuscripts would appear to be representative of the type of Hebrew that would have charac­ terized the ancient work itself. The tension between a more classicizing style close to what we find in the Hebrew Bible and a more modern idiom heavily tainted with Aramaic and Mish­ naic elements is found also in the late biblical books, and in different proportions in the Qumran texts as well. Even alternative readings such as ‫אוצר‬/‫ שימה‬in Sir 41:14, and doublets such as one finds in 4:31 and 30:17, are not necessarily to be attributed to later scribes. Some of the alternative readings may reflect variant editions composed during the lifetime of the author. Another possible source of textual variation is the oral-written nature of the educational setting presupposed throughout the work: Ben Sira may have written down one version of a proverb in his book and used another one in his oral teaching. Perhaps oral translation too played a role: the easiest way to explain the meaning of Ben Sira’s difficult Hebrew would have been to translate it into another language—most likely Aramaic. These are mere speculations, of course. The linguistic evidence as it is cannot prove that the text of the manuscripts in the main goes back to antiquity. What may be said, however, is that with a few notable exceptions (such as eylu in Sir 50:24) the language of the manuscripts does fit with what we know about the Hebrew language of the period when the book was produced.

19 Again, no effort to be exhaustive has been made.



The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah 

 329

Bibliography Dihi, Haim. “The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira.” PhD diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2004. Di Lella, Alexander A.. “Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach.” CBQ 24 (1987): 245–67. Ginsberg, Harold L. “The Original Hebrew of Ben Sira 12:10–14.” JBL 74 (1955): 93–95. Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Joosten, Jan. “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 146–59 in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. —. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem: Simor, 2012. Kutscher, Eduard Y. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. Lévi, Israel. “Sirach, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of.” JE XI:388–97. Peursen, Wido Th. van, “The Alleged Retroversions from Syriac in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Revisited: Linguistic Perspectives,” KUSATU 2 (2001): 47–95. —, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, SSLL 41 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Segal, Moshe Z. “The Language of Ben Sira.” Leshonenu 7 (1936): 100–120. (Hebrew) Torrey, Charles C. “The Hebrew of the Geniza Sirach.” Pages 585–602 in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume. Edited by Saul Lieberman. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950.

Noam Mizrahi

Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language The Case of Sir 41:1–2* Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to study the interaction between linguistic, text-critical and poetic aspects of the book of Sirach by examining Sir 41:1–2 as a case study. Ben Sira’s original Hebrew is a highly stylized idiom, richly allu­ sive and grammatically sophisticated. As such, it posed a formidable challenge for subsequent copyists and translators. Such tradents, however, should not be viewed as second-rate, dimmed reflections of the original. On the contrary, they devised a variety of clever ways for representing key features of Ben Sira’s poetic language. Indeed, the solutions supplied by the direct textual witnesses often betray poetic creativity that accommodates traditional conventions and adapts them to later literary sensitivities. Keywords: Ben Sira, Cairo Genizah, Hebrew poetry, literary translation, Masada

1 Introduction The exciting identification of a fragment of the Hebrew text of Sirach, made by Solomon Schechter on 13 May 1896, marked the beginning of a new era in the study of this outstanding work of Hebrew poetry from the Second Temple period. The text, recovered from a bundle of fragments brought to Cambridge by Agnes Lewis and Margaret Gibson, is now known as folio IX of MS B, the most exten­ sively preserved witness to the Hebrew text of Ben Sira.1 Since B contains numer­ ous variant readings noted in its margins (Bmg, as opposed to Btxt), it also reflects * This paper is based on my presentation in “Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira’s Hebrew Text, 1896–2016,” convened at St John’s College, Cambridge, in September 2016. I thank the participants, whose valuable comments helped me to improve the final version of the paper. I also owe a debt of gratitude to the conveners, Professors Renate Egger-Wenzel, Stefan Reif and James Aitken, for inviting me to take part in this intellectually enriching and stimulating conference. The English translation of biblical passages is usually quoted from the NRSV (and for the LXX, from NETS), sometimes with modifications of my own. 1 The current shelf-mark of fol. IX of B is Cambridge University Library, Or.1102. For historical contextualization of this discovery, see Reif, Jewish Archive, esp. 47–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-018

332 

 Noam Mizrahi

a broader—though still fragmentary and only partly understood—picture of the convoluted textual transmission of Sirach.2 The textual complexity was already evident to scholars beforehand through the testimony of the ancient versions in Greek (Gk.), Syriac (Syr.) and Latin (Lat.). It has, since Schechter’s publication, been multiplied by subsequent discoveries, including the fragments of a scroll of Sirach found in Masada (Mas), which is currently our oldest witness, dated on paleographic grounds to the early first century BCE, namely, about a century after the book was composed.3 A key factor in complicating the task of ancient scribes and translators, and hence also of modern scholars, is Ben Sira’s language. It is by no means an imi­ tation of Biblical Hebrew, though it clearly draws much from scriptural sources; almost every passage of Sirach testifies to the author’s linguistic virtuosity, which sometimes verges on idiosyncrasy.4 To some extent, the linguistic form and sty­ listic design of Ben Sira’s words is far more innovative and much bolder than the sapiential content they convey, in which regard the author was sometimes quite conservative in his thinking. This feature proved enormously challenging for later tradents, including Ben Sira’s own grandson, who heroically took upon himself the impossible mission of rendering this virtually untranslatable piece of Hebrew poetry into Greek. Still, the versions and later manuscripts are not to be viewed as unfortunate results of inevitable failure. Their task also generated a great deal of creativity that merits close study in its own right. As the ensuing discussion intends to demonstrate, copyists and translators sometimes had a remarkable degree of sensitivity to the poetic properties of Sirach, and this was an important factor in the transmission of the text and language of the book. To be sure, the textual witnesses contain a good number of scribal errors of all the usual sorts, which can also be found, easily enough, in the specimen to be discussed.5 But the textual and linguistic

2 Alexander Di Lella was not at all exaggerating when writing that “no other book of the Old Testament is as textually complex and difficult to work with” (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 59). 3 All Hebrew witnesses of Sirach are now conveniently concentrated in http://www.bensira.org/ index.html, created by Gary A. Rendsburg and Jacob Binstein of Rutgers University. 4 See especially Kister, “Notes,” “Contribution,” and “Genizah Manuscripts.” 5 Most conspicuous are the following, graphically motivated corruptions in Sir 41:1a: ‫( הוי‬Mas and Bmg) > ‫( חיים‬Btxt); ‫( זכרך‬Gk. and probably also Mas) > ‫( יברך‬B). See also v. 2a, in which at least two of the variant readings noted in Bmg are patently related: ‫חזק > חוק‬. Interestingly, some of the textual corruptions may be very old. For instance, in v. 2c, the interchange between ‫( כושל‬Btxt and Bmg) and ‫( מושל‬Bmg) is closely connected to a correction documented in Mas, the scribe of which began writing ל‬immediately after ‫כשל‬, but stopped before completing the word and then erased it. On the other hand, it is now clear that early critics went too far in their excessive amendment of the text (e.g., Peters, Jesus Sirach, 344–48).



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 333

evidence must not be submitted to an exaggerated mechanical analysis, which runs the risk of overlooking flames of poetic ingenuity in a desert of prosaic labor. Such a line of inquiry may, in principle, be conducted along several potential paths of study. For example, one may examine a range of literary or linguistic fea­ tures and inspect their reflection in various textual witnesses,6 or, alternatively, submit a specific textual witness to a detailed and systematic analysis of its poetic properties.7 This study, however, takes a different path: it investigates a particular poetic unit across its textual manifestations. Although such a method is limited in terms of its literary scope, it allows greater precision in appreciating different types of poetic adaptation by analyzing a concrete case study: the short yet knotty passage of Sir 41:1–2, which posed a particularly instructive challenge to tradents, not only in terms of its dense language and allusive texture, but also in its care­ fully crafted poetic structure.

2 Textual Evidence Sir 41:1–2 is extant in Mas and B, as well as in Gk. and Syr.8 They are here pre­ sented consecutively, but their mutual relationship is better grasped by consult­ ing them synoptically table appended to this study.9 Mas10 1

a b

‫ז]כ ֯ר ֗ך‬ ֯ ‫]ל[מות מה־מר‬ ֯ ‫ הו֯ [י‬Alas, [Death! How bitter is] your [re]membrance ‫ ֗לאיש שקט על מכונתו‬For a person who rests at his dwelling place,

6 See, e.g., Joosten, “Hebrew”, in this volume; Reymond, “Wordplay.” 7 See, e.g., Reymond, “Manuscript C,” in this volume. 8 The Old Latin version is excluded from this discussion, because—despite its importance for text-critical purposes—it is not a direct translation from the original Hebrew but rather a daugh­ ter translation of a Greek version. 9 The transcription of Hebrew witnesses follows my own collation of digital images of the manu­ scripts (as detailed below), but I have of course consulted earlier editions, including Ben-Ḥayyim (ed.), Book of Ben Sira; Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, in conjunction with his “Errata and Corrigen­ da.” In addition, I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Renate Egger-Wenzel for allowing me to consult the detailed textual synopsis of Sirach prepared for the project she directs together with Prof. Dr. Friedrich Reiterer. 10 The text was published by Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 17, = Masada VI, 175, 214–17. See further below, §4.vii. I have also consulted multispectral images of the MS Mas provided to me by the Israel Antiquities Authority, to which I wish to express my gratitude.

334 

2

 Noam Mizrahi

c

‫]ש ֗לו ֗ומ ֯צ ֯לי֯ ֯ח בכל‬ ֗ ‫[ [איש‬A person] that is at ease and prospers in everything,

d

‫ עוד־בו כח לקבל תענוג‬And still has strength to enjoy luxury.

a b c

]‫ הע למות מה־טוב ֯ח[קך‬Aha, Death! How good is your se[ntence], ‫ [ל]אין אוינים וחסר עצבה‬For a powerless (person) that has no fighting spirit, ]‫ איש כשל ֯מ ֯ש ונוקש ב[כל‬A person who stumbles and is entrapped in everything,

d

‫המרה ואבוד תקוה‬ ֗ ‫ אפס‬Short of food and hopeless.

B11 Btxt presents the following text (solitary readings noted in Bmg are adduced in the footnotes): 1

a b

‫ למות מה ֯מר יברך‬12‫ חיים‬The living (are destined) for death, how bitter would it bless :‫מכונתו‬ ֗ ‫שוקט על‬ ֗ ‫ לאי֯ ֯ש‬a person who rests at his dwelling place,

c

2

‫ומצליח בכל‬ ֯ ‫ איש שליו‬A person that is at ease and prospers in everything,

d

:‫ ועוד בו חיל לקבל תענוג‬And still has force to enjoy luxury.

a b

13

c

‫ האח למות כי טוב חקיך‬Aha, Death! For good is your sentence, :‫ לאיש אונים וחסר עצמה‬For a grieving and powerless person, ‫ בכל‬14‫ איש כושל ינקש‬A person who stumbles and would be entrapped in every­ thing,

d

:‫ סרב ואבד תקוה‬Refusing and losing hope.

11 A digital image of fol. X verso (Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS heb. e.62, fol. 1b) is available online: http://genizah.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/fragment/MS_HEB_e_62/1b. An English translation is available in the original publication of this folio, contained in Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew, 8–9. However, I refrained from quoting it because it is based on conflation of Btxt and Bmg, whereas my intention here is to highlight their differences. 12 Bmg ‫הוי‬, “Alas” (cf. above, n. 5). My translation of Btxt is inspired by Kohn, Ecclesiasticus, IV. Kohn, however, accepted ‫ חיים‬as the original reading, despite the text-critical indications to the contrary. 13 Bmg ‫חוק‬, “law, sentence”; ‫חזק‬, “strong” (cf. above, n. 5); ‫חוקו‬, “his (or: its) sentence.” Note that ‫ חקיך‬does not signify a plural form, as often interpreted by many commentators. Rather, it is a plene spelling of the singular form (cf. Gk. τὸ κρίμα) marking a pausal form, i.e., ‫ ֻחּקֶָך‬. See Smend, Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch, xv (cf. van Peursen., Review, 4). Such orthography is also wellknown from Biblical Hebrew, see Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 141–48; Barr, Variable Spellings, 131–37. 14 Bmg ‫ו֗ נוקש‬, “and entrapped.”



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 335

Bmg also presents two alternative formulations of v. 2c–d: 2

c d

‫ איש כושל ונוקש בכל‬A person who stumbles and is entrapped in everything, :‫אפס המראה ואבד תקוה‬ ֗ Who has no spirit of disobedience and lost hope.

2

c d

‫ איש נוקש ומושל בכל‬A person that is entrapped but governs everything, :‫ אפס המראה ו֗ אבד תקוה‬Who has no spirit of disobedience and lost hope.

Gk.15 1

2

a Ὦ θάνατε, ὡς πικρόν σου τὸ μνημόσυνόν ἐστιν b ἀνθρώπῳ εἰρηνεύοντι ἐν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ, c ἀνδρὶ ἀπερισπάστῳ καὶ εὐοδουμένῳ ἐν πᾶσιν d καὶ ἔτι ἰσχύοντι ἐπιδέξασθαι τρυφήν.16 a ὦ θάνατε, καλόν σου τὸ κρίμα ἐστὶν

O death, how bitter is the remembrance

b ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιδεομένῳ καὶ ἐλασσουμένῳ ἰσχύι, c ἐσχατογήρῳ καὶ περισπωμένῳ περὶ πάντων d καὶ ἀπειθοῦντι καὶ ἀπολωλεκότι ὑπομονήν.

to a person who is needy and lacking

of you to a person at peace with his possessions, to a man undistracted and prospering in everything and still having strength to welcome lux­ ury. O death, your judgment is good

strength, who is in extreme old age and is anxious about everything and who is disobedient and has lost hope.

15 Ziegler, Sapientia, 317. The translation is quoted from NETS (B. G. Wright). 16 The reading τρυφήν is a conjectural emendation. The entire Greek evidence supports the reading τροφήν “food” (cf. Lat. cibum), but critical scholars are almost unanimous in taking it as an inner-Greek corruption of τρυφήν “luxury,” which is the standard rendition of ‫ תענוג‬in the Septuagint: “Tout le monde a déjà remarqué qu’il faut τρυφήν au lieu de τροφήν” (Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1:32); cf. Ziegler, “Lesarten,” 647–48. But see the discussion below, n. 47.

336 

 Noam Mizrahi

Syr.17 1

a b c d

2

a b c d

̈ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܐ ܒܝܫ ܐܢܬ܃‬ ‫ܝܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܠܓܒܪܐ ܥܬܝܪܐ ܕܝܬܒ ܥܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܟܣܘܗܝ܃‬ ‫ܓܒܪܐ ܕܥܫܝܢ ܘܡܨܠܚ‬ ‫ܒܟܠܥܕܢ܂‬ ‫ܘܬܘܒ ܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܚܝܐܠ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܬܦܢܝܩܐ܁‬ ‫ܠܡܩܒܠܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܐ ܟܫܝܪ ܐܢܬ܃‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܠܓܒܪܐ ܕܬܒܝܪ ܘܚܣܝܪ ܢܦܫ܂‬ ‫ܓܒܪܐ ܣܒܐ ܕܡܬܬܩܠ‬ ‫ܒܟܠܥܕܢ܂‬ 18 ‫ܘܚܣܝܪ ܡܡܘܢܐ ܘܠܝܬ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܚܝܐܠ ܠܡܦܠܚ܂‬

Oh death, how cruel you are for a rich man who sits on his goods, A man who is strong and prosperous at all time And moreover (who) has strength to receive luxuries. Oh death, how advantageous you are For a man who is broken and depressed An old man who stumbles at all time And (who) lacks money and has no strength to labour.

3 Poetic Content, Structure and Texture 3.1 Thematic Configuration The subject matter of the passage is human recognition of death. Since Ben Sira’s approach to death has been extensively discussed in scholarship, suffice it to note here only a few points that are relevant for understanding the text under discussion.19 Ben Sira here takes a stand that is very different from that of Eccle­ siastes, another work of wisdom literature composed in the Hellenistic period. The latter’s attention is drawn to what may be termed the equalizing force of death: it reaches every person, regardless of social standing or economic state. The rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, the noble and the common, and even humans and animals—none of them can escape the end of life (Qoh 3:19-20; 17 The text and translation are quoted from Calduch-Benages et al., La sabiduría, 234–35. 18 Although the reading ‫“ ܡܡܘܢܐ‬money” is attested by 7a1 and a few other witnesses, most other manuscripts and the Mosul edition read here ‫“ ܡܙܘܢܐ‬food.” The latter reading is, in my opinion, the original (see the discussion below, §4.4). I owe this text-critical information to the Sirach synopsis of Professors Reiterer and Egger-Wenzel (see above, n. 9). 19 See in particular Reiterer, “Deutung,” esp. 314–34. Cf. idem, “Die Vorstellung vom Tod und den Toten”; Murphy, “Death.” An analysis of Sir 41:1–4 is also included in Reymond, Innovations, 39–43.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 337

9:2-3). In contradistinction, Ben Sira does not surrender to a similar, existentialist despair. He rather makes the realistic observation that death may actually mean different things to different people. For a prosperous person who enjoys life, the very thought of death is too bitter to be mentioned. Contrastingly, for a power­ less and hopeless person, one who conceives of life as nothing but a long series of failures, death may well be a rescue; it remains an inevitable judgment, but one that is better welcomed than resisted (cf. Job 3). Qoheleth’s eyes are fixed on the darkness that surrounds the end of life, which, for him, renders meaningless everything that precedes this final stage. Ben Sira’s view is focused on one’s expe­ rience in life, which, for him, also colors one’s approach to his or her own death. The passage discussed here forms part of a longer discourse about death, which extends to Sir 41:4, and it is further embedded in a broader thematic unit that treats several additional aspects of this topic (Sir 40:28–41:13),20 but vv. 1–2 stand out as a discursive and poetic unit (or stanza) of their own. The two verses mirror each other structurally while contrasting thematically, with v. 1 present­ ing the happy person who fears death, whereas v. 2 presents the opposite, failed person who would embrace death as a happy ending.

3.2 Symmetrical Structure The symmetry between v. 1 and v. 2, and between the two figures they portray, is established by the poetic lines a and c of each verse, while lines b and d are more freely formulated. Line a in both verses opens with an interjection: v. 1: ‫הוי למות‬, “Alas, death” v. 2: ‫האח למות‬/‫הע‬, “Aha, death” It continues with a superlative statement: v. 1: ‫מה מר זכרך‬, “how bitter is your memory!” v. 2: ‫מה טוב חקך‬, “how good is your sentence!” By the same token, line c begins with the word ‫“ שיא‬a person”, and continues with a characterization of the respective human portrait, extending it to ‫לכב‬, that is, everything that such a person does: v. 1: ‫איש שלו ומצליח בכל‬, “a person that is at ease and prospers in everything.” v. 2: ‫איש כשל ונוקש בכל‬, “a person that fails and stumbles in everything.”

20 So Peters, Buch Jesus Sirach, 344–48; Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 273–79. Other commentators annex it to an even longer unit, discussing the “joys and miseries of life” (Sir 40:1–41:13), e.g., Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 462–75; cf. R. Smend, Sirach erklärt, 345–85 (Sir 38:24–41:13).

338 

 Noam Mizrahi

If one delves into the parallel or comparable lines, however, it becomes evident that the identical elements are actually limited to function words—the inter­ rogative ‫מה‬, the rhyming pronominal suffixes, and the distributive expressions utilizing the semantically bleached nouns ‫ איש‬and ‫—כל‬whereas all the content words are strikingly different. Tellingly, this rule pertains even to the interjections (which, in Hebrew, are fully lexicalized items). According to both Mas and B, the specific interjection changes from one verse to another, as Hebrew differentiates between ‫הֹוי‬, which marks a cry of grief and sorrow,21 and ‫—הע‬a phonetic variant of ‫הֶָאח‬, found in B22—which marks a joyful utterance.23 The stark contrast between similarity of form and difference in meaning is perhaps most emphatically stressed in line c of both verses, which portrays the contradictory personalities of one who is “peaceful and successful” (‫)שלֵו ומצליח‬ and the opposite person who “fails and stumbles” (‫)כ ֹשל ונוקָש‬. These sets of con­ joined epithets play with the assonance of sibilants and sonorants, effectively highlighting that only a thin line separates psychological success from failure.

3.3 Diction Another feature of the passage is perhaps less perceptible to our modern eye, but it was salient for every informed reader of Hebrew in antiquity: Ben Sira’s consistent avoidance of employing traditional modes of poetic expression.24 A biblical author of an older age would hardly have resisted the temptation to convey the social and philosophical contrast between vv. 1–2 by way of antithetical parallelism, which 21 Cf., e.g., “He laid the body in his own grave; and they mourned over him, saying, ‘Alas (‫)הוי‬, my brother!’” (1 Kgs 13:30). 22 That ‫ הע‬and ‫ האח‬are different spellings of the same word was recognized by Kister, “Contribu­ tion,” 349, no. 37. However, I beg to differ from him regarding the linguistic explanation of this interchange. To my mind, his comparison with Samaritan Hebrew (made somewhat hesitantly, cf. Kister, “Contribution,” n. 167) is not helpful, as the interchange of ‫ע‬/‫ ח‬in the word quoted—‫אח‬ “brother,” pronounced by the Samaritans as ˁā—is due to a different phenomenon (see Stadel, “Metathesis”). The spelling ‫ הע‬for ‫ האח‬is better explained by the assumption that Mas reflects a pronunciation that exhibits two phenomena, also witnessed by Qumran Hebrew: it lost the glottal stop in intervocalic position (cf. Hab 2:20, MT ‫ הארץ‬vs. 1QpHab ‫)הרץ‬, and no longer distin­ guished between the voiced and voiceless pharyngeals (cf. Isa 37:30, MT ‫ שחיס‬vs. 1QIsaa ‫ ;שעיס‬Isa 54:11, MT ‫ ס ֹערה‬vs. 1QIsaa ‫)סחורה‬. 23 Cf., e.g., “Mortal, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, ‘Aha (‫)האח‬, broken is the gateway of the peoples; it has swung open to me; I shall be replenished, now that it is wasted’” (Ezek 26:2). This nuance of usage was noted by Box and Oesterley, “Book of Sirach,” 465, who comment that ‫ האח‬is “an expression of satisfaction.” 24 Cf. Reymond, Innovations, esp. chapter 5.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 339

builds upon the more basic building blocks of paired antonyms. Ben Sira, however, refrains from obeying this basic, inherited rule of poetic composition. An example is furnished by line a. By convention, if a scribe employs the phrase ‫“ מה מר‬how bitter” in the A-colon, he may be expected to have ‫“ מה מת ֹק‬how sweet” in the B-colon; alter­ natively, if he utilizes ‫“ מה טוב‬how good” in the B-colon, the appropriate thing to do is to phrase the A-colon with ‫“ מה רע‬how bad.”25 Both pairs may be demonstrated from Isa 5:20, which follows the traditional line of constructing such parallelisms: ‫הוי האמרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע‬ ‫שמים חשך לאור ואור לחשך‬ ‫שמים מר למתוק ומתוק למר‬ Ah, you who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

In line c, the negative epithet ‫“ כ ֹשל‬failing” is not matched by the expected posi­ tive epithet of ‫“ גבור‬mighty one”, as one might have expected based on passages such as 1 Sam 2:4,26 ‫ ונכשלים אזרו חיל‬// ‫קשת גברים חתים‬ The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength.

Similarly, the term for “successful” (‫ )מצליח‬should have been opposed to a word like ‫“ ְמ ַעּקֵשׁ‬twister”. Compare, for instance, Judg 18:5 ‫ויאמרו לו שאל נא באלהים ונדעה התצליח דרכנו אשר אנחנו הלכים עליה‬ Then they said to him, “Inquire of God that we may know whether the mission we are undertaking will succeed.”

with Prov 10:9 ‫ ומעקש דרכיו יודע‬// ‫הולך בתם ילך בטח‬ Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever follows perverse ways will be found out.

Thus the language of Ben Sira patently departs from the traditional path of poetic composition as exemplified and established in scriptural works. This trend is further manifested in a range of peculiar linguistic forms, unknown in Bib­

25 Note that elsewhere, the standard word-pair of ‫ רע‬// ‫ טוב‬is quite common in Sirach. See Sir 11:14, 31; 12:4–5; 13:24–25; 14:10 (all according to A); cf. Sir 33:14 (E); 37:18 (B, D); 39:25, 27 (B); 42:14 (Mas, B). 26 Note also how Ben Sira himself contrasts the verbs ‫ תתגבר‬and ‫ הכשיל‬in Sir 31:25 (B).

340 

 Noam Mizrahi

lical Hebrew, which Ben Sira employs—or even coins—for expressing his own thoughts: ‫“ הע‬Aha,”27 ‫“ אוינים‬energy,”28 ‫“ עצבה‬fighting spirit,” 29 and ‫“ מרה‬food.”30

3.4 Intertextuality The conspicuous absence of traditional word-pairs is not because Ben Sira lacked proficiency in Biblical Hebrew. On the contrary, attentive readers will immedi­ ately notice his erudite and suggestive play with scriptural verses, especially from Isaiah, throughout the text. For instance, the description of a person “resting at his dwelling place” (‫ )ׁש ֹקט על מכונתו‬makes an ironic use of Isa 18:4, which relates how God will be content at the End of Days: ‫כי כה אמר יהוה אלי אשקוטה (אשקטה) ואביטה במכוני‬ For thus says the Lord to me, I shall rest and watch my dwelling place (i.e., the Temple).

And the opposite depiction of a person who constantly stumbles and falls into traps (‫ ;כשל ונוקש‬Sir 41:2) subtly implies that this is not a peculiar individual but rather a representative figure, for Isa 8:5 asserts that the people of Israel in general are prone to stumble:31 ‫וכשלו בם רבים ונפלו ונשברו ונוקשו ונלכדו‬ Many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.

Since Ben Sira is clearly well-versed in scriptural literature, the conspicuous avoidance of traditional structuring and diction is more accurately regarded as a poetic statement. Rather than blindly complying with inherited stylistic con­ ventions, offering more of the same, he is consciously attempting to find his own voice when speaking about the basic, unchanging facts of the human condition. This kind of poetics should not be confused with modernistic notions of indi­ vidual creativity and original expression, but it is hardly a coincidence that the book of Ben Sira is the only Hebrew work from antiquity whose historical author is known to us by his real name rather than being camouflaged by anonymity or masked by a pseudepigraphic identity. Indeed, close scrutiny of Ben Sira’s 27 Cf. above, n. 22. 28 Cf. below, §4.3, iii. 29 Cf. below, §4.3, iv. 30 Cf. below, §4.4. 31 Cf. A. Minissale, “Metaphor.” Note, however, that Minissale did not take into account the intertextual dimension of such formulations.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 341

discriminative use of scriptural diction demonstrates a new cultural sensitivity, one which places greater emphasis than before on freshly formulating old truths. Though taking his cue from biblical language, he preferred not to follow it slav­ ishly but rather to reshape it fundamentally, and Biblical Hebrew is only one of his linguistic resources. This is a remarkable development in the very notion of poetic language as conceived in antiquity, within the Hebrew sphere. These and other peculiarities of Sirach may be explained against its Hellenistic background.32

4 Transmission and Transformation What happened to these essential features of Ben Sira’s language and poetic vision in the course of textual transmission? Several diverse trajectories may be discerned in the textual evidence, illustrating broader and pervasive trends that run through the entire book in its various textual manifestations.

4.1 Thematic reconfiguration A noticeable difference between the Hebrew texts and the versions lies in the characterization of human types. According to Mas, our oldest witness, Ben Sira is portraying two figures that differ from each other in their individual approaches to life: v. 1 depicts a successful and hedonistic person, whereas v. 2 describes a person who lacks vital energy. In principle, both figures may belong to the same socio-economic class; they do not necessarily differ in their income, but rather in their view of life. The original Hebrew text of Sir 41:1–2 thus contrasts two psycho­ logical portraits, not two social types. In the versions, however, the center of gravity shifts to the economic realm, as the contrast between the two persons is taken to exemplify the difference

32 Cf. Hengel, Judaism, 1:131–53, 2:88–97. For the rise of individuality in the Greco-Roman world, see, e.g., Rüpke, Individual. An illuminating yet overlooked discussion of the Hellenistic back­ ground of Ben Sira is Gutman, Beginnings, 1:171–85. Gutman surveys an impressive range of parallels between Sirach and Hellenistic—especially Stoic—literature, and although he denies a direct influence of the latter on the former and considers Sirach to be independent of “external influence,” his evidence demonstrates the extent to which Sirach is not only a Jewish reaction to Hellenism but also—and inevitably—an integral part of the cultural matrix of its time. Cf., e.g., Mattila, “Ben Sira.”

342 

 Noam Mizrahi

between rich and poor people.33 The individual figures depicted by Ben Sira undergo a process of generalization, thereby becoming stereotypes of socio-eco­ nomic classes. This is suggested by non-literal renderings in both Gk. and Syr., albeit at different points. (i) Thus Gk. explicates that v. 1 directs its attention “to a person at peace with his possessions” (ἀνθρώπῳ εἰρηνεύοντι ἐν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ) whereas the concern of v. 2 is with “a needy person” (ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιδεομένῳ). Arguably, the latter description may be anchored in a peculiar reading of the Hebrew text: while Mas reads ‫ ְלאֵין ֲאוִינִים‬,34 the Gk. may reflect something like ‫ ְלאִיׁש ֶאבְיֹון‬.35 The change of ‫ לאין‬to ‫ לאיש‬is indeed shared by B and likely points to a divergent Vorlage,36 but the shift from ‫ אוינים‬to ‫ אביון‬is better credited to exegesis, although it was plausibly motivated by phonetic similarity.37 The term ‫ אביון‬is synonymous with ‫ עני‬and ‫דל‬,38 all of which are common designations of poor people. 33 Ben Sira’s view of wealth and poverty has been extensively discussed in scholarship, albeit with only cursory attention to the textual development of Sirach and its impact on the author’s implied conceptualization of these opposing notions. See Wright and Camp, “Discourse” (high­ lighting the sociological and anthropological dimensions of the issue); Reiterer, “Risks” (high­ lighting the historical background of Ben Sira’s treatment of this notion). Notably, since these studies focus on Ben Sira’s own teaching of the subject, they do not engage with cases in which the theme of wealth and poverty has been added (or omitted) in the course of Sirach’s textual development, as in the case discussed in this essay. 34 Cf. below, §4.3, iii. 35 Cf. LXX-Deut 15:9, 11. 36 Cf. below, §4.2, ii. 37 Cf. Kister, “Contribution,” 349, no. 37 with n. 166. I suspect that a related interchange is found in Sir 34(31):25, which did not survive in Hebrew. This verse is part of a longer unit (vv. 21–27) that condemns the wicked who offer sacrifices gained by oppressing poor people. In v. 25, the speaker asserts that “Bread is life for the poor when they are destitute (ἄρτος ἐπιδεομένων ζωὴ πτωχῶν), he who withholds it (i.e., life) is a person of blood” (NETS). Segal (Sefer Ben Sira, 219) retroverted ἄρτος ἐπιδεομένων as ‫לחם ֶחסֶר‬, because Syr. (‫ )ܠܚܡܐ ܕܚܣܕܐ‬testifies to the graphically similar reading ‫( לחם ֶחסֶד‬cf. already Smend, Sirach erklärt, 310, who preferred to vocalize the re­ constructed reading as ‫)חֹסֶר‬. However, Ben Sira might have originally embedded here an allusion to a scriptural prophecy, predicting that God would reject sacrifices brought by sinners: “They shall not pour drink offerings of wine to the Lord, and their sacrifices shall not please him. Such sacrifices shall be like mourners’ bread (‫ ;) ֶלחֶם אֹונִים‬all who eat of it shall be defiled; for their bread shall be for their hunger only; it shall not come to the house of the Lord” (Hos 9:4). If so, the Hebrew expression underlying ἄρτος ἐπιδεομένων is ‫לחם אונים‬, which was either subjected to etymological exegesis (i.e., interpreted as a derivative of ‫אוה‬, “to desire”) or alternatively exhib­ ited the same morphological interchange of ‫אֹונִים ~ ֲאוִינִים‬, with the latter being read as ‫ ֶאבְיֹנִים‬or the like. Unfortunately, as long as we lack a Hebrew witness for this passage, such a hypothesis remains speculative. 38 For Sirach’s vocabulary related to this semantic domain, see Morla Asensio, “Poverty and Wealth.”



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 343

(ii) Syr. goes one step further by introducing the explicit mention of “a rich man” (‫ )ܓܒܪܐ ܥܬܝܪܐ‬in v. 1c, where both Mas and B read ‫איש ׁשֹקֵט‬.39 The Hebrew term is never rendered in this way anywhere in the Peshitta. On the other hand, the phrase ‫ ܓܒܪܐ ܥܬܝܪܐ‬reappears in the Peshitta as a literal translation of ‫איש עשיר‬ (2 Sam 12:4; Prov 28:11).40 Since this rendition has no lexical or phonetic anchor in the source-text, it independently testifies to the same interpretive trajectory, which modifies the theme of the passage and interprets it as dealing with the economic problem of the distribution of wealth.41 Moreover, Syr. omits the orig­ inal reference for losing hope (‫)אבוד תקוה‬, replacing it with the loss of working power (‫)ܠܝܬ ܒܗ ܚܝܐܠ ܠܡܦܠܚ‬.42 At the same time, Syr. enhances the stereotypical nature of the figures portrayed in the passage by converting the term ‫( בכל‬vv. 1c, 2c), which originally meant “in everything” (i.e., in all of one’s deeds) with the temporal designation “at all time” (‫)ܒܟܠܥܕܢ‬.

4.2 Restructuring symmetry The poetic structure of Sir 41:1–2 is based on the principle of symmetry, achieved by employing the same function words placed in strategic positions, while also maintaining diverse and even antonymic content words. Tellingly, the symmetri­ cal framework was sometimes enhanced in the later stages of the transmission. (i) A fundamental challenge, at least on the part of ancient translators, was posed by Ben Sira’s intricate play with different interjections: ‫( הוי למות‬v. 1a) and ‫האח למות‬/‫( הע‬v. 2a). Syr. preserves the lexical distinction between two different ̈ ̈ interjections (‫ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐܘ‬...‫ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫)ܝܐ‬, although it necessitated the translator having to diverge from the usual renditions of such words, and employ the rare form ‫ܝܐ‬, otherwise unattested in the entire Peshitta.43

39 B differs from Mas only in orthography, with the former exhibiting a plene spelling, while the latter prefers a defective spelling (cf. Judg 18:7, 27; Jer 48:11). 40 For linguistically similar cases of the amplification of a single noun in the source-text with an adjective in Syr., see van Peursen, Language, 191–93 with n. 11. 41 Syr.’s interest in poverty is a theological concern that was particularly highlighted by Winter, who argued for an Ebionite provenance of the work (see Winter, “Origin,” cf. idem, “Alterations,” and “Interlopers”). It has recently been argued, however, that Winter overstated his case and that the issue of poverty is not so salient in the Syriac Sirach. See Bar-Asher Siegal, “Treatment.” 42 Cf. van Peursen, Language, 35. 43 Nöldeke (Grammatik, 80–81) compares this particle with ‫ܝܝ‬, which renders the interrogative ‫ מה‬in the Peshitta for Prov 31:1, but this form too is exceedingly rare in the Peshitta, being docu­ mented in this passage alone. Note also the treatment of ‫ ܝܐ‬by native Syriac lexicographers, as quoted by Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, 1533.

344 

 Noam Mizrahi

A different treatment is offered by the Greek translator, who chose to repre­ sent both interjections with the same Greek form: ὦ θάνατε, “O, death!” This is surprising, because Biblical Greek is not devoid of lexical means to translate the various Hebrew forms.44 One may legitimately suspect, therefore, that the trans­ lator’s choice to adhere to only one form was motivated by a purposeful, literary consideration. The nature of this consideration is discussed below (§4.4), but its structural effect should be noted in the present context: it harmonizes the varying vocatives of vv. 1–2, as if they were impressed by the same stamp. Put differently, the symmetrical structure of the poetic unit is amplified in Gk. by gradually extending from the identical function words to the diverse content words. (ii) A similar process of levelling is revealed at another point in the poetic unit: v. 2c begins with the word ‫ לאין‬according to Mas, while B reads ‫—לאיש‬a reading supported by both Gk. (ἀνθρώπῳ) and Syr. (‫)ܠܓܒܪܐ‬. The textual differ­ ence is slight, and pertains to only a single letter, but is strange nevertheless, because there is no graphic similarity between the letters ‫ש‬/‫ ן‬that could explain it as resulting from a mechanical scribal error. It seems, therefore, that this varia­ tion resulted from a different factor. Arguably, this change was motivated by internal pressure, caused by the poetic form of the unit. When read against the symmetrical relation between vv. 1–2, the poetic line of v. 2b appears to be exceptional, since it disappoints an expectation to begin the line with ‫לאיש‬, with the noun being reiterated in the following line: c d

v. 2 ‫לאין אוינים וחסר עצבה‬ ‫איש כשל ונוקש בכל‬

v. 1 ‫לאיש שקט על מכונתו‬ ‫איש שלו ומצליח בכל‬

The change of ‫ לאין‬to ‫ לאיש‬levels out the seemingly rough surface of v. 2 in compar­ ison to v. 1, and harmonizes the two verses with respect to their salient, hemis­ tich-initial positions. In so doing, this textual modification enhances the analogi­ cal relationship between the two contrasting types of people described in vv. 1–2.

44 Potential equivalents of ‫ הוי‬include οὐαί, which renders ‫ הוי‬some 30 times, mostly in the pro­ phetic books, and οἴμμοι, which renders ‫ הוי‬in Jer 22:18 (but used more often for translating ‫)אוי‬. As for ‫האח‬, it is rendered eight times by εὖγε.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 345

4.3 Diction I: The Biblical Factor A stylistic development, particularly evident in MS B, is the retraction from lexical novelty and the restitution of biblical diction. This trend targeted, first and fore­ most, rare lexemes or other non-standard forms. (i) Thus Mas reads in v. 2a the colloquial form ‫הע‬, which partly captures the actual phonetic pronunciation of this interjection in some varieties of Second Temple Hebrew,45 but in MS B, the form was adjusted to the standard biblical ‫הֶָאח‬.46 (ii) The process of “biblicization” was sometimes employed to an overstated degree, as when converting perfectly acceptable lexemes simply in order to conform their register of biblical poetic diction. For instance, Mas reads ‫עוד בו כח‬ ‫לקבל תענוג‬, literally “he still has energy for accepting delights” (v. 1d), playing on a scriptural idiom—recorded only in prose narrative—that refers to the basic need for food (1 Sam 28:20–22):47 ... ‫גם כח לא היה בו כי לא אכל לחם כל היום וכל הלילה‬ ‫ואׂשִמה לפניך פת לחם ואכול ויהי בך כח כי תלך בדרך‬ And there was no strength in him (i.e., in Saul), for he had eaten nothing all day and all night … Let me set a morsel of bread before you. Eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.

MS B replaces the very common lexeme ‫ כח‬with the equally common word ‫חיל‬, possibly converting the wordplay to a poetic formula that employs the latter term in a superficially similar sense of charging with power (Ps 18:33, 40), though it should be noted that, in its original context, this expression refers to gaining mil­ itary strength: ‫ ותאזרני חיל למלחמה‬...‫האל המאזרני חיל‬ The God who girded me with strength… For you girded me with strength for the battle (cf. 1 Sam 22:40).

45 Cf. above, n. 22. 46 Isa 44:16; Ezek 25:3; 26:2; 36:2; Ps 35:21, 25; 40:16; 70:4; Job 39:25. 47 This implicit allusion may also explains a peculiar reading in Gk. for v. 1d, namely, the word τροφήν “food” for the expected τρυφήν “luxury,” the usual rendition of ‫ תענוג‬in the Septuagint (cf. above, n. 16). The form τροφήν may well reflect a translator’s attempt to render the idiomatic nuance of the Hebrew wording as a whole, at the expense of a literal representation of every single word. If this is the case, the emendation of Gk.—popular among critical commentators— should be reconsidered.

346 

 Noam Mizrahi

At the same time, this lexical substitution might have been inspired by yet another factor, namely, the attempt to follow Ben Sira’s lead in constructing a systematic contrast between vv. 1–2 by adapting his wording to biblical precedents. Since v. 2c refers to a person who is a ‫כושל‬, the opposite description of v. 1d was corrected in accordance with a poetic line recorded in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam 2:4): ‫ונכשלים אזרו חיל‬ The feeble ones gird on strength.

(iii) An intriguing case of adaptation to biblical phraseology is to be found in v. 2b: ‫לאין אוינים וחסר עצבה‬. As noted by many scholars, this line clearly alludes to Isa 40:29: ‫נ ֹתן ליעף כח ולאין אונים ָע ְצמָה ירבה‬ He gives power to the faint, and multiplies the strength of the powerless.

But Ben Sira, as usual, is not satisfied with a straightforward citation. Rather than using the inherited plural form ‫אֹונִים‬, he prefers the alternative, innovative form ‫ ֲאוִינִים‬, making use of the nominal pattern qətil that, in Second Temple Hebrew, was increasingly used for pluralizing the so-called segolate nouns (of which ‫אֹון‬ is also an example).48 More subversively, though, Ben Sira manipulates the sense of the expression compared with the biblical proof-text. The Deutero-Isaianic passage refers to the powerless, whom God recharges with renewed energy. In Ben Sira’s usage, however, this expression refers to a person totally worn out by life, for whom only death supplies relief. The condensed formulation of v. 2b, as witnessed by Mas, was slightly yet decisively transformed in B. The peculiar form ‫ ֲאוִינִים‬, a plural of ‫“ אֹון‬power, strength,” was ironed out and replaced by the more standard ‫אֹונִים‬. This morpho­ logical “ironing,” however, was combined with another variant—the replacement of ‫ אין‬with ‫( איש‬discussed above, §4.2)—leading eventually to a more fundamental rewriting of the entire line. The form ‫ אונים‬is formally ambiguous, since it can also be interpreted as the plural of ‫“ ָאוֶן‬trouble, sorrow, iniquity.” According to this interpretation, the negative phrase ‫( אין אונים‬derived from the original ‫אין אוינים‬, “powerless”) becomes unintelligible in its present context, which no longer fits the description of a person who has no “troubles,” “sorrows,” or especially “iniq­ uities” (i.e., an innocent person). A ready solution to this problem, however, was offered by a change of ‫ אין‬to ‫“ איש‬person,” thereby producing the phrase ‫איש אונים‬, which plays on the scriptural idiom ‫“ איש ָאוֶן‬a person of iniquities,” i.e., “sinner”: ‫ ואיש און מחשב ֹתיו‬// ‫יעז ֹב רשע דרכו‬ Let the wicked forsake their way, and the unrighteous their thoughts (Isa 55:7). 48 Kister, “Contribution,” 349, n. 166. Cf. Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 379, no. 45.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 347

‫אדם בליעל איש און הולך עקשות פה‬ A scoundrel, a villain goes around with crooked speech (Prov 6:12).

(iv) The most perplexing word in v. 2b is ‫עצבה‬. In fact, it is so bizarre that it was originally deciphered as ‫עצמה‬,49 in line with MS B and the verse from Isaiah; the reading was only later corrected, though it was still believed to be a secondary and inferior variant.50 As a matter of fact, the lexeme itself is not an innovation of Ben Sira; rather, it transparently underlies the Septuagint version of the alluded verse (Isa 40:29): διδοὺς τοῖς πεινῶσιν ἰσχὺν καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὀδυνωμένοις λύπην Giving strength to those who hunger, and sorrow to those who are not grieving.

Though Gk. differs in several details from the Hebrew texts of Sir 41:2 available to us, most components of the two versions may be matched fairly easily. However, the word λύπη, “pain” or “grief,” cannot possibly render ‫“ עצמה‬power.” Elsewhere in the Bible, this Greek word translates derivatives of ‫עצב‬, and the underlying Vorlage was surely ‫עצבה‬,51 with the very common interchange between bet and mem, caused either by their phonetic similarity as labial consonants or due to their graphic resemblance in the square script.52 This word is a feminine byform of the Biblical Hebrew nouns ‫ ֶעצֶב‬and ‫עֹצֶב‬, meaning “sorrow”, “pain.”53 But this is only one part of the problem. While the Septuagint interpreted the word ‫ עצבה‬as “pain,” in accordance with the normal usage of the root, this cannot be Ben Sira’s understanding of the word in our passage. He employs it to describe the poor and powerless person, and it makes no sense to attribute, to such a human type, the quality of having no pain (‫)חסר עצבה‬. In my view, Ben Sira’s usage reflects here an interpretation of the word in the sense of “spirit of rebellion,” following a few biblical passages that pair ‫ עצב‬with ‫“ מרי‬to rebel”.

49 Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 17 = Masada VI, 175. 50 Strugnell, “Notes,” 112. 51 See, e.g., Ottley, Book of Isaiah, 2:301. 52 Cf. Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler, 113–14; Kennedy, Aid, 14. One should exclude from these lists examples of the interchange between the prepositions ‫מן‬/‫ב־‬. Such cases form a distinct class, motivated primarily by linguistic—rather than textual—factors (see Sarna, “Interchange ”; Schiffman, “Interchange ”). 53 For ‫ ֶעצֶב‬, see Gen 3:16; Prov 10:22; 14:23; 15:1. For ‫עֹצֶב‬, see Isa 14:3; Ps 139:24; 1 Chr 4:9. Since these two forms are cast in the so-called segolate patterns (*qatl and *qutl, respectively), the vocalization of ‫ עצבה‬may be reconstructed as ‫( ָע ְצּבָה‬i.e., a feminine form of *qutl), i.e., it shares the nominal pattern of ‫ ָע ְצמָה‬. Note also ‫ עצבה‬in Sir 11:9 (A); 38:18 (B), which Dihi (“Innovations,” 525–27, n. 206) interprets as another byform of ‫( עצב‬although he vocalizes it, without any expla­ nation, as ‫) ַע ָּצבָה‬.

348 

 Noam Mizrahi

‫ יעציבוהו בישימון‬// ‫כמה ימרוהו במדבר‬ How often they disobeyed him in the wilderness and rebelled against him in the desert! (Ps 78:40).

‫והמה מרו ועצבו את רוח קדשו‬ But they disobeyed and rebelled against his holy spirit (Isa 63:10).

This sense better fits the portrait of the person described in v. 2: having failed in everything, he has lost all hope and fighting spirit (‫)חסר עצבה‬. Interestingly, this idiomatic sense may well have been perceived by the Syriac translator (‫)ܚܣܝܪ ܢܦܫ‬. This usage, unfortunately, was far too innovative—or simply unintelligible—for later generations. MS B resorts back to the biblical ‫עצמה‬, thus also enhancing the intertextual dimension of the line in question. The Greek translator, too, appar­ ently read the word as ‫עצמה‬, translating it as ἰσχύς “power, strength.”

4.4 Diction II: The Rabbinic Factor While the attempt to make Sirach’s language conform to biblical standards could be illustrated with additional examples, the evidence at our disposal may also demonstrate a seemingly contradictory trajectory of development: an injection of late linguistic forms—and even rabbinic notions—into Ben Sira’s Hebrew in the process of its transmission. A possible example is furnished by v. 2d, which reads in Mas: ‫אפס המרה ואבוד תקוה‬. The word ‫ המרה‬has again baffled readers since antiquity, but according to the most probable explanation proposed to date, it is a cognate of Arabic ‫ ِمي َرة‬, which means “victuals.” The phrase ‫ ָאפֵס ַהּמ ָָרה‬literally means “short of food supplies,” that is, a person who suffers from hunger—the antipode of the person described in v. 1d, who still enjoys gourmet dishes even at old age.54 Inter­ estingly, the word was again correctly understood by the Syriac translator, but not according to the standard reading ‫“ ܡܡܘܢܐ‬wealth” (attested by 7a1), which is an inner-Syriac correction, but rather according to the variant reading ‫“ ܡܙܘܢܐ‬suste­ nance,” recorded in many Syriac manuscripts, as well as in the Mosul edition.55 54 Ben-Ḥayyim, Traditions, III.2:97. This interpretation is to be preferred over the alternative ex­ planation of Lieberman (“Meanings,” 89–90), who opts for taking ‫ מרה‬as “ambition” (derived from ‫ מרר‬in the sense of “be strong,” and semantically comparable to ‫“ נצח‬to fight, triumph”), accordingly explaining that ‫ אפס המרה‬denotes a person who has lost his ambition. However, such a sense is not indisputably supported by any other occurrence of the word in question, either in Hebrew or in cognate languages (notwithstanding Sir 3:22–23, noted by Kister, “Contribution,” 315–16, no. 2 with n. 28). 55 Cf. above, n. 18.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 349

In subsequent stages of the Hebrew transmission, however, the rare Hebrew word ‫ (ה)מרה‬was misinterpreted by later scribes, who took it to be derived from the verbal root ‫“ מרי‬to rebel, be rebellious.” This exegetical tradition takes different forms in MS B: (i) Bmg presents two alternative formulations of v. 2c–d, in which the ambigu­ ous form ‫ המרה‬was changed to ‫המראה‬. This modification was apparently judged by the scribes to be a matter of mere orthography; in reality, though, it transforms the word into a verbal noun, a nomen actionis of the verb ‫ ִהמ ְָרה‬, “to rebel, disobey.”56 There are good grounds for suspecting that this is a late amendment of the text, done in rabbinic circles. Linguistically, the grammatical form of ‫ המראה‬is typical of the Babylonian branch of Rabbinic Hebrew (the Palestinian branch would have been ‫)המריה‬.57 Moreover, this variant depends exegetically on the rabbinic notion of ‫זקן ממרא‬, “a rebellious elder,” i.e., a sage who refuses to abide by the decision of the Sanhedrin.58 The rabbis anchor this rabbinic notion in a Pentateuchal injunc­ tion that deals with the regulation of legal authority: 8 If a judicial decision is too difficult for you to make between one kind of bloodshed and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another—any such matters of dispute in your towns—then you shall immediately go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose, 9 where you shall consult with the levitical priests and the judge who is in office in those days; they shall announce to you the decision in the case. 10 Carry out exactly the decision that they announce to you from the place that the Lord will choose, diligently observing everything they instruct you. 11 You must carry out fully the law that they interpret for you or the ruling that they announce to you; do not turn aside from the decision that they announce to you, either to the right or to the left. 12 As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed to minister there to the Lord your God, or the judge, that person shall die (‫והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון לבלתי שמע אל הכהן העמד לשרת שם את יהוה אלהיך או‬ ‫)אל השפט ומת האיש ההוא‬. So you shall purge the evil from Israel (Deut 17:8–12).

Yet, as a matter of fact, the biblical proof-text of Deut 17:12 employs neither the noun ‫“ זקן‬elder” nor any form derived from ‫מרי‬, such as ‫ממרה‬, “rebellious” (spelled 56 Cf. Baumgarten, “Some Notes,” 324 (he thinks that “disobedience, rebellion” is the original sense of ‫המראה‬/‫)המרה‬. For a survey of these and other interpretations offered for this word, see Dihi, “Innovations,” 860–63, no. 1016. 57 Cf., e.g., b. Soṭah 45a (cf. b. Sanh. 14b): “R. Joseph said: Come and hear: If they found a rebel­ lious elder in Beth Pagi, and he rebelled against them [i.e., against the decision of the local Sanhe­ drin to whom a disputed point of law was submitted], it might be thought that his act of rebellion is punishable (‫ ;)יכול תהא המראתו המראה‬therefore there is a text to state, ‘Then shalt thou arise and get thee up unto the place’ [Deut 17:8, taken as a reference to Temple mount, the locale of the Great Sanhedrin]. This teaches that the ‘place’ determines [whether the act of rebellion is punishable].” The English translation is adapted from that of A. Cohen, in Epstein (ed.), Babylonian Talmud. 58 See, e.g., m. Sanh. 11.2; t. Sanh. 3.4; 14.12; Sifre Deut §218.

350 

 Noam Mizrahi

in Mishnaic Hebrew as ‫)ממרא‬, even though it is a favorite item in Deuteronomic phraseology.59 Thus the very association between Sir 41:2 and the figure of the “rebellious elder” betrays the rabbinic background of the variant reading ‫המראה‬, suggesting that this reading was integrated into the text of Sirach at a late stage of its transmission in the East. (ii) Btxt conspicuously replaces the entire phrase ‫ אפס המר(א)ה‬with the single verb ‫“ סרב‬contradict, counter, refuse.” Semantically, this lexical replacement can only be understood as depending on the interpretation of ‫ המרה‬as being derived from ‫מרי‬, possibly relying on the variant reading ‫המראה‬. But, even more impor­ tantly, from a diachronic point of view, is the fact that ‫ סרב‬in the sense of “rebel, resist, refuse” is a late lexeme, borrowed from Aramaic.60 Although it is attested in another passage of Sirach (4:25), it is not a typical item of Second Temple Hebrew. Neither is it recorded in Tannaitic Hebrew.61 It becomes a productive part of the Hebrew lexicon only in Amoraic, that is, late rabbinic literature, and especially in piyyuṭ, namely, Jewish liturgical poetry of the Byzantine period. Obviously, one cannot exclude the theoretical possibility that its occurrence in Sirach is a genuine, early attestation of the lexeme.62 More plausibly, however, the word was inserted here by later copyists, who were familiar with it from either talmudic or paytanic sources.

4.5 Intertextuality We have already noticed cases in which lexical substitutions in MS B also altered the dense web of literary allusions to scriptural passages, sometimes enriching it with new intertextual references that had no prior existence there.63 But the textual witnesses of Sirach also exhibit another type of intertextual amplifica­ tion, one whose scope of reference goes beyond the Hebrew Scriptures.

59 See Deut 1:26, 43; 9:7, 23, 24; 21:18, 20; 31:27. 60 As such, it should be semantically distinguished from the verb ‫ סרב‬in the sense “press, urge,” which is recorded in earlier, Tannaitic Hebrew. And both verbs should be distinguished from the noun ‫סרבים‬, attested in Biblical Hebrew (Ezek 2:6), which denotes “thistles.” 61 Notwithstanding a single—and textually suspicious—occurrence in Sifre Zuṭa on Num 7:5 (ed. Horovitz, Siphre, 251), which, in actual fact, is based on the shaky textual ground of Yalqut Shimoni, a medieval compendium of midrashic lore. For data concerning ‫ סרב‬in Hebrew and Ar­ amaic sources, see Dihi, “Innovations,” 486–90, no. 188. 62 Cf. Sir 4:25 (A), in which the sense “to rebel” is possibly confirmed by the renditions of ‫סרב‬ into Greek (ἀντίλεγε, “speak against”) and Syriac (‫ܬܣܪܘܒ‬, “gainsay”). 63 Cf. above, §4.3, ii–iii.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 351

As mentioned above, Gk. presents a somewhat surprising harmonization of vv. 1a, 2a, by introducing both verses with the same address: ὦ θάνατε, “O, Death!” The original Hebrew wording had distinct interjections, which could easily have been rendered by different Greek equivalents.64 Therefore, it appears that the translator was guided by a literary consideration that motivated him to move away from his Vorlage at this point. The nature of this factor becomes apparent once we recognize that for an educated Greek reader, the vocative address ὦ θάνατε was far from unfamiliar.65 It occurs at a most momentous point in Sophocles’ tragedy Ajax, as the protagonist is delivering his last speech before falling on his sword:66 ὦ θάνατε θάνατε, νῦν μ᾿ ἐπίσκεψαι μολών· καίτοι σὲ μὲν κἀκεῖ προσαυδήσω ξυνών. Death, death, come now and look upon me! But to you I shall speak when I am with you.

The formula recurs in another tragedy by Sophocles, Philoctetes, again express­ ing the protagonist’s hope that death will relieve him of his pains:67 ὦ θάνατε θάνατε, πῶς ἀεὶ καλούμενος οὕτω κατ᾿ ἦμαρ οὐ δύνῃ μολεῖν ποτε; O death, death, why can you never come, though I do not cease to call you thus each day?

Moreover, Sophocles may not be the first to employ this formula, as it is also attested in a fragment of a lost tragedy by his older peer, Aeschylus:68 ὦ θάνατε παιών, μή μ᾿ ἀτιμάσῃς μολεῖν· μόνος γὰρ εἶ σὺ τῶν ἀνηκέστων κακῶν ἰατρὸς, ἄλγος δ᾿ οὐδὲν ἅπτεται νεκροῦ O Death the Healer, do not disregard my prayer that you come! For you are the only physician for ills that are beyond remedy: pain cannot touch a dead man.

64 Cf. above, §3.2, i with n. 44. 65 I was happy to learn from Dr. James Aitken that he has reached the same conclusion inde­ pendently (personal communication). He further confirmed to me that the expression ὦ θάνατε is so far recorded only in literary sources; so far it has not surfaced in inscriptional evidence, which otherwise sheds light on special usages and turns of phrases found in the Septuagint (see Aitken, No Stone). 66 Lloyd-Jones, Sophocles, I, 108–9 (Ajax, lines 854–55). Note, though, that these lines are de­ leted by some scholars. 67 Lloyd-Jones, Sophocles, II, 332–33, (Philoctetes, lines 796–97). 68 Sommerstein, Aeschylus, III, 256–57, Attributed Fragments, no. 255 (Philoctetes).

352 

 Noam Mizrahi

These lines were apparently remembered in the Greek-speaking world many gen­ erations after they were first performed on the Athenian stage, for Plutarch quotes the latter line of Aeschylus in the first (or early second) century CE, although he doubts its attribution to the classical dramatist:69 Aeschylus admirably seems to rebuke those who think that death is an evil. He says: Men are not right in hating Death, which is The greatest succour from our many ills.

In imitation of Aeschylus someone else has said: ὦ θάνατε, παιὰν ἰατρὸς μόλοις O Death, healing physician, come. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Hellenistic readers of the second century BCE would have considered the employment of the phrase ὦ θάνατε as an allusion to Greek dramatic tradition, thus identifying a profound point of correspondence between Ben Sira’s reflections on death, especially in v. 2, and native Greek notions of death as a potential healer of human pain. If such an allusion was indeed intended by the translator, it illuminates the poetic attentiveness, literary care, and linguistic sophistication of the grandson’s work. To be sure, such a conclusion is not beyond doubt, because the translation technique of Greek Sirach is not very literal in terms of lexical equivalence, as opposed to its fidelity to the Hebrew Vorlage regarding the dimensions of seg­ mentation and word-order.70 Yet it fits very well the educated profile of the Greek translator of Sirach.71 And in any case, even if the allusion was not intended, the effect of this wording on a Greek-speaking readership cannot be diminished.

69 Babbitt, Plutarch, Moralia, II, 130–33, from “A Letter of Condolence to Apollonius.” 70 Cf. Wright, No Small Difference, esp. chapter 2. Wright admits, though, that “Ben Sira’s grand­ son did make some concessions to Greek style,” supporting this impression with the native Greek syntagm that places the possessive pronoun in pre-nominal position, adducing Sir 40:1 (σου τὸ μνημόσυνόν, “the remembrance of you”) as an example (Wright, No Small Difference, 51). Such a construction otherwise typifies LXX-Proverbs (p. 274, n. 44), the literary nature of which is universally acknowledged. 71 Aitken, “Attainment”; cf. idem, “Subtlety” (I thank Dr. Aitken for sharing with me a pre-pub­ lication version of his study).



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 353

4.6 Prosodic Adaptation A final textual adaptation that merits attention is MS B’s shortening of the poetic line of v. 2d. Arguably, this is not an incidental fact but rather a deliberate attempt to employ a prosodic marker of delimitation. Sirach in general tends to employ “tetrameters,” namely, every line scans with four stressed words—as is indeed the case in our passage. This is particularly evident in Mas, in which we have at least two lines that contain more than four words (vv. 1d and 2a), but its scribe was careful to mark proclitic or enclitic words by leaving no space between them and the stressed word to which they attach.72 The original scansion of vv. 1–2 may therefore by reconstructed as follows: a b c d

––/–– ––/–– ––/–– ––/––

v. 2 ‫האח למות מה־טוב חקך‬ ‫לאין אוינים וחסר עצבה‬ ‫איש כשל ונוקש בכל‬ ‫אפס המרה ואבוד תקוה‬

––/–– ––/–– ––/–– ––/––

v. 1 ‫הוי למות מה־מר זכרך‬ ‫לאיש שקט על מכונתו‬ ‫איש שלו ומצליח בכל‬ ‫עוד־בו כח לקבל תענוג‬

a b c d

Viewed against this background, B’s shortening of v. 2d from four to three stressed words: ‫סרב ואבד תקוה‬, is conspicuously opposed to Mas, which maintains the four-beat line: ‫אפס המרה ואבוד תקוה‬. But this change has its own prosodic logic. The breaking of a rhythmic pattern by adding or omitting stressed words is a very common strategy in biblical poetry for marking strophic boundary. Reducing the number of stressed words to three thus encodes an interpretive insight that may be described in discourse-analytical terms: it functions as a marker of delinea­ tion, heralding the end of the poetic unit or stanza comprised by vv. 1–2.73

72 Such cases are marked in my transcription with a maqqeph: ‫( עוד־בו‬v. 1d), ‫( מה־טוב‬v. 2a). Pre­ sumably, the same scribal technique was applied to ‫( מה־מר‬v. 1a; the phrase was lost in the lacu­ na). 73 If this interpretation of Btxt is correct, it interestingly corresponds to a construal of Sir 41:1–2 at a much later stage of its reception history. It was on 7 May 1896—the very same year and even month in which the first Hebrew fragment of Sirach came to light in Cambridge—that Johannes Brahms completed, in Vienna, his Four Serious Songs (Vier ernste Gesänge, op. 121). These Lieder are all taken from biblical passages that deal with death, and the third song is Sir 41:1–2. One who listens to this piece will immediately notice how Brahms gives musical expression to two exegeti­ cal intuitions: that vv. 1–2 form an independent unit, and that this pair of verses calls for a fragile balance between symmetrical rhetorical layout and varying thematic content. For analysis of this musical piece as an example of biblical reception, see Seidl, “Vier ernste Gesänge.”

354 

 Noam Mizrahi

5 Conclusion Reading Sir 41:1–2 across its various textual manifestations demonstrates how the history of transmission, interpretation and reception of even a single passage of Sirach reveals a complex interaction between different factors. Scribal corrup­ tions and linguistic difficulties—often motivated by Ben Sira’s idiosyncratic style and allusive formulations—played an undeniable role in increasing textual fluid­ ity, as exhibited by the various witnesses. But careful reading suggests that these texts also reveal a creative accommodation of the distinctive poetic features of the book. Later scribes and translators could manipulate, at their discretion, the lexical choices, scriptural allusions, literary structure, and even prosodic scheme of the poetic text they were transmitting, in order to express their respective inter­ pretations of Ben Sira’s work. Their efforts to recreate some of the poetic effects of the original in later chronolects or target-languages were often remarkably suc­ cessful and imaginative, and they justify the consideration of these witnesses, also in their own right, as documents of ancient literary productivity.

Bibliography Aitken, James K.. “The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach.” Pages 95–126 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited. Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. —. No Stone Unturned: Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary. Critical Studies on the Hebrew Bible 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. —. “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 et al. SCS 66. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017. Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture. BibOr 41. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1986. Babbitt, Frank C. Plutarch, Moralia, II. LCL 222. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal. “The Treatment of Poverty and Theodicy in the Syriac Translation of Ben Sira.” Aramaic Studies 7 (2009): 130–54. Barr, James, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Schweich Lectures 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Some Notes on the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.” JQR 58 (1968): 323–27. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. “Errata and Corrigenda.” Pages 375–77 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. Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev, ed. The Literary and Oral Traditions of the Samaritans. Vol. III.2: The Recitation of Prayers and Hymns. Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1967.



Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language 

 355

—. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973. Box, George H., and William O. E. Oesterley. “The Book of Sirach.” Pages 268–517 in APOT 1. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba/Wisdom of the Scribe. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2003. Cowley, Arthur E., and Adolf Neubauer. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX. 15 to XLIX. 11). Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Delitzsch, Friedrich. Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament. Berlin: Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, 1920. Dihi, Haim. “The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira.” PhD diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2004. (Hebrew) Epstein, Isidore, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino, 1935. Gutman, Yehoshua. The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958–63. (Hebrew) Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974. Horovitz, Saul. Siphre d’Be Rab. Leipzig: Fock, 1917. Kennedy, James. An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament. Edited by Nahum Levison. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. Kister, Menahem. “Additions to the Article ‘Notes on the Book of Ben Sira.’” Leshonenu 53 (1989): 36–53. (Hebrew) —. “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 303–78. (Hebrew) —. “Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira.” Pages 36–46 in The Cambridge Genizah Collections: Their Contents and Significance. Edited by Stefan C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. —. “Notes on the Book of Ben Sira.” Leshonenu 47 (1983): 125–146. (Hebrew) Kohn, Dawid. Ecclesiasticus: Die Sprüche Simon des Sohnes Sirachs. Bibliyoteḳah gedolah 76, 77. Warsaw: Tuschijah, 1912. (Hebrew) Kutscher, Eduard Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Lévi, Israel. L’Ecclésiastique, ou, La sagesse de Jésus fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu, édité traduit et commenté. Première partie (ch. XXXIX,15, à XLIX,11). Paris: Leroux, 1898. —. L’Ecclésiastique, ou, La sagesse de Jésus fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu, édité traduit et commenté. Deuxième partie (III,6, à XVI,26; extraits de XVIII, XIX, XXV et XXVI; XXXI,11, à XXXIII,3; XXXV,19, à XXXVIII,27; XLIX,11, à fin.). Paris: Leroux, 1901. Lieberman, Saul. “Forgotten Meanings.” Leshonenu 32 (1968): 89–102. (Hebrew) Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. Sophocles. Vol. I: Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus. LCL 20. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. —. Sophocles. Vol. II: Antigone, The Women of Trachis, Philoctetes, Oedipus at Colonus. LCL 21. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Mattila, Sharon L. “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence.” JBL 119 (2000): 473–501. Minissale, Antonino. “The Metaphor of ‘Falling’: Hermeneutical Key to the Book of Ben Sira.” 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.

356 

 Noam Mizrahi

Morla Asensio, Víctor. “Poverty and Wealth: Ben Sira’s View of Possessions.” Pages 151–78 in Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer. BZAW 270. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Murphy, Ronald E. “Death and Afterlife in the Wisdom Literature.” Pages 101–16 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Vol. IV: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and The World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. HdO 1.49. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Nöldeke, Theodor. Mandäische Grammatik. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1875. Ottley, Richard R., ed. The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint. 2 vols. London: Cambridge University Press, 1904–1906. Payne Smith, Robert. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1879. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Pietersma, Albert., and Benjamin G. Wright., eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Reif, Stefan C. A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira.” Pages 307–43 in „Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn ...“: Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. —. “Risks and Opportunities of Wealth and Poverty in Ben Sira’s Wisdom.” BN 146 (2010): 55–79. —. “Die Vorstellung vom Tod und den Toten nach Ben Sira.” Pages 167–204 in The Human Body in Death and Resurrection. Edited by Tobias Nicklas et al. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Reymond, Eric D. Innovations in Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism and the Poetry of Sirach. SBLStBL 9. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. —. “Wordplay in the Hebrew of Ben Sira.” Pages 37–53 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. Rüpke, Jörg, ed. The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Sarna, Nahum M. “The Interchange of the Prepositions Beth and Min in Biblical Hebrew.” JBL 78 (1959): 310–16. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Interchange of the Prepositions Bet and Mem in the Texts from Qumran.” Textus 10 (1982): 37–43. Segal, Moseh Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem: kolel kol ha-shirim ha-ʿIvriyim she-nitgalu mi-tokh ha-Genizah ṿe-haḥzarat ha-ḳeṭaʿim he-ḥaserim, ʿim mavo, perush u-mafteḥot. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. (Hebrew) Seidl, Theodor. “‚…und haben alle einerlei Odem‘: Die Vier ernsten Gesänge op. 121 von Johannes Brahms und ihre biblische Textgrundlage.” Pages 441–61 in Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten: Festschrift für Hubert Irsigler. Edited by Carmen Diller et al. Herders Biblische Studien 64. Freiburg: Herder, 2010. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 49. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906.



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 357

—. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Sommerstein, Alan H. Aeschylus. Vol. III: Fragments, LCL 505. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Stadel, Christian. “The Metathesis of Initial ˁ and ˀ in the Reading Tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Studies in Language 13 (2011): 51–62. (Hebrew) Strugnell, John. “Notes and Queries on ‘The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.’” ErIsr 9 (1969): 109–19. van Peursen, Wido T. Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study. MPIL 16. Leiden: Brill, 2007. —. Review of Eric D. Reymond, Innovations in Hebrew Poetry: RBL 12 (2004): http://www. bookreviews.org. Winter, Michael M. “Theological Alterations in the Syriac Translation of Ben Sira.” CBQ 70 (2008): 300–312. —. “Interlopers Reunited: The Early Translators of Ben Sira.” JBL 131 (2012): 251–69. —. “The Origin of Ben Sira in Syriac.” VT 27 (1977): 237–53, 494–507. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. SCS 26. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Wright, Benjamin G., and Claudia V. Camp. “‘Who has been tested by gold and found perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty.” Henoch 23 (2001): 153–74. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965. Repr., with additional notes of Elisha Qimron. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Vol. VI: Hebrew Fragments from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999. Ziegler, Joseph. “Ursprüngliche Lesarten im griechischen Sirach.” Pages 634–60 in Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. MSU 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. —. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta 12/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

‫‪ Noam Mizrahi‬‬

‫ ‪358‬‬ ‫‪Appendix: Synoptic presentation of the primary witnesses to Sir 41:1-12‬‬

‫‪1‬ܡܙܘܢܐ‬

‫? ‪< *τρυφήν‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܐ ܟܫܝܪ ܐܢܬ܃ ‪ὦ θάνατε, καλόν σου‬‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫‪τὸ κρίμα ἐστὶν‬‬ ‫ܠܓܒܪܐ ܕܬܒܝܪ ܘܚܣܝܪ ܢܦܫܝ܂ ‪ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιδεομένῳ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐλασσουμένῳ‬‬ ‫‪ἰσχύι,‬‬ ‫ܕܡܬܬܩܠ‬ ‫ܓܒܪܐ ܿܣܒܐ‬ ‫‪ἐσχατογήρῳ καὶ‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܒܟܠܥܕܢ܂‬ ‫‪περισπωμένῳ περὶ‬‬ ‫‪πάντων‬‬ ‫ܘܚܣܝܪ‬ ‫‪καὶ ἀπειθοῦντι‬‬ ‫ܡܡܘܢܐ‪ 1‬ܘܠܝܬ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܚܝܐܠ ܠܡܦܠܚ܂‬ ‫‪καὶ ἀπολωλεκότι‬‬ ‫‪ὑπομονήν.‬‬

‫‪Gr‬‬ ‫‪Syr‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪Ὦ θάνατε, ὡς πικρόν‬‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܐ ܒܝܫ ܐܢܬ܃‬ ‫ܝܐ‬ ‫‪σου τὸ μνημόσυνόν‬‬ ‫‪ἐστιν‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܠܓܒܪܐ ܥܬܝܪܐ ܕܝܬܒ ܥܠ ‪ἀνθρώπῳ εἰρηνεύοντι‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܟܣܘܗܝ܃‬ ‫‪ἐν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν‬‬ ‫‪αὐτοῦ,‬‬ ‫‪ἀνδρὶ ἀπερισπάστῳ‬‬ ‫ܓܒܪܐ ܕܥܫܝܢ ܘܡܨܠܚ‬ ‫ܒܟܠܥܕܢ܂‬ ‫‪καὶ εὐοδουμένῳ ἐν‬‬ ‫‪πᾶσιν‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἔτι ἰσχύοντι‬‬ ‫ܘܬܘܒ ܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܚܝܐܠ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܦܢܝܩ ܿܐ܁‬ ‫ܠܡܩܒܠܘ‬ ‫‪ἐπιδέξασθαι τροφήν.2‬‬

‫המרה ואבוד תקוה‬ ‫֗‬ ‫אפס‬

‫{מ ֯ש} ונוקש ב[כל]‬ ‫איש כשל ֯‬

‫[ל]אין אוינים וחסר עצבה‬

‫הע למות מה־טוב ֯ח[קך[‬

‫עוד־בו כח לקבל תענוג‬

‫]ש ֗לו ֗ומ ֯צ ֯לי֯ ֯ח בכל‬ ‫[איש ֗‬

‫֗לאיש שקט על מכונתו‬

‫‪Mas‬‬ ‫ז]כ ֯ר ֗ך‬ ‫]ל[מות מה־מר ֯‬ ‫הו֯ [י ֯‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫הוי‬ ‫‪³‬חוק | חזק | חוקו‬ ‫?‬ ‫‪4‬ו?נוקש‬

‫סרב ואבד תקוה‪:‬‬

‫‪Variant Readings‬‬

‫אפס המראה ואבד תקוה‪:‬‬

‫‪d‬‬

‫אפס המראה ואבד תקוה‪:‬‬

‫איש כושל ינקש‪ 5‬בכל‬

‫איש נוקש ומושל בכל‬

‫‪c‬‬

‫‪b‬‬

‫איש כושל ונוקש בכל‬

‫לאיש אונים וחסר עצמה‪:‬‬

‫האח למות כי טוב חקיך‬

‫‪2a‬‬

‫‪d‬‬

‫‪c‬‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫ועוד בו חיל לקבל תענוג‪:‬‬

‫ומצליח בכל‬ ‫איש שליו ֯‬

‫מכונתו‪:‬‬ ‫שוקט על ֗‬ ‫֗‬ ‫לאי֯ ֯ש‬

‫‪1a‬‬

‫‪b‬‬

‫‪Btxt‬‬ ‫חיים‪ 3‬למות מה ֯מר יברך‬

‫‪Bmrg‬‬

‫‪Bmrg‬‬

Haim Dihi

The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira to Biblical Hebrew Philology* Abstract: The Biblical Hebrew dictionaries occasionally use the Book of Ben Sira as important evidence for interpreting difficult biblical words or words with a small number of occurrences, when their meaning in the Bible is uncertain. In such cases, an attempt may be made to use the philological evidence from Ben Sira to interpret these words. To date, no research has systematically collected all the biblical verses containing difficult words that have been analyzed by the bib­ lical dictionaries with the help of philological evidence from the book of Ben Sira. In my article, I discuss the proposed emendation of both the noun ‫( נעלים‬in Amos 2:6; 8:6) and the verbal form ‫( אעלים‬in 1 Sam 12:3) to the otherwise unattested BH word ‫ נעלם‬meaning “bribe” and the root ‫( צנ"ע‬including its nominal and verbal derivatives). Keywords: Ben Sira, biblical vocabulary, Hebrew philology

In this paper, I wish to present two examples from the new research I have recently begun. The goal of this research is to investigate the contribution of the language of the book of Ben Sira to biblical philology. Various Biblical Hebrew dictionaries call upon the book of Ben Sira in support when seeking to interpret difficult or rare biblical words whose meanings are uncertain.1 In such cases, Ben Sira is used to help define such words. The dictionary that makes the most use of Ben Sira is BDB. There are entries in this dictionary for which the sole lexical evidence is from Ben Sira. Although, now­ adays, there are important additional witnesses to the text of Ben Sira,2 it is at present being less frequently used in modern Biblical Hebrew dictionaries. Thus far, no systematic research has been undertaken to gather all the verses that have * This article is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Chaim Cohen Z”L, who helped me greatly in preparing it for publication in English, but unfortunately he did not see it published because of his untimely death. I would also like to thank Prof. Roni Henkin and Prof. Mayer Gruber for numerous stylistic improvements. The sigla used here are based on those of the Historical Dictio­ nary of the Hebrew Language: (X) = deletion in MS; [X] = insertion in MS; = lacuna filled in by editor; ?X? = conjectural reading; {X} = dittography deleted by editor; +[X] = marginal variant. 1 Such as BDB; HALOT; Kaddari, Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. 2 Such as the Masada Scroll and some sections from Qumran. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-019

360 

 Haim Dihi

been interpreted in these dictionaries by recourse to Ben Sira. Today, especially in light of the developing research on Ben Sira and the discovery of additional manuscript pages from this book, it is indeed fitting to undertake such research. The book of Ben Sira, unlike epigraphic Hebrew sources from the days of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, reveals an affinity with the Bible, both conceptually and as regards literary content as well as poetic style. This Hebrew book, written towards the end of the Biblical period, prior to some sections of the book of Daniel, might well have been suitable for incorporation into the biblical canon by virtue of its contents.3 Apparently, the only reason it was not included was because it was known to have been written approximately 180 BCE, beyond the cut-off date determined by the sages, after which all books written were con­ sidered to be post-canonical.4 Ben Sira should be included with those biblical books written during the Second Temple period and it may certainly be used as an aid to Biblical Hebrew philology. Thus, for example, Kister concludes on one word:5 “It is possible that this is the correct interpretation of this word, as pro­ vided by Hebrew speakers in the second century BCE.”6 Elsewhere, Kister states: Often, during the clarification of the verses in Ben Sira, other sources become clarified […] The use of the verb ‫ רעה‬in its various meanings in Ben Sira clarifies similar meanings in BH with regard to the three rarest BH usages—we especially determined the meanings accord­ ing to the evidence from Ben Sira and its translations.7

One can add to Kister’s words that, in many cases, the definition of a word in Ben Sira reflects not only the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the book of Ben Sira, but also presents its literal meaning, making it easier to under­ stand in its original biblical context, as I will attempt to demonstrate shortly.

3 Concerning the contents of the book and the relationship between the book of Ben Sira and the Bible see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, “Introduction,” 16–19; Haran, Biblical Collection, 195–201; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 31–45. 4 I.e., the time of Alexander the Great around 330 BCE. On the place of the book of Ben Sira in the canon see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, “Introduction,” 45–46; Licht, “Apocrypha,” 1103–10; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 17–20; Haran, Biblical Collection, 102, 130, 170–94. 5 In regard to the Hebrew word ḥaziz )‫)חזיז‬, interpreted by Ben Sira to mean “rain” (Sir 35:26 [MS B]; 40:13 [MS B]) 6 Kister, “Contribution,” 347 n. 154. 7 Kister, “Contribution,” 341.



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 361

1 First Example: ‫נעלים = נעלם‬ The following verse is found in Amos 2:6:8 ‫שׁיבֶּנּו עַל ִמכ ְָרם ַ ּב ֶ ּכסֶף צַדִ ּיק ְו ֶאבְיֹון ַ ּבעֲבּור‬ ִ ‫ַאר ָ ּבעָה ֹלא ֲא‬ ְ ‫ש ָׂראֵל ְועַל‬ ְ ִ ‫שעֵי י‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה ִ ּפ‬ ָ ‫שֹׁל‬ ְ ‫כ ֹּה ָאמַר י ְהוָה עַל‬ ‫נַ ֲע ָליִם‬ Thus said the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke it: Because they have sold for silver those whose cause was just, and the needy for a pair of sandals.9

The main difficulty in this verse is the parallelism between “sandals” and “silver.” In the first stich, Amos accuses the judges of Israel of taking a bribe of silver and perverting the law, while in the parallel stich the same perversion is committed by the judges for a bribe of sandals. According to another much less likely interpreta­ tion, the judges are accused of being excessively strict. A just, poor person is sold into slavery in the first stich owing to a monetary debt. In the second stich, the same idea is continued and a poor person is sold into bondage even for a trifling debt of sandals.10 Not only does this second interpretation eliminate the obvious parallelism between the two stichs, highlighted by the use of the verbal form ‫מכרם‬ to stand for both stichs; a further difficulty with this interpretation is that there is no other use of the word “sandals” in the Bible symbolizing something of little worth.11 On the other hand, the terms ‫ צדיק‬and ‫ אביון‬occur in the same context of the taking of bribes to subvert justice in Amos 5:12.12 The correct solution is to read ‫(“ נֶ ֱעלָם‬hidden) gift” instead of ‫“ נעלים‬sandals,” in reference to a concealed bribe or payoff.13

8 Cf. Amos 8:6 (...‫“[ ִלקְנֹות ַּב ֶּכסֶף ּדַ ּלִים ְו ֶאבְיֹון ַּבעֲבּור נַ ֲע ָליִם‬To buy the poor for silver, the needy for a pair of sandals…”]). 9 The English translations of the MT are taken from the NJPS and NRSV, with minor changes. 10 Concerning two ways to interpret this verse see Paul, Commentary, 77; Weiss, Book of Amos, 1: 49–51. 11 On the meaning of the word sandals in the Bible see BDB, 653; HALOT, 2: 705; Weiss, Book of Amos, 1: 49, 2: 74; Kaddari, Dictionary, 719–20. 12 ‫ּשׁעַר הִּטּו‬ ַ ‫ׁשעֵיכֶם ַו ֲע ֻצמִים חַּט ֹאתֵ יכֶם צ ְֹר ֵרי צַּדִ יק ֹל ְקחֵי כֹפֶר ְו ֶאבְיֹונִים ַּב‬ ְ ‫“( ּכִי י ָדַ עְּתִ י ַרּבִים ִּפ‬For indeed I know how nu­ merous are your transgressions, and how countless your sins; you persecutors of the innocent, takers of bribes, who subvert in the gate the cause of the needy”). 13 Concerning this suggestion, see HALOT, 2: 705; Paul, Commentary, 78. Concerning the se­ mantic development of the word ‫ = נעלם‬disappears > hidden gift see Cohen, “Treasure, Treasury”, 1360. The same semantic development occurred also in other words belonging to the same field of the word ‫ נעלם‬such as ‫מטמון‬, ‫מצפון‬.

362 

 Haim Dihi

Support of this interpretation is found in 1 Sam 12:3 where the MT reads as follows: ַ ‫ִהנְנִי עֲנּו בִי נֶגֶד י ְהוָה ְונֶגֶד ְמׁשִיחֹו אֶת ׁשֹור מִי ָל ַקחְּתִ י ַוחֲמֹור מִי ָל ַקחְּתִ י ְואֶת מִי ָע‬ ‫ׁשקְּתִ י אֶת מִי ַרּצֹותִ י‬ ‫ּו ִמּי ַד מִי ָל ַקחְּתִ י כֹפֶר וְַא ְעלִים עֵינַי ּבֹו ְו ָאׁשִיב ָלכֶם‬ Here I am! Testify against me, in the presence of the LORD and in the presence of His anointed one: Whose ox have I taken, or whose ass have I taken? Whom have I defrauded, or whom have I robbed? From whom have I taken a bribe to look the other way? I will return it to you.

Surely, Biblical Hebrew ‫ ואעלים עיני בו‬can only mean “I will ignore him”,14 and even that is not proper Biblical Hebrew usage, which would require ‫ואעלים עיני ממנו‬.15 It surely cannot mean “to look the other way”? Instead of the MT reading in this verse: I will ignore him ‫וְַא ְעלִים עֵינַי ּבֹו‬ One should read:16 ‫מִי ָל ַקחְּתִ י כֹפֶר ְונֶ ֱעלָם עֲנּו בי ואשיב לכם‬-‫ּו ִמּי ַד‬ From whom have I taken a bribe or a hidden gift? Testify against me, and I will return it to you.

Important evidence for the emendations suggested in Amos and Samuel is found in Ben Sira (46:19 [B]) in the paraphrase describing Samuel’s last days:17 ‫ וכל אדם לא ענה בו‬,‫ תי‬... ]‫ העיד ה' ומשיחו כופר ונעלם ממ[י‬,‫ועת נוחו על משכבו‬ When Samuel approached the end of his life, he testified before the LORD and His anointed one: “What bribe or hidden gift have I from any one? And no man testified against him!”18

Additional evidence for this emendation in 1 Samuel is provided by the Septu­ agint translation19 where the verbal form ‫ ואעלים‬is translated by the Greek term 14 Cf., e.g., Lev 20:4 (‫ מִן ָהאִיׁש הַהּוא ּבְתִ ּתֹו ִמּז ְַרעֹו לַּמֹלְֶך ְל ִבלְּתִ י ָהמִית א ֹתֹו‬,‫ָָארץ אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם‬ ֶ ‫ְואִם ַה ְעלֵם יַ ְעלִימּו עַם ה‬ [“And if the people of the land should shut their eyes to that man when he gives of his offspring to Molech, and should not put him to death”]). 15 Cf., e.g., Isa 1:15 (‫ׂשכֶם ַּכּפֵיכֶם ַא ְעלִים עֵינַי ִמּכֶם ּגַם ּכִי תַ ְרּבּו תְ ִפּלָה אֵינֶּנִי ׁש ֹ ֵמ ַע י ְדֵ יכֶם ּדָ מִים ָמלֵאּו‬ ְ ‫“[ ּו ְבפ ִָר‬And when you lift up your hands, I will turn My eyes away from you; though you pray at length, I will not listen; your hands are stained with crime”]). 16 Concerning this suggested emendation to Samuel see Paul, Commentary, 79. 17 Concerning this verse in Ben Sira see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 322. 18 The translations of the Hebrew version of Ben Sira are (with minor changes) from Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 516. 19 ἰδοὺ ἐγώ, ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου καὶ ἐνώπιον χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ· μόσχον τίνος εἴληφα ἢ ὄνον τίνος εἴληφα ἢ τίνα κατεδυνάστευσα ὑμῶν ἢ τίνα ἐξεπίεσα ἢ ἐκ χειρὸς τίνος



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 363

for shoe ὑπόδημα,20 which was also used to translate ‫ נעלים‬in both Amos 2:621 and 8:6.22 In other words, this Septuagint rendition is evidence that the Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Greek translation was indeed: ‫ּו ִמּי ַד מִי ָל ַקחְּתִ י כֹפֶר ְונַ ֲע ַליִם עַנו בִי ְו ָאׁשִיב ָלכֶם‬ Among the modern scholars who have correctly emphasized the contribution of Ben Sira to the understanding and emendation of the verses in Samuel and Amos note especially Paul23 and Cohen.24 The first scholar to propose this interpretation and emphasize the importance of Ben Sira as evidence was Gordis.25 On the other hand, contrast the incorrect conclusions of such scholars as Segal26 and Weiss.27 Both of these scholars cite all the same evidence as above, but are unwilling to accept the emendation proposed for 1 Sam 12:3 despite all this compelling evidence.

1.1 Summary In this classic example, Ben Sira provides the basis and the main evidence for the emendation of the biblical text in three verses. The correction can, therefore, be supported from the words ‫“ נעלים‬a pair of sandals” and the verbal form ‫ ואעלים‬to the word ‫“( נעלם‬hidden gift”). The Biblical Hebrew word ‫ נֶ ֱעלָם‬meaning “treasure,

εἴληφα ἐξίλασμα καὶ ὑπόδημα; ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἀποδώσω ὑμῖν (“behold, [here am] I, answer against me before the Lord and before his anointed: whose calf have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom of you have I oppressed? or from whose hand have I taken a bribe, even [to] a sandal? bear witness against me, and I will make restitution to you”). The translation of the Greek is quoted according to Brenton, Septuagint [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greektexts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=30], also with minor changes. 20 Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 702. 21 Τάδε λέγει Κύριος· ἐπὶ ταῖς τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς τέσσαρσιν οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι αὐτόν, ἀνθ᾿ ὧν ἀπέδοντο ἀργυρίου δίκαιον καὶ πένητα ἕνεκεν ὑποδημάτων (“Thus said the Lord; for three sins of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away from him; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for sandals”). 22 Τοῦ κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἀργυρίῳ καὶ πτωχοὺς καὶ πένητα ἀντὶ ὑποδημάτων καὶ ἀπὸ παντὸς γεννήματος ἐμπορευσόμεθα (“That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for sandals; and we will trade in every kind of fruit”). 23 Paul, Commentary, 78–79. 24 Cohen, “Treasure, Treasury,” 1360–61. 25 Gordis, “Naʿ alam,” 44–47. He also suggested interpreting the hapax legomenon in Ps 26:4 ‫ נעלמים‬in the same sense of ‫“ נעלם‬bribe”: “men of bribes, corrupt men.” 26 Segal, Books of Samuel, 86–87. 27 Weiss, Book of Amos, 1: 49–50; 2: 74, n. 607–8.

364 

 Haim Dihi

hidden gift” occurs in its original (uncorrected) form only in the aforementioned context in Ben Sira.28

2 The second example: ‫צנע‬ The Hebrew root ‫ צנע‬appears twice in the Bible. It is found once in Prov 112: as a plural adjective:29 ‫צְנּועִים ָח ְכמָה‬-‫זָדֹון ַוּי ָב ֹא קָלֹון ְואֶת‬-‫ּבָא‬ “When arrogance appears, disgrace follows, but wisdom is with those who are ‫צנועים‬.”

Its second appearance is in Mic 6:8 as a verb:30 ‫אֱֹלהֶיָך‬-‫ׁשּפָט וְַא ֲהבַת ֶחסֶד ְו ַה ְצנֵ ַע ֶלכֶת עִם‬ ְ ‫ּדֹורׁש ִמּמְָך ּכִי אִם עֲׂשֹות ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ִהּגִיד לְָך ָאדָ ם מַה ּטֹוב ּומָה י ְהוָה‬ “He has told you, O man, what is good, And what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, And proceed ‫ הצנע‬with your God.”

The adjective ‫ צנוע‬is very common in modern Hebrew with the meaning “modest.” Thus, for instance, Choueka in his Hebrew dictionary Rav-Milim31 cites the follow­ ing usages: 1. “humble, not boastful”; 2. “small, minimal”; 3. In regard to dress or behavior—”respectable, not bold”; “properly behaved”; “modest,” especially regarding women; 4. “not exposed,” “conservatively dressed.” The adjective ‫ צנוע‬is interpreted in the biblical dictionaries as follows. Kadd­ ari’s definition is: “humble,” “submissive,” the opposite of arrogant, as indicated by the antithetic parallelism in the Proverbs verse, and he adds that the verb in the Micah verse means “go forward cautiously, obediently.”32 Ben-Yehuda inter­ prets the adjective ‫ צנוע‬to mean: “one who acts with modesty,” and defines the verb as: “go forward with humility, tranquility and obedience.”33 This interpreta­

28 This meaning is used in the Bible, according to the suggested emendation, only in the book of Samuel, dated to the First Temple period, and in Ben Sira, which is based on the verse in Samuel. This meaning is not found in Hebrew of the Second Temple period (the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic literature), which could confirm the proposed emendation (I thank Prof. Jan Joosten for this comment). 29 Passive participle form of the qal (BDB, 857). 30 Infinitive absolute form of the hiphil (BDB, 857). 31 Online: https://www.ravmilim.co.il/naerr.asp. 32 Kaddari, Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, 917. 33 Ben-Yehuda, Complete Dictionary, 11:5256.



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 365

tion of ‫ צנוע‬also appears in the dictionaries BDB34 and DCH.35 HALOT36 interprets the adjective in Proverbs like the other dictionaries37 differentiating its usage from that in Ben Sira, as will be elaborated shortly. For the verb ‫ ַה ְצנֵ ַע‬in Micah, HALOT offers a few interpretations, some of which are based on its usage in Ben Sira.38 The medieval commentators and grammarians generally interpreted both the adjective and the verb in the same manner as the majority of the dictionaries as discussed above.39 Ben Sira used the root ‫ צנע‬four times: twice as an adjective in the qal passive participle form ‫ צנוע‬and twice in the hiphil—once in the imperative and once as an infinitive construct: Sir 31:22 [B]

‫בכל מעשיך היה צנוע וכל אסון לא יגע בך‬

In all your deeds be ‫ צנוע‬and no disaster will befall you.

Sir 32:3 [B] ‫[ לכת] ואל תמנע שיר‬+ ‫[ שבכי הולך = שב כי הו לך] והצנע שכל‬+ ‫[ סבכי] הוא לך‬+ ‫מלל שב כי‬ Sir 32:3 [F]

‫מלל שבט הוא לך והצנע שכל ואל תמנע שיר‬

Speak, O elder! For it is your right, but act ‫ הצנע‬not to prevent the singing.

Sir 42:8 [B]

‫והיית זהיר באמת ואיש צנוע לפני כל חי‬

You should be careful with the truth and be a ‫ צנוע‬person before all living creatures.

Sir 16:25 [A]

‫ ּו ְב ַה ְצנֵ ַע ֲא ַח ֶוּה דֵ עי‬,‫אַּביעָה בְמשְ ׁקָל רּוחי‬

I will pour out by measure my spirit and declare my knowledge in a ‫ הצנע‬way.

34 BDB, 857. 35 DCH, 7:135–36. 36 HALOT, 3:1037. 37 As it was also translated in the Septuagint (ταπεινῶν “humble” [Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 670]). 38 HALOT, 3: 1039. 39 For example, Marwân Ibn Janah (Book of Hebrew Roots, ‫ )צנע‬and David Kimchi (Radicum Liber, ‫)צנע‬, interpreted the adjective ‫ צנוע‬as “humble”.

366 

 Haim Dihi

The adjective ‫ צנוע‬in Sir 3122:, which deals with manners and customs during a meal, can be taken to mean: “careful”, “moderate”; “behaving responsibly.” The text indicates that a person should eat with correct proportions, so that the food consumed will not become bothersome or annoying.40 The previous verse41 offers behavioral advice for someone who has, nonetheless, eaten too much.42 The adjective ‫ צנוע‬comes in reference to eating and stands in opposition to the adjec­ tive ‫“ גרגרן‬a glutton” (Sir 31:16 B). The same term with this reference to food also appears in rabbinic literature together with ‫צנוע‬: b. Yoma 39a

‫הצנועין מושכין את ידיהן והגרגרנין נוטלין ואוכלין‬

The moderate ones withdraw their hands, while the gluttons keep taking food and eating.43

It is also possible to interpret this verse in a general manner, and not specifically in relation to eating. If so, Ben Sira is advising people to behave moderately and cautiously in all their actions, in order to avoid negative results.44 In the Greek version of Ben Sira 31:22 the word ‫ צנוע‬is translated by ἐντρεχήϛ. According to Segal45 this word means “quick, skilled”; HALOT46 gives the definition “experienced,” which also appears in Muraoka’s Greek-English dictio­ nary.47 In the above context, it would appear that the meaning “experienced” is the most suitable. In the Syriac ‫ צנוע‬is translated by ‫ מכיך‬which has the regular mean­ ings of “humble” or “modest.”48 This suggested meaning is supported by the paral­ lelism found in Sir 42:8 between the phrases ‫“ זהיר באמת‬careful with the truth” and ‫איש צנוע‬. The adjective ‫( זהיר‬and its functional equivalent ‫ (צנוע‬may be explained in terms of its regular usage meaning “safeguarded from harm” (indicating that one must be strict about speaking truthfully and cautious lest one tell a lie).49

40 Concerning this verse see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 196; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 389. 41 Or the following verse, according to Segal’s edition, in which he changes the order of the verses. 42 ]‫“( וגם אם נאנסת במאכלים [קוה קוה וינוח לך‬If perforce you have eaten too much, once you have emp­ tied your stomach, you will have relief” [Sir 31:21 B]). 43 The translation of the Babylonian Talmud is quoted according to http://halakhah.com/pdf/ with minor changes. 44 As in the saying: “‫( ”סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה‬Look before you leap [i.e. think first, then act; or act cautiously and responsibly, not impulsively]). 45 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 196. 46 HALOT, 3: 1037–38. 47 Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 242. 48 Payne Smith, Syriac Dictionary, 270. 49 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 284.



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 367

Additional definitions of the noun ‫ זהיר‬include “wise” or “educated.”50 Based on this same definition, Kutscher has suggested defining the word ‫ צנוע‬in Rabbinic Hebrew from its meaning in Syriac: “clever” or “cunning,”51 which I will discuss later. Kister interprets ‫ צנוע‬in this chapter and the verbal form ‫ הצנע‬in Sir 16 and 35 to refer to “a person who must exhibit strict self-control and know the limits of good behavior.”52 Thus, Kister also recommends this definition for the noun ‫ צנוע‬in the second part of that verse. In my opinion, it is possible to define ‫ צנוע‬in chapter 31 similarly—that people should strictly observe social boundaries during all their actions including while eating, in order to avert disaster. Scholars have suggested various definitions for the verb ‫ הצנע‬in Ben Sira. According to Segal,53 in Sir 32:3, it means “frugally” or “in right proportion.” Skehan and Di Lella, meanwhile, suggest “to temper” or “to balance.”54 The elder or the host of the meal has the right to say a few words, but must not give a lengthy talk, even if wise or intelligent, and should speak in moderation, so that time may remain for singing.55 In Sir 16:25, the verb ‫ הצנע‬parallels the word ‫שׁקָל‬ ְ ‫בְמ‬. In this interpretation, Ben Sira emphasizes that he speaks seriously, carefully and in moderation, neither licentiously nor disproportionately.56 The Septuagint has here a word meaning “exactly” (ἀκρίβεια).57 According to Ben-Yehuda,58 the term ‫ בהצנע‬in chapter 16 means “with wisdom” or “with cunning.” Among the dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew, HALOT discusses an additional meaning of the root ‫צנע‬, namely “level-headed, clever.”59 In this context, HALOT also presents the Syriac definition of the root ‫ צנע‬rendered as “sly” “crafty.”60 When defining the adjective, HALOT distinguishes between the biblical ‫צנוע‬, which it interprets in the usual manner as “humble” (Prov 11:2), and ‫ צנוע‬in Ben Sira, which it defines in 31:22 as “level-headed,” and in 42:8 as “considered clever.” When discussing the verbal form ‫הצנע‬, HALOT presents the different defi­ 50 As proposed by Lévi (Hebrew Text, 79) and Smend (Weisheit, 66). 51 Kutscher, “Addenda,” 103. 52 Kister, “Contribution,” 352–53. Kister also notes that there are Talmudic precedents for the parallelism between the adjectives ‫ זהיר‬and ‫צנוע‬. 53 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 202. 54 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 385, 391. 55 The version given in Manuscript F = ‫ מלל שבט‬is probably textually corrupt. 56 Segal (Sefer Ben Sira, 104) considers ‫ צנוע‬to be the opposite of ‫ פרוץ‬i.e. “licentious; criminal; immoral.” 57 Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 22. According to Kister (“Contribution,” 353, n. 178), this word may also mean: “strict adherence to the commandments.” The Syriac version of Sir 16:25 renders it by “wisely.” (The relevant line of chapter 32 has no Syriac version). 58 Ben-Yehuda, Dictionary, 11: 5256. 59 HALOT, 3:1039. 60 Payne Smith, Syriac Dictionary, 481–82.

368 

 Haim Dihi

nitions of the root ‫ צנע‬in various Semitic languages.61 It offers as evidence Theo­ dotion’s Greek translation of ‫ הצנע‬in Micah, meaning “to be careful.”62 HALOT also mentions that the traditional definition of the verb is “to be humble” and it brings a number of interpretations for the Aramaic term 1 :‫צניעא‬. “clear, pure”; 2. “cau­ tious”; 3. “wise”; 4. “reasonable, careful.” According to HALOT, definitions 2–4 are to be preferred to the first one. HALOT interprets the verb ‫ הצנע‬in Ben Sira in a similar way as “deliberate,” “reasonable.” It is my opinion that the meaning of the adjective ‫ צנוע‬in Ben Sira and the verb ‫הצנע‬63 may also be helpful in the elucidation of the meaning of the biblical adjective and the biblical usage of the verb ‫הצנע‬. For the adjective ‫צנועים‬, it is possible to accept the definition of “sages” or “people having equanimity.” These same wise, level-headed moderates stand in opposition to the arrogant and the wicked, who are licentious and immoral.64 The contrast between the reasonable and the immoral is a better one than the contrast between the licentious and the humble. Even the verb ‫ הצנע‬may be interpreted in this manner. According to Micah, people should behave toward God seriously, with due consideration, and not necessarily with humility. However, this verse may also be best interpreted using the usual definition of humility; human beings should serve the Lord with humility.65 In the Bible, the word ‫“ חכם‬wise, skilled-person” is used together with ‫“ חכמה‬wisdom”, “skill”, for instance, in Exod 31:6: ‫ּו ְבלֵב ּכָל ֲחכַם לֵב נָתַ ּתִ י ָח ְכמָה‬ I have also granted skill to all who are skillful.

61 Arabic (ṣana῾a = “to do,” “to make”), Nabatean (ṣn῾ peal or pael = “to make a tomb”), Geez (ṣan῾a = “to be hard, solid”) and Old South Arabic (ṣn῾ in conjugation no. V “to fortify a camp”; mṣn῾t = “fortified camp”). 62 The Septuagint and the Peshitta render “to be ready.” 63 At least in regard to chapter Sir 16:25. 64 Concerning the contrast between the reasonable and the immoral see Vargon, Book of Micah, 182. 65 According to Vargon (Book of Micah, 182), humankind should serve God in humility by offer­ ing a few sacrifices. The verse emphasizes the idea that God does not need many sacrifices, but He prefers that a person will behave righteously and justly instead of offering multiple sacrifices (on this idea in the Bible see, for example, Isa 1:11: ‫ׂש ַבעְּתִ י ע ֹלֹות אֵילִים ְו ֵחלֶב‬ ָ ‫ָלּמָה ּלִי ר ֹב זִ ְבחֵיכֶם י ֹאמַר י ְהוָה‬ ‫“[ מ ְִריאִים וְדַ ם ּפ ִָרים ּו ְכ ָבׂשִים ְועַּתּודִ ים ֹלא ָח ָפצְּתִ י‬What need have I of all your sacrifices? says the LORD; I am sated with burnt offerings of rams, and suet of fatlings; and blood of bulls, and I have no delight in lambs, and he-goats”]; also Prov 21:3: ‫ש ָפּט נִ ְבחָר לַיהוָה ִמ ּזָבַח‬ ׁ ְ ‫“[ עֲש ֹׂה צְדָ קָה ּו ִמ‬To do what is right and just is more desired by the LORD than sacrifice”]).



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 369

This resembles ‫ ואת צנועים )ועם חכמים =( חכמה‬found also in our verse in Prov 11:2: ‫ּבָא זָדֹון ַוּי ָב ֹא קָלֹון ְואֶת צְנּועִים ָח ְכמָה‬ When arrogance appears, disgrace follows, but wisdom is with those who are ‫צנועים‬.

Compare also another association in Prov 10:13 between ‫“ נבון‬intelligent one” and ‫“ ָח ְכמָה‬wisdom”: ‫ׂשפְתֵ י נָבֹון ּתִ ָּמצֵא ָח ְכמָה‬ ִ ‫ְּב‬ Wisdom is to be found on the lips of the intelligent.

A similar idea is found in Prov 13:10:

‫ַרק ְּבזָדֹון י ִּתֵ ן ַמּצָה ְואֶת נֹו ָעצִים ָח ְכמָה‬

Arrogance yields nothing but strife; Wisdom belongs to those who seek advice.

In this verse as well, there is an opposition between arrogance66 and sages having wisdom. Arrogance incites ‫“ ַמּצָה‬strife and quarrels,” while wisdom is found in those who seek advice; those willing to heed advice are the righteous sages. As opposed to this well attested usage, the Bible does not use the nouns ‫עניו‬/‫שפל‬/‫נדכא‬ “the humble/lowly/downtrodden” together with wisdom.67 Finally, note that Ben-Yehuda’s Dictionary (entry ‫)צנ”ע‬68 also refers to Ben Sira, although he does not suggest the possibility of understanding Biblical Hebrew ‫ צנוע‬according to the meaning he posits for Ben Sira namely “wisdom” or “cunning.” DCH, on the other hand, interprets this root in Ben Sira in the usual manner as “humility.”69

66 Arrogant words, arrogant people. 67 It is noteworthy that rabbinic literature did in fact, harbor the concept that wisdom is only found among the lowly and humble. Perhaps this idea developed midrashically from those same biblical verses that state that the Lord helps the lowly, raising them up, as in Ps 138: 6: ‫ׁשפָל י ְִראֶה‬ ָ ‫רם ה' ְו‬-‫ִי‬ ָ ‫( ּכ‬High though the Lord is, He sees the lowly) and Job 5:11: ‫ׁש ָפלִים ְלמָרֹום‬ ְ ‫( לָׂשּום‬Who raises the lowly up high). In the Talmud, b. Shabbat 31a reads: ‫מכאן אמרו‬ ‫לעולם יהא אדם ענותן כהלל ואל יהא קפדן כשמאי‬--‫( חכמים‬From this, our Rabbis taught: A man should always be humble like Hillel, and not impatient like Shammai) and b. Ta῾anit 7a, reads: ‫אמר ר' חנינא בר‬ ,‫ לומר לך מה מים מניחים מקום גבוה והולכים למקום נמוך‬,'‫ 'הוי כל צמא לכו למים‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ למה נמשלו דברי תורה למים‬,‫אידי‬ ‫( אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימים אלא במי שדעתו שפלה‬R. Hanina b. Ida said: Why are the words of the Torah likened unto water-as it is written, ‘Ho, everyone who is thirsty, come for water’ [Isa 55:1]? This is to teach you, just as water flows from a higher level to a lower, so too the words of the Torah endure only with him whose knowledge is on a low level). 68 Ben-Yehuda, Dictionary, 11: 5256. 69 DCH, 7: 135–36.

370 

 Haim Dihi

2.1 Summary In this example, one can see that the meaning used in Ben Sira for the adjec­ tive ‫ צנוע‬and for the verb ‫( הצנע‬at least in one of its attestations) is “moderate” or “level-headed.” This definition can help provide the best and most convincing interpretation of this same adjective in Proverbs, suiting the antithetic parallel­ ism found in the verse. This interpretation seems to be more appropriate than the conventional definition usually given for ‫ צנוע‬namely “humble.”

3 Conclusion In conclusion, this paper presented two comprehensive examples exemplifying how it is possible to find support in Ben Sira for the interpretation of difficult biblical words or expressions. This research may contribute both to biblical phi­ lology and post-biblical Hebrew in general, and particularly to the understanding of the language of Ben Sira. The contribution of Ben Sira to biblical philology is most evident in the BDB; in many cases, attestations in Ben Sira of biblical words provide semantic support in the determination of the meaning of those terms. As stated before, it would be extremely useful to collect all the cases in which dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew have cited the use of biblical terms in Ben Sira as evidence for the meaning of those biblical words, and to examine each case sep­ arately. The final goal is to present all the helpful attestations found in Ben Sira, thus contributing to biblical Hebrew philology and shedding some light on many difficult words and expressions.

Bibliography Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer. A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew. 18 vols. Berlin/ Schöneberg: Langenscheidt, 1909–1959. (Hebrew) Biesenthal Johann H. R., and Fürchtegott Lebrecht, eds. Rabbi Davidis Kimchi Radicum Liber. Berlin: Bethge, 1847. Brenton, Lancelot C. L., ed. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. With an English Translation, and with Various Readings and Critical Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). Choueka, Yaacov. Rav-Milim. Melingo Ltd, 2000–2010. https://www.ravmilim.co.il/naerr.asp. Cohen, Chaim. “Treasure, Treasury.” Encyclopaedia Judaica (1972) 15:1360–362.



The Contribution of the Language of The Book of Ben Sira 

 371

Gordis, Robert, “Naʿ alam and other Observations on the Ain Feshka Scrolls.” JNES 9 (1950): 44–47. Haran, Menahem. The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996. (Hebrew) Kaddari, Menahem Z. A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006. (Hebrew) Kister, Menahem. “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 303–78. (Hebrew) Kutscher, Edward Y. “Addenda to the Lexicographical Section.” Pages 83–105 in Archive of the New Dictionary of Rabbinic Literature. Vol. 1. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1972. (Hebrew) Licht, Jacob, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT.” Encyclopaedia Biblica 8:1103–21. (Hebrew) Lévi, Israel. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. SSS 3. Leiden: Brill, 1904. Marwân Ibn Janah, Abu ‚L-Walid. The Book of Hebrew Roots. First edition, with an appendix, containing abstracts from other Hebrew-Arabic Dictionaries by Adolf Neubauer. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Repr., Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968. Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Payne Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of Robert Payne Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Paul, Shalom M. A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia – Old Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991. Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem: kolel kol ha-shirim ha-ʿivriyim she-nitgalu mi-tokh ha-genizah ṿe-haḥzarat ha-keṭaʿim ha-ḥaserim, ʿim mavo, perush u-mafteḥot. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. (Hebrew) ―. Studies in the Books of Samuel. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer, 1987. (Hebrew) 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, hebräisch und deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Vargon, Shemuel, The Book of Micah: A Study and Commentary. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1994. (Hebrew) Weiss, Meir. The Book of Amos. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. (Hebrew)

Biographies of Authors James Aitken is Reader in Hebrew and Early Jewish Studies at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge. Publications include No Stone Unturned: Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary (Eisenbrauns, 2014) and the T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (T&T Clark, 2015). Pancratius C. Beentjes (1946) 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 co-founder of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Nuria Calduch-Benages (Barcelona 1957) is Professor of Old Testament at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy. She is a Vice-President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) and since 2014 a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Jeremy Corley is Lecturer in Sacred Scripture at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Ireland, and a Vice-President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). His publications include Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (2002) and 40 articles on Second Temple Jewish texts. Marieke Dhont, PhD (2016) KU Leuven and Université Catholique de Louvain, is a former postdoctoral researcher at the Université de Lorraine in Metz and currently holds a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Cambridge. Her first monograph, entitled Style and Context of Old Greek Job, appeared with Brill in 2018. Haim Dihi is Senior Teacher at the Department of Hebrew Language, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and Senior Teacher at the Department of Hebrew Language, Kaye Academic College of Education, Beer-Sheva. His research encompasses Classical Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, Post-Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew language of Ben Sira, the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Rabbinic Hebrew), and Aramaic. Renate Egger-Wenzel is Professor of Old Testament at the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Austria, and President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Matthew Goff (PhD, University of Chicago, 2002) is a Professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at Florida State University. He is the author of three monographs on the Dead Sea Scrolls, most recently 4QInstruction: A Commentary (SBL, 2013). Jan Joosten (PhD Jerusalem, ThD Brussels) taught Old Testament at the Faculty of Protestant Theology of the University of Strasbourg for twenty years before being appointed Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, and Student of Christ Church, in 2014. Andrew Macintosh is a former Dean and President of St John’s College, Cambridge. Among his publications is a major commentary on Hosea (ICC; T&T Clark, 1997).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-020

374 

 Biographies of Authors

Noam Mizrahi is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Biblical Studies of Tel Aviv University, Israel, specializing in Hebrew philology. His research explores the intersections between linguistic, text-critical, literary and theological aspects of ancient Hebrew literature, ranging from Hebrew Bible, through the Dead Sea Scrolls, to works of Late Antiquity. Mark Nicholls is a Fellow and Librarian of St John’s College, Cambridge. His teaching and research interests lie in Tudor and Stuart government and politics. Judith Olszowy-Schlanger is Professor of Hebrew Paleography and Manuscript Studies at the École Pratique des Hautes Études-PSL in Paris, Head of the Hebrew section of the IRHTCNTS and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Her research interests include Cairo Genizah Studies, medieval Hebrew manuscripts and legal documents as well as intellectual contacts between Jews and their non-Jewish neighbors. Stefan C. Reif (BA, PhD London; MA LittD Cambridge; Hon. PhD Haifa) is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Hebrew and Fellow of St John’s College in the University of Cambridge. He has published many books and articles and lectured widely. Friedrich V. Reiterer is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament in the Department of Bible and Ecclesiastical History at the University of Salzburg, Austria. He is Honorary President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL).  Jean-Sébastien Rey, (PhD 2006 Strasbourg and Leuven), is Professor of Exegesis at the Lorraine University in Metz, France. He is editor of the Revue de Qumrân, and his fields of research concern the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish and Early Christian literature of the Hellenistic and Roman Period. Eric D. Reymond is Senior Lector I in Biblical Hebrew at Yale Divinity School. His research focuses on the literature and language of the Second Temple era, including the Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has written four books on these texts, the most recent of which is Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (SBL, 2014). Benjamin G. Wright is University Distinguished Professor of Religion Studies at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA. His most recent book is a commentary on the Letter of Aristeas (de Gruyter, 2015). He is currently working on a commentary on Ben Sira.

Index of References Hebrew Bible Gen 1:1 151, 185 Gen 1:1–2:3 302 Gen 1:3 302 Gen 1:14 303 Gen 1:27 151 Gen 2:2 228 Gen 2:13 303 Gen 3:1–5 273 Gen 3:16 347 Gen 3:24 275 Gen 4:7 274 Gen 5:24 185 Gen 6:5 190 Gen 15:1 195 Gen 31:2 191 Gen 31:40 61 Gen 33:14 227 Gen 39:18 229 Gen 49:17 273 Exod 14:16 229 Exod 16:14 157 Exod 16:21 156–57 Exod 16:23–30 302 Exod 22:7 227 Exod 22:10 227 Exod 23:5 327 Exod 31:6 368 Exod 31:12–17 302 Exod 35:35 258 Exod 40:33 228 Lev 4:8 260 Lev 10:19 260 Lev 20:4 362 Num 11:1–2 279 Num 16:30–35 279 Num 20:11 229 Num 21:6 273 Num 21:8 273 Num 21:9 273 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-021

Num 21:18 154 Num 25:13 261 Deut 1:19 227 Deut 1:26 350 Deut 1:43 350 Deut 6:5 209 Deut 8:15 149 Deut 9:7 350 Deut 9:23 350 Deut 9:24 350 Deut 11:21 261 Deut 15:7–9 321 Deut 15:9 342 Deut 15:11 342 Deut 17:8 349 Deut 17:8–12 349 Deut 17:12 349 Deut 21:17 326 Deut 21:18 350 Deut 21:20 350 Deut 31:27 350 Deut 32:4 327 Deut 32:33 273 Deut 33:11 209 Josh 7:26 277 Judg 3:16 275 Judg 16:9 278 Judg 18:5 339 Judg 18:7 343 Judg 18:27 343 1 Sam 2:4 339, 346 1 Sam 2:7 153 1 Sam 2:7–8 152 1 Sam 2:8 154 1 Sam 12:3 359, 362–63 1 Sam 14:4 148, 184 1 Sam 22:40 345 1 Sam 25:29 195 1 Sam 28:20–22 345 1 Sam 31:4 325

376 

 Index of References

2 Sam 7:1–17 261 2 Sam 12:4 343 2 Sam 18:17 277 2 Sam 24:12 228 2 Sam 24:14 237 1 Kgs 3:9 258 1 Kgs 13:30 338 1 Chr 4:9 347 1 Chr 10:4 325 1 Chr 21:13 237 1 Chr 28:20 228 2 Chr 1:10 258 2 Chr 2:15 323 2 Chr 16:14 323 2 Chr 17:13 227 2 Chr 29:34 228 2 Chr 32:20 259 2 Chr 32:21 233 Ezra 1:11 323 Ezra 9:7 233 Ezra 9:14 323 Neh 3:37 155 Neh 8–10 212 Neh 9:8 323 Neh 13:14 155 Esth 1:8 323 Esth 1:20 323 Esth 4:10 323 Esth 4:11 323 Esth 5:2 323 Esth 5:4 323 Esth 6:6 323 Esth 8:2 323 Esth 8:4 323 Job 3 337 Job 3:5 326–27 Job 5:11 369 Job 13:4 250 Job 14:17 250 Job 15:17b 149, 188

Job 15:18 188 Job 28:20 290–91 Job 28:21a 290 Job 28:23 291 Job 28:24 291 Job 28:27 291 Job 39:25 345 Job 39:28 148, 184 Ps 1 244, 246, 253, 255, 257 Ps 1:1–2 253 Ps 1:2 290 Ps 1:3 248 Ps 6:6 281 Ps 8:5 247 Ps 8:6 258 Ps 9:21 251 Ps 12:5 61 Ps 15:3 238 Ps 15:5 184 Ps 18:3 195 Ps 18:33 345 Ps 18:40 345 Ps 19 244, 246, 253, 255 Ps 19:7 294 Ps 19:7–9 253 Ps 19:8 253 Ps 19:8–11 255 Ps 19(18):9 257 Ps 19:10 253 Ps 19:11 254 Ps 21(20) 257 Ps 21:4 257, 260 Ps 21:5 257 Ps 21:6 257 Ps 21:7 257 Ps 22:22a 273 Ps 24:4 255 Ps 25 248–49, 263 Ps 25:5 249 Ps 25:6 193, 249 Ps 26:4 363 Ps 26:12 255 Ps 27:1 249 Ps 27:9 249 Ps 32 253 Ps 33 243, 246–47



Ps 33:2–3 247 Ps 33:6 298 Ps 33:6–7 248 Ps 33:13–14 252 Ps 33:14 251 Ps 33(32):18 257 Ps 34 253 Ps 35:21 345 Ps 35:25 345 Ps 37 246, 253 Ps 37:30 253 Ps 39 246 Ps 39:2 252 Ps 40 243, 246, 248–49, 262–63 Ps 40:5 249, 263 Ps 40:15 249 Ps 40:16 345 Ps 44:2 251 Ps 47:10 154 Ps 49 253 Ps 49:17 277 Ps 52:10 259 Ps 57:5 274 Ps 58:4 273 Ps 65:12 258 Ps 66:45 294 Ps 69:20 233 Ps 70:4 345 Ps 71 248–49, 263 Ps 71:17 255 Ps 71:20 249 Ps 71:23 249 Ps 72 246, 260, 263 Ps 72(71):2 260 Ps 72(71):8 260 Ps 72:18 260 Ps 73 253 Ps 73:12 309 Ps 75:4 299 Ps 78 257 Ps 78:40 348 Ps 79 243, 246, 251, 262 Ps 79:6 251 Ps 83 246, 251 Ps 83:19 252 Ps 88:4 249 Ps 88:5 281

Index of References 

Ps 88:7 249 Ps 89 243, 246, 259–63 Ps 89:19 261–62 Ps 89:20–21 260 Ps 89:25 259 Ps 89:27 250, 252 Ps 89:29 259–60 Ps 89:29–30 260–62 Ps 89:30 261 Ps 89:37 259 Ps 89:37–38 261–62 Ps 89:53 195 Ps 90:4a 290 Ps 90:10 247, 259 Ps 90:12 259, 290 Ps 92:12 263 Ps 92:12–13 256 Ps 99:6 259 Ps 103:8–14 247 Ps 103(102):22 248 Ps 104 246, 248 Ps 104:24–26 248 Ps 104:31 248 Ps 105 243, 246, 257, 262 Ps 105:5 258 Ps 105:9 257 Ps 105:10 258 Ps 105:26 257–58 Ps 105(104):27 258 Ps 106 246, 257–58 Ps 106:2 247 Ps 106:4 252 Ps 106:16 258 Ps 106:23 258 Ps 106:30 258 Ps 107 248 Ps 107:23–24 248 Ps 107:23–32 248 Ps 107:43a 290 Ps 110 263 Ps 111 253 Ps 111:2 248 Ps 111:7 253 Ps 111:10 253 Ps 112 246, 253, 256–57 Ps 112:3 256 Ps 112:9 195

 377

378 

 Index of References

Ps 113:2 195 Ps 113:7–8 152 Ps 115:11 195 Ps 116 246, 248, 263 Ps 116:1 249 Ps 116:8 249 Ps 118 193–94 Ps 119 244, 246, 253–55, 262–63 Ps 119:34 256 Ps 119:36 254 Ps 119:42 256 Ps 119:44–45 256 Ps 119:49 256 Ps 119:69 250, 263 Ps 119:72 254 Ps 119:74 253 Ps 119:79 253 Ps 119:98 253 Ps 119:103 254 Ps 119:125 290 Ps 119:127 254 Ps 119:131 255 Ps 119:133 252, 263 Ps 119:156 237 Ps 119:176 255, 263 Ps 121:4 251 Ps 121(120):4–5 257 Ps 127 253 Ps 128 246, 256–57 Ps 128:1 256 Ps 128:3 256, 263 Ps 131:1 254, 263 Ps 131:1b–3a 292 Ps 132:2 251 Ps 132:5 251 Ps 132:18 233 Ps 135 257 Ps 135:11–12 194 Ps 136 194–95, 246, 250, 257 Ps 136:1 250 Ps 136:2–3 194 Ps 136:4 258 Ps 136:23–24 194 Ps 138 246, 248, 263 Ps 138:1–2 249 Ps 138:6 369 Ps 139:6 254, 263

Ps 139:24 347 Ps 140:4 273 Ps 141 246 Ps 141(140):2 248 Ps 141:3 252 Ps 143:3–4 247 Ps 144:13 323 Ps 145:1 248 Ps 145:1–2 250 Ps 145:3 248 Ps 145:37 247 Ps 147 248 Ps 147:16–18 158, 248 Ps 147:19 255 Ps 148:3 259 Ps 148:8 248 Ps 148:8–9 192 Ps 148:14 251 Ps 149 246–47 Ps 149:4 247 Ps 149:6 275 Ps 149:6–7 247 Ps 149:9 247 Prov 1:7 253 Prov 1:20 104 Prov 2:1–5 253 Prov 5:4 275 Prov 5:5 280 Prov 6:12 347 Prov 7:27 280 Prov 8 242 Prov 9:1 289 Prov 9:3–6 289 Prov 9:10 253 Prov 9:11 195 Prov 9:18 280 Prov 10:13 369 Prov 10:22 347 Prov 10:30 184 Prov 10–31 160 Prov 11:2 364, 369 Prov 12:15 159 Prov 13:10 369 Prov 13:20 227 Prov 14:12 280 Prov 14:23 347



Prov 15:1 347 Prov 15:15 133, 190 Prov 16:2 159, 160 Prov 16:2a 159 Prov 16:2b 160 Prov 16:19 153 Prov 16:25 280 Prov 19:5 160 Prov 19:9 160 Prov 21:2 159–60 Prov 21:2a 159 Prov 21:2b 160 Prov 22:14 281 Prov 23:27 281 Prov 23:32 273 Prov 27:1b 188 Prov 28:11 343 Prov 29:23 153 Prov 31:1 343 Prov 31:10–31 246, 254 Qoh 3:10 300 Qoh 3:11–14 300 Qoh 3:14 299 Qoh 3:15 239 Qoh 4:13–16 153 Qoh 8:10 323 Qoh 8:11 323 Qoh 10:6 154 Qoh 10:8 273 Qoh 11:9 228 Isa 1:11 368 Isa 1:15 362 Isa 1:31 279 Isa 5:2 280 Isa 5:20 339 Isa 6:3 248 Isa 8:5 340 Isa 13:2 154 Isa 14:3 237, 347 Isa 14:29 273 Isa 18:4 340 Isa 37:30 338 Isa 38:5 228 Isa 38:12 321 Isa 40 300

Index of References 

Isa 40:12–14 301 Isa 40:13 299 Isa 40:28 301 Isa 40:29 346–47 Isa 42:17 233 Isa 44:16 345 Isa 54:4 233 Isa 54:11 338 Isa 55:7 346 Isa 57:15 153 Isa 62:10 280 Isa 63:10 348 Jer 3:20 226 Jer 5:27 186 Jer 8:17 273 Jer 11:16 259 Jer 22:18 344 Jer 48:11 343 Ezek 2:6 350 Ezek 14:3 153 Ezek 25:3 345 Ezek 26:2 338, 345 Ezek 36:2 345 Dan 3:46 278 Hos 4:2 258 Hos 9:4 342 Joel 1:4 274 Joel 1:6 274 Amos 2:6 359, 361, 363 Amos 3:8 273 Amos 5:19 273 Amos 8:6 359, 361, 363 Mic 2:1 190 Mic 2:11 227 Mic 6:8 364 Mic 7:5 188 Nah 3:6 114 Hab 1:5 188

 379

380 

 Index of References

Hab 2:4 186 Hab 2:20 338 Mal 2:9 226

New Testament Luke 1:52 152

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tob 1:22 189 Sir 1 100, 120, 310 Sir 1:1 288 Sir 1:1–10 255 Sir 1:1–11 288, 310 Sir 1:1–3:15 100 Sir 1:1–10:19 100 Sir 1:1–42:14 247 Sir 1:2 289 Sir 1:2–3 289, 298 Sir 1:3 289 Sir 1:4 290 Sir 1:4b 288 Sir 1:6 289 Sir 1:9–10 305 Sir 1:11 257, 307, 313 Sir 1:11–12 257 Sir 1:11–13 257 Sir 1:11–30 241, 246, 256 Sir 1:12 257 Sir 1:13 257 Sir 1:14 247, 253 Sir 1:15 100 Sir 1:19 100 Sir 1:25–27 253 Sir 2:10a 280 Sir 3 240 Sir 3:1–16 292 Sir 3:7 100 Sir 3:9b 291 Sir 3:10 292 Sir 3:13 323, 327 Sir 3:14 304

Sir 3:14a 155–56 Sir 3:14b 155–56 Sir 3:15 159 Sir 3:15a 155–57 Sir 3:15b 155–56 Sir 3:16a 155–57 Sir 3:16b 155–56 Sir 3:16–10:19 100 Sir 3:17 226, 230–31 Sir 3:17a 157, 227, 229–30, 232 Sir 3:17–18 226, 229, 231 Sir 3:17–23 293 Sir 3:17–24 230 Sir 3:18 226, 230–31, 240, 324 Sir 3:18b 293 Sir 3:19 100, 229 Sir 3:20 229–32, 237 Sir 3:20b 232 Sir 3:21 226, 228, 230, 232, 254, 263 Sir 3:21–22 227, 229 Sir 3:21–24 231–32 Sir 3:22 227, 230 Sir 3:22a 293 Sir 3:22–23 348 Sir 3:23 231–32, 323 Sir 3:23b 229–30 Sir 3:23–24 231 Sir 3:24 231–32 Sir 3:24a 231 Sir 3:26 229 Sir 3:27–16:7 100 Sir 4 240 Sir 4:6 327 Sir 4:14b 320 Sir 4:17 147 Sir 4:20 235, 274 Sir 4:20–24 233 Sir 4:21 223, 232, 234–35, 240 Sir 4:21a 234 Sir 4:22 233, 235 Sir 4:22–23 223, 232, 234 Sir 4:23 233, 235 Sir 4:24 235 Sir 4:25 238, 350 Sir 4:25–29 236, 239 Sir 4:26 238 Sir 4:27 238



Sir 4:28 238, 328 Sir 4:29 238 Sir 4:29b 239 Sir 4:30 235–36, 238–40 Sir 4:30b 239 Sir 4:30–31 235–36 Sir 4:31 235–36, 238–39, 321, 323, 328 Sir 4:31b 236 Sir 5 240 Sir 5:1 238, 241–42 Sir 5:1–3 236, 239 Sir 5:2 238 Sir 5:3 237, 239 Sir 5:4 155, 235 Sir 5:4a 237 Sir 5:4b 237 Sir 5:4–6 236, 239 Sir 5:4–7 235–36 Sir 5:5 236 Sir 5:6 236–37, 240 Sir 5:6d 237 Sir 5:7 236, 239 Sir 5:7a 236 Sir 5:7d 236 Sir 5:9 225, 240 Sir 5:9–13 234 Sir 5:9–6:1 242 Sir 5:10 224 Sir 5:11 225, 323 Sir 5:13 240 Sir 5:14 238 Sir 6:5–6 240 Sir 6:7 240 Sir 6:8 226, 240 Sir 6:9 147 Sir 6:9–10 240 Sir 6:12–15 240 Sir 6:23 307 Sir 6:25 307 Sir 6:27 307 Sir 6:29 254 Sir 6:32 307 Sir 6:33 307 Sir 6:34 307 Sir 6:37 307 Sir 7:3a 320 Sir 7:3b 326

Index of References 

Sir 7:7 114 Sir 7:16 114 Sir 7:17 240 Sir 7:17b 281 Sir 7:20–21 240 Sir 7:23–25 240 Sir 7:25 324 Sir 7:27–31 209 Sir 7:30–31 202 Sir 7:32 323 Sir 8:2 186 Sir 8:6 323 Sir 8:9 323 Sir 8:10 279 Sir 8:14 238 Sir 8:18 323 Sir 9:3a 186 Sir 9:14–16 253 Sir 10–11 128 Sir 10:2 71 Sir 10:6 152, 165, 221, 241 Sir 10:7 99 Sir 10:10 127 Sir 10:14 152 Sir 10:19 152 Sir 10:19–11:2 71, 100 Sir 10:19–16:7 99 Sir 10:25 324 Sir 10:27 103, 323 Sir 10:28 103 Sir 10:31 110, 323 Sir 11:2 103, 113 Sir 11:3–10 100 Sir 11:4 326 Sir 11:5 152 Sir 11:6–8 186 Sir 11:9 113, 347 Sir 11:10 100 Sir 11:11–27 100 Sir 11:14 339 Sir 11:20 71 Sir 11:27 323 Sir 11:28–12:10 100 Sir 11:29 186 Sir 11:31 339 Sir 11:32 279 Sir 12:4–5 339

 381

382 

 Index of References

Sir 12:5 100 Sir 12:11–13:5 100 Sir 12:13 273 Sir 12:16 327 Sir 13:6–20 100 Sir 13:7 323 Sir 13:8 323 Sir 13:10 100 Sir 13:15 187 Sir 13:16 187 Sir 13:16b 187 Sir 13:19 274 Sir 13:21–23 309 Sir 13:21–14:10 100 Sir 13:22 114 Sir 13:23 323 Sir 13:24 310 Sir 13:24ab 310 Sir 13:24–25 339 Sir 13:25 191 Sir 14:10 189, 244, 246, 253, 339 Sir 14:11 327 Sir 14:11–27 100 Sir 14:20 33, 34, 240, 253 Sir 14:20–27 245 Sir 14:20–15:10 244 Sir 15–16 128 Sir 15:1–16 100 Sir 15:7 71, 127 Sir 15:8–9 253 Sir 15:11 304 Sir 15:14 150, 185 Sir 15:15 104, 186 Sir 15:16 71, 104, 304 Sir 15:17–16:7 71, 100 Sir 15:19 257 Sir 15:20 110 Sir 16 367 Sir 16:3 110 Sir 16:6 279 Sir 16:7–30:11 101 Sir 16:11 101, 237 Sir 16:23 368 Sir 16:25 365, 367 Sir 17:2a 293 Sir 17:25–32 281 Sir 18:1 294

Sir 18:1–14 246–47, 295 Sir 18:4 295 Sir 18:4a 294 Sir 18:4–5 247 Sir 18:5a 295 Sir 18:6 295, 299 Sir 18:7 295 Sir 18:8 247 Sir 18:9 294 Sir 18:9–10 247 Sir 18:10 294 Sir 18:12–13 247 Sir 18:13b 296 Sir 18:17–18 296 Sir 18:19 296 Sir 18:21 297 Sir 18:23b 297 Sir 18:25–26 296 Sir 18:27a 297 Sir 18:28 297 Sir 19:20 253, 271 Sir 19:20–20:26 272 Sir 20 187 Sir 20:22 233 Sir 20:22a 234 Sir 20:22b 234 Sir 20:22–23 223, 232, 235 Sir 20:23 233–34 Sir 20:23a 234 Sir 20:26 306 Sir 20:27 306 Sir 20:27–31 270 Sir 20:30 228, 306 Sir 20:30–31 240, 306 Sir 21–22 226 Sir 21:1 270–72 Sir 21:1a 280 Sir 21:1–3 271–72, 274 Sir 21:1–10 268, 270–72, 281–82 Sir 21:1–22:18 272 Sir 21:2 270, 272, 274–75 Sir 21:2a 273, 275 Sir 21:2ab 273 Sir 21:2b 273 Sir 21:2cd 273–74 Sir 21:2–3 282 Sir 21:3 270, 274–75



Sir 21:3a 275 Sir 21:3b 275–76 Sir 21:3–4 268–69 Sir 21:4 269, 272 Sir 21:4–7 271–72, 276 Sir 21:6 270 Sir 21:7 272 Sir 21:8 276–77 Sir 21:8a 276 Sir 21:8b 277 Sir 21:8–10 271–72, 276, 282 Sir 21:9 270, 278–79, 282 Sir 21:9a 276, 278 Sir 21:9b 278, 281 Sir 21:9–10 269, 281 Sir 21:10 270–71, 279 Sir 21:10a 276, 282 Sir 21:10b 278, 280, 282 Sir 21:11 253, 271 Sir 21:11b 281 Sir 21:11–28 268 Sir 21:12 271 Sir 21:13 271 Sir 21:18 272 Sir 21:22 268 Sir 21:22–23 240 Sir 21:23 268 Sir 21:26 240, 268 Sir 21:28 271 Sir 22:5 113 Sir 22:6 245–46, 252 Sir 22:9 186 Sir 22:11–12 240 Sir 22:14–15 189 Sir 22:22–23:9 186 Sir 22:27 252 Sir 22:27–23:6 245–46, 252, 264 Sir 23:1 252 Sir 23:4 252 Sir 23:6 252, 263 Sir 23:11 275 Sir 24 242, 310 Sir 24:1–22 245, 311 Sir 24:10 202 Sir 24:12 311 Sir 24:20 254 Sir 25 187, 276

Index of References 

 383

Sir 25:8 222 Sir 25:13 276 Sir 25:15 273–74 Sir 25:16 274 Sir 25:20 269 Sir 25:20–21 222 Sir 25:23 276 Sir 26 187 Sir 27:9a 187 Sir 27:10 274 Sir 27:28 274 Sir 28:23 274 Sir 30–36 174–75 Sir 30:11 71, 128 Sir 30:11–24a 101 Sir 30:11–38:27 101, 123 Sir 30:11–51:30 101, 127 Sir 30:12 112, 142 Sir 30:13 Bmg. 326 Sir 30:17 321, 325, 328 Sir 30:21 113–15 Sir 30:24 71 Sir 30:24b–31:11 101 Sir 30:27 101 Sir 30:30 101, 127 Sir 31:1 128 Sir 31:6 108–109, 184 Sir 31:6–8 140 Sir 31:9 108–109 Sir 31:12 103, 128 Sir 31:12–21 101 Sir 31:14 323 Sir 31:16 110–11 Sir 31:18 323 Sir 31:19 112 Sir 31:20 112 Sir 31:21 71, 323, 366 Sir 31:21d+ 110 Sir 31:22 111, 365–67 Sir 31:22–31 101 Sir 31:25 339 Sir 31:30 138 Sir 31:31 71 Sir 32:1 87, 108, 110–11, 120, 129–30, 137–38 Sir 32:1–13 101 Sir 32:2 323 Sir 32:2a 130

384 

 Index of References

Sir 32:3 71, 244, 246, 256, 365, 367 Sir 32:4 110 Sir 32:5 140 Sir 32:7 128, 141 Sir 32:10 112, 128 Sir 32:11 153 Sir 32:12a 320 Sir 32:13 71 Sir 32:14 141 Sir 32:14–33:3 71, 101, 244, 246, 256 Sir 32:15 256 Sir 32:22 99 Sir 32:23 256 Sir 32:24 256 Sir 32(35):17–18 297 Sir 32:18a 306 Sir 32(15):19ab 297 Sir 33–36 30 Sir 33:1 147 Sir 33:1–2 253 Sir 33:2 255 Sir 33:3 256 Sir 33:4–35:10 101 Sir 33:7 303 Sir 33:7–15 302 Sir 33:8 303 Sir 33:9 303 Sir 33:10 101, 127, 304 Sir 33:11 304 Sir 33:14 304–5, 339 Sir 33:14a 305 Sir 33:14b 305 Sir 33:14c 305 Sir 33:15 305 Sir 33:12–13 304 Sir 34:1–8 255 Sir 34:14–20 246, 256 Sir 34:19 257 Sir 34:20 257 Sir 34:21–27 342 Sir 34(31):24a–31d 177 Sir 34(31):25 342 Sir 35 367 Sir 35(32):1a–7b 177 Sir 35:11–26 71, 101 Sir 35:12 112 Sir 35:16 107

Sir 35:20 87, 119, 128 Sir 35:21 113–15 Sir 35:22 108, 115 Sir 35(32):24a–b 177 Sir 35:25 106 Sir 35:26 71, 120, 129, 131, 360 Sir 35:27+ 106, 108 Sir 35:27+ Bmg. 91 Sir 36 30–31 Sir 36:1 104, 127 Sir 36(33):1a–b 177 Sir 36:1–17 31 Sir 36:1–21 71 Sir 36:1–22 101, 243, 245–46, 251, 262, 265 Sir 36:2 251 Sir 36(33):2a–b 177 Sir 36:4 117 Sir 36:4a–8b 177 Sir 36:5 251 Sir 36:6 103 Sir 36:8 251 Sir 36:9 71, 107 Sir 36:13 251 Sir 36:16 251 Sir 36:18 127, 251 Sir 36:19 247 Sir 36:21 71 Sir 36:22 251–52 Sir 36:22–37:9 71, 101 Sir 36:23 104 Sir 36:24 223, 240 Sir 36:28 103 Sir 37:1–2 240 Sir 37:2 110 Sir 37:5 115 Sir 37:9 103, 115 Sir 37:11 112 Sir 37:11–26 71, 101 Sir 37:12 71, 112 Sir 37:18 323, 339 Sir 37:26 71 Sir 37:27–38:12 71, 101 Sir 37:28 323 Sir 37:31 104, 127 Sir 38:1 104 Sir 38:1–4 27 Sir 38:11 310



Sir 38:13 104–5, 127, 337 Sir 38:13–27 71 Sir 38:14 101 Sir 38:15 116 Sir 38:17 103 Sir 38:18 347 Sir 38:22b 102 Sir 38:23 104, 128, 323 Sir 38:24 104, 310 Sir 38:24–39:35 244 Sir 38:24–41:13 337 Sir 38:25 112 Sir 38:25–30 310 Sir 38:26 128 Sir 38:27 71 Sir 38:28–39:14 101–2, 127 Sir 38:28–50:22b 102 Sir 38:32 310 Sir 38:34cd 310 Sir 38:34–39:11 310 Sir 38:34–39:35 244 Sir 38:35 244 Sir 39 247 Sir 39:1 310 Sir 39:8 72 Sir 39:8b 173 Sir 39:11 105 Sir 39:12–35 34, 243, 245–48, 262 Sir 39:13 248 Sir 39:14 248 Sir 39:15 105, 247 Sir 39:15–28 72, 102 Sir 39:15b–40:8b 173 Sir 39:16 60, 248 Sir 39:16b 60 Sir 39:16–17 247 Sir 39:18 247 Sir 39:19b 105 Sir 39:25 339 Sir 39:27 339 Sir 39:27–32 29 Sir 39:28 72 Sir 39:28a 149 Sir 39:29 247 Sir 39:29–40:8 72 Sir 39:30 247 Sir 39:31 61

Index of References 

 385

Sir 39:32 59 Sir 39:33 60, 248 Sir 39:34 60–61 Sir 39:35 61, 248 Sir 39:35b 61 Sir 40:1 352 Sir 40:1a 149 Sir 40:1–41:13 337 Sir 40:4 72 Sir 40:5 61 Sir 40:9–26 72 Sir 40:10 116 Sir 40:10–19 29 Sir 40:11–17 242 Sir 40:13 337, 360 Sir 40:14 323 Sir 40:15 29,184 Sir 40:15b 148, 159 Sir 40:17 184, 256 Sir 40:17a 184 Sir 40:18 87, 116 Sir 40:18b 105 Sir 40:21–26 191 Sir 40:22 72 Sir 40:22–26 87, 108, 129, 133–34 Sir 40:26 191 Sir 40:26–41:9 72, 102 Sir 40:26–44:15 29 Sir 40:26–44:17 29 Sir 40:28–41:13 337 Sir 40:30 184 Sir 41 233 Sir 41:1 309, 337, 341–42, 344, 353 Sir 41:1a 332, 351, 353 Sir 41:1ad 309 Sir 41:1c 343 Sir 41:1d 345–46, 348, 353 Sir 41:1–2 309, 331, 333, 337–38, 341, 343–44, 346, 353–54 Sir 41:1–4 336 Sir 41:2 116, 147, 229, 309, 337, 340–42, 344, 347–48, 350, 352–53 Sir 41:2a 332, 343, 345, 351, 353 Sir 41:2ad 309 Sir 41:2b 344, 346–47 Sir 41:2c 332, 343–44, 346 Sir 41:2cd 335, 349

386 

 Index of References

Sir 41:2d 348, 353 Sir 41:3 309 Sir 41:3–4 309 Sir 41:4 187, 309, 337 Sir 41:5 116 Sir 41:5–13 306 Sir 41:6b 116 Sir 41:8 233–34, 240, 281 Sir 41:9–22 72 Sir 41:12 116 Sir 41:12b 105 Sir 41:14 103, 116, 228, 306, 309, 320–21, 328 Sir 41:14b 105 Sir 41:14–15 306 Sir 41:15 116–17, 128 Sir 41:16 110, 232, 240 Sir 41:16–42:8 240 Sir 41:16a–42:8 234 Sir 41:16b–42:8 233 Sir 41:16bc 223, 233–34 Sir 41:18 275 Sir 41:18c 105 Sir 41:19 72 Sir 41:20 112 Sir 42 187 Sir 42:1d 233 Sir 42:1–11 72 Sir 42:3 103, 105, 112 Sir 42:6 105 Sir 42:6b 149 Sir 42:8 104, 112, 128, 365–67 Sir 42:9 104–5 Sir 42:10 72, 110 Sir 42:10a 110 Sir 42:10c 99, 110 Sir 42:10–11 109 Sir 42:11 110 Sir 42:11–43:1 72 Sir 42:12 72 Sir 42:14 104, 128, 339 Sir 42:15 104, 188, 190, 245 Sir 42:15a 298 Sir 42:15b 149, 298 Sir 42:15cd 298 Sir 42:15–25 298, 308 Sir 42:15–43:33 192, 196, 245–48

Sir 42:16 248 Sir 42:17 188, 299 Sir 42:17cd 299 Sir 42:18 103, 308 Sir 42:18–19 299 Sir 42:20 299 Sir 42:21 72, 300 Sir 42:21ac 299 Sir 42:21d 300 Sir 42:23 299, 301 Sir 42:24 71, 301 Sir 42:24–43:17 72 Sir 42:33 192, 196, 245–48 Sir 43:9 328 Sir 43:11 141 Sir 43:11–19 197 Sir 43:13–20 248 Sir 43:15b 192 Sir 43:16–17 192 Sir 43:17b 192, 327 Sir 43:17c 192 Sir 43:17–33 72 Sir 43:21 112 Sir 43:23–26 248 Sir 43:24–25 248 Sir 43:25a 301 Sir 43:27–33 255 Sir 43:28 248 Sir 43:30 72, 111, 113 Sir 44 210 Sir 44–49 192 Sir 44–50 201, 246, 257 Sir 44:1 103, 128, 257 Sir 44:1–6 201 Sir 44:1–16 72 Sir 44:1–50:24 243 Sir 44:2–5 242 Sir 44:3 72, 323 Sir 44:8 229 Sir 44:13 72 Sir 44:16 111, 185 Sir 44:17 29, 99 Sir 44:17–45:26 257 Sir 44:19b 149 Sir 44:20 257–58 Sir 44:21 260 Sir 44:21–23 196



Sir 44:23–45:1 257 Sir 44:24 243, 245–46, 257, 262 Sir 44:26 257 Sir 45:1–5 255 Sir 45:3 257 Sir 45:4 258 Sir 45:5 72, 255 Sir 45:5–13 72 Sir 45:6 258 Sir 45:6–22 202 Sir 45:6–26 31 Sir 45:8 87, 108, 112, 128–29, 134, 142 Sir 45:12 72, 260 Sir 45:12–13 196 Sir 45:14–22 72 Sir 45:15 261 Sir 45:16 258 Sir 45:22 72 Sir 45:23 258 Sir 45:23–24 202 Sir 45:23–46:6 72, 102 Sir 45:24 258 Sir 45:25 111, 202, 258 Sir 45:26 258, 260 Sir 45:29 196 Sir 46:1 323 Sir 46:1–10 259 Sir 46:5–6 259 Sir 46:6–18 72 Sir 46:8 72 Sir 46:10 128, 142 Sir 46:13 323 Sir 46:13–20 259 Sir 46:15 229 Sir 46:16 72 Sir 46:16–18 259 Sir 46:18 111 Sir 46:19 362 Sir 46:19–47:10 72 Sir 46:20 275, 323 Sir 47:1–11 202, 259 Sir 47:2 260 Sir 47:2–22 243, 246, 262 Sir 47:3 274 Sir 47:5 195, 259 Sir 47:8 128, 142 Sir 47:8–9 108

Index of References 

Sir 47:8–10 244 Sir 47:9 113, 128, 142, 243 Sir 47:10 112 Sir 47:11 72, 195, 259 Sir 47:11–23 72 Sir 47:15 324 Sir 47:22 72, 259 Sir 47:23–48:12 72, 102 Sir 48:10 72 Sir 48:12–22 72 Sir 48:17 149 Sir 48:17–22 202 Sir 48:17–25 259 Sir 48:20 259 Sir 48:22 72 Sir 48:24–49:11 72 Sir 48:24–49:12 102 Sir 49:2 275 Sir 49:10 72 Sir 49:11–13 213 Sir 49:12–50:10 72, 102 Sir 49:14–16 202 Sir 50 73, 210 Sir 50:1 201 Sir 50:1–4 201–2, 261 Sir 50:1–24 243, 261–62 Sir 50:3 328 Sir 50:4 207 Sir 50:5–10 210 Sir 50:5–21 201, 211, 244 Sir 50:6 259 Sir 50:6–7 261–62 Sir 50:7 328 Sir 50:10 259 Sir 50:11–22 72 Sir 50:12 256, 263 Sir 50:17 261–62 Sir 50:18 243–44 Sir 50:18–19 244 Sir 50:20–21 196 Sir 50:22 72, 258, 260 Sir 50:22–24 202 Sir 50:22–51:5 102 Sir 50:22–51:30 101, 123 Sir 50:22c–51:30 102 Sir 50:23 258 Sir 50:24 202, 261–62, 328

 387

388 

 Index of References

Sir 50:27 99, 111, 192–93 Sir 50:30 101–2 Sir 51 73, 98, 125, 183, 195–96, 310 Sir 51:1 249 Sir 51:1–12 192–94, 221, 241, 243, 245–46, 248, 262–63 Sir 51:2 112, 249, 263 Sir 51:3 99, 249 Sir 51:4 323 Sir 51:5 250, 263 Sir 51:6 249 Sir 51:6–8 193 Sir 51:8 249 Sir 51:10 250, 252 Sir 51:11 249 Sir 51:11–12 250 Sir 51:12 104, 111, 127–28, 245–46, 250 Sir 51:12e+–zj+(a–o) 192, 194–95, 250 Sir 51:12ef+ 250 Sir 51:12g+–j+(b–c) 194 Sir 51:12u+(i) 194, 250–51 Sir 51:12w+(j) 195 Sir 51:12wx+ 250 Sir 51:12za+ 251 Sir 51:12ze+ 251 Sir 51:12zg+(h) 195 Sir 51:12zg+–zj+ 250–51 Sir 51:13 104, 254–55, 263 Sir 51:13–21 245 Sir 51:13–30 29, 192–94, 221, 242, 246, 254, 262–63, 311, 322 Sir 51:14 254 Sir 51:15 254–55 Sir 51:16 255 Sir 51:17 254 Sir 51:20 255 Sir 51:22 311 Sir 51:23 254, 289, 311 Sir 51:24 322, 325 Sir 51:25 254–55, 311 Sir 51:26 254 Sir 51:28 254 Sir 51:30 195 Bar 3:9ab 291 Bar 3:29–30 290 Bar 3:31–32b 291

Bar 3:37a 290–91 1 Macc 1:43 294 1 Macc 10:21 250 1 Macc 13:42 209

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Ahiqar 2–4 189 T. Levi 8.15 206 T. Levi 18.2 206 T. Levi 18.6 206

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts 1QIsaa 338 1QpHab 338 1Q26 1:5 8 114 1Q28b (1QSb) 3:22–23 250 1QS 5:2 250 1QS 5:9 250 1QS 6:2 324 1QS 6:19 227 1QHa 13 274 2Q18 125 4Q95 (4QPsn 2–3) 194 4Q169 (pNah) 3–4:3 1–2 114 4Q175 206 4Q200 2:9 321 4Q423 4:1 114 4Q504 7:9 321 4Q525 2:2 238 4Q525 3:1 238 4Q529 1:11 324 4Q563 1:3 324 5Q13 210–11 11Q5 242, 254, 322 11Q5 15:6–16:6 194 11Q5 19:16 324 CD 11:20 324 CD 14:20 324 CD 20:25 258



Philo Legat. 186–348 206

Josephus Ant. 11.304–347 204 Ant. 11.321–326 204 Ant. 13.214 209 Ant. 13.282–283 205 Ant. 13.288–298 209 Ant. 13.299–300 206 Ant. 13.322–323 206 Ant. 13.331 204 Ant. 13.333–334 204 Ant. 18.257–309 206 J.W. 1.68 206 J.W. 2.184–203 206

Mishnah, Talmud and Related Literature m. ʾAbot 1.1 213–14 m. ʾAbot 1.2 214 m. ʾAbot 3.1 251 m. ʾAbot 4.29 251 m. ‘Ed. 1.4 213 m. Ḥag. 2.1 227 m. Ma‘aś. Š. 5.15 209 m. Parah 3.5 209 m. Sanh. 10.1 186 m. Sanh. 11.2 349 m. Soṭah 9.10 209 m. Yad. 4.6 209 m. Yoma 6.2 196 m. Yoma 7.1 214 t. ‘Ed. 1.1 213 t. Sanh. 3.4 349 t. Sanh. 14.12 349 t. Soṭah 13.3–6 207 t. Soṭah 13.6 206 Sifre Deut §218 349 Sifre Zuṭa Num 7:5 350 y. Ḥag. 2.1 (77c) 227 y. Maʿaś. Š. 5.8 209

Index of References 

y. Maʿaś. Š. 5.56d 209 y. Sanh. 10.1 (28a) 69 y. Soṭah 9.11 209 y. Soṭah 9.24a 209 b. B. Bat. 98b 189 b. Ber 29a 209 b. B. Qam. 92b 187 b. ‘Erub. 54a–b 74 b. Ḥag. 13a 227 b. Qidd. 66a 209 b. Roš Haš. 18b 209 b. Šabb. 31a 369 b. Sanh. 14b 349 b. Sanh. 100b 69, 133, 162, 186–87 b. Soṭah 45a 349 b. Ta῾an. 7a 369 b. Yoma 39a 366 b. Yoma 69a 204 Gen. Rab. 45.4 113 Gen. Rab. 8.2 227 Gen. Rab. 27.2 190 Gen. Rab. 28.5 190 Gen. Rab. 56.4 190 Gen. Rab. 73.12 191 Gen. Rab. 91.3–4 191 Cant. Rab. 2.14.8 113

Targumic Texts Tg. Jon. 2 Kgs 14:10 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 19:11 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 28:2 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 28:5 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 28:13 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 28:17 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 31:5 229 Tg. Jon. Ezek 31:10 229 Tg. Jon. Hos 13:6 229 Tg. Jon. Job 3:5 327

 389

390 

 Index of References

Greek and Latin Works

MS heb. e.62/9 72

Aeschylus Fragment 255 (Phil.) 351

British Library BL Or 5518 71, 89–90, 96, 101, 111, 118, 123 BL Or 5557O.43–50 85

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. VI, 16.1–4 171 Homer Il. 6.208 293 Il. 11.784 293 Plato Tim. 27cd 301 Plutarch Mor. (Cons. Apoll.) 352 Sophocles Aj. 854–55 351 Phil. 796–97 351 Tacitus Hist. 5.9 206

Manuscripts Bibliothèque Alliance française Paris Ile-de-France BAIU I.D.2 115 Bibliothèque Nationale de France Ms. Hébreu 3 103, 123 Bodleian MS heb. a.2/24 93 MS heb. b.12/20 84–85 MS heb. d.55/6 113 MS heb. e.62/1 72, 87, 133, 334 MS heb. e.62/2 72 MS heb. e.62/3 72 MS heb. e.62/4 72 MS heb. e.62/5 72, 141 MS heb. e.62/6 72 MS heb. e.62/7 72, 87, 134 MS heb. e.62/8 72

Cambridge University Library T–S 12.56 79, 82 T–S 12.170 92 T–S 12.727 86, 221, 235 T–S 12.863 5, 54, 122, 144–45, 230, 234, 237 T–S 12.864 54, 75, 95 T–S 12.867 221, 226, 232 T–S 12.871 71 T–S 16.56 92 T–S 16.312 54, 71, 109, 118, 123, 140 T–S 16.313 71, 87, 90, 96, 98, 106, 111, 119, 123, 130–32, 137, 140–41 T–S 16.314 54, 72, 98, 102 T–S 16.315 54, 73, 98, 102 T–S 20.124 78, 95 T–S 28.23 79 T–S 32.8 79–80, 82, 95–96 T–S 36.150 187 T–S 10J27.3a 79 T–S 10K6 93 T–S 13J13.20 79–83, 95–96 T–S 18J1.3 92 T–S F3.29 74–77, 79–84, 95–96, 195 T–S H 7.21 93 T–S K 21.18 93 T–S K 21.94 93 T–S K3.27 187 T–S NS 38a.1 71 T–S NS 198.81 85–86, 96 T–S NS 273.48 85 T–S NS 273.188 85 T–S AS 213.4 221 Or.1102 72, 98, 102, 173, 331

Jewish Theological Seminary, New York ENA 1822a.44–45 79 ENA 2943.7–8 85 ENA 3053 186, 252 ENA 3853.11–12 85



Vatican Vat. Ebr. 30 113 Vat. Ebr. 76 113 Varia Budapest MTA 282.5 85

Index of References 

 391

CAT 1.14 IV 29 327 Codex Ambrosianus (7a1) 336, 348 EBP–AP I 2889 74 KAI 181 1:9 328 MSS Greek Lucianic group 248; 493; 637 115 OGIS 90.11 158

Index of Authors Abegg, Martin G. 224 Adams, Samuel L. 1, 35 Adler, Elkan Nathan 55, 68 Aitken, James K. 1–2, 40, 147, 151–52, 154, 158, 164, 264, 331, 351–52 Alfrink, Bernardus J. 28 Allony, Nehemya 71 Alma, J. 27 Alon, Gedalyahu 209 Alonso Schökel, Luis 271, 276–77, 280, 282, 286, 314 Amit, Yairah 205 Andersen, Francis I. 354 Askin, Lindsey A. 192 Astren, Fred 162, 164 Babbitt, Frank C. 352, 354 Bacher, Wilhelm 50, 129–30 Baillet, Maurice 1, 4 Bakewell, Sarah 39, 63 Balla, Ibolya 35 Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal 343 Barnard, Edward E. 17 Barr, James 354 Barth, Lewis M. 163, 165 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 349, 354 Baumgartner, Walter 245, 264 Beelen, Joannes Theodorus 27 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1, 4, 25, 31, 33–34, 70, 86, 94, 129, 144, 148–51, 165, 175, 179, 188, 190, 197, 223–24, 231, 236, 240, 259–61, 264, 288, 309, 314, 333, 354 Begrich, Joachim 245, 265 Beit-Arié, Malachi 74, 78, 98–99, 101, 122 Bellia, Giuseppe 33, 122 ben Abraham al-Fāsī, David 74 ben Daniel ben Azariah, David 79 ben Elhanan, Shemaryah 92 Ben Hayyim, Jacob 176 Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev 113, 116, 122, 224, 241, 333, 348, 354 ben Judah, Shelomo 79 ben Mevorakh, Moses 79 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-022

ben Nathan, Abraham 79 ben Nissim, Nahorai 79 ben Sadoq, Ephraim 92 ben Shabbetai, Abraham 74, 77–80, 82, 84, 93 Ben Shahar, Meir 204, 215 Bentwich, Norman 41, 63 Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer 364, 367, 369–70 Berman, Joshua 275–76, 282 Bevan, A. H. 12, 22 Bickell, Gustav 54, 56 Bilde, Per 206 Binstein, Jacob 125, 332 Blau, Ludwig 50 Bledsoe, Seth 189 Bomberg, Daniel 172 Boon, Antonius 26 Börner-Klein, Dagmar 189 Boswell, James 39, 63 Box, George H. 270, 277, 282, 338, 355 Boyarin, Daniel 213, 215 Brenton, L. C. L. 363, 370 Briggs, Charles A. 370 Brown, Francis 370 Brutti, Maria 202, 215–16 Buringh, Eltjo 172 Burton, Keith W. 244, 247 Bussino, Severino 35 Calduch-Benages, Núria 3, 33–34, 175, 185, 198, 226, 233, 241, 252, 264, 267–68, 282–83, 336, 355 Camp, Claudia V. 358 Carr, David M. 159, 165 Charles, Robert H. 206 Cheyne, Thomas K. 42 Choueka, Yaacov 364 Cohen, Abraham 349 Cohen, Chaim 359, 361, 363 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 204, 215 Collins, John J. 251, 264 Conybeare, Frederick C. 189 Corley, Jeremy 1, 3, 31, 34, 105, 115, 122, 156–59, 161–62, 165, 187, 198, 221,



223–24, 241, 243, 254, 264, 267, 281, 283 Cowley, Arthur E. 39, 45–49, 51–52, 54, 58, 60–62, 64, 67, 69, 94, 129, 134, 136, 144, 169, 173, 180, 186, 198, 334, 355 Daubanton, François E. 27 de Cisneros, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez 172 de Jonge, Marinus 206, 215–16 de Lagarde, Paul A. 173–75, 177, 180 Delitzsch, Friedrich 347 Demitrów, Andrzej 259 de Vaux, Roland 1 de Vergara, Juan 172 Dhont, Marieke 97 Diehl, Johannes F. 34 Dihi, Haim 3, 229, 241, 324, 329, 347, 349–50, 355, 359 Di Lella, Alexander A. 30, 33, 68, 93–94, 135, 144, 150, 152–53, 155, 161–62, 165, 167, 184, 186, 189, 193–94, 199, 201–2, 217, 221, 223, 228, 241–42, 244, 248–50, 252, 254–60, 264, 266, 270–72, 277, 279–81, 284, 286, 315, 319, 329, 332, 337, 357, 360, 362, 366–67, 371 Driver, Samuel R. 42, 46, 370 Drusius, Cornelius 26 Duesberg, Hilaire 271, 277, 280–81, 283 Dunkelgrün, Theodor 41 Dyserinck, Johannes 27 Egger-Wenzel, Renate 1–2, 33–34, 40, 169, 243, 264, 268, 283, 312, 314, 331, 333, 336 Elizur, Shulamit 1, 4, 68, 73, 94, 125, 144, 222, 241, 268, 283 Ellis, Teresa A. 35 Elwolde, John F. 285, 314 Engel, Edna 74 Engster, Dorit 293, 314 Epstein, Isidore 355 Erder, Yoram 93–94 Eshel, Hanan 206 Ferrer, Joan 175, 179, 185, 241, 268, 283, 355 Fersterer, Anton 175 Fischer, Alexander A. 171

Index of Authors 

 393

Fischer, Irmtraud 34 Flint, Peter W. 171 Forbes, A. Dean 354 Fox, Michael V. 159–60, 165, 239, 241, 275, 283 Fraenkel, Siegmund 153, 165 Fransen, Irénée 271, 277, 280–81, 283 French, Patrick 17–18 Fruytiers, Jan 25, 31 Fullerton, Kemper 244, 248, 250 Gafni, Isaiah M. 209, 215 García Martínez, Florentino 250 Gaster, Moses 86, 94, 222, 241 Geiger, Abraham 209–10 Gibson, Margaret Dunlop 189 Gilbert, Maurice 30, 33–34, 245, 264, 273, 283 Gil, Moshe 79, 94 Ginsberg, Harold L. 319 Ginsburg, Christian D. 51, 104 Giustiniani, Agostino 174 Glatzer, Mordechai 74, 78, 81, 99, 122 Glover, Terrot R. 12–13, 15, 21–22 Goering, Greg S. 1, 35 Goff, Matthew J. 1–2, 150, 183, 192, 198 Goitein, Shlomo D. 78, 94, 126, 136, 144 Gordis, Robert 363 Gottlieb, Isaac B. 212 Graf, Friedrich W. 48 Grafton, Anthony 171 Gregory, Bradley C. 1, 35, 158, 165, 256, 264 Grotius, Hugo 26 Gunkel, Hermann 245–46 Gurtner, Daniel M. 211 Gutenberg, Johannes 171 Gutman, Yehoshua 341 Haim, Ofir 129–31 ha-Kohen ben Elijah, Abiathar 79 Halévy, Joseph 39, 49–50, 52, 62–63 Haran, Menahem 360 Harkavy, Abraham E. 186 Harrington, Daniel J. 33 Harris, James R. 189 Hart, Henry 22 Harṭom, Eliyahu S. 280, 283

394 

 Index of Authors

ha-Sofer ben Isaac, Mu‘ammar 92 Haspecker, Josef 30–31, 271–272 Hayward, Robert C. T. 257, 262 Hengel, Martin 30–31, 261, 341, 355 Henning, Georg 25 Herr, Moshe D. 213 Heymair, Magdalena 25 Hildesheim, Ralph 34 Himmelfarb, Martha 202 Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer 292 Hollander, Harm W. 206 Horovitz, Saul 350 Humbert, Genevieve 71 Hurvitz, Avi 323 Huyse, Philip 91 Iansenius [Gandavensis], Cornelius 26 Ibn Janah, Marwan 365 Ilan, Tal 69–70, 94, 203, 216 Iṣḥaq ha-Kohen ben Samuel, Abu 79 Jansenius, Cornelius 26 Jansen, J. Andreas H. G. 28 Jastrow, Marcus 113 Jefferson, Rebecca J. W. 47 Jenkins, Geoffrey R. 171 Johnson, Samuel 39 Joosten, Jan 2–3, 5, 33, 166, 285, 315, 319, 326–27, 329, 333, 364 Kaddari, Menahem Z. 359, 361, 364, 371 Kahana, Avraham 280, 283 Kahle, Paul E. 135, 144, 161, 165 Kaiser, Otto 271, 277, 280, 283 Kalmin, Richard L. 209 Karner, Gerhard 100, 120, 122, 125, 144 Kaufman, Yvette R. 50, 63 Kautzsch, Emile 49 Keim, Katharina E. 163 Kennedy, James 347 Khan, Geoffrey 86 Kiraz, George 176 Kister, Menahem 114, 122, 189, 198, 202, 207, 209–11, 213–14, 216, 229, 232–33, 241, 332, 338, 342, 346, 348, 355, 360, 367, 371 Klein, Anja 253

Klein, Michael L. 229 Knabenbauer, Joseph 277 Kohn, Dawid 355 König, Eduard 147 Krammer, Ingrid 34, 40, 175–76 Kugel, James L. 185 Kutscher, Eduard Y. 323, 329, 346, 355, 367, 371 Labendz, Jenny R. 135, 144, 186–87, 191, 196–98, 227, 241 Lapide, Cornelius C. 26 Lee, John A. L. 172, 180 Lee, Thomas R. 201, 216, 246, 257, 265 Lerner, Myron B. 212, 216 Lévi, Israel 39, 49–52, 55–56, 59–63, 68, 87, 94, 104–7, 115–17, 119, 122, 127–132, 134, 142, 144, 153, 165, 222, 224, 230, 241, 320, 322, 324, 329, 355, 367, 371 Lewis, Agnes S. 3, 16, 40, 42–48, 50–51, 62–63, 67, 173, 189, 198, 331 Licht, Jacob 360, 371 Liddell, Henry G. 170, 180 Lieber, Laura S. 192, 197–98 Lieberman, Saul 348, 355 Liesen, Jan 34, 175, 179, 185, 241, 244–45, 247, 256, 265, 268, 283, 355 Linehan, Peter A. 12, 13, 14, 18, 22, 40 Lloyd-Jones, Hugh 351, 355 Luther, Martin 171, 175, 177, 179 Macintosh, Andrew A. 4, 19 Mack, Burton L. 201, 216 Malter, Henry 135–36, 144 Mann, Jacob 77–78, 80–81, 94 Marböck, Johannes 30–31, 33–34, 251, 253, 265, 271, 277, 280–81, 283 Marcus, Joseph 198, 252, 265, 303, 314 Margoliouth, David S. 18, 23, 41–42, 46, 48, 51, 53, 55, 62–65, 129, 144 Margoliouth, George 55 Marttila, Marko 153, 166, 244, 251, 265 Martyn, Henry 20–21 Mason, Steve 209, 216 Matthes, Jan Carel 27 Matthew, Jacob 176 Mattila, Sharon L. 341, 355



Mayor, J. E. B. 15 Meit-Arié, Malachi 81 Middendorp, Theophil 244, 247, 251, 265 Mies, Françoise 194–95, 198 Milik, Józef T. 1, 210 Milikowsky, Chaim 163, 166 Miller, Edward 13, 18 Miller, Peter N. 173, 180 Minissale, Antonino 267–68, 270, 280, 283, 340, 355 Mizrahi, Noam 2–3, 195, 274, 331 Mopsik, Charles 249, 254–55, 259, 265 Morla Asensio, Víctor 271, 277, 280, 283, 342, 357 Mroczek, Eva 161, 166, 193, 198 Mulder, Otto 34, 256, 265 Muraoka, Takamitsu 285, 314, 363, 365–67, 371 Murphy, Ronald E. 336, 357 Murray, Gilbert 42, 55, 64 Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther 292, 314 Neubauer, Adolf 39, 42, 45–49, 52, 54, 58, 60–62, 64, 67, 69, 94, 129, 134, 136, 144, 169, 173, 180, 198, 334, 355 Neusner, Jacob 213, 216 Nicholls, Mark 4, 9 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 292, 314 Noam, Vered 201–5, 207, 209, 216–17 Nöldeke, Theodor 343, 357 Norman, Jeremy 171 Norton, Gerard J. 171 O’Connor, Michael P. 227, 242 Oesterley, William O. E. 270, 277, 338, 355 Ó Fearghail, Fearghas 211, 217 Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith 2, 67, 73, 95, 106, 126–27, 133–34, 138, 157, 163 Oomkes, Jan 26 Ottley, Richard R. 357 Outhwaite, Ben 130, 187 Palmisano, Maria Carmela 31, 251–52, 259, 265, 268, 271, 280, 284 Passaro, Angelo 33, 122 Paul, Ludwig 130, 132 Paul, Shalom M. 361–63

Index of Authors 

 395

Payne Smith, Jessie 366–67, 371 Payne Smith, Robert 343, 357 Perdue, Leo G. 253, 255, 265 Peri, Israel 277, 284 Peters, Norbert 39, 57–58, 60–62, 64, 115, 122, 129, 144, 250, 265, 269–71, 277, 280, 284, 332, 337, 357 Petrany, Catherine 244, 265 Pietersma, Albert 198, 357 Plantin, Christopher 172 Polotsky, Hans J. 49, 64 Prato, Gian L. 149, 166 Qimron, Elisha 274, 284 Rahlfs, Alfred 175, 177, 180, 269, 272, 284 Rand, Michael 1, 4, 125, 144 Rapoport, Solomon J. L. 45 Redmayne, Robert 20 Reif, Stefan C. 1, 3–5, 22, 39–40, 43, 52–53, 64, 67, 94–95, 135, 143–44, 166, 173, 176, 243, 251, 264–65, 331, 357 Reitemeyer, Michael 34, 244, 253, 266 Reiterer, Friedrich V. 2–3, 33–34, 40, 148, 166, 169–70, 175–78, 180, 258, 260, 266, 285–86, 288–89, 291–93, 304, 313–15, 333, 336, 342, 357 Rendsburg, Gary A. 125, 332 Rey, Jean-Sébastien 2, 5, 33, 68, 95, 97, 114–15, 120, 122, 135–36, 143–44, 160, 166, 186, 195, 198, 224, 226, 242, 268, 284–85, 315 Reymond, Eric D. 1–3, 5, 100, 116, 120, 122, 125, 128–29, 142–43, 145, 184, 198, 221–22, 224, 226, 242, 254, 266, 286, 308, 315, 333, 336, 338, 357 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay 212, 214, 217 Roth, Cecil 196, 198, 210, 217 Rüger, Hans P. 114, 123, 152–53, 157, 166 Rüpke, Jörg 357 Russell, David S. 30, 32 Rustow, Marina 86 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel 172, 180 Samaan, Kamil W. 173, 181 Sanders, James A. 5, 32, 192, 198 Sandys, John E. 12, 18

396 

 Index of Authors

Sarna, Nahum M. 347, 357 Sauer, Georg 34, 153, 166, 175, 177, 181, 271, 273, 276–77, 280–81, 284 Saʿadiah Gaon 69, 135–36, 161, 186 Schäfer, Peter 163–64, 166 Schechter, Solomon 1, 3, 5, 9, 16, 18, 20, 39, 41–55, 59–62, 64, 67–68, 91, 104, 123, 127, 129–30, 145, 147, 166, 173, 186, 198, 222, 242–44, 250, 266, 331 Scheiber, Alexander 174, 177, 181, 222, 242 Scheurleer, Daniel F. 25, 31–32 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 347, 357 Schirmann, Jefim 222, 242 Schneider, Michael 202–5, 210–11, 217 Schofield, Malcom 40 Schöpflin, Karin 34, 313, 315 Schrader, Lutz 148, 157, 166, 250–51, 266 Schreiner, Josef 270–71, 278, 280, 284 Schur, Nathan 166 Schwartz, Daniel R. 206, 209, 217 Scott, Robert F. 10, 13, 170, 180 Scult, Mel 41, 64 Seaver, George 17–18 Sedeyn, Marie-Jeanne 73, 95 Segal, Moseh Z. 68, 69, 95, 116, 123, 153–54, 157, 162, 167, 187, 199, 202, 217, 228, 242, 244, 248, 250–52, 256, 258–60, 266, 270, 275, 277–78, 280–81, 284, 325, 329, 337, 342, 357, 360, 362–63, 366–67, 371 Seger, Nicolas 221, 242, 308, 315 Seidl, Theodor 353, 357 Seow, Choon-Leong 239, 242 Seybold, Klaus 254, 266 Shemunkasho, Aho 176 Sheppard, Gerald T. 184, 199 Sionita, Gabriel 172 Sirat, Colette 74, 78, 81, 95, 99, 122, 167 Skehan, Patrick W. 152–53, 155, 167, 184, 186, 189, 193–94, 199, 201–2, 217, 221, 228, 242, 244, 248–60, 266, 270–71, 277, 279–81, 284, 286, 315, 332, 337, 357, 360, 362, 366–67, 371 Skelton, David 183 Skemp, Vincent 34, 262, 266 Smallwood, Mary E. 206, 217

Smend, Rudolf 39, 48–49, 51–52, 54–56, 58, 60–62, 64, 116–17, 123, 129, 145, 149, 153–54, 167, 230–31, 236, 242, 250, 266, 269–71, 277, 280, 284, 337, 342, 357, 367, 371 Smith, Donald 3, 11 Smith, Mark S. 227, 242 Smits, Wilhelm 277, 284 Snaith, John G. 199, 271, 277, 284 Snell, Daniel C. 159–60, 167 Soll, Will 254, 256, 266 Sommerstein, Alan H. 351, 358 Soskice, Janet 16, 18, 41, 65 Spicq, Ceslas 270–71, 277, 284 Stadel, Christian 338, 358 Stein, Dina 190, 199 Stemberger, Günter 191, 199 Stenning, John F. 46, 51 Strack, Hermann 49 Strugnell, John 347, 358 Stummer, Friedrich 280, 284 Swete, Henry Barclay 173, 175, 181 Taylor, Charles 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13–22, 39, 43–44, 52–55, 62, 64, 91, 104, 123, 127, 129–30, 145, 147, 166, 243–44, 250, 266 Thackeray, Henry St.-J. 151, 167 Thiele, Walter 268, 284 Thoma, Clemens 206, 209, 217 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 250, 264 Torrey, Charles C. 319, 329 Towes, Casey 224, 240 Tropper, Amram D. 201, 204–5, 207, 212–14, 217 Ueberschaer, Frank 35 Ulrich, Eugene 194, 199 Urbanz, Werner 31–32, 35 van den Born, Adrianus 28 van den Driesche, Jan 26 VanderKam, James C. 201, 203, 217 van Gilse, Jan 26 van Grol, Harm 34



van Peursen, Wido Th. 151–52, 163, 166, 185–86, 188, 192, 198, 319, 322, 329, 343, 358 van Zanden, Jan Luiten 172, 179 Vargon, Shemuel 368, 371 Vattioni, Francesco 30, 32, 169, 174–75, 178, 181 Veltri, Giuseppe 95 Venn, John A. 14 Vermeylen, Jacques 34 Vetter, Paul 57–58, 65 Voitila, Anssi 149, 152, 167 von Rad, Gerhard 28, 32, 212, 217 Wagner, Christian 270, 284 Waltke, Bruce K. 227, 242 Walton, Brian 172 Watson, Wilfred G. E. 254, 266, 286, 315 Weiss, Meir 361, 363, 371 Wellhausen, Julius 48–49 Westermann, Claus 246, 266 Wicke-Reuter, Ursel 34

Index of Authors 

 397

Wieder, Naphtali 93, 95, 162, 167 Willecherus, Johann 25 Williams, Megan H. 171 Winter, Michael M. 343 Wischmeyer, Oda 285 Wright, Benjamin G. 1–2, 29, 32, 34, 97, 106, 108, 111, 125, 145, 148–51, 162, 167, 184–85, 187–88, 199, 202, 217, 251, 266, 277, 335, 342, 352, 357–58 Xeravits, Géza G. 33 Yadin, Yigael 1, 5, 29, 32, 68, 95, 116–17, 123, 149, 167, 184, 199, 333, 347, 358 Yahalom, Joseph 201, 217 Yassif, Eli 189, 199 Yeivin, Israel 186, 199 Younghusband, Francis 17 Ziegler, Joseph 174–78, 181, 268–69, 272–73, 284, 335, 358 Zsengellér, József 33

Index of Subjects Akiva, Rabbi 186 apocalyptic 17, 30, 227 Arabic 41, 47–48, 71, 86, 172–73, 189, 348, 368 Aramaic 42, 45, 47, 60, 103, 105, 114, 149, 163, 172, 191, 206, 208, 228–29, 231, 238, 320–24, 328, 350, 368 Aramaic Levi 3 arrogance 222, 229, 232, 235–39, 270, 364, 368–69 astronomy 17, 261, 267–68 Augustus, Bishop George 20 Babylonia(n) 69, 87, 92, 103, 112, 135–36, 170, 323, 325, 349 Beaufort, Lady Margaret 15, 21 Bensimon, Rabbi Aaron 54 Blimp, Colonel 17 Bonney, Thomas G. 11–12 booksellers 56, 71 Cairo see Egypt, Cairo, Fustat Cambridge 3–4, 9–22, 31–50, 52, 62, 67, 74, 97, 126–27, 130–32, 137, 140–41, 173, 176, 183, 224, 264, 287, 331, 353 Christian(ity) 12, 17, 20, 27, 30, 41, 52, 187, 206, 213 see also Protestant, Roman Catholic codicology and paleography 2, 67–94, 97–121 Colenso, Bishop John William 20 creation 150, 192–93, 196, 201–3, 210, 213, 216, 246, 248, 253, 285–313 Crusaders 79 Damascus Document 3, 93 Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran 1, 3, 29, 47, 63, 68–69, 93, 113–14, 121, 125, 135, 161–62, 171, 192, 194–95, 206, 209–11, 231, 244, 250, 254–55, 274, 319, 322, 324–28, 338, 359, 364 death 193, 201, 206, 224, 276–78, 280–82, 305–6, 309, 336–37, 346, 351–53 Devonshire, Duke of 11 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614473-023

d’Hulst, Count Riamo 47 Dillon, Ellen 15 Dillon, Margaret 15 Egypt, Cairo, Fustat 1–2, 9, 16, 18, 20, 29, 39–40, 42–47, 52–54, 58, 67, 76–79, 84–85, 91–93, 95, 135–36, 158, 169, 183, 186–87, 195, 197, 212, 257, 285, 319 Elamite 170 Elephantine 189 embarrassment 222–23, 232–36, 239 England 39, 48–49, 62 Ethiopia/Ethiopic 49, 60, 172 feasts see Sabbath and feasts fire 158, 193, 276, 278–79, 282, 304 France/French 39, 49–52, 62, 104, 177, 275 Fustat see Egypt, Cairo, Fustat gambling 79 German(y) 25, 39–41, 47–49, 57–58, 62, 172, 175, 177, 275 glosses (marginal notations) 2, 51, 54, 60–62, 87, 89, 91–92, 97–121, 125–43, 156, 173–74, 320 God anger, 237, 251–52 covenant 261 book 155 fear, 246, 253, 256–57, 262–63, 271–72, 312 forgiveness 236 judgement, 278 knowledge 291 name 61, 194, 204 patience 237 power 158, 192, 247, 294–96, 298–302 revelation 231, 255 salvation 249–50 punishment 279 thanks 248



Greek 1–2, 19, 27–30, 39, 41–42, 44, 46, 48, 50–51, 53–62, 67, 100–101, 103, 107, 112–16, 121, 126, 131, 147–59, 169–78, 184–85, 188, 191–93, 196–97, 225–26, 228, 231, 233, 235–36, 238–39, 243–44, 247, 250, 254, 258, 260, 267–82, 285–313, 319–20, 324, 332–33, 335, 344–45, 347–48, 350–52, 362–63, 365–68 halakah 209–11, 349 heavenly voice 205–8 Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) 31, 48, 51, 53, 55, 57, 62, 93, 148–51, 153–60, 171–75, 183–97, 231, 233, 237, 243, 249, 281, 289, 303, 323–325, 328, 345–48, 350, 359–61, 364, 368–69 Hebrew (Classical) 3, 20–22, 47, 51–52, 55–57, 113–14, 231, 237–38, 261–62, 319–28, 332, 334, 340–41, 347, 350, 359–70 Hebrew (Rabbinic) 3, 19–21, 39, 42, 44, 47, 50–59, 62, 113–14, 116, 163, 319–28, 349–50, 364, 367, 370 Hellenism 30, 50–51, 56, 294, 313, 341, 352 hekhalot 227 Hexapla 16, 171 history 10, 28, 30, 41, 45, 50, 52, 62, 69, 93, 126, 135, 171, 201–3, 210–12, 214, 257–63, 300 human limitations 231, 285–313 humility 222–23, 226–32, 254, 263, 292–93, 296, 364–70 imagery 153–54, 157–58, 184, 192, 253, 259–62, 267–82, 286 Islam/Muslim 161 Israel/Palestine/Holy Land 40, 42, 44, 69, 77–79, 92, 135, 191, 196–97, 229, 349 Jerusalem 37, 42, 44, 78–79, 92, 135, 201–2, 204, 206, 213, 251, 259, 261 Jews and Judaism 20, 44, 47, 51, 53, 62, 69, 125–126, 134, 136, 143, 162–63, 184, 187, 197, 203–4, 243, 295 Judeo–Persian 87, 91–92, 105, 108, 119, 125–43

Index of Subjects 

 399

Karaism 67–68, 74, 93, 135–36, 161–62, 186 kings see royalty, kings language, linguistic 3–4, 42, 44, 50–51, 62, 68, 93, 117, 149, 177, 195, 211, 240, 319–28, 331–54, 359–70 Latin 2, 15, 27, 40, 46, 56, 58, 126, 154, 169, 172–75, 177–78, 193, 268, 280, 332–33 lion 236, 239, 272–76, 281–82 literature, literary 2, 30, 40, 42–45, 48, 50–51, 62, 159–60, 163–164, 211–12, 245–46, 256, 268, 281–82, 287, 305, 327, 331–54, 360 liturgy and worship see prayer, liturgy and worship London 10, 12, 15, 17–18, 41, 52 marginal notations see glosses Mandaic 114 Masada 1, 29, 68, 98, 116–17, 121, 125, 149, 160, 171, 175, 184–85, 188, 192, 222, 319–21, 327, 331–33, 338, 341–46, 348, 353, 359 Masora 87, 127, 185, 194–95 masṭara 86, 98 mathematics 9, 52 medicine 103 Messiah 51 Middle Ages, medieval 2–4, 14, 29, 40, 43, 46, 62, 67, 69, 92–94, 105, 120–21, 125–27, 135–36, 143, 161–64, 183–88, 196–97, 203, 210, 221, 227, 319–28, 350, 365 Minyat Zifta 78–80, 84 Montefiore, Claude 41 Montefiore, Sir Moses 41 mountaineering, 11, 21, 52 mystic(ism) 163, 203, 227 Netherlands 25–28 New Testament 26, 148, 176 opposites 209, 296, 301–11, 337–38, 340, 346, 364, 367 Oxford, 12, 20, 41, 45, 47–49, 62, 67, 97, 133–34, 141, 173, 334

400 

 Index of Subjects

paleography see codicology and paleography Palestine, Holy Land see Israel/Palestine/Holy Land parents 292–93 petuḥah 104–5, 127 Persian 2, 53, 87, 91, 106–8, 111–12, 114, 120–21, 125–43, 170, 172, 203, 205, 213, 319, 323 philosophy 285–313, 338 poet(ry) and piyyuṭ 3–4, 44, 48–49, 70, 127, 151–52, 156, 160, 171, 176, 178, 183–97, 210–11, 221–40, 243–64, 267–82, 286–88, 308, 312–13, 331–54, 360 praise and thanksgiving 188, 192–95, 243–51, 255, 258–59, 261–63 Praise of the Fathers and Simeon 128, 162, 192, 195–96, 201–3, 210–14, 243–45, 258–63, 294 prayer, liturgy and worship 42–43, 46, 85–86, 92–93, 162, 183–84, 192, 195–97, 201, 210–211, 213–14, 243–45, 248–49, 251–52, 255, 258–60, 262–63, 267–68, 294, 350 priesthood 51, 194, 200–15, 243, 250, 256, 258–63, 285–86 prophecy 201, 205–209, 245, 273–74, 279, 299, 301, 323, 342, 344 Protestant 28, 41, 48, 52, 62, 171 Psalter 184, 193–97, 243–64 Qirqisani 161 Qumran see Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran Rabbinic(s), Rabbanism, Talmud, Mishnah 1–2, 4, 20–21, 39, 41–42, 44–46, 50, 52–57, 62, 69–70, 74, 76–78, 84–85, 92–93, 114, 120, 135, 147, 151, 162–64, 174, 183–97, 200–15, 227–28, 231–32, 251, 321, 328, 348–50, 364, 366–67, 369 riches see wealth, riches Roman Catholic 27–28, 30, 57–58, 62, 170–71 Rosetta Stone 158, 170 royalty, kings 154, 189–90, 202, 208, 243–64

Sabbath and feasts 25, 244, 261, 302–3 Salzburg 40, 169–70, 175–78 Samaritan 46, 172, 204, 338 Sayce, Archibald H. 47 science 17, 21, 295 Scotland 11–12, 40–41 Semitics 39–41, 44, 46, 48, 57, 62, 368 serpent 268, 272–76, 282 sin 155–56, 158, 233, 236–37, 252, 267–82, 304, 310, 312, 342, 346, 361, 363 Smith Lewis, Agnes 189, 198 Spain/Spanish 172, 177, 275 St John’s College, Cambridge 3–4, 9–22, 43, 52, 54, 331 sword 247, 274–76, 282, 351 Syriac 2, 39, 41–42, 44, 46, 48, 50–51, 54–62, 100–101, 103, 107, 112–16, 120, 126, 129, 131, 147–151, 155–59, 161–63, 169, 172–78, 185, 187–89, 192–93, 195–97, 225–26, 228, 230–31, 233, 235–36, 238–39, 244, 250, 252–54, 268–69, 277, 285, 303–304, 319–20, 322, 332–33, 336, 342–44, 348, 350, 366–67 Talmud, Mishnah see Rabbinic(s), Rabbanism, Talmud, Mishnah Targum 114, 151, 209, 229, 231, 327 Taylor, Charles 3, 9–23, 43–44, 52–55, 62 Taylor, Margaret 15, 22 Temple 183, 197, 200–14, 243–44, 259–60, 340, 349, 360 Tetragrammaton 147 thanksgiving see praise and thanksgiving theology 9, 19, 27, 30, 41–42, 48, 50, 52–53, 57, 67–68, 156, 179, 188, 203, 224, 244, 250, 253, 281, 285–313, 343 Tobit 3 Torah (Law) 212–14, 244, 246, 248, 252–57, 261–63, 270–71, 275, 310, 361, 369 Tyre 74, 77–79, 92, 204 Ugaritic 327



vocalization, pointing 58, 61, 102–3, 112–13, 128, 135–36, 186, 342, 347 war, military 205–9, 247, 273–75, 281, 292, 313, 327, 345 wealth, riches 40–41, 53, 154, 227, 232, 270, 272, 276–78, 296, 306, 309–10, 336, 341–43 Welsh 11 Wilberforce, William 20–21

Index of Subjects 

 401

wisdom 51, 126, 188–93, 209–10, 212–14, 224, 231, 234, 244–46, 252–57, 260, 262–63, 267–82, 285–313, 336, 367–69 Wissenschaft des Judentums 45, 164 women 9, 12, 15–17, 20, 40–41, 69–70, 103, 187, 246, 254, 268, 273–76, 280, 364 Yemen 49, 186–87 Yiddish 22 Zionist 49