Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach

Bradley C. Gregory Like an Everlasting Signet Ring Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Edited by Friedri...

Author: Bradley C. Gregory

42 downloads 858 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Bradley C. Gregory Like an Everlasting Signet Ring

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Edited by

Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas

Volume 2

De Gruyter

Bradley C. Gregory

Like an Everlasting Signet Ring Generosity in the Book of Sirach

De Gruyter

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gregory, Bradley C. Like an everlasting signet ring : generosity in the book of Sirach / Bradley C. Gregory. p. cm. -- (Deuterocanonical and cognate literature studies, ISSN 1865-1666 ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-3-11-022366-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Ecclesiasticus--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Generosity--Biblical teaching. 3. Charity--Biblical teaching. I. Title. BS1765.6.S75G74 2010 229'.406--dc22 2009053217

ISBN 978-3-11-022366-8 e-ISBN 978-3-11-022367-5 ISSN 1865-1666 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © Copyright 2010 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co KG, Göttingen All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

For Mendy, Ben and Addie

Preface This volume is a slightly revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation, submitted to the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame in the spring of 2009. The title of the work, which is derived from a conflation of Sir 17:22 and 40:17, reflects the dual focus of my study. While primarily interested in Ben Sira’s thinking on the topic of generosity and its contextualization in Seleucid Judea, I also go beyond this to explore the way that generosity is represented in the book as it exists in its multiple textual forms. Gary A. Anderson served as my advisor through all stages of my doctoral work and during his direction of this dissertation he was a constant source of patience, insight, and encouragement. At crucial points in the process he frequently had more confidence in the project than I did and he always seemed to have the wisdom to balance helpful suggestions for how to move forward with allowing and encouraging me to find my own voice in sorting through the material. Over the past four years he has truly been an ideal mentor. I am also very thankful for the kind and generous participation in this work by the members of my committee: David Aune, Eugene Ulrich, and James VanderKam. I cannot imagine a group of scholars that better combines rigorous scholarship and high standards with graciousness; and I have no doubt that the work has benefited substantially from their careful readings. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Jeremy Corley of Ushaw College, who provided me with a copy of Baldauf’s unpublished, and difficult to acquire, Salzburg dissertation. Josephine Dru kindly gave of her time to read the manuscript and offer suggestions. Any shortcomings in the work remain my own. I would also like to thank the Graduate School and the Department of Theology for the financial support given to me during the time this work was completed. The faculty and students in this department have provided an extremely fruitful and enjoyable environment in which to study and they have shaped me in substantial ways. Thanks also are due to our chair, John Cavadini, for the opportunity to teach, research, and bring this work into monograph form during a year-long appointment as a Visiting Assistant Professor. In addition, the staff at Hes-

VIII

Preface

burgh Library, especially the ILL staff, were extremely helpful in locating materials essential to this study. I would also like to thank Dr. Friedrich V. Reiterer and Walter de Gruyter for accepting this manuscript into the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies series and Albrecht Döhnert and Manfred Link for their generous editorial assistance. There are a few friends who made my graduate school journey particularly enriching by their friendship: Dan O’Hare and Molly Zahn, who were my classmates in Hebrew Bible here at Notre Dame, Samuel Boyd, Justin Dombrowski, Rick Gilmartin, and especially my brother Bryan Gregory. Thanks also to my parents and in-laws for their constant support over the past eight years. Finally, I am profoundly grateful to my wife, Mendy, and our two kids, Ben and Addie, for their untiring support and encouragement during these months of work. Since our departure from our home in Georgia in 2001, Mendy sacrificed more than I did to get to this point and all of them ensured that my most exciting moments of researching and writing this work are not my best memories of 2008. Notre Dame, Indiana

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations........................................................................................XIII Chapter 1: Introduction………………….....................................................1 Status Quaestionis………………………………………………….2 Prolegomena to the Study of Sirach .............................................5 Date, Provenance, and Setting ......................................................7 The Textual History and Text Criticism of Sirach....................13 Structure and Compositional History........................................19

1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3

Chapter 2: Wealth, Poverty, and the Problem of Justice ....................25 2.1 Theological Dimensions of Wealth and Poverty......................26 2.1.1 The Relativization of Wealth.......................................................26 2.1.1.1 The Relativization of Wealth through Comparison ................27 2.1.1.2 The Relativization of Wealth through Metaphor .....................32 2.1.2 Retributive Justice and the Dual Origins of Wealth and Poverty....................................................................................38 2.1.2.1 Retributive Justice in Old Testament Scholarship ...................38 2.1.2.2 Retributive Justice in Sirach ........................................................40 2.1.2.3 Retributive Justice and Economics in Sirach.............................44 2.1.2.4 Ambiguities of Wealth .................................................................48 2.1.3 Conclusions....................................................................................55 2.2 The Interface of Theology and Society.......................................56 2.2.1 Social Realities in Ben Sira’s Judea .............................................61 2.2.1.1 The Rich and the Retainer Class .................................................62 2.2.1.2 The Rich and the Poor ..................................................................66 2.2.2 The Conflict between Social Reality and Retributive Justice ................................................................72 2.2.3 Strategies for Resolution ..............................................................74 2.2.3.1 Limited Deferral ............................................................................75

X 2.2.3.2 2.2.3.3 2.3

Table of Contents

Hints of Resolution Beyond Death.............................................83 Wisdom and Honor ......................................................................85 Summary and Conclusions..........................................................88

Chapter 3: Death, Generosity, and the Good Life ...............................91 3.1 Introduction to Sirach 14:3-19 .....................................................91 3.2 The Improper Use of Wealth: Miserliness (Sirach 14:3-10)...............................................................................93 3.3 The Proper Use of Wealth: Enjoyment of Life and Generosity (Sirach 14:11-19) ..............................................104 3.4 The Main Themes of Sirach 14:3-19 in Broader Context .......120 3.5 Conclusions and Implications...................................................127 Chapter 4: Generosity through Loans and Surety ............................ 128 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................128 4.2 Loans and Surety in Sirach 8:12-13...........................................129 4.3 Loans and Surety in Sirach 29 ...................................................133 4.3.1 Loans in Sirach 29:1-7 .................................................................135 4.3.2 Surety in Sirach 29:14-20 ............................................................151 4.4 Ben Sira’s Understanding of Loans and Surety in Broader Context ......................................................................163 4.5 Conclusions and Implications...................................................169 Chapter 5: Generosity through Almsgiving ...................................... 171 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................171 5.2 Theological and Lexical Trends Important for Almsgiving.............................................................................172 5.3 Sirach 29:8-13: Almsgiving as a Type of Loan ........................181 5.4 Sirach 29:8-13 in Broader Context.............................................200 5.4.1 Alms and a Heavenly Treasury in Jewish and Christian Literature.............................................................204 5.4.2 Almsgiving in the Textual Transmission of Sirach 29...........213 5.5 Conclusions..................................................................................219 Chapter 6: Almsgiving and Sacrifice in Sirach .................................. 222 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................222 6.2 Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood and the Cult ........225

Table of Contents

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

XI

The Sacrificial Functionality of Almsgiving ...........................233 Synthesis: Ben Sira as Mediator of Tradition..........................240 Sacrifice and Almsgiving in Broader Context ........................247 Conclusions..................................................................................252

Chapter 7: The Extent of Almsgiving in Sirach ................................. 254 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................254 7.2 Imitatio Dei as an Ethical Norm .................................................254 7.3 Imitatio Dei and Almsgiving in Sirach......................................257 7.3.1 Limitations on the Giving of Alms...........................................257 7.3.2 Almsgiving without Limits .......................................................261 7.3.3 Almsgiving, Imitatio Dei, and the God of Justice and Mercy.....................................................................................276 7.4 Imitatio Dei and Almsgiving in Broader Context ...................281 7.5 Conclusions..................................................................................288 Chapter 8: Synthesis & Conclusions ................................................... 291 Appendix: Text Criticism of Select Passages ..................................... 295 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 328 Index of Modern Authors..................................................................... 353 Index of References ............................................................................... 359

Abbreviations AB ABD ABRL ABJU ACW AGRL AHDO AnBib AnOr AOAT ATAbh ATD AUS BAGD BBB BBET BEATAJ BETL BFCT Bib BibOr Bijdr BINS BJS BLS BN

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Anchor Bible Reference Library Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Christian Writers Aspects of Greek and Roman Life Archives d'Histoire du Droit Oriental Analecta Biblica Analecta orientalia Alter Orient und Altest Testament Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Alte Testament Deutsch American University Studies Bauer, et al, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca ephemedridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Biblica Biblica et orientalia Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Bible and Literature Series Biblische Notizen

XIV BS BSJS BTA BTB BZ BZAW BZNW CBC CBET CBOT CBQ CBQMS CEJL CGLC CJAS DCLSt DCLY DJD EHAT ExpTim FARG FAT FOTL HALOT HCOT HS HSS HTR HUCA ICC Int

Abbreviations

Biblische Studien Brill Series in Jewish Studies Bible & Theology in Africa Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Collegeville Bible Commentary Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Coniectanea biblica Old Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Discoveries in the Judean Desert Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Expository Times Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpretation

Abbreviations

JANES JBL JJS JNES JNSL JQR JSJSup JSNT JSNT Sup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSSSup JTS KAANT LCL LHBOTS LSTS MPIL NEchtB NES NHS NICOT NIDOTTE NZSTh OBO OTL OTS OTWSA

XV

Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden Neue Echter Bibel Near Eastern Studies Nature of Human Society Series New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in South Afrika

XVI PRSt R&T REJ RHPR SB SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLSCS SBLSP SBLSS SBT ScrB SJOT SPAAA SSLL SSS STDJ TB TBN TBT TDNT TDOT TLOT TSAJ UCOP UF VD VF VT VTSup WBC WTJ

Abbreviations

Perspectives in Religious Studies Religion and Theology Revue des études juives Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Subsidia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Studies in Biblical Theology Scripture Bulletin Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Special Publication of the American Anthropological Association Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics Semitic Studies Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Themes in Biblical Narrative The Bible Today Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ugarit-Forschungen Verbum domini Verkündigung und Forschung Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal

Abbreviations

WUNT ZAH ZAW ZTK

XVII

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Althebräistik Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1 Introduction “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be as well.” These words by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount reflect the common belief that how people handle money reflects the core of who they are and what they believe. Many people, ancient and modern, have recognized that how people use money is a barometer of their inner values. The wealthy are perceived quite differently if they are philanthropists than if they use their wealth for manipulating and controlling, or even oppressing, others. It is well known that in early Judaism and Christianity generosity was an important feature of ethical visions of the pious life. So important was almsgiving in early Judaism that it was considered by many rabbis to be the commandment that equals, or even surpasses, all the other commandments combined (cf. Tosephta Peah 4:19). Similarly, the Didache opens its exposition of “the two ways” by recalling Jesus’s command to love one’s enemies and fleshes this out through the virtue of generosity. It is only after this that it addresses the commandments regarding topics such as murder and adultery. While the virtuous nature of generosity can be seen throughout the ancient Near East and Mediterranean region, the Second Temple period was the formative era for many of the theological dimensions of generosity found in late antiquity among Jews and Christians. In this regard, the book of Sirach is a marvelous work for appreciating the way some Second Temple Jews appropriated earlier traditions about generosity and developed the theological dimensions that became foundational for later Jewish and Christian thinkers. The purpose of this study is to explore Ben Sira’s thinking on the use of finances for generous purposes and to assess his indebtedness to earlier patterns of thought as well as the role of his own social environment in the formation of his theological perspective.1

1

For the sake of clarity, throughout this study “Sirach” will be used to refer to the book and “Ben Sira” will be used to refer to the person who authored the book, with the exception of direct quotes from other sources.

2

Introduction

1.1 Status Quaestionis The topic of generosity in the book of Sirach has received a relatively modest amount of direct attention. In his 1982 M.A. thesis at the Catholic University of America, Patrick Griffin studied the use of eleēmosynē in Tobit and Sirach.2 As indicated by the title, Griffin’s study focuses on the Greek text and develops a typology for how the word eleēmosynē is used in these books. In his chapter on Sirach, Griffin discusses Sir 3:3031; 7:10; 17:22; and 29:8-9. The following year, at the University of Salzburg, Borghild Baldauf completed her thesis on the poor and poverty in Sirach.3 The first half of her thesis involves a study of the Hebrew and Greek language used for poverty and the poor and seeks to relate the two sets of lexical data. The second half of the study provides an exegesis of Sir 13:2-24; 11:10-28; and 4:1-10. These three pericopes demonstrate Ben Sira’s understanding of the antagonistic relationship between the poor and their social enemies (13:2-24), the relationship between YHWH and the poor (11:10-28), and avenues for overcoming poverty (4:1-10).4 In 1998 two independent studies were published on the topic of poverty and wealth in Sirach. In his contribution to the Festschrift for Friedrich V. Reiterer, Víctor Morla Asensio helpfully catalogues Ben Sira’s statements on riches and poverty.5 After a discussion of the Hebrew and Greek terminology, he examines the social view and assessment of wealth, the social view and assessment of poverty, and the relationship of material goods to wisdom. Benjamin G. Wright III also published a study of poverty and wealth in which he arrives at conclusions similar to those of Morla Asensio’s study. A notable distinctive of Wright’s work is that he uses Ben Sira’s statements about riches and poverty to discern his social location as being a member of the retainer class for the Jerusalem aristocracy.6 Both Morla Asensio and Wright discuss generosity only briefly. A few years later Wright’s study was expanded in collaboration with Claudia V. Camp to include a more

2 3 4

5 6

GRIFFIN, A Study of Eleēmosynē . BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira. Other important studies that deal with some aspect of poverty in Sirach are BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater; GILBERT, Wisdom of the Poor; HOPPE, There Shall Be No Poor Among You, 112-116; STENDEBACH, Weisheitliche Mahnung; WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, especially 37-74. MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth. WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 559-578. For a discussion of Ben Sira’s social location, see below.

Status Quaestionis

3

penetrating analysis of the dynamics of honor and shame involved in wealth, especially in relation to Ben Sira’s class ideology.7 The related topic of social justice has received two recent treatments. In 2000, Jeremy Corley compared the issue of social responsibilities in the books of Proverbs and Sirach.8 He briefly notes the role of almsgiving and generosity in relation to caring for those who are vulnerable in society. A few years later, at the Catholic University of America, Joseph E. Jensen defended a dissertation on Ben Sira’s teaching on social justice in which he provided extensive exegeses of Sir 4:110; 34:21-31; and 35:14-22a.9 One of the most important pericopes for the topic of generosity in Ben Sira’s thought is Sir 29:1-20. The only scholar who has provided a study focused solely on this passage is Maurice Gilbert.10 His study, though brief, provides a wealth of insights on this passage. He divides the section into vv. 1-7 (loans), vv. 8-13 (alms), and vv. 14-20 (surety) and his discussion focuses on the literary texture of these subunits and their relationship to earlier texts. In addition to the studies of Griffin and Gilbert, the topic of almsgiving in Sirach has been addressed by several authors. In a brief article in 1991 L. J. Prockter gathered and classified the main passages on almsgiving in Sirach and noted similarities to other Second Temple texts as well as to New Testament and rabbinic texts.11 The topic of almsgiving was also addressed by Otto Kaiser in his study of cultic and moral atonement in Sirach.12 Finally, Gary Anderson’s recent article on the theological dynamics of almsgiving in the Second Temple period incorporates several passages from Sirach into the discussion.13 The present study seeks to build upon the insights of these earlier works in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the theological and social dynamics of generosity in Ben Sira’s thought. This study will show that his theological understanding of generosity involves a complex mediation between biblical and theological traditions and the challenges of living in the Hellenistic world. In particular, the conceptual framework within which Ben Sira approaches the topic is that of the problem of retributive justice. Therefore, in order to set the context

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

WRIGHT/CAMP, Who has been Tested by Gold, 153-173. CORLEY, Social Responsibility, 2-14. JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179-189. PROCKTER, Alms and the Man, 69-80. KAISER, Kultische und Sittliche Sühne, 151-167. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 37-67.

4

Introduction

for his thinking, chapter 2 will explore the role of poverty and wealth in relation to the problem of justice. Much of Ben Sira’s teaching on charity is predicated on the tension created by adhering to the principle of retributive justice, on the one hand, and the recognition that social realities provide strong counterevidence, on the other hand. The ways in which Ben Sira negotiates this problem are explained in detail in chapter 2 because they will prove critical for later chapters on the theological dynamics of almsgiving. One of the crucial components to the discussion of retributive justice is the problem of death and, more specifically, the lack of belief in the afterlife. Chapter 3 will provide a transition into our primary topic by focusing on Sir 14:3-19, which incorporates the virtue of generosity into Ben Sira’s vision of the “good life” in relation to the finality of death. The next two chapters represent the heart of the study by providing an exegesis of 29:1-7, 14-20 (chapter 4) and 29:8-13 (chapter 5). Chapter 4 delineates Ben Sira’s understanding of loans and surety and shows how theological commitments and social realities have resulted in a distinctive appropriation of earlier traditions. Chapter 5 explores the fundamental logic of Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving and shows that its placement within Sir 29 derives from the conclusion that almsgiving is a specialized type of loan, one that is made to God through the poor. The final two chapters build on the dynamic elucidated in chapter 5 in order to investigate specific qualities of almsgiving. Chapter 6 addresses the use of sacrificial terminology to describe the efficacy of almsgiving and argues that there is no implicit social tension between supporting the Jerusalem priesthood and giving to the poor. Chapter 7 seeks to explain why Ben Sira advocates limiting almsgiving only to the righteous in some places while suggesting unlimited almsgiving in other places. It is argued that Ben Sira views almsgiving through the ethical model of imitatio Dei and that the tension involved in the extent of almsgiving ultimately derives from the more fundamental tension arising from his adherence to the principle of retributive justice. This study thus seeks to elucidate Ben Sira’s theological understanding of almsgiving in the specific social context of Seleucid Judea. A fuller appreciation of the mediatorial role of Ben Sira vis-à-vis his own heritage, both theological and interpretive, and his social situation is a desideratum in previous discussions of Ben Sira’s view of generosity, which this study attempts to address. In order to contextualize Ben Sira’s teaching, chapters 3-7 will conclude by comparing Ben Sira’s thought to other works from antiquity, Jewish, Christian, and others. These sections are not meant to be comprehensive by multiplying par-

Prolegomena to the Study of Sirach

5

allels unnecessarily. Rather, I have selected works, including secondary additions present in the textual versions of the book of Sirach, that seem to be the most profitable for comparison. Finally, a brief word about terminology is needed. In the course of this study I will use the words generosity and charity as encompassing both financial gifts as well as deeds of assistance. From this angle, the chapters of this study begin with the general category of generosity in chapter 3 and move to more specific subsets of generosity in chapter 4 (loans and surety) and chapters 5-7 (almsgiving). Before turning to the study proper, some preliminary issues regarding the study of Sirach need to be addressed.

1.2 Prolegomena to the Study of Sirach The name Sirach comes from the Greek name of the book, but the book is also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira (after the Hebrew) and Ecclesiasticus (after the Latin).14 All of these names ultimately derive from the book’s author “Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira” (arys !b rz[la !b [wXy / VIhsou/j ui`o.j Sirac Eleazar), mentioned in Sir 50:27. 15 By convention he is simply called “Ben Sira.” There are clues throughout the book that Ben Sira was a sage and a scribe who led a life of leisurely learning.16 In 38:24-25 he says that, “The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; only the one who has little business can become wise. How can one become wise who handles the plow, and who glories in

14

15

16

Because of the transposition of 30:25-33:13a and 33:13b-36:16a in the Greek manuscripts, all verse enumeration in this study will follow the reconstructed system of Ziegler, recommended by Di Lella and used in the NRSV. ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, x. For a discussion of this textual problem, see below. The Hebrew text from the Cairo Genizah fragments, manuscript B (twelfth century), actually has “Simeon son of” prior to “Yeshua” (also in 51:30). The prologue provided for the Greek text simply refers to him as “Jesus” and the Latin and Syriac superscriptions call him only “son of Sira(ch),” though one early Syriac manuscript (B.L. 12142) refers to “Joshua, son of Simeon, who is called Bar ’Asira” in 51:30. Di Lella is surely correct that the name Simeon has been interpolated into the Hebrew version of 50:27 from v. 24a, though Schreiner thinks that the difference is irresolvable. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 557, 579; SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 5. While some scholars describe Ben Sira as a scribe and others as a sage, Horsley and Tiller describe him as a “scribe-sage”. Though both titles are accurate, I will refer to Ben Sira as a sage for the sake of simplicity. See HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple, 99.

6

Introduction

the shaft of a goad, who drives oxen and is occupied with their work, and whose talk is about bulls?” (NRSV). This passage and the lengthy description of the nature of a scribe’s life in 38:34-39:11 are best seen as autobiographical.17 The prologue provided by Ben Sira’s grandson when he translated the work into Greek seems to confirm this. He says of his grandfather that he “had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law” (NRSV). That his book contains the wisdom that he taught in a school setting is probable based on his frequent reference to the student as ynb (“my son”), common in sapiential literature, and his recommendation that the unlearned “draw near to me…and lodge in the house of instruction” (51:23).18 Based on Sir 34:9-13; 38:33; and 39:4, it is possible that Ben Sira served as a diplomat or a counselor.19 As a sage (and scribe) in this position Ben Sira was likely part of a “retainer class” that was supported by the rich and powerful and instructed those who were from the upper classes. In his analysis of agrarian societies, Gerhard Lenski defines the retainer class as “officials, professional soldiers, household servants, and personal retainers, all of whom served [the governing class] in a variety of more or less specialized capacities.”20 This sociological context will prove to 17 18

19 20

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 10-12. Although manuscript B has yXrdm tyb, the original probably read rswm tyb (cf. Greek: oi;kw| paidei,aj; Syriac: )NPLwY tYB), so SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 578. On whether this “house of instruction” was an actual school that provided instruction on the exegetical exposition of Scripture see AITKEN, Hebrew Study in Ben Sira’s Beth Midrash, 27-37. Aitken argues that Ben Sira drew heavily on Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Deuteronomy and that his principal interest was in the fulfillment and actualization of previous Scriptures in his own time. Roth thinks this book was used a textbook for instruction within Ben Sira’s school. ROTH, Sirach. The First Graded Curriculum, 298-302. See also COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 36-39; PERDUE, Wisdom Literature, 221-222; STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 3033; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 362. On the general state of education at the time of Ben Sira see DORAN, Jewish Education in the Seleucid Period, 116-132; and id., The High Cost of a Good Education, 94-115. Cf. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 17. LENSKI, Power and Privilege, 243-248; cf. HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple, 99-103; WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 570; id., Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 195; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 30-31; HARRINGTON, The Wisdom of the Scribe According to Ben Sira, 184-185.


7

be important for the discussion of Ben Sira’s understanding of generosity and the related topics of poverty and almsgiving (see §2.2).

1.2.1 Date, Provenance, and Setting Sirach can be dated with a fair amount of certainty. Near the end of the book, in 50:1-24, the author praises the High Priest Simon II who served from 219-196 B.C.E., but nothing in the book reflects any knowledge of the rise of Antiochus IV or the ensuing conflict in Jerusalem (175-164 B.C.E.).21 This points to the conclusion that the original book was written during the first quarter of the second century B.C.E., a date that conforms to the statements in the Greek prologue, which was added by his grandson after the death of Euergetes II in 117 B.C.E. Given that the encomium at the end of the book praises Simon as though he were a past figure, a date after his death in 196 B.C.E. is most likely.22 Within this two decade period the majority of scholars place the initial composition of the book around the year 180,23 though some argue for a date of around 190.24 Nevertheless, if the book was indeed a collection of material that Ben Sira had been teaching for some time, then some of the passages may reflect instruction going back to the late third century.25 According to the Greek text of Sir 50:27 Ben Sira was a “Jerusalemite” and a Jerusalem setting for the composition of the book is suggested throughout the rest of the work. His disposition is consistently favorable to both Jerusalem and the temple. He prays for God’s mercy on both (36:17-19)26 and believes the city to be the residence of wisdom (24:11). In addition, his descriptions of the repairs and fortifications 21

22 23 24

25 26

The equation of the Simon in Sirach with the High Priest Simon II (as opposed to Simon I, ca. 300 BCE) has been the majority opinion since the influential essay of MOORE, Simon the Righteous. For a dissenting position see VANDERKAM, Simon the Just; id., From Joshua to Caiaphas, 137-157. Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 9. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 10; HARRINGTON, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 79; MURPHY, The Tree of Life, 65. GILBERT, Wisdom Literature, 291. Crenshaw splits the difference and opts for ca. 185. CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 611. This consensus has been challenged by Ingrid Hjelm who believes that this early dating can be “easily dismissed” since the Hebrew and Greek versions are dissimilar and the appeal to the grandfather is a common device of pseudonymity. HJELM, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 129-130. I find Hjelm’s skepticism to be unwarranted. GRABBE, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period, 51. The authenticity of Sir 36 has been challenged. See below, §1.2.3.

8

Introduction

completed for Jerusalem and the temple (50:1-4) as well as his detailed descriptions of the High Priestly vestments and the temple liturgy all indicate that he was likely an eyewitness to these events in Jerusalem.27 The historical situation in which Sirach was composed was a volatile time during the Hellenistic period. In the course of Alexander the Great’s conquests throughout the Mediterranean and the Near East during the latter part of the fourth century, Palestine fell under his control in 332 B.C.E. as he marched to Egypt. Nine years later, at the age of thirty-three, he fell ill and died, and his empire was divided up among his quarreling generals. For the next century Jerusalem and Judea were under the control of the Ptolemies, whose headquarters were in Alexandria.28 In the wake of Alexander’s conquests and his generals’ subsequent rule, the entire Near East began to be Hellenized. Though it is debated how deeply Hellenization penetrated into everyday life in Jerusalem and Judea, there were approximately thirty Greek towns in the greater area of Palestine.29 In addition, Greek displaced Aramaic as the lingua franca

27

28 29

There is an almost unanimous consensus that the Hebrew version of the book was composed in Jerusalem. Recently, however, Paul McKechnie has argued for an Alexandrian provenance. He believes that Sir 51:2-12 attests to a trial Ben Sira endured before a king, probably around 200 B.C.E., which resulted in his exile. His setting is thus as an Egyptian court official rather than among the Jerusalem aristocracy (The Career of Joshua Ben Sira, 3-26). Space will not allow an interaction with all the aspects of his thesis, but a few observations can be offered for why I am unpersuaded by his thesis. Crucial to his reconstruction of Ben Sira’s life is his reading of Sir 51 as an actual trial before a king. While I do not dispute that the poem arose from personal experience, I do not believe it can be identified with the specificity that McKechnie claims. First, his interpretation makes much of 51:6 which states that an accusation was made “to the king”. However, the reference to a king only appears in the Greek, not the Hebrew or the Syriac, and generally commentators judge it to be a corruption of bolidej or belh and thus omit it (see, e.g., SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 354). The only place where a king is mentioned is in 51:1 where it is God who is called king. Since the poem clearly spans vv. 1-12 it is strange that McKechnie quotes only vv. 2-12. Once v. 1 is included in the context the poem appears to be a trial of a general social kind wherein Ben Sira appeals to God as deliverer in his capacity as judge and king. The vagueness in reference and the use of traditional language make it applicable to almost any threatening situation (so CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 866; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 564). If the specificity McKechnie deduces from the poem is questionable then the likelihood that Ben Sira was exiled to Egypt and composed his Hebrew book there is diminished. Of course, McKechnie’s thesis is possible; but even if he is correct, much of Ben Sira’s formative thought would have developed during his time in Jerusalem. See BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 412-413. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 90-116. See the judicious and helpful discussion in COLLINS, Cult and Culture, 38-61.


9

and Hellenistic cultural ideals were diffused throughout the empire. Examples of cultural changes included the hosting of social banquets, a greater emphasis on honor and shame, the production of schools and gymnasiums (at least by the second century B.C.E.), and the dissemination of Greek literature and philosophy.30 It was during the third century that Israel’s Scriptures began to be translated into Greek, beginning with the Pentateuch. The Prophets were likely translated sometime in the second century and most of the “Writings” in the first century B.C.E.31 In addition to social and educational changes brought on by Hellenism, there were significant economic changes as well. Due to the more systematic implementation of coined money instead of the older barter system, as well as technological advances such as the foot-driven potter’s wheel (cf. Sir 38:29), trade and commerce expanded and increased during the third century. The Ptolemaic administration centralized commercial supervision and streamlined the agriculturally based economy through better methods of cultivation, thus increasing production. In addition, foreign trade with important centers of commerce such as Egypt and Rhodes contributed to the general increase in prosperity. Despite heavy taxation, some entrepreneurs were able to raise their standard of living considerably through these changes.32 On the other hand, international slave trade, both for labor and prostitution, also appears to have increased dramatically during the third century and the market demand for such slaves produced a perfect opportunity for unscrupulous people looking to get rich at the expense of the defenseless.33 If Ben Sira died before the Maccabean crisis (ca. 175 B.C.E.), as most scholars think, then he was probably born well before the turn of the second century, perhaps as early as 250 B.C.E.34 In any case, he was 30 31

32

33 34

On these and their impact on Ben Sira see COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 32-41. See JOBES/SILVA, Invitation to the Septuagint, 33-37. Evidence suggests that some books of the “Writings”, such as Chronicles, were translated by the middle of the second century. SWETE, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 24-25. The principal source for our knowledge of the socio-economic climate of Palestine during the third century comes from the Zenon papyri, which contain the correspondences of Zeno, a subordinate to the finance minister Apollonius under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (mid-third century). Cf. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 414-415; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 25-26; BICKERMAN, The Jews in the Greek Age, 69-80, 148-160. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 69. Corley suggests 245 B.C.E. as a possibility (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 13). Di Lella suspects it may have been even earlier: “If, as we may assume, he was an old

10

Introduction

almost certainly alive when the balance of power began to shift with the rise of the Seleucid ruler Antiochus III in 223 B.C.E. Based in Syria, the Seleucid dynasty represented the principal rival to the Ptolemies for control of Palestine following the dissolution of Alexander’s empire after his death. Although earlier attempts to defeat Ptolemy IV Philopater in 217 had failed, Antiochus III decided to renew his campaign against Egypt when Ptolemy V Epiphanes came to power in 203. In 198 Antiochus III defeated the Egyptian forces at Panium and Palestine passed over to Seleucid control.35 According to Josephus, an upper-class faction of Jews in Jerusalem, including the High Priest Simon II, welcomed the new Seleucid rulers and even furnished the Syrian forces with supplies (Ant. XII, 3, 3ff.). Antiochus responded generously by providing rewards that must have sparked great optimism among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jewish refugees and captives were released and returned to their homes and taxes were remitted for a period of three years in order to aid the local economy.36 On top of this tax relief Antiochus III also granted a reduction in tribute payment by one-third “for all time” (Josephus, Ant. XII, 138-144). This would have translated into a reduction from approximately 450 talents under the Ptolemies to around 300 talents (cf. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.17.5), or a little less than one talent per thousand inhabitants.37 In addition, the Jews continued to enjoy the right to live according to their ancestral laws, and cultic costs as well as repairs to the temple and city were underwritten by the new government. Yet, with the death of Simon II in 196, his son Onias III, who was pro-Ptolemaic, became the high priest. This new situation must have created a politically tense atmosphere within Jerusalem until Onias III was assassinated during the reign of Antiochus IV. Not long after the installation of Onias III, in 190 B.C.E., Antiochus III suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Romans. A few years later, in 187, he was attempting to rob a temple in Elam in order

man when he published his book ca. 180, then he was born ca. 250 or earlier.” SKEThe Wisdom of Ben Sira, 16. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 415-416. BICKERMAN, The Jews in the Greek Age, 119. The practice by a newly ascended king of freeing refugees and slaves, remitting taxes and/or debts, and the rebuilding/repairing of local temples was common in the ancient Near East. See the extensive documentation in WEINFELD, Social Justice. Based on a population of Judea of between 200,000 and 250,000, which is suggested by both site surveys and literary documents. See APERGHIS, Population – Production – Taxation – Coinage, 80; BAESENS, Royal Taxation and Religious Tribute, 180-181. HAN/DI LELLA,

35 36

37


11

to be able to pay tribute to the Romans and was killed in the process.38 The previous cooperation between Antiochus III and the inhabitants of Judea apparently soured when Antiochus’ successor Seleucus IV Philopater (187-175 B.C.E.) attempted to access the Temple deposits through his finance minister Heliodorus (2 Macc 3:4-40).39 Near the end of Ben Sira’s life, Seleucus IV was assassinated by Heliodorus, and his younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, took control. This, then, provides the historical context for Ben Sira, who lived under Ptolemaic rule for the first part of his life and then under Seleucid rule during the final two decades of his life, a time which was full of political and social tension. What was Ben Sira’s attitude toward these socio-political circumstances and transitions? Scholars debate whether Ben Sira viewed the transition of power to the Seleucids as an improvement.40 However, even if Ben Sira did prefer the Seleucids to the Ptolemies, it must have been only a relative preference. Sirach contains statements that the ideal state is a theocratic one where Israel is free of any foreign rule. For example, in Sir 17:17 he says that, “for each nation he has appointed rulers, but Israel is the Lord’s portion.” Ultimately, all dominion is God’s and the theological anomaly of foreign kings ruling over Israel occurs only by his permission and for the purpose of chastising his people for unfaithfulness (cf. 10:1-5.14-17; 11:5-6; 36:1-31; 51:1-8).41 When God’s wrath comes he will expel the nations from the land of

38 39

40

41

BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 418. Although the story in 2 Maccabees has details considered to be legendary, the general narrative of the story is usually accepted as basically accurate. Cf. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 418; TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 381-390; GERA, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 105-108. Hengel says that Ben Sira was “nationalistic, xenophobic – one might even say antiSeleucid.” HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:134. However, James Aitken has mounted a compelling case that Ben Sira was more favorable to the Seleucids than he was towards the Ptolemies. AITKEN, Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto, 191-208. See also the nuanced treatment of Ben Sira’s views of authority and power in CALDUCH-BENAGES, Fear for the Powerful, 87-102. Di Lella takes 10:4-5 to be a veiled reference to both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids: “Both the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings generally considered themselves to be gods. Such blasphemous arrogance is totally wrong, says Ben Sira, for the ruler who is raised up by God is a mere human being…Ben Sira’s allusions to the pagan kings are sufficiently veiled so as not to get him in trouble.” (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 224). That Ben Sira thought that there was a fundamental connection between unfaithfulness and exile/foreign oppression is found to be a constant theme in the review of Israel’s history in chapters 44-50 by WRIGHT, Put the Nations in Fear of You, 85-90.

12

Introduction

Israel (35:22-25; 39:23),42 and those who have heeded wisdom will live in security and will judge the nations (4:15). Thus, whatever support Ben Sira may have shown for the new Seleucid rulers, it was pragmatic and relative to a larger theology about Israel’s unique place in the world as God’s own possession. This “pragmatic relativism” can be seen in his views of Hellenism in general as well. While acknowledging that Ben Sira had some positive intellectual interaction with Hellenistic culture, Tcherikover characterizes Ben Sira’s basic stance regarding Hellenism as combative and polemical.43 Yet, this needs to be nuanced. While Hellenism was surely seen as a potential threat in some ways, Di Lella is surely correct that “his purpose was not to engage in a systematic polemic against Hellenism but rather to convince Jews and even well-disposed Gentiles that true wisdom is to be found primarily in Jerusalem and not in Athens, more in the inspired books of Israel than in the clever writings of Hellenistic humanism.”44 Ben Sira seems to be open to adopting certain aspects of Hellenistic culture and literature so long as they do not conflict with Judaism as he understands it.45 42 43

44

45

Wright considers chapter 36, which he argues is authentic, here as well (Put the Nations in Fear of You, 91-92). See below. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 143-144. Similarly, Ben Sira’s approach is described as “apologetic-polemical” by Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism, 1:138). While all scholars acknowledge the interaction between Ben Sira and Hellenism, Theophil Middendorp (Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras) thinks Ben Sira has borrowed much from Hellenistic thought. Crenshaw (Book of Sirach, 624-626) and Di Lella (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 47-48) are much more cautious and critique Middendorp on methodological grounds for overreaching in what constitutes dependence. Also see the extensive critique of Middendorp in KIEWELER, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 16. Later Di Lella remarks, “Ben Sira knew how attractive pagan writings could be, and how they could lead Jews away from the practice of their faith. So he made use of these foreign sources, not because he was caught up in the spirit of the compromise and syncretism that was rampant at the time, but because he felt he had to show others how the best of Gentile thought is no danger to the faith but could even be incorporated into an authentically Jewish work, the purpose of which was to encourage fidelity to their ancestral practices” (50). Similarly, Jack T. Sanders concludes that Ben Sira “is entirely open to Hellenic thought as long as it can be Judaized. What he opposes is the dismantling of Judaism.” SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 58. Also notable is the unforgettable description of James Crenshaw: “he attempts a marriage between Hellenism and Hebraism, between Athens and Jerusalem, although he saw to it that Zion wore a chastity belt, the keys of which had been entrusted to the Most High himself” (The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 57). For Ben Sira’s relationship to Hellenistic works see especially SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 27-107. An example of an adopted Hellenistic custom is the advice


13

For Ben Sira, if a Hellenistic idea or social convention can be accommodated to “the fear of the Lord” and the keeping of Torah, then he is not overly reluctant to adopt it. These ideals form the basic grid through which Ben Sira evaluates Hellenism and provide the essential content of how he defines wisdom. Nevertheless, one must keep in mind that Ben Sira himself associated with the intellectual elite of his day, and his life was financially subsidized by the wealthy. Thus, his critiques of certain Hellenistic practices are tempered in places, though not necessarily compromised. As Collins observes, “A sweeping rejection of Hellenism, or of the Hellenized mores of the upper class, was scarcely a possibility for someone in Ben Sira’s social location.”46 Regarding the topic of generosity, it will become clear that while there are some important connections to Hellenistic thought and culture, Ben Sira’s thinking is most heavily indebted to biblical texts and their interpretation. While the issue of Hellenism will be addressed in the following chapters, for the most part generosity is not an area in which the interface of Hellenism and Judaism is of especial importance.

1.2.2 The Textual History and Text Criticism of Sirach To say that the textual history of Sirach is complicated would be an understatement. Although it was originally written in Hebrew, it was later translated into Greek by Ben Sira’s grandson, who also added the prologue, sometime after 132 B.C.E.47 With its failure to be incorporated into the Jewish canon, the transmission of Sirach in its original Hebrew form began to lapse. As a result, for centuries the book was known only in its Greek form and derivative translations such as Syriac and Latin. However, beginning in 1896 a number of Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach began to be uncovered among the Cairo Genizah fragments.48 In

46 47

48

concerning etiquette at a banquet. While banquets and dinner parties were held before the rise of Hellenism, the description of the dinner party in Sir 32 reflects Hellenistic custom. See COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 33; CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 624-625; also cf. SANDERS, Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution, 73-106. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 33. Box & Oesterley suggest a date anytime between the grandson’s arrival in Egypt in 132 and 116, immediately following the death of Euergetes. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 293, 317. The story of the discovery and publication of these fragments is recounted in SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 51-53. The Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach are published in ADLER, Missing Chapters, 466-480; BAILLET/MILIK/DE VAUX, Les “petites grottes”, 75-77; BEN-Ḥ AYYIM (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira; COWLEY/NEUBAUER (eds.), Ecclesiasticus; DI LELLA, Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript, 226-238; id.,

14

Introduction

total, portions of six manuscripts have been discovered and labeled A through F. When these manuscripts were published, some scholars initially challenged their authenticity, arguing that they were simply retranslated from Syriac, Greek, or even Persian.49 However, with the discovery of Sirach among the scrolls of the Judean desert, the basic reliability of manuscript B (and the others by implication) was confirmed. Thus, there is a general consensus today that the Cairo Genizah manuscripts should be considered authentic, although some corruptions have found their way into the texts.50 The exact relationship between the Greek and Hebrew witnesses is difficult to determine. In both languages there appear to be two families of texts, an earlier shorter text and a later longer recension.51 Kearns suggested the following terminology for these versions: HT I represents the Hebrew text written by Ben Sira himself; HT II is the later recension; G I represents the translation made by Ben Sira’s grandson; and G II is the expanded version.52 The text type HT II, which Di Lella dates to the first century B.C.E., has expanded HT I through additions of words or even lines that are primarily doctrinal in nature.53 The Cairo Genizah manuscripts appear to represent both text types, HT I & II, but they also show some sporadic retroversions from the Syriac and Greek versions.54

49 50 51 52 53 54

Recently Identified Leaves, 153-167; Facsimiles of the Fragments; GASTER, New Fragment, 688-702; LÉVI, Fragments, 1-30; id., The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus; MARCUS, Original Hebrew, 223-240; MARGOLIOUTH, Original Hebrew, 1-33; PETERS, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus; id., Liber Jesu Filii Sirach; SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11, 79-85; SCHECHTER, A Further Fragment of Ben Sira, 456-465; SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira; SEGAL, arys-!b rps $wtm ~ypswn ~ypd, 313-323; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch; VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico; YADIN, Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. The texts have been conveniently published together in BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. Also see id., Errata et Corrigenda, 375-377. Recently another portion of manuscript C has been published: ELIZUR, rps lX yrb[h xswnhm Xdx [jq arys !b, 17-28. See the detailed discussion and bibliography in DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 23-105. For an overview of the corruptions in the Hebrew manuscripts see MINISSALE, La versione greca del Siracide, 153-171. Two works important for developing this model were ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, and KEARNS, The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus. KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, 547. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 58. See SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 58; DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 106-147; LÉVI, Hebrew Text, 277-284. For an argument that many of these ca-


15

Likewise, there are essentially two recensions of the Greek version of Sirach. The earlier text type, G I, is represented in uncials A, B, C, and S and is generally accepted as representing the translation made by Ben Sira’s grandson. Comparison between the Hebrew texts and G I is complicated by the fact that in the prologue the grandson tells us that “what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original” (NRSV). This observation has been confirmed by the work of Benjamin G. Wright III.55 The later text type, G II, appears to have been created by using G I as a base text and then supplementing it with translations from HT II. Unfortunately, it does not exist in any single manuscript but has been reconstructed mostly from the Origenic and Lucianic recensions in the critical edition by Ziegler.56 Since Clement of Alexandria is the first known author to quote from G II with regularity, it must have originated sometime around the late first century or early second century C.E.57 Despite the complicated relationship between the existing Greek manuscripts, it is likely that they all ultimately derive from one early exemplar because they all share a peculiar trait. In all of these witnesses 30:25-33:13a and 33:13b-36:16a have been transposed. The correct order of these sections has been preserved in the Hebrew texts, the Old Latin, the Syriac, and some Armenian manuscripts.58 The most likely explanation is that there was an error in the collation of some leaves of the exemplar manuscript and the transposition was subsequently propagated through all extant Greek witnesses.59 One result of this transposition throughout the Greek texts is that there are multiple ways to number the chapters and verses of Sirach. In his critical edition of the Greek text of Sirach, Ziegler has maintained the Greek enumeration but placed the corrected versification in parentheses. Skehan & Di Lella have adopted Ziegler’s enumeration in their commentary and in the preface plead

55

56 57 58 59

cases can be explained solely through the conflation of HT I and II without recourse to the theory of retroversion, see RÜGER, Text und Textform. He concludes that his analyses “suggest that the grandson was not usually concerned to give a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew, nor did he usually resort to using existing OG translations as helps in his work…Here was a translator concerned to give a translation of his grandfather’s wisdom, not a mechanical reproduction of his grandfather’s Hebrew.” WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 249. See the discussion in ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 58-69. RÜGER, Text und Textform, 112. KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, 547. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 56; WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 5.

16

Introduction

with others to do so in order to avoid confusion. The NRSV has also adopted this number system and it will be followed here as well. After the Greek witnesses, the Old Latin (VL) is one of the two most important translations.60 Instead of making a new translation, Jerome simply appropriated the VL for the Vulgate. Because the VL, which probably dates to the second century C.E., contains many G II readings, it is a crucial witness to the early form of G II. However, one must be cautious in its use because it contains “double and even triple renderings, additions, transpositions, Christian reworkings, and a few omissions as well.”61 The final important manuscript tradition is the Syriac version of Sirach, which consists of two independent translations: the Peshitta and the Syrohexapla.62 The Peshitta version likely was originally produced in the third or perhaps the early fourth century C.E., though there is disagreement over the provenance of the translation and those who were responsible for it.63 The fact that the Peshitta of Sirach shows affinities with both HT I and II as well as some influence from both G I and G II has led to a number of theories on the production and/or revision of this version.64 In addition, there are some translations or insertions that are independent of the Hebrew and Greek witnesses. The other major Syriac translation of Sirach, the Syrohexaplaric version, was made in the early seventh century near Alexandria by Paul, the bishop of Tella. As the name suggests, this translation was made on the

60 61 62

63

64

For the portions of Sirach where the critical edition of the Vetus Latina has been completed (i.e. chapters 1-24), I will use the edition of THIELE, Vetus Latina: Sirach. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 60. There are also some fragments from another translation known as the Syropalestinian version (probably fourth century C.E.), covering Sir 12:18; 13:3-4a; 13:7; 45:25-46:8. It may be a Lucianic recension of the Peshitta version. See CALDUCHBENAGES/FERRER/LIESEN, La Sabiduría del Escriba, 42. There is no critical edition of the Syriac texts so I will use the text of Codex Ambrosianus, published in the volume by Caluduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen. Important works on the question, all of which consider a date in the third or early fourth century C.E. likely, are NELSON, Syriac Version; OWENS, The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 39-75; RÜGER, Text und Textform, especially 112-115; WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 237-253, 494-507. Douglas and Winter also believe that there was a further revision of the translation, though they disagree over the nature and date of the revision. Gilbert suggests a second century date (Wisdom Literature, 291). Also see WEITZMAN, From Judaism to Christianity, 16, 27, 71; id., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament, 226. For an excellent discussion see VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 14-40 (note especially the chart on page 38).


17

basis of Origen’s hexapla and aids in the reconstruction of G II and HT II.65 Commensurate with the complicated textual history of the book of Sirach, the textual criticism of the book can be exceedingly difficult in places. In regards to the Hebrew materials, there are no manuscripts which contain the whole book, or even close to it. With the exception of the Masada Scroll, the Hebrew manuscripts are all quite late and of mixed quality. It can thus be difficult to determine the origin of a variant reading, whether it is scribal or intentional (either an independent gloss or an influence from another version). Even G I, which on the whole is the most reliable form of the book, contains scribal errors and, according to the grandson himself, “differs not a little” from the Hebrew original. Furthermore, the fact that only about two-thirds of the book is extant in any Hebrew manuscript leaves one dependent on the Greek text for many passages. It must be borne in mind that this Greek translation was made in Egypt and thus reflects a historical and cultural setting different from the one in which the original book was composed. One must always keep this in mind when dealing with a passage not attested in the Hebrew, for it cannot necessarily be assumed that conclusions drawn, especially linguistic ones, are totally equivalent or transferable to the language of Ben Sira in his Palestinian setting.66 However, where no Hebrew is extant the Syriac can be helpful as a control for analyzing the Greek text. Between the Syriac and the Greek one can often get a reasonable sense of Ben Sira’s thought, even if the original Hebrew cannot be reconstructed with much accuracy. Therefore, in considering a passage one must take all the textual witnesses into account and draw the best possible conclusions, recognizing that in many cases these conclusions will have to be held tentatively and different critics will weigh the manuscript evidence differently. In other words, in many places the textual criticism of Sirach must be an art based on probabilities. The majority of passages dealing with poverty and wealth, which will be considered below in chapter 2, are extant in the Hebrew manuscripts. In addition, there is a Hebrew text for the following passages related to generosity: Sir 3:30-31; 4:1-10; 7:29-36; 8:12-13; 12:1-6; and 14:3-19. For these passages my procedure will be to begin with the Hebrew text(s) given that their basic reliability has been demonstrated by

65 66

CALDUCH-BENAGES/FERRER/LIESEN, La Sabiduría del Escriba, 41-42. Beentjes has argued that, “both the Hebrew text of Ben Sira and the Greek translation by his grandson must be considered as literary entities of their own, which cannot be exchanged at pleasure.” BEENTJES, Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research, 5.

18

Introduction

Di Lella and others. Comparison with the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions will be used to provide a control, and where small emendations seem warranted they will be made. In some cases, such as 12:1-6, the Hebrew will have to be significantly revised either in language or in verse order. Where the Greek and the Syriac agree against the Hebrew, there is a strong probability that the Greek/Syriac reading is to be preferred. However, for Sir 18:15-18; 29:1-20; and 35:1-5 no Hebrew text is extant. For these passages my exegesis will proceed on the basis of the Greek and Syriac versions, with the VL as a point of reference. Considering both of these witnesses and applying the discipline of textcriticism allows one to gain some manner of “triangulation” on Ben Sira’s thought through the two textual traditions while also appreciating the nuances of both versions in their own right. Attention to the Syriac version will be particularly important for the end of chapter 29 since it contains one of the longest supplements in the Syriac version of the book. The role of this supplement in the transmission of Sirach will be examined in §5.4.2. For my study of the texts where the Hebrew is not extant I have chosen not to attempt to reconstruct a Hebrew base text. My reasons for this decision are two-fold. First, as Wright demonstrates, the Greek version of Sirach is frequently only loosely representative of the Hebrew. Therefore, while one might have confidence in making small emendations or reconstructing a missing word or two through comparison with the versions, the uncertainty in any given reconstruction would seem to increase as one enlarges the amount of text to be reconstructed. A couple of examples may help to illustrate this principle. The fact that Ben Sira uses the Hebrew word br[ for surety in 8:13 makes it highly likely that in 29:14-20 the same root underlies his references to surety there, a conclusion which would seem to be confirmed by the Syriac’s use of the same root in 29:14-20. On the other hand, the Greek and Syriac both tend to homogenize references to the poor elsewhere in Sirach with the stems ptwc-/tapein- and )NKSM, respectively, irrespective of the underlying Hebrew word.67 Therefore, there is no way to work back from the Greek and Syriac texts to reconstruct the word for “poor” in places where the Hebrew is missing, as in 29:8. This same problem has an analogous risk at the level of whole clauses, which makes exegesis on a reconstructed Hebrew passage somewhat specula-

67

See WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 560-561; MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 154; and the helpful tables and discussion in BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 35-44.


19

tive. The second reason is an additional methodological consideration. Because a significant portion of the exegesis of Sirach involves understanding its biblical background, one runs the risk of circularity in reconstructing a text that is similar in content and language to an antecedent biblical passage.68 Throughout this study I have text-critically examined every passage from Sirach cited and made translations accordingly. The complicated nature of the textual evidence for the entire book requires careful consideration of any verse on which an argument depends. For this reason, I have included my text-critical readings for every verse either in a footnote, an appendix, or the body of the work. While some readers may find it unnecessary to wade through the full discussion for a given verse, others may find the textual reasoning behind my translations to be important or helpful for their own work. For all other biblical passages I have used the NRSV, unless otherwise noted.

1.2.3 Structure and Compositional History The attempt to delineate a structure for the book of Sirach is complicated by two factors. First, decisions about structural markers are frequently intertwined with one’s view of the compositional history of the book.69 Second, sapiential literature by its very nature resists the kind of structural analysis found in narratives or prophetic oracles. This is particularly true for collections of aphorisms such as in Sirach, Proverbs, and portions of Qoheleth. There is much debate on the structure of Sirach, though there are some basic observations accepted by most scholars that will suffice for the present study. In modern biblical scholarship there have been several models for structuring Sirach, though the question of structure was not a focal point of attention until the commentary of Rudolph Smend in 1906.70 Cornelius Lapide held to a three-fold division of the book into 1:123:28; 24:1-42:14; and 42:15-51:30.71 In recent times he has been followed

68 69

70 71

For an example of this potential for circularity see the text-critical discussion of Sir 4:3 in the Appendix. Research up to 1995 on both of these topics is helpfully summarized by MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History, 61-79. More recently see CORLEY, Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira, 21-47. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, xxxiv-xxxvii. LAPIDE, Ecclesiasticum, 22. The three sections begin with the praise of wisdom in chapter 1, the praise of wisdom in chapter 24, and the praise of creation in 42:15ff.

20

Introduction

with small variations by Luis Alonso Schökel.72 On the model of the Pentateuch and the Psalter, C. Spicq divides the book into five sections: 1:1-16:23; 16:24-23:27; 24:1-32:13; 32:14-42:14; and 42:15-50:29 (with chapter 51 serving as an appendix).73 Otto Mulder and Hans-Winfried Jüngling offer different proposals for dividing the book into six sections, and Otto Fritzsche divides Sirach into seven sections.74 Taking general statements about wisdom as structural markers, Norbert Peters divided Sirach into two large sections each consisting of five subunits: A: 1:1-4:10; 4:11-6:17; 6:18-14:19; 14:20-20:26; and 20:2723:27; B: 24:1-32:13; 32:14-38:23; 38:24-41:13; 41:14-42:14; and 42:15-50:29. The pericope in 51:1-30 serves as an appendix.75 Another proposal was suggested by Mosheh Segal, who viewed Sirach as structurally modeled on the book of Proverbs. He also divided the book into two larger sections, but with only four subunits in each: part 1 consists of 1:1-4:10; 4:11-6:17; 6:18-14:19; 14:20-23:27; and part 2 consists of 24:1-32:13; 32:1438:23; 38:24-43:33 and 44:1-50:29 (chapter 51 is listed as an appendix).76 Notably, the first seven sections each begin with a sapiential poem. This arrangement has been accepted with minor variations by Skehan & Di Lella, Harvey, Schrader, and Corley.77 Harvey provides the following schematic for the structure of Sirach, which gives a snapshot of the layout of the book:78

72 73 74

75 76

77

78

ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 144, 227, 299. SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 554. By focusing on the “I-author” passages, Jüngling divides the book into three parts, each with two subunits (I: 1:1-16:23; 16:24-24:20; II: 24:30-33:15; 33:16-39:11; III: 39:1243:33; 44:1-50:26) with 50:27-29 and chapter 51 as an epilogue. On the basis of literary characteristics, Mulder sees the six sections beginning with the superscription in 1:1, the beatitude in 14:1, the praise of Wisdom in 24:1, the imperatives in 33:19 and 39:13, and the three hymns beginning in 42:15. See JÜNGLING, Der Bauplan des Buches Jesus Sirach, 89-105; MULDER, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 46-47; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, xxxii-xxxiii. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, xli. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, vi-viii, 16. Peters seems to have been the first to suggest certain affinities with the book of Proverbs, noting that the passage on wisdom in chapter 1 and the acrostic in 51:13-30 mirror the introduction in Prov 1-9 and the acrostic in Prov 31:10-31(Das Buch Jesus Sirach, xl-xli). CORLEY, Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira, 35; HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order, 52-62; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 65; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, xiii-xvi. HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order, 61.


21

Prologue (by Ben Sira’s grandson) 24:1-32:13 Applying Wisdom to the 1:1-4:10 Understanding Wisdom Covenant Community *Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Introduced * Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Localized (24:1-34) (1:1-30) 32:14-38:23 Using Wisdom to Make 4:11-6:17 Applying Wisdom Good Decisions Personally * Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Personified * Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Understood (32:14-33:18) (4:11-19) 38:24-43:33 Demonstrating the 6:18-14:19 Applying Wisdom SoResults of Wisdom cially * Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Manifested (38:24-39:11) * Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Sought (6:18-37) 44:1-50:29 In Praise of Devout Men 14:20-23:27 Applying Wisdom to Speech and Thought * Wisdom Poem: Wisdom Praised (14:20-15:10) Epilogue (51:1-30)

The placement of the prologue opposite the epilogue has been criticized by Mulder, who says that “our primary disagreement with Harvey relates to the fact that he presumes Sir 24, with its song of praise in honour of wisdom, to be the centre of the book between prologue and epilogue. The prologue is only to be found in G and is hence the composition not of Ben Sira but of his grandson. In this event, is it really correct to style Sirach 51 in H as an epilogue?”79 In addition, Di Lella has argued that 51:1-30 forms an inclusio with 1:1-30 and provides a structural framework for the whole book, a point acknowledged by Harvey.80 Thus, it might be better to treat 51:1-30 as the complement to the sapiential poem of the first section that offsets the absence of a sapiential poem in the eighth and final section (44:1-50:29). This necessarily brief review of proposals for the structure of Sirach highlights the difficulty in finding a structure for a book comprised mostly of aphorisms. Different structural divisions largely derive from what criteria are used to analyze the text, whether one sees the repetition of themes or words, syntactic markers, and/or general notions of content as determinative for structure. However, some general contours of structure are generally agreed upon. All scholars see a significant structural division with the praise of Wisdom in chapter 24 and 79 80

MULDER, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 31. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 74; HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order, 52. Marböck is cautious about this suggestion (Structure and Redaction History, 67) .

22

Introduction

scholars are in general agreement that the praise of the heroes of Israelite/Jewish history in 44:1-50:24 constitutes a distinct unit, though there is some disagreement as to the relationship between the praise of the heroes in chapters 44-50 and the praise of the Creator found in 42:1543:33.81 In this regard, scholarship for the most part has adhered to Lapide’s observation about the three-fold division of the book. Despite a certain amount of indeterminacy inherent in the structural analysis of Sirach, I find the sapiential poems to be promising markers of subunits within the book. Therefore I follow the basic structural outline used by Segal, Skehan & Di Lella, Harvey, and others. In this regard, I agree with Harvey when he says that “it is clear that Sirach does not follow a neat, formal outline such as our western minds might prefer, but this does not mean that there is no order to his book …although there is no consistent structuring of the [eight] units which applies to the entire book, there appear to be ordering principles which apply to the units within a given section and give each section its own internal logic.”82 As such, Sirach is similar to the book of Proverbs, except that the former shows a somewhat more consistent thematic organization. Whereas in Proverbs neighboring statements frequently have no connection with one another, it is common in Sirach to find groupings of statements that develop a line of thinking on a specific issue. This is important because the evaluation of aphorisms in Sirach must be more cognizant of the surrounding statements than in the book of Proverbs.83 Therefore, delimitation of a pericope is both possible and necessary for Sirach in a way that it is not for much of Proverbs. Before noting the implications of this discussion of structure on the present study, a brief survey of issues surrounding the compositional history of the book will be helpful. While scholars generally place the composition of Sirach between 190 and 180 B.C.E., many think that the book is not of uniform composition. The view that Sirach is a composite work stems from three observations. First, there are sections of the text

81

82 83

For a discussion of the genre of Sir 44:1-50:24 and the argument for classifying it as an encomium see LEE, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50. That the “hymn in praise of the Creator” in Sir 42:15-43:33 is meant to be taken together with the Praise of the Ancestors see MACK, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 189-193. HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order, 60-61. This characterization applies more to Prov 10-31 than to Prov 1-9. The larger units and thematic continuities within Prov 1-9 are indicative of a discourse style somewhat closer to what is found in Sirach, although the arrangement of a series of aphorisms in Sirach is closer to chapters 10-31. Sirach shows similarities to both sections of Proverbs in terms of content. Cf. FOX, Proverbs 1-9, 4-5, 24-25, 48-49; MURPHY, The Tree of Life, 15-19, 70-71; DESILVA, Introducing the Apocrypha, 153.


23

that appear to be self-contained, both formally and in terms of content. Examples include the praise of Wisdom in chapter 24, the description of the life and work of a scribe in 38:24-39:11, the praise of creation in 42:15-43:33, and the praise of Israel’s heroes in 44:1-49:50. The fact that units such as these would be quite comprehensible apart from their place in Sirach has suggested to some interpreters that they may have originally existed independently, either orally or in written form. Second, it is striking that some of these thematic units seem to disrupt the flow of a larger thematic unit (e.g. 6:5-17.18-37).84 Third, scattered throughout the book there are autobiographical comments that seem designed to stitch together the work. Examples include 24:30-34; 33:1619; and 39:12.32. In one instance, 24:30-34, the comment seems to offer an explanation for the extension of a previous corpus. It is notable in this regard that the praise of Wisdom in chapter 24 begins the second major section of the book, suggesting that an original corpus ending with chapter 23 may have been supplemented with the poem in praise of Wisdom and then given an autobiographical seam to connect this material with subsequent material.85 As early as the late eighteenth century, Eichhorn argued that the book was a combination of three earlier collections that Ben Sira had brought together at different points.86 In the middle of the nineteenth century, Ewald put forth the thesis that much of the book of Sirach was earlier than its putative author. He argued that only 36:23-51:30, with the exception of 39:12-35, was from Ben Sira and that in the production of the book he had incorporated two earlier collections, the first of which (1:1-16:21) was complete by the end of the fourth century and the second of which (16:22-36:22 and 39:12-35) was composed during the third century. These previous compilations contain a few additions, abbreviations, and transpositions by Ben Sira, but his work was largely in combining these previous works with his own.87 Those who hold that there have been additions to the book subsequent to Ben Sira’s composition recognize that all of these passages must have been inserted relatively quickly since they appear in the Greek translation of 84 85

86 87

MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History, 76-77. CORLEY, Searching for structure and redation in Ben Sira, 41-42; MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel, 41-44; ROTH, On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, 5979, especially 60-65; cf. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, xl. EICHHORN, Einleitung, 51-52. EWALD, The History of Israel, 262-267. For Ewald, then, the book of Sirach preserves a steady stream of wisdom material spanning from the time of the composition of Qoheleth down to just before the Maccabean period. See the discussion in MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History, 76-79.

24

Introduction

Ben Sira’s grandson in the late second century. The two passages most commonly suggested as being subsequent to Ben Sira’s death are Sir 36:1-17 and 51:1-30, neither of which plays a significant role in the present study.88 To close, it will be helpful to draw out some of the implications of this review for the present study. The possibility that Sirach contains earlier material taken over by Ben Sira cannot be disproved. Yet, the fact that Ben Sira may have selected, incorporated, and redacted such material suggests that it is just as reflective of his thought as his own material. The fact that Ben Sira’s own grandson translated a version of the book substantially similar to the one preserved in the Hebrew and Syriac versions probably suggests that multiple stages of composition should be attributed to Ben Sira himself rather than a third party between the time of Ben Sira’s death and the arrival of the book in the hands of his grandson. The indications of a compositional process are most easily explained by supposing that Ben Sira composed his work over time and was himself the compiler and editor of the various portions of the book, as both Corley and Marböck suggest.89 Therefore, while there may have been a diachronic development of the book, a synchronic assessment of the topic of generosity can still be accepted as accurately reflecting the substance of Ben Sira’s thought. Nevertheless, the recognition of the diachronic dimension to the book (and its overall structure) can help to illuminate the particular texture of a subject. For example, while Ben Sira briefly discusses the topic of loans and surety in 8:12-13 he greatly expands the topic in chapter 29, integrates it with a discussion of almsgiving, and grounds it more explicitly in a WisdomTorah piety. A comparison of these two passages can help to illuminate the process of Ben Sira’s theological reflection, as will be shown in chapter 4.

88

89

Against the authenticity of Sir 36 see EWALD, The History of Israel, 265; MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 113-136; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 8793; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 23. The authenticity of this passage has been defended by MARBÖCK, Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions, 149-166; PALMISANO, Salvaci, Dio dell’Universo, 25-49; and WRIGHT, Put the Nations in Fear of You, 83-85. The authenticity of 36:1-22 is also accepted by GILBERT, Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira, 118-122; and SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 12, 420423. For the authenticity of Sir 51 (excepting the expansion after v. 12) see MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History, 78; and SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 74, 563, 576-577. CORLEY, Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira, 41-45; MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History, 78-79.

Chapter 2 Wealth, Poverty, and the Problem of Justice In order to assess Ben Sira’s understanding of generosity, it is first necessary to develop an understanding of the theological framework within which he views money and possessions.1 With this larger framework in mind, it will be easier to situate the particular aspects of Ben Sira’s statements on generosity within his overall thought. Because this chapter traverses a lot of material, it may prove helpful to map out the flow of the discussion at the beginning. First, we will examine two theological dimensions of wealth and poverty that recur throughout the book. One dimension involves the way Ben Sira relativizes money and possessions to other things, especially wisdom and the fear of God. By doing this he demonstrates a pedagogical dimension to wealth and poverty that seeks to reorient his students’ priorities. The second dimension of wealth and poverty involves the place these concepts have in Ben Sira’s understanding of retributive justice. While virtue is understood to result in material prosperity, vice is presented as leading to poverty. This model of retributive justice provides the basic conceptual sphere in which his thinking about wealth takes place. Second, we will explore how Ben Sira, like the sages before him, was well aware of the way in which social realities routinely provided disconfirming evidence for the doctrine of retributive justice. In fact, the widespread presence of social injustice appears to have troubled Ben Sira and he sought out a number of strategies to cope with the problem presented by this interface between social reality and theological principles. In addition to the relativization of money, deferral, recompense to one’s descendants, and an honor/shame dynamic all are found to provide some mode of resolution to the problem for Ben Sira.

1

The principal treatments of this subject can be found in MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 151-177; WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 559-578; and WRIGHT/CAMP, Who has been Tested by Gold, 153-173. This chapter is indebted to the groundwork done in these essays.

26

Wealth, Poverty, and the Problem of Justice

Yet in the end, this tension between his affirmation of the doctrine of retributive justice and his inability to resolve completely the difficulties within the doctrine is allowed to stand. In the concluding section we will point out some of the implications for the rest of the study, which focuses on the topic of generosity.

2.1 Theological Dimensions of Wealth and Poverty The first thing to observe is that money and possessions function in two different spheres in Ben Sira’s discourse. The first sphere of use we might call an indirect function insofar as references to money or possessions are not made for their own sake but in order to make a claim about another subject. This usage can take a form that is either metaphorical or explicitly comparative. The common denominator between these is that the concept of wealth is evoked in order to relativize it to things Ben Sira considers more important. The second sphere of usage concerns statements that bear directly on how Ben Sira thinks about money and possessions as values in themselves. These statements, by and large, exhibit an affirmation of the doctrine of retributive justice and reveal an understanding of money as functional and thereby also intrinsically morally neutral.2

2.1.1 The Relativization of Wealth The first sphere of discourse in Ben Sira’s theology involves the use of references to money, goods, and treasure to relativize wealth in relation to other values. There are two main ways that Ben Sira accomplishes this: through direct comparisons and through a symbolic use of metaphors. For the former, these comparisons are made through different kinds of “better than” statements as well as implicit comparisons made through structural parallelism. For the latter type of relativization, there is no formal marker, although the symbolic usage of money and possessions almost always occurs in contexts involving an appreciation of the value of wisdom.

2

These two spheres of usage for wealth are also evident in similar ways in the book of Proverbs. See SANDOVAL, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 29-114.

Theological Dimensions of Wealth and Poverty

27

2.1.1.1 The Relativization of Wealth through Comparison In the social arena both a good wife and friends are singled out multiple times as being worth more than money. Note the following statements by Ben Sira: A faithful friend is a strong shelter3 whoever finds him finds a treasure A faithful friend is beyond price and there is no accounting his value (6:14-15) A good wife is a good gift given among the portion of him who fears the Lord Whether rich or poor his heart is content and at all times his face is cheerful4 (26:3-4) Do not exchange a friend for money or a true5 brother for the gold of Ophir Do not dismiss a wise wife for her gracefulness is worth more than rubies6 (7:18-19)

In these statements a faithful friend and a good wife are placed above the value of money and, more specifically, gold. In Sir 6:14-15 two strategies are used to depict the value of a faithful friend. On one hand, money operates as a concrete item that is inferior in value to a friend (6:15), but on the other hand the notion of wealth is used symbolically to depict just how valuable that friend is: he is a “treasure” (6:14); i.e. he

3

4 5

6

Following Greek ske,ph. Manuscript A has bhwa (cf. Syriac )MXr), which makes no sense and is probably an error for lhwa. Manuscript C has !gm. So also CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 37; cf. the discussion in BEENTJES, Ein Mensch ohne Freund, 6-7. Because this portion of manuscript C was made public in 2007 it is not included in Beentjes’ discussion (or in his synopsis, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew). See ELIZUR, arys !b rps lX yrb[h xswnhm Xdx [jq, 17-28. Only these words of 26:3 are extant in C: [ ]tnt yyy ary qlxbw /[ ] hnm hbw[ ] hXa. My translation follows the Hebrew and fills in the gaps with the sense of the Greek. Following the Greek’s gnh,sion (so also SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 204). Box & Oesterley emend manuscript A’s ywlt to ~ylt and translate it as “natural” (Sirach, 340). Cf. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 68. The second stich of 7:19 is difficult. “For her gracefulness” is an approximation of manuscript A’s !x tbwjw (cf. Greek: h` ga.r ca,rij auvth/j). The meaning of ~ynynp is uncertain but must mean some sort of precious ornamentation. Proposals include corals, pearls, and rubies. As David Clines points out, the fact that the word is used in Lam 4:7 in the context of “redder than ~ynynp” suggests that either rubies or some kind of red corral is in view (Job 21-37, 903). The only place in the Hebrew Bible where ~ynynp appears in proximity to the “gold of Ophir” is in Job 28:16-18. In Sirach a similar comparison is made in 30:15 (see below).

28


is a treasure greater than real monetary treasure.7 Similarly, in Sir 26:3-4 a good wife is described as a generous gift given by God.8 Insofar as this passage focuses on how she benefits her husband, she is implicitly equated with an item whose possession supersedes the financial status of her husband. Her worth is so superior to money that the latter is relativized by her presence such that her husband is continually cheerful. In Sir 7:18-19 a good wife and a friend are placed in parallelism, but here their “value-nature” is more to the fore. Neither should be exchanged for monetary gain because they surpass the value of even the most precious of gold (Ophir).9 Not only is money relativized by certain social relationships, but it is also subordinated to dimensions of one’s own life. For Ben Sira, as for many others, no amount of money can substitute for good health. In 30:14-16 he reiterates the same sentiment three times: Better someone who is poor and healthy in his body10 than someone who is rich and ill in his flesh I would rather have bodily health than pure gold and a good spirit than rubies11 There is no wealth above the wealth of a healthy body and no good above a good disposition12

7

8 9

10

11 12

Corley points out that the use of financial imagery to depict the value of friends is a motif in Greek authors such as Hesiod, Euripides, and Xenophon (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 58-59). Theognis 77-78 provides an especially good parallel. Cf. SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 31, 43. In Sir 26:15 the good wife is described by Ben Sira in terms similar to that used for a friend in 6:15 (lqXm !ya). Throughout biblical times Ophir was associated with precious gold as well as other high-end commodities (cf. 1 Kings 10; 2 Chr 9:10; Job 28:16). Comparative references to the gold of Ophir in the Hebrew Bible reveal how valuable it was considered (e.g. Isa 13:12) and by the Second Temple period the conceptual link between Ophir and the quality of its gold was so well established that the author of Job 22:24 simply uses “Ophir” with the meaning “gold.” The location of Ophir has been debated but locations on the east coast of Africa, possibly present day Somalia, or the Arabian Peninsula are the strongest possibilities. See BAKER, Ophir, 26-27. Manuscript B has wmc[b yxw, literally: “and healthy in his bones;” Greek and Syriac both have “healthy and strong.” See BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 414; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 268. Manuscript B: ~ynynpm hbwj xwrw. Cf. note 6. Manuscript B’s rXw[ l[ (“above the wealth of”) is not reflected in the Greek or the Syriac, but is found in the Latin (super censum) and is supported by the parallel usage of (h)bwj in the second stich. So BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 415; cf. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 268. Skehan’s translation reflects the Greek and Syriac, but Di Lella follows the Hebrew (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 378, 381).


29

In another place Ben Sira sets the value of a good reputation above that of money. Short of a belief in the afterlife, the closest one can come to immortality is through one’s descendants and through the memory of one’s conduct as deserving of honor and remembrance (cf. §2.2.3.2).13 In this vein, Ben Sira teaches: Revere (your) name, for it will stand by you more than thousands of desirable treasures14 The good things of life last for a (limited) number of days but a good name for days without number (41:12-13)

Comparison with the similar statement in Prov 22:1 (cf. Qoh 7:1) demonstrates the surpassing value of a good reputation for Ben Sira, given his almost hyperbolic description.15 This is particularly poignant advice considering the frequency with which the acquisition of wealth is tainted by sinful means (see below). Given the alternatives, it is better to be honorable and without money than wealthy but remembered as corrupt and unjust. Finally, and most near to the core of Ben Sira’s thought, money and possessions are relativized as being inferior to wisdom and the fear of the Lord. In a series of “better than either” proverbs16 in Sir 40:18-27 Ben Sira moves through a series of comparisons that are very illuminating for those interested in Ben Sira’s relative value system. For example, although a good wife and a faithful friend were placed in parallel in 7:18-19 (see above) here it becomes clear that a good wife is superior to friend and neighbor (40:23). Likewise, whereas earlier Ben Sira had 13

14

15 16

Cf. Sir 14:16-17 and 17:27-28. DI LELLA, Conservative and Progressive Theology, 143146. Already in G I there are allusions to an afterlife in 7:17 and 48:11 and there are numerous additional references in G II, the Latin, and the Syriac. See COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 92-96; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 86-87. The translation “desirable treasures” is based on the marginal reading in manuscript B: hdmx twms. The reading hmkx twrcwa in B seems unlikely given the rest of Ben Sira’s thought. Unfortunately, the Masada Scroll is broken at this point, though a h is visible at the end of this stich. The Greek has mega,loi qhsauroi. crusi,ou (“large treasuries of gold”) while the Syriac has )t(d )tMYS (“fraudulent treasures”). The reading in Bmarg is also accepted by BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 467; and SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 468-469. In B’s margin twms is written vertically after hdmx and may have been restored from the Syriac. Cf. LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 1:38-39; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 345, 348. Cf. MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 81. This is an adaptation of the traditional “better than” proverbs, but here two subjects are given, which are then both superseded by the third subject in the second stich. For the traditional “better than” structure (which also occurs in Sirach, e.g. 10:27; 19:24; 20:31; 29:22; 30:14; 41:15; 42:14) see OGDEN, The ‘Better’-Proverb, 489-505.

30


placed good health as superior to wealth, here both are subordinated to the fear of God (40:26). Most importantly, the progression of values in this poem moves towards the supreme value: the fear of God, whose threefold mention emphasizes its importance.17 In this regard, Murphy has pointed out that there are ten bicola in vv. 18-26b, which place “fear of God” as the tenth and final item. If this ten-fold list was a traditional grouping it may be that vv. 26c-27 were appended, giving a total of twelve bicola, in order to reinforce both the superiority of the fear of God and to highlight its supremacy over wealth.18 Similarly, it is also interesting that the discussion leading towards this ultimate value of the fear of God is framed by references to money: A life of abundance and remuneration can be sweet19 but (better) than either is finding a treasure…. Gold and silver provide a sure footing but better than either is good counsel Wealth and strength lift up the heart, but better than either is the fear of God In the fear of the LORD there is no want with it there is no need to seek (other) support20 The fear of God is a paradise of blessings its canopy is over all that is glorious (40:18, 25-27)

By framing the discussion in this way and climaxing with repeated formulations of the superiority of the fear of God to wealth, Ben Sira hints that a significant rival to fearing God is the pursuit of wealth. As such, money’s subordinate role has great rhetorical value in pointing the reader towards the ultimate value, the fear of God (cf. Sir 25:10). A similar dynamic is at work in the beginning of the poem where the “treasure” that is superior to the comfort of wealth is to be understood metaphorically as wisdom. This is evident both from the parallelism with v. 19 and from the juxtaposition of the two in the statement in Sir

17 18 19

20

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 473. MURPHY, Proverbial Sayings, 39; Cf. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 113118. The reading “wine and liquor” in manuscript B is probably corrupt. The Masada Scroll’s reading of wqtny rk[ ] try yyx is better, but in light of ~hynXm in the second stich it is necessary to supply a w before rkX in the first stich. See SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 466. The line can be reconstructed as ![Xm hm[ Xqbl !yaw by using the Masada Scroll and manuscript B. For the modal usage of the late Biblical Hebrew construction !ya + infinitive, see VAN PEURSEN, Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira, 227-230.


31

20:30: “Hidden wisdom and concealed treasure, of what value is either?”21 For Ben Sira, wisdom and the fear of God are connected and central concepts in his book (cf. Sir 19:20) and are intertwined in this pericope as the ultimate values, though the fear of God is formally the explicit climax of the passage. Earlier scholars debated whether wisdom (e.g. von Rad and Marböck) or the fear of God (e.g. Haspecker) was the primary theme of the book, but this is somewhat a false dichotomy because for Ben Sira the two are intimately connected.22 Already Smend had noted that “Subjektiv ist die Weisheit daher die Gottesfurcht, objektiv ist sie das Gesetzbuch Moses (c. 24).” Di Lella fleshes out Smend’s observation as: “Ben Sira’s primary theme is wisdom as fear of God, and the fundamental thesis of the book is the following: wisdom, which is identified with the Law, can be achieved only by one who fears God and keeps the commandments.”23 Therefore, if the fear of God can be understood as the preeminent expression of wisdom, then 40:18-27 begins with a parallelism between treasure and wisdom and then climbs towards the fear of God through a social value system that is framed by references to money and possessions. The collective effect of this is that in Ben Sira’s thought money functions as a sort of “god-term,” an expression deriving from Kenneth Burke’s discussion of the way money can serve symbolically as a pointer to the ultimate.24 Because money and possessions can so easily monopolize a person’s desire and motivation, it can serve as the best and most challenging symbol to direct the reader’s attention to the more valuable and desirable goal of the fear of God (and, by extension, 21

22

23

24

This verse is identical to Sir 41:14bc. Interestingly, while the four stichs found in 41:14bc-15 and 20:30-31 are both present in Greek, a comparison with the Hebrew reveals that in the Greek they are slightly out of order in 41:14bc-15 (cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 478). This peculiarity led Smend to suspect that these four stichs may have entered chapter 41 as a marginal gloss (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 385). However, when the Masada Scroll was discovered these verses were found to be in the same position as in manuscript B. Thus, if they did enter chapter 41 secondarily, they must have done so very early. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 87-105 (in addition, 40:26-27 is discussed on pages 181-185); MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel, 132-133; VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, 242; Also see EGGER-WENZEL, Faith in God, 211-226. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 75-76; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, xxiii (quoted in English by Di Lella). Cf. “The two primary themes in the book, fear of the Lord and wisdom, are interwoven from first to last, making it difficult to determine the dominant one.” CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 626. See BURKE, A Grammar of Motives, 108-113. Burke’s discussion is applied in more detail in an analogous way to the role of wealth in the book of Proverbs in SANDOVAL, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 58-59.

32


wisdom). This symbolic use of money and possessions emerges in a more subtle way through their incorporation into metaphors involving wisdom.25

2.1.1.2 The Relativization of Wealth through Metaphor The primary way in which money and goods are used metaphorically is to symbolize the blessings that come to those who pursue wisdom. It is not surprising in this regard to discover that this monetary symbolism is found in the two wisdom poems that frame the entire book.26 In Sir 1:1-30, the book opens with a poem detailing the divine origin of wisdom (1:1-10) and the value and blessings of wisdom and the fear of God (1:11-30). In several verses from the second half of this poem Ben Sira describes wisdom in feminine, arboreal imagery. While Sirach in general, and the wisdom poems in particular, frequently recalls passages from Proverbs, what emerges from a close reading of Sir 1:14-20 is that these verses have Prov 8-9 as their primary background. The reference to the fear of God as the beginning of wisdom in Sir 1:14 comes from Prov 1:17 and 9:10, while Sir 1:15 is without a doubt a reference to the wisdom poem in Prov 8.27 Following these two verses is the section that is of interest for our purposes. In Sir 1:16-17 Ben Sira says: To fear the Lord is the fullness of wisdom And she inebriates them with her fruits She fills her28 whole house with objects of desire

25

26 27

28

This strategy was one of the key insights of Sandoval’s work (see The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 71-113), which prompted my recognition of the same usage in Sirach. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 142. The Hebrew is not extant for Sir 1, but based on the Greek and the Syriac, Skehan translates 1:15 as “With the godly she was created from of old; with their descendants her beneficence is constant” (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 140; cf. 142). This is the reading of most manuscripts and versions (including Latin and Syriac). However, O L-694 and the Armenian have the plural “their” (auvtw/n), which is adopted by Ziegler (Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 130) and Di Lella (Fear of the Lord as Wisdom, 116, 124). Di Lella argues that “their” fits the context better and that “her” probably arose because a scribe was thinking of Prov 9:1-6. But one could also argue that the minority reading of “their” arose under the influence of Prov 8:21. Given that this wisdom poem already contains several intertextual connections with Prov 8-9, it seems just as likely that the reading of “her” as a reference to Prov 9 is original. In addition, a few verses later there is a reference to Wisdom’s treasuries (1:25, though the Greek word is different), which would make contextual sense of the


33

and storehouses with her produce29

The reference to wisdom’s house in 1:17 can be an allusion only to Prov 9:1-6, as is generally recognized, which alerts the reader that Prov 8-9 is still the conceptual background of Ben Sira’s thought here. Furthermore, the combination of wisdom’s fruits and the filling of storehouses seems to recall Prov 8:18-21: Riches and honor are with me, enduring wealth and prosperity. My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver.30 I walk in the way of righteousness, along the paths of justice, endowing with wealth those who love me, and filling their treasuries

Although there are several places in Prov 1-9 where wisdom is represented as superior to money and other precious possessions (cf. 3:14; 8:10-11), what is unique about this section of chapter 8 is that it is the only place in the book of Proverbs where we hear of wisdom’s “fruit” and it happens to come in the section that is otherwise being evoked in Sir 1:14-20 alongside a reference to filling up treasuries, just as in Sir 1.31

29

30

31

statement in 1:17. It is possible that the reading of “their” in the minority manuscripts arose from a desire to make explicit the reception of Wisdom’s blessings by those who seek her. Therefore, I agree with Box & Oesterley, Peters, and Skehan that there is not sufficient contextual evidence to overturn the testimony of the majority reading. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 319; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 12, 15; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 140, 142. In the first stich of v. 16 the Greek has plhsmonh. (“fullness”) while the Syriac has 4Yr (“beginning”). The Syriac reading may have originated under the influence of v. 14. In the second stich the Syriac adds t)NwS (“abundance”) before “fruits”. In the first stich of v. 17 the Greek has to.n oi=kon, but the Syriac has hYrcw). For text-critical discussions see BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 319-320; RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira, 12-13; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 142; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 12. Fox suggests that v. 19 is probably a later gloss (Proverbs 1-9, 265), but there is no reason to think it was not part of the version of Proverbs to which Ben Sira had access. The Greek of 1:17b uses the word avpodocei/on, not qhsauro,j as in Prov 8:21. However, the use of rcwa in Prov 8:21 may be reflected in the first stich of the Syriac (hYrcw); though the second stich uses )tMYS). At the end of this subsection in Sir 1:14-20 there is a long Syriac expansion, approximately twelve verses in length. The beginning of this expansion accents the monetary dimension by blending Sir 14:20 and 1:17: )tMYS lwK nM hL )Bt yhd )NdN hBd )$NrBL yhwBw+. Interestingly, a loose quotation of this expanded verse is found in Aphrahat, Dem. 20:4. See VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 6.

34


These features combine to suggest strongly that when Ben Sira speaks of wisdom’s fruit, her house being filled with desirable objects, and her storehouse being stocked with her produce, he is alluding to Prov 8.32 This text has explicit monetary features that place the value of wisdom above even the most precious possessions. Therefore, the reader familiar with the biblical background is predisposed in reading Sirach to conceive of wisdom’s benefits in such a way that they supersede and thus relativize the value of money. This symbolic use of money and possessions, while implicit in the opening wisdom poem, becomes explicit in the closing wisdom poem of Sirach.33 Here Ben Sira has concluded the book with an autobiographical alphabetical acrostic poem which celebrates his own quest for wisdom (51:13-30).34 For our purposes, the most important verses are 21, 25, and 28. Unfortunately, manuscript B for this passage is widely considered to contain retroversions from the Syriac and the Hebrew text in 11QPsa is only extant up to 51:20a.35 Thus, for our verses one must use manuscript B cautiously and in close consultation with the Greek and Syriac.36 According to Sir 51:21, Ben Sira considers wisdom to be his most valuable possession (bwj !ynq hytynq !k rwb[b). This statement seems to recall Prov 4:7, “the beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever else you get, get insight” ($nynq lkbw hmkx hnq hmkx tyXar hnyb hnq). The similarity of the preceding verse to Prov 4:6 appears to 32 33

34 35 36

Di Lella also believes Ben Sira has reworked Prov 8:18-19 in Sir 1:16-17 (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 43; cf. 145). Given this frame, one might be inclined to read other references to wisdom’s produce in a similar light. Agricultural imagery similar to 1:14-20 is also found in Sir 6:18-19, including another reference to wisdom’s fruits. However, no discernable markers which would direct the reader to Prov 8 are present here, and thus it would only suggest a monetary background when read along with Sir 1:14-20 in connection with Prov 8:18-21. On the other hand, the central wisdom poem in Sirach, in chapter 24, is clearly modeled on Prov 8 and has numerous intertextual connections with that passage. Thus the rich arboreal imagery, including a reference to wisdom’s fruits (24:19), throughout 24:13-22 is more likely to evoke the background of Prov 8:18-21, which is present in Sir 1:14-20. Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 334. See DEUTSCH, The Sirach 51 Acrostic, 400-409; MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel, 121125. DELCOR, Le texte hébreu, 45-47; RABINOWITZ, The Qumran Hebrew Original, 173174. For a critically established text of this passage and text-critical discussions see SKEHAN, The Acrostic Poem, 387-400 (Cf. RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira, 198-212). In my judgment Skehan’s text-critical modifications of manuscript B for these verses are sound and so they will be adopted here.


35

support this conclusion.37 Although one might not want to press the matter too far, the verb hnq has a decidedly commercial connotation and the construction in Prov 4:7 certainly evokes the idea of a market exchange.38 Regardless of the degree to which the commercial connotation still attended hnq in Ben Sira’s time,39 the notion that wisdom is his “prized possession” reflects its preeminent status among items that may be acquired, including money and valuable possessions. The subordinate status of money and possessions to the higher value of wisdom is depicted from another angle in v. 25. In the second stich Ben Sira exhorts his students to “acquire wisdom for yourselves without money” (@sk alb ~kl wnq). Interestingly, Sir 51:25b is an allusion to Isa 55:1-3, as virtually all commentators recognize. The latter text is the only one in the Hebrew Bible to use the phrase @sk a(w)lb and it also shares with Sir 51:25 the same usage of hnq. The Isaianic text, which issues a summons to heed the prophetic word, is applied here in the context of acquiring wisdom. The reason for Ben Sira’s association is illuminated by the Targum of Isaiah, which recasts Isa 55:1-3 as a summons to study and learn.40 As Blenkinsopp explains, “the invitation [of Isa 55:1-3] echoes the invitation of the woman Wisdom (Ḥokmâ) in Prov 9:1-6, who invites the simple to her banquet…since ḥokmâ is identical with tôrâ, the Targumist can paraphrase the call as an invitation to 37

38

39

40

Compare Prov 4:6 (hbz[t la) with Sir 51:20b (hbz[a al). Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 578. The fact that Prov 4:7 is not represented in the LXX may suggest that it was a later gloss, probably based on several texts, including Prov 4:5. See CLIFFORD, Proverbs, 60. Schmidt argues that the term is not so much the general “acquire” but the more precise “purchase” (qnh, 1149). On Prov 4:7, Bruce Waltke notes that “The verb’s etymological, commercial notion comes to the fore in the addition in exchange for all your acquisitions. All that the son has acquired heretofore is her price....Whatever he treasured in his heart as more precious than wisdom and in which he invested his time, energy, and resources must be given up to get wisdom.” WALTKE, Proverbs 115, 281. A contract from Murabba‘at (30:23) demonstrates that the concrete commercial sense was still the common usage. Cited in LIPIŃSKI, qānâ, 59. In rabbinic texts the root is used frequently for commercial transactions, including the acquisition of a wife or a servant. See the list of references in JASTROW, Dictionary, 1391. Bruce Chilton translates: “Ho, every one who wishes to learn, let him come and learn; and he who has no money, come, hear and learn! Come, hear and learn, without price and not with mammon, teaching which is better than wine and milk. Why do you spend your money for that which is not to eat, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Attend to my Memra diligently, and eat what is good, and your soul shall delight itself in that which is fat. Incline your ear, and attend to my Memra; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, the sure benefits of David.” The Isaiah Targum is probably to be located in the Tannaitic period, perhaps during the second century C.E. See CHILTON, Isaiah Targum, xx-xxv, 107.

36


study and learn.”41 Given Ben Sira’s connection of Wisdom to Torah and the reference to his teaching in 51:25a (as well as the reference to the house of instruction in v. 23), it is likely that the same connection that motivated the Targumist underlies Ben Sira’s statement here, especially since we have seen that Prov 8-9 is consistently an important background for his descriptions of Wisdom throughout the book. The overall effect of this allusion to Isa 55:1-3 is that Wisdom is implicitly identified with divine instruction (cf. Sir 24) which is not open to normal means of human negotiation. In other words, Wisdom is something that is beyond the reach of normal financial transactions. It is, therefore, not like other possessions which can be obtained through normal purchasing or bartering, but must be acquired through higher means, ultimately through devotion to divine teaching.42 As such, in 51:25 money is used symbolically to point to the unsurpassable value of wisdom. The final reference to money and possessions in the acrostic poem occurs in Sir 51:28. After stating that only a little labor resulted in finding much, Ben Sira provides a parallel statement in v. 28: “Listen to just a little instruction and through it you will acquire silver and gold” (hb wnqt bhzw @skw// j[mk rswm w[mX).43 Although Kearns describes the silver and gold as functioning figuratively for “abundant spiritual riches,” Di Lella argues that in context and against the background of Prov 8:14-21 the point of this verse is that “wisdom pays off even in the practical realm, and not only in the religious” (similarly, Lévi).44 The obvious assumption of this verse is that money is highly desirable and 41 42

43

44

BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40-55, 369. On a straightforward reading of v. 25 Ben Sira does not claim that money cannot buy wisdom, only that there is wisdom that is available to those independent of a financial transaction. Crenshaw notes that “Too little is known about education in secondcentury BCE Israel to ascertain whether one should assume that Ben Sira received payment for instructing students” (Book of Sirach, 867). It seems to me that the background of Isa 55:1-3 implies that the granting of divine instruction is an act of grace that depends on one’s inner disposition to seek and learn rather than being open to a cash transaction. As such, the notion that wisdom transcends the financial realm attends Sir 51:25, even if it is not explicit in a literal reading of the verse. Manuscript B has: yb wnqt bhzw @skw // ytwr[nb ydwml w[mX ~ybr, which appears to be a retroversion from the Syriac (yB nwNQt )Bhdw )M)Sw rw(z dK yNPLwY (M$). The Greek has meta,scete paidei,aj evn pollw/| avriqmw/| avrguri,ou kai. polu.n cruso.n kth,sasqe evn auvth/|. For the text criticism of this verse, see SKEHAN, The Acrostic Poem, 398-399. KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, 562 (§450i); LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:231; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 579. Given the larger context, Peters’ statement that the sense is “Durch die Weisheit erhält man etwas, das Silber und Gold an Wert gleichkommt” somewhat misses the mark (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 452).


37

therefore motivates the student to acquire wisdom since doing so often entails material success. What is important is that in connection to v. 25 this verse establishes a hierarchy of values. Wisdom can bring wealth (cf. 24:17); but wealth does not necessarily bring wisdom. Therefore, of all possessions, wisdom is the one to be prized the most (51:21).45 It is notable in this regard that throughout the acrostic poem in 51:13-30 money is the only “value symbol” used to picture the worth of wisdom. Although other examples in Sirach can be cited,46 this brief exploration of the two wisdom poems that frame the book demonstrates that money functions as a “god-term” in Sirach, the employment of which symbolizes for the reader the ultimate value of wisdom. Furthermore, money is not used symbolically just to depict the value of Wisdom, but also to motivate the student to seek Wisdom. In light of Sir 51:21-28, the desire for Wisdom should displace the desire for money and possessions.47 The overall effect of the discursive use of money in passages such as Sir 1:11-30; 40:18-27; and 51:21-28 is that money as a value is ultimately relativized as inferior to Wisdom and the fear of God; but through this relativization it is also implicitly acknowledged to be an important component of human life, one that reveals much about a person’s overall values. It is this relativized state that serves as the framework for Ben Sira’s direct statements about the value and function of money and possessions. This leads to a discussion of the more direct ways Ben Sira speaks about money and possessions and their place in the structure of his theology.

45

46 47

Cf. “At first sight, it is difficult to think that the goods provided by the [sic] wisdom are exclusively inner goods, spiritual and intangible. But maybe it is so. It is possible that with these images Ben Sira seeks to explain to the reader: ‘Wisdom is the supreme wealth that goes beyond all goods that human beings can dream of.’ That is to say that Ben Sira’s promise does not limit itself (exclusively) to material and perishable goods.” MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 175. My analysis has suggested similarly that the overall picture which emerges from Sirach is that money here is material but in the wider discourse clearly symbolic as well. For example, “treasure” is used metaphorically as a depiction of the reward for the virtue of respecting one’s mother (Sir 3:4). Cf. §6.3. Sandoval has discerned a similar motivational function for wealth in the opening chapter of Proverbs (The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 71-75). In addition, comparable ideas can also be found in Wis 7:8-13 and among the Dead Sea Scrolls in 4Q185, 4Q525. Cf. WRIGHT, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, 104-105.

38


2.1.2 Retributive Justice and the Dual Origins of Wealth and Poverty For Ben Sira, the basic framework within which his understanding of wealth and poverty operates is that of retributive justice. Simply stated, the doctrine of retributive justice holds that one’s actions result in corresponding consequences. Righteous deeds result in success and prosperity while evil deeds result in misfortune, hardship, and even death.48 Sometimes this doctrine is specified as Deuteronomic because of its clear exposition in Deut 28 and its governing role in the Deuteronomistic History, but this theological framework is much broader. It is also a crucial feature of prophetic books, Chronicles, and much of the wisdom literature, as well as in the wider ancient Near Eastern world.49 But beyond this straightforward definition lies a problem with how to understand the operation of this model.

2.1.2.1 Retributive Justice in Old Testament Scholarship For much of the modern period this doctrine of retributive justice has been understood in reference to God’s judicial role in the administration of the world. On this view, God is personally involved in the punishment of sinners and the rewarding of the righteous and there is frequently an element of symmetry, or correspondence, between the action and its divine response. A classic example of this approach can be seen in the theology of Eichrodt, who situated this model of retributive justice within his covenantal framework. On this understanding, God provides a judicial response to obedience or transgression of the covenantal norms. This motif finds expression in various ways in the prophets and the Pentateuchal legislation.50 An alternative to this understanding of retributive justice was set forth in an important article by Klaus Koch entitled, “Gibt es ein Ver-

48

49 50

For the scope of this study we are mainly interested in the doctrine as it applies to individuals. For the question of corporate retributive justice and its possible relationships to individual retributive justice see KRAŠOVEC, Doctrine of Collective Retribution, 35-89; MAY, Individual Responsibility, 107-120; RANKIN, Wisdom Literature, 5376 See, for example, DILLARD, Reward and Punishment in Chronicles, 164-172; EICHRODT, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:423-443; RANKIN, Wisdom Literature, 77-97. EICHRODT, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:425-435.


39

geltungsdogma im Alten Testament?”51 Koch answers this question with a resounding ‘no’ and instead argues that what is behind statements of retributive justice is not the judicial role of God, but a “TunErgehen-Zusammenhang” (deed-consequence-connection), which he parses out into two forms: a Sünde-Unheil-Zusammenhang and a GuttatHeil-Zusammenhang.52 It is not that God actively participates in recompensing the righteous and the sinner but that he has set up the world in such a way that he only needs to superintend the natural order of things. Actions contain within themselves their own recompense, whether for good or evil, such that the performance of a given action necessarily sets into motion its eventual consequence. A prime example of this dynamic for Koch is Prov 26:27 (cf. Sir 27:26) which states that “whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the one who starts it rolling.” Although few would accept the limits on divine involvement that Koch places on retributive justice, the majority of scholars have accepted Koch’s identification of a “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang” dynamic in the Hebrew Bible.53 How, then, should the relationship between the divine judicial model and the deed-consequence model be characterized? First, it should be acknowledged that both dynamics can clearly be found, especially in the Wisdom literature. Second, it is probably a false dichotomy to require that one model be chosen over the other.54 Rather, because God is both Creator and in covenantal relationship with Israel, there is room for the two models to overlap. Thus, it may be that God specifically employs the natural order of things in order to bring about a just recompense for wrongdoing or a reward for righteousness. Surely Stephen Chapman is correct when he concludes, “The relationship between them is never reduced to a system. Tension between them continues to exist, but the general theological perspective is clear: God’s free and dynamic character enacts justice, yet God

51 52 53

54

KOCH, Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma, 1-42. This article represents a condensed version of his 1953 Heidelberg dissertation. KOCH, Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma, 7. In other discussions this dynamic is sometimes called by the similar name “Tat-Ergehen-Zusammenhang”. See the helpful summary of the initial responses to Koch’s work in GAMMIE, Theology of Retribution, 1-5. The theme is also present throughout the ancient Near East. Among texts roughly contemporary with Sirach, the most notable example is the Egyptian text Instruction of Ankhsheshonqy, which dates no later than the Ptolemaic period. See the examples and discussion in LICHTHEIM, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature, 37-43. Pointed out in MURPHY, The Tree of Life, 117.

40


has also ordered creation in such a way that particular human actions normally have predictable moral consequences.”55

2.1.2.2 Retributive Justice in Sirach In Ben Sira’s thought the notion of retributive justice is one of the most predominant theological presuppositions.56 Because he did not hold to the possibility that rewards and punishments could be received in the afterlife, Ben Sira, for the most part, worked out his doctrine of retribution within the bounds of mortal life. Just as in the book of Proverbs, both the divine judicial model and the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model are exhibited in Sirach.57 The latter can be seen clearly in texts such as the following: Flee from sin as from a serpent for if you approach it, it will bite you Its teeth are lion’s teeth which destroy human lives Every transgression is like a two-edged sword there is no healing for its wound (21:2-3)58 As a lion lies in wait for prey so does sin for those who do evil (27:10)59

55

56

57

58 59

CHAPMAN, Reading the Bible as Witness, 185. It should also be noted that while Eichrodt held the traditional view he did recognize that there is an element in which sin can naturally produce its own punishment (e.g., Theology of the Old Testament, 2:423, 426). Koch and many after him have sought to relate the two models in a diachronic way. The Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model came to be understood as characteristic of an earlier, almost “magical,” worldview which was eventually replaced by the more personal model of divine involvement. See REVENTLOW, Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt, 311-327. Gammie’s article (Theology of Retribution, 1-12) traces the notion of retributive justice diachronically through Deuteronomy and finds that in Deut 8:1-9:6 there is already an attempt to counter a view of retributive justice that is too mechanistic (much like the book of Job will do later; see below). See DI LELLA, Conservative and Progressive Theology, 143-146. For the relationship of Ben Sira’s understanding of the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang to that of earlier sages in Proverbs and Qoheleth see ADAMS, Wisdom in Transition, 177-213. Waltke notes that statements of both varieties are juxtaposed in the final editing of Proverbs in order to “protect itself against interpreting the deed-destiny connection as being fatalistic” (Proverbs 1-15, 74). Here, Waltke is building on the insights in GOLDINGAY, The Arrangement of Sayings in Proverbs 10-15, 75-83. No Hebrew is extant. My translation follows the Greek; the Syriac is similar, but renders “its teeth” as “falsehood” and “transgression” as “prostitute.” No Hebrew is extant here. The Greek and Syriac are in essential agreement.


41

In both of these passages sin is personified through animal imagery which imputes to sin a destructive power that turns back on the one who acts wickedly. Both texts are probably dependent on earlier biblical passages such as Gen 3:1-5 and Prov 23:32 (also cf. Gen 4:7). Other passages in Ben Sira that display a Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model of retributive justice include Sir 19:3-4; 23:7-11; and possibly 7:36.60 The sense of all of these passages is that when one commits a sin it sets in motion adverse consequences that are functionally an extension of the sin committed.61 More common in Ben Sira, however, is the divine judicial model. The following texts are representative of his perspective: For sin is the reservoir62 of pride and its source overflows with debauchery63 Therefore God sends awe-inspiring affliction64 and strikes them to the utmost (Sir 10:13)

60

61

62 63

64

The Hebrew of 7:36 is ambiguous: txXt al ~lw[lw // tyrxa rwkz $yX[m lkb. The word tyrxa could have the sense “the outcome of an action” or “the end of one’s life.” Similarly txXt could be either practical/social or moral/theological. As M. Fang Che-Yong argues, the ambiguity is probably to be seen as intentional, as a way of joining together the preceding sections in vv. 18-28 and vv. 29-35. See below §7.3.2 and FANG CHEYONG, Sir 7,36* (Vulg 7,40) iuxta hebraicam veritatem, 18-26. My thanks to Brian Daley for his help with some portions of the Latin. Interestingly, there are not as many explicit cases of the positive side of this model, i.e., when one does something good the action itself sets in motion the production of certain rewards. Sir 37:22-26 may represent this perspective since it explains how wisdom works to one’s advantage by bringing benefits in its wake. In terms of specific virtues, a few examples might be Sir 7:36 (see previous note), 10:27, and 11:18a, the latter two being in the sphere of material prosperity. See below. So manuscript A: hwqm. The Greek has avrch. (“beginning”) and the Syriac has )(wBM (“spring, source”). So manuscript A: hmz [yby hrwqmw. The Syriac’s )twYNz seems to have taken hmz in a specifically sexual sense, which it can have in Biblical Hebrew (cf. Lev 18:17; 19:29; 20:14). Thus, the Syriac gives support to the Hebrew reading. The reading in the Greek, kai. o` kratw/n auvth/j evxombrh,sei bde,lugma, can probably be explained as a misreading of the text reflected in manuscript A. See BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 350. Manuscript A has h[gn [ ]hla wbl alm !k yk, but Beentjes notes that wbl alm does not appear to be original “because there are some illegible traces beneath them” (The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 35). Based on the Greek’s paredo,xasen an original Hebrew of aylph was proposed by Smend (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 94) and followed by Box & Oesterley (Sirach, 350) and Skehan (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 222). Smend and Box & Oesterley also suggest emending the noun h[gn to w[gn (“strike him”). But given that the rendering of the following stich in the versions reflects a plural object of God’s punishment (though manuscript A has a singular pronominal suffix: Whkyw), I am inclined to retain the reading h[gn (cf. Skehan’s translation: “Because of it God sends unheard-of affliction”). In any case, the sense of the passage is clear.

42


For God also hates sinners and to the wicked he will pay back vengeance65 (Sir 12:6) The vengeful will encounter the Lord’s vengeance for he keeps a close account of his sins66 (Sir 28:1)

The last example is particularly instructive because it reflects the symmetry between sin and the divine judgment, which is characteristic of the judicial aspect of this model. Ben Sira’s harsher statements about the retributive justice due to sinners would seem to be only for unrepentant sinners who brazenly flout God’s precepts, since elsewhere he advises that one should not rebuff a repentant sinner because “we are all deserving of punishment” (8:5).67 Other examples of this model of retributive justice include Sir 7:8, 16; 9:11-12; 16:9; 17:20; and 26:28. Conversely, the divine judicial model is likewise present in the relationship between virtue and reward: The blessing of God is the lot68 of the righteous and in due time his hope will bear fruit (Sir 11:22) Do your work in proper time69 and he will give you your reward in his time (Sir 51:30)

65 66 67

68

69

See the Appendix for the text criticism of this verse. The Hebrew is not extant; my translation attempts to render the difficult phrase kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtou/ diathrw/n diathrh,sei. The Syriac has hL nYr+N r+M yhwh+X lKd l+M. God’s mercy and forgiveness are particularly prominent in Sirach in comparison to other wisdom writings and it seems that he often struggles to find a balance between mercy and justice. For a treatment of this problem in Ben Sira and its relationship to theodicy see GILBERT, God, Sin, and Mercy, 118-135; MURPHY, Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Sirach, 261-270, especially 267. See below, chapter 7. Manuscript A has lrgb. The preposition b on lrg is puzzling and is not reflected in most modern translations, but it is supported by the Greek (evn) and is perhaps an instance of a “b of predication”. See GORDON, ‘In’ of Predication or Equivalence, 612613. Gordon gives Prov 3:26 and Job 23:13 as examples in Hebrew and John 14:10 and 17:20-21 as examples for the Greek evn. Sir 11:22-26 is missing in the Syriac. The most common explanation is omission through homoiarchton, so SKEHAN/DI LELLA The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 237; and CALDUCH-BENAGES/FERRER/LIESEN, La Sabiduría del Escriba, 108. Manuscript B has hqdcb, “in righteousness,” but the Greek has pro. kairou/ and the Syriac has hNd(B )Ld. While Box & Oesterley (Sirach, 517) retain the reading of manuscript B, it is better to opt for the reading in the Greek (cf. the Syriac). Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 574; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 510. Based on the similar rendering in the Greek of Sir 30:24 a possible Hebrew reading is t[ alb (so Smend). The only other place in Sirach where pro. kairou/ appears is 46:19, where the underlying Hebrew is t[ d[.


43

A similar theological dynamic can be seen at work in Sir 2:7-8; 11:26; 36:21; and 51:22 (cf. 39:25). It is fairly clear, then, that for Ben Sira there is a definite correlation between sin and punishment and virtue and reward and this correlation operates on two levels: that of the natural workings of reality and that of God’s justice. As was noted above, these two levels find their integration in the fact that God is both creator and covenanter. In Ben Sira’s “Praise of God the Creator” in Sir 39:12-35, the divine judicial model is at the fore. It is his blessing that creates prosperity (v. 22) and his wrath that drives out nations (v. 23). In fact, the whole creation stands ready to carry out his retributive justice (vv. 2831). But there may be an element of the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model as well. Within the description of God’s great works are these two verses: For the righteous his paths are level while to the haughty70 they are steep71… All these are good for the good while for the wicked they turn into evil (Sir 39: 24.27).

While the following section in vv. 28-31 details how God uses creational elements to punish the wicked (the divine judicial model), in these verses the same elements function differently based on the state of the one encountering them. In other words, creation is structured such that one’s inner moral quality affects the experience one has when encountering creation.72 To sum up, for Ben Sira, God’s role as creator results in a dual origin for retributive justice. He intervenes directly to reward the righteous and punish the wicked, but he also has constructed reality so that these actions set in motion their own appropriate consequences. Thus, the natural order and the superintendence of

70

71 72

Manuscript B’s ~yrzl should probably be emended to ~ydzl in light of the versions (toi/j avno,moij || )(Y$rL). So BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 458; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 332; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 455, 457; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 363. The reading of manuscript B is retained by Jan Liesen (Full of Praise, 203). The meaning of wllwtsy is difficult. In Biblical Hebrew lls has the sense of “lift up.” Liesen suggests the idea of “steep”(Full of Praise, 204). Cf. “In the first element of v. 24 his paths are said to be straight for the righteous and in the second element the very same paths are said to be steep for strangers. The passability of God’s paths therefore does not depend on God. The passability of his paths is rather dependent on, or corresponds to, the quality or state of the wayfarer…the same paths are smooth or steep according to the just or sinful state of the traveler.” LIESEN, Full of Praise, 255.

44


God work in harmony to repay persons according to their deeds and these two aspects are not always distinguishable.73

2.1.2.3 Retributive Justice and Economics in Sirach This theological framework serves as the baseline for Ben Sira’s understanding of wealth and poverty as well. As mentioned above (§2.1.1.2), the final wisdom poem of the book promises the reader that through seeking wisdom and instruction silver and gold will be gained (51:28). Similarly, there are a number of other places throughout Sirach where virtue is correlated with financial success and sin with financial loss. For example, in the midst of a series of admonitions, Ben Sira cautions: Do not follow your lusts rather, restrain your desires If you allow yourself to indulge your lust it will make you the laughingstock of your enemies Do not rejoice in too much74 luxury which impoverishes twofold75 Do not be a glutton and a drunkard without even a smidgeon in your purse The one who does this will not become rich whoever wastes the little he has will be stripped bare76 (Sir 18:30-19:1)

73

74

75

76

Verse 25, which has been passed over here, shows a certain incongruity in the model. The Hebrew states that, “He allotted good things to the good from the beginning, but for the wicked good and bad things.” This claim apparently bothered the grandson since he omitted ‘good things’ from the second stich of the Greek translation. We will return to this verse in chapter 7. So Greek and Syriac. Manuscript C’s #mX is somewhat obscure but elsewhere it has the sense of “small portion.” It appears in the Hebrew Bible in only Job 4:12 and 26:14 where it has the sense of “whisper.” Besides 18:32 it also appears in Sirach in 10:10 where it has the sense of “a slight illness.” In Biblical Hebrew the expression ~ynX yp refers to a double portion of some larger whole (cf. Deut 21:17; 2 Kings 2:9; Zech 13:8), but in Sirach and later writings it has the sense of “twice as much” (cf. Sir 12:5). JOOSTEN, Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, 154. It is difficult to make sense of manuscript C’s r[r[ty ~yjw[m hzwbw (“whoever despises small things will be made naked”). The Greek’s rendering: o` evxouqenw/n ta. ovli,ga kata. mikro.n pesei/tai is similar to the Hebrew. I have opted for Skehan’s translation as making good sense of the context (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 288). Perhaps the thought is similar to what is found in Matt 25:29.


45

In this pericope Ben Sira addresses the deceptiveness of lust, which promises fulfillment but in reality leaves one with less. Self-indulgence in the short term results in a twofold poverty: actual financial poverty (cf. Prov 23:21) and the even greater poverty of diminished health (cf. Sir 30:14-16).77 Indeed, hedonism always brings a financial cost and the one who has no discipline with wine and women (19:2-4) can only expect to lose control over his financial resources as well. In the final verse Ben Sira comes at these vices from the other side. Not only does a self-indulgent person lose his money, but he will find that what little he has will be taken away.78 Thus, the financial movement is uniform. Wherever one sits on the socio-economic spectrum, the pursuit of lusts always leads towards the poverty end of the spectrum, even if one is basically there already. Similar notions of how sin leads to a loss of wealth or prevents one from attaining wealth are found in Sir 21:4 and 26:29-27:3. On the other hand, Ben Sira also recognizes that virtue and diligence generally result in an increase in one’s wealth: Better is the one who works and abounds in wealth than the one who glorifies himself but lacks sustenance79 (Sir 10:27)

Here Ben Sira presupposes both sides of the dynamic. The evoked verse from Proverbs (12:9) is about the superiority of living comfortably without recognition to feigning wealth in order to win the approval of others.80 Likewise, Ben Sira’s larger context in 10:19-11:6 is about true 77

78

79

80

Given the context and the fact that Ben Sira did not use “poverty” in the spiritual sense found in later writings, poor health is the most probable referent of the “second poverty” (note also the conceptual background of Prov 5). Cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 381; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 292. For a discussion of the prophetic background to this passage see SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 152. Morla Asensio comments, “The term ‘little’ refers probably to that which the drunkard could accumulate if he saved the money corresponding to each glass that he consumes” (Poverty and Wealth, 167). Manuscript A has: !tm [ ]s[ ] dbkt[m]m // !wh rtwyw dbw[ bwj. Although the final word is !tm, the Greek, Syriac, and Latin all support the reading !wzm (so Smend, Peters, Lévi, Box & Oesterley, Di Lella, etc.). It is not difficult to see how a wz could be mistaken for a t during the transmission process. One should note that the Greek translation of the second stich (h' peripatw/n doxazo,menoj kai. avporw/n a;rtwn) seems to presuppose a text that is even closer to Prov 12:9b (~xl rsxw dbktmm). BOX/ OESTERLEY, Sirach, 351352; DI LELLA, Sirach 10:19-11:6, 161; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:70; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 94; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 99-100. There are two ways to read the MT of Prov 12:9: ~xl-rsxw dbktmm wl db[w hlqn bwj. If the servant is understood to be hired by the person, then it would suggest that he is a person of some means yet socially without prominence; if, by contrast, the servant is

46


honor and esteem, which can cut across socio-economic categories. In v. 27 he contrasts the one who works hard and has plenty of possessions with the one who only boasts about his supposed possessions but who, in reality, has nothing. We will return to this larger passage and the interplay between honor and wealth below in §2.2.3.3, but for now it is sufficient to note that the underlying dynamic is that the one who spends his time working (virtue) rather than trying to seek the approval of others (vice) is the one who at the end of the day is rewarded with plenty. It seems evident, then, that the basic framework of retributive justice found throughout Sirach is also applied to the area of wealth and poverty. Although there are problems with this framework, which we will address below, Ben Sira seems to suggest that, as a general rule, virtue leads to greater prosperity, whereas sin leads to greater poverty.81 Nowhere is this clearer than in Sir 11:14 and 17:82

81

82

understood to be the man himself, then the notion is that he is hardworking and, though without social prestige, has the satisfaction of being self-sufficient (so LXX). See MCKANE, Proverbs, 444; WALTKE, Proverbs 1-15, 525. Scholars such as Malchow and Pleins have highlighted the ways in which this kind of theological rhetoric among the sages could reinforce the notion of entitlement for the upper classes. However, they are also careful to note that there are exceptions which do not label the poor as those who lack virtue, but as those who are objects of exploitation. In addition, these wisdom writers do occasionally point out the dangers that wealth can entail and even downplay the value of wealth (Prov 11:4.28). While I have no doubt that these socio-political dimensions play a part in the wisdom literature, I also agree with Van Leeuwen that this principle indisputably correlates with tendencies manifested in empirical observation. Granted a much more restricted amount of social mobility than that to which the modern West is accustomed, those who are lazy and consumed with vices typically do not increase their wealth while those who work hard, are honest, etc. frequently do acquire more wealth. To work within this general framework while also noting that there are obvious exceptions, does not strike me as overly self-serving. The variety with which the sages, including Ben Sira, treat this topic seems basically realistic. As the work of Jensen has shown, social justice involving care for the poor was a prominent theme in Ben Sira. See the discussions in JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice; MALCHOW, Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature, 120-124; PLEINS, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible, 452-483; VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, 125-126; VAN LEEUWEN, Book of Proverbs, 25; id., Wealth and Poverty, 29. Verses 15-16, which are present in G II, manuscript A, and the Syriac, but not in G I (or any early Latin manuscripts), are generally considered to be a secondary gloss (so Box & Oesterley, Peters, Rüger, Skehan & Di Lella, Smend, and Spicq; contra Duesberg & Fransen, Morla Asensio [without comment]). BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 354; DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 142; MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 166; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 98-99; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 104-105; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 237; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 106-107; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 626; ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 176.


47

Good and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, they are from the LORD. The gift of the LORD remains with the righteous83 and his favor brings ongoing success

These two verses come in the midst of the larger unit in 11:10-28, which has an apologetic aspect in regards to trusting in the providence of God (cf. §2.2.3.1). In v. 14 Ben Sira places three pairs of opposites in series and identifies their origin as being from God. Notably, the positive element comes first in the first two pairs, but in the last pair poverty comes before riches.84 Although at face value this claim may appear to be theologically problematic, it was shared by a variety of earlier authors (cf. Amos 3:6; Lam 3:38; Isa 45:7; Job 2:10) and it must be remembered that it is presented within a larger discussion about God’s providence.85 As such, it should not be read primarily as legitimating the socio-economic status quo, as though the respective places in society of the rich and poor are decreed by God. Rather, in view of the larger context, it is almost the converse. The point is that one should look past present circumstances, which may prove to be theologically problematic in terms of one’s current socio-economic situation, and should look to God who will set all things right in due time. This is clear from its connection with v. 17, which reassures the reader that God’s gift and favor, which will bring success, continue to remain with those who act ethically.86

83

84

85

86

Manuscript A is badly obscured, but d[m ] d[ ]l qydc [ ]m can be discerned. It is probably best to reconstruct the verse in accordance with the Greek (do,sij kuri,ou parame,nei euvsebe,sin; similarly, the Syriac) as dm[y qydcl yyy !tm (so Box & Oesterley, Smend and, similarly, Skehan & Di Lella). Perhaps in the transmission of the text the orthographic similarity between the beginning of qydcl in this stich and d[l in the following stich caused a partial dittography, thereby producing the conflated reading of d[l qydc. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 355; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 235; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 107. In another passage on the providence of God there is a very similar claim to 11:14. Ben Sira states that “Good is the opposite of evil, and life the opposite of death; so the sinner is the opposite of the godly. Look at all the works of the Most High; they come in pairs, one the opposite of the other” (33:14-15 NRSV; cf. 42:24). Here, though, the opposites are not mentioned as originating from God, but as pointing to the wisdom of God’s providence in the polarities of creation and the categories of people. See ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 138-139. It is worth noting that statements such as these typically occur in contexts where historical circumstances have necessitated a reaffirmation of God’s providential control over creation. Cf. BERLIN, Lamentations, 95. See BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 87.

48


Thus, 11:14-17 reveals that there is a correlation between virtue and wealth, but also recognizes that God’s providential plans may introduce inconsistencies into this paradigm.87 To anticipate the discussion below, it is sufficient to point out that in light of God’s sovereign ordering and reigning over creation, the basic framework of retributive justice holds and Ben Sira’s efforts to alleviate the problem arising from the exceptions only prove Ben Sira’s confidence in the rule. Before turning to these inconsistencies and how Ben Sira attempts to resolve them within the larger framework of God’s providence, one other topic must be addressed.

2.1.2.4 Ambiguities of Wealth While Ben Sira’s overall perspective on wealth was undoubtedly positive, it was also tempered by some ambiguities as it was for some of the sages before him. As von Rad notes, “While there was no possession in life which enjoyed such unanimous esteem in Israel as property and outward prosperity, nevertheless, experience was forced to admit, even in the case of this highly prized commodity, that it was of decidedly ambiguous value.”88 Ben Sira recognized that with wealth came certain temptations. In a section on the topic of anger he notes that: In proportion to the amount of wood, so will be the inflammation of the fire 87

88

On my reading, Sir 11:14 and 17 are in tension, but are held together by the notion of God as providential Creator. The way Ben Sira attempts to resolve the tension between the doctrine of retributive justice and social realities will be taken up below in §2.2.3. Wright & Camp comment on 11:14-17, “In contrast both to Proverbs’ theological optimism and Qoheleth’s worldly skepticism, Ben Sira seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He knows the world does not work according to the divine justice his tradition leads him to expect, but he tries desperately to make himself and his readers believe it is so. This is the paradox playing out in his fitful effort to explain how wealth, which ought to be not simply good, but in fact a sign of God’s favor, ends up being such a problem, leading to anxiety at best, corruption at worst (and often)” (Who Has Been Tested by Gold, 170). My main qualm with this description is that I think Ben Sira probably was more comfortable with the tension between these two, at least theologically if not socially. I suspect that Ben Sira, as an heir of sapiential traditions as well as prophetic traditions (cf. Sir 24:33), realized and accepted the generality and flexibility in the doctrine of retributive justice. VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, 125. Similarly, cf. MALCHOW, Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature, 121. While Ben Sira’s perspective in this regard is quite close to Proverbs, Qoheleth has a much more pessimistic view of the value of wealth. In Qoh 8:14 the author takes direct aim at the framework of retributive justice in the area of wealth and poverty and concludes that it is an absurdity (lbh).


49

in proportion to the intensity of the dispute, so will it increase In proportion to a person’s strength, so will be his anger in proportion to his wealth, so will he increase his wrath89 (Sir 28:10)

This first stich of this verse presents the image of an inflamed fire as a paradigm for three cases.90 The first case involves a dispute and Ben Sira observes that the more people argue, the more heated the arguments tend to get. The second and third cases are essentially parallel in which strength and wealth (plou/ton || yhwSKN) are juxtaposed in the same way that anger and wrath are. Whether one understands the strength (ivscuvn) in the third stich as being primarily physical or sociological power, the parallelism suggests that Ben Sira believed that wealth brought with it a similar temptation to anger. The common denominator of wealth and power is that of socio-political control. When a person who has this control is challenged or is threatened with the loss of that control, tempers flare. Therefore, because there is often a strong connection between money and power, being wealthy often entails social dangers that one must avoid in order to remain righteous (cf. Sir 21:8; 34:21.24).91 Conversely, Ben Sira also acknowledges that poor people are insulated from the possibility of committing some sins. Even if given the opportunity in which one might sin (cf. 19:28), the lack of material means renders the temptation moot. One can be hindered from sinning because of neediness and when he rests he feels no remorse92 (Sir 20:21)

89 90 91

92

This verse is not extant in the Hebrew and is rather freely rendered in the Syriac. My translation follows the Greek. This rhetorical device is not uncommon for Ben Sira, e.g. Sir 13:1. A similar and parallel danger of wealth on the international level is reflected in the readings of the versions for Sir 10:8. Wealth is grouped with injustice and rebellion as a motivational cause of international conflict in the Greek rendering (basilei,a avpo. e;qnouj eivj e;qnoj meta,getai dia. avdiki,aj kai. u[breij kai. crh,mata) as well as in the Syriac ()NwMMw )twY)gw )h+X l+M )PLXt$M )M(L )M( nM )twKLM). However, in manuscript A the reading is hwag smx llgb bwst ywg la ywgm twklm. Although the agreement between the Greek and the Syriac is usually a good case for originality, the Hebrew reading is more commonly accepted here. Smend suggests that the reference to money in the Syriac may have entered under the influence of the Greek (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 91). Similarly, BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 349; and SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 221. This verse is not extant in the Hebrew manuscripts. For the use of katanu,ssomai in the sense of “feel remorse” or “be grieved,” see Sir 12:12; 14:1; 47:20.

50


This “benefit” to poverty is practical rather than substantive (cf. 19:28). As Morla Asensio notes, “Ben Sira does not mean that poverty intrinsically hinders the poor from sinning, but that a person devoid of goods and power is free from the immediately relevant circumstances which propitiate exploitation and social depredation, as is the case with the rich and powerful people.”93 Vivid contrasts can be seen in Sir 21:8 and 34:21-24. It is also possible that the sin which poor people are hindered from committing is an improper sense of self-sufficiency (cf. Prov 30:9).94 It is important to note in this regard that neither poverty nor riches are understood by Ben Sira as having moral or spiritual value in and of themselves. Granted that in the retributive justice framework virtue often leads to wealth and vice often leads to poverty, yet this principle is not necessarily reversible. One cannot say that the presence of wealth necessarily implies a virtue on the part of the one who possesses it. But neither does the fact that wealth entails certain dangers and temptations allow one to reason that the poor are inherently more righteous than the rich. Some poor doubtlessly are more virtuous than their rich counterparts, perhaps due in part to the lack of certain temptations confronting them in an impoverished state, but there is no notion that poverty is an intrinsically spiritually higher state. Rather, what can be gleaned from the statements surveyed above is that wealth and possessions (as well as their absence, i.e. poverty) are, strictly speaking, morally and spiritually neutral. What is important is one’s character which is reflected in how one acquires and uses wealth. The dangerous aspects of gaining wealth and its intrinsic moral neutrality are treated together in a poem found in chapter 31:1-11, which ties together the themes just discussed. In the first seven verses of this poem Ben Sira takes up the topic of the desire for money. 1 2 3 4 5

93 94

Sleeplessness over wealth degenerates the flesh and worrying about it drives away sleep Anxiety over sustenance prevents slumber more than a grave illness reduces sleep The rich person labors to collect wealth and if he rests it is to indulge in pleasure The poor person works for the necessities of his household and if he rests he becomes needy The one who loves gold will not be innocent

MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 169. Of course, as Prov 30:9 makes clear, poverty could also entail its own particular temptations and challenges (cf. Sir 41:2).


6 7

51

and the one who pursues profit will be led astray by it There are many who have bound themselves over to gold and placed their trust in rubies For it is a stumbling-block for the foolish and whoever is simple-minded will be ensnared by it95

In the first two verses of this passage Ben Sira notes how a preoccupation with money and possessions can keep one awake at night with worry, a condition more uncomfortable than the sleeplessness that comes from a serious illness.96 Though commentators frequently pass over the relationship between vv. 1-2 and vv. 3-7, it is best to view the former as introducing the theme of the whole section: the danger of a preoccupation with money, which could apply to both rich and poor.97 In vv. 3-4 Ben Sira juxtaposes the labor of the rich and the poor and their corresponding results. What is not at issue is whether one is diligent while the other is lazy, or even the different kinds of work they do. Rather, the realms of ‘work’ and ‘rest’ provide the parallel that accentuates the disparity of the work’s effect on their respective lives.98 The contrast between the persons in vv. 3-4 and the surrounding context indicate that the rich person of v. 3 should be seen in a negative light; he is one whose thirst for more and more wealth leads him to labor. When he rests it is to enjoy it selfishly.99 Conversely, the poor person’s fight for survival in the following verse serves to provide a stark contrast to the rich person’s quest for more wealth.100 This negative reading of the rich person is reinforced by the content of vv. 5-7. In v. 5 Ben Sira claims that love of money and moral innocence are incompatible and that the insatiable pursuit of more money inevitably leads one astray. Indeed, the love of money is deceptive; it would seem to promise security but only results in entrapment (vv. 6-7). There is a note of irony in the Hebrew of 31:6a: bhz ylwbx wyh ~ybr. The use of the word lbx is interesting because of its usage in Pentateuchal legal texts and the wisdom literature in the context of the giving of a pledge (e.g. Exod 22:25; Deut 24:6.17; Prov 20:16; 27:13; cf. Ezek 18:12.16). Against this 95 96 97

For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. A similar idea is found in Qoh 5:11 (MT). Cf. CRENSHAW, Ecclesiastes, 121-122. Cf. SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 717. Di Lella views vv. 1-2 only in connection with the sinful rich. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 382. 98 REITERER, Die Stellung Ben Siras zu ‘Arbeit’, 266; cf. CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 780. 99 An even more provocative picture emerges if one reads lbql epexegetically; thus, “if he rests, he does so while still amassing luxury.” Noted in VAN PEURSEN, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 357. 100 SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 220-221; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 382.

52


background one can immediately see the irony of Ben Sira’s statement. Those who pursue gold and place their confidence in luxury end up being bound over as debt-slaves to gold itself. By referring to those who “place their trust” in money and possessions and pursue profit, there is an implicit contrast with the frequent statements throughout the book to place one’s trust in God and to pursue wisdom (e.g. Sir 2:610; 4:11-12; 6:27; 11:21; 24:34; 32:24; 33:18; 51:21).101 In fact, from this observation as well as a consideration of how Ben Sira frequently uses money as a ‘god-term,’ it would appear that he understands the desire for money to be a, if not the, primary rival to a life devoted to God.102 Thus, the central point of 31:1-7 is that money brings with it an inherent danger insofar as one’s inappropriate desire for it brings a kind of enslavement rather than the security that is anticipated. Yet, this potential trap, which can only be avoided through wisdom (v. 7) is immediately qualified in an important way by the second half of this poem (31:8-11). Blessed is the rich person who is found blameless who does not go astray in seeking mammon103 9 Who is he that we may praise him? for he has acted marvelously among his people 10 Who has been tested by it and proven perfect? let it be a source of glory for him 8

101 Ever since Peters (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 252), many commentators have pointed out the similarities between Sir 31:3-7 and material in the Gospel of Luke, such as Luke 12:16-20 and 16:1-13. However, more telling, and rarely noted, are the points of contact between this section and the near contemporary portion of 1 Enoch known as “The Epistle of Enoch” (1 Enoch 92-105), e.g. “Woe to you, rich, for in your riches you have trusted; and from your riches you will depart, because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your riches” (94:6). Also note the similarities between Sir 21:8 and 1 Enoch 94:7; 99:13. Yet, there is a very crucial difference which points to the different social locations of the two authors. In “The Epistle of Enoch” the rich are uniformly wicked, which stands in contrast to the view Ben Sira espouses in the next verses (31:8-11). See ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 252-254; NICKELSBURG, Revisiting the Rich and the Poor, 579-605; cf. HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 151-172. 102 Cf. “Der Gegensatz, der später im NT (Mt 6,24; Lk 16,13) wieder aufgenommen wird, steht hier unausgesprochen schon im Hintergrund: Man kann nicht Gott und dem Mammon gleichzeitig dienen.” SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 221. For the notion of a ‘god-term’ see the discussion above (§2.1.1.1). 103 It is commonly pointed out that this is the first extant reference to “mammon.” Although its usage in Luke 16:9-13 (cf. Matt 6:24) has led to a negative connotation in modern parlance, it is a neutral term in the rabbinic literature (cf. m. Ber. 9:5) and probably is to be considered as neutral here as well. The term also appears in the Targums and in a few places in the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. 1QS 6:2 and CD 14:20). See MURPHY, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 155-156; WILCOX, Mammon, 490.


53

Who could have gone astray but did not and could have done evil but did not? 11 Therefore his property is secure and the assembly will declare his praises104

Here Ben Sira praises those who have acquired wealth without falling into the trap of various temptations. The previous juxtaposition of the greedy rich person and the toiling poor person in vv. 3-4 suggests that the references to the righteous rich person’s abstention from evil in v. 10 are decidedly social in orientation. He is not among those who have amassed wealth, built luxurious houses, and performed religious duties from money gained through the exploitation of the poor (cf. Sir 4:1-10; 21:8; 34:21-27). Rather, he has endured the temptations that come with the possession of money and has been proven to be without defect. Therefore, 31:8-11 qualify the previous verses in a significant way. It is evident that Ben Sira does not view money as intrinsically bad or good. On the one hand, money can come from the practice of virtue and is a sign of God’s blessing; on the other hand, it ‘tests’ the one who possesses it insofar as its presence introduces temptations towards social injustice.105 Those who come through this testing without blemish are worthy of great honor and praise. Thus, money itself is morally neutral, as is the possession of money. In other words, in the moral sphere money and possessions are understood functionally. What is morally significant about money, for Ben Sira, is how one obtains it, how one values it, and what one does with it.106 Despite the praise lavished on the righteous rich person in 31:8-11, the way Ben Sira characterizes him in this pericope indicates how rare he believed such a person was in his own society. The manner in which the series of three rhetorical questions are constructed is sometimes understood to suggest that Ben Sira doubted whether such a person existed; but regardless, he clearly holds open the theoretical possibility, independent of his personal experiences.107 The practical rarity of such 104 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. 105 Notably, Ben Sira makes a similar claim about power. On the one hand, he advises against it since it brings difficult temptations (7:4-6); on the other hand, he recognizes that exercising authority can be a good thing if handled well (cf. 10:24; 38:3134). See the nuanced treatment in CALDUCH-BENAGES, Fear for the Powerful, 87-102. 106 Points made in MURPHY, Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Sirach, 264; and SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 220. 107 Similarly, on Sir 31:8-11 Murphy believes that “Ben Sira is sincere and manifests a certain awe, almost of disbelief, that the rich person has survived the dangers stemming from his own riches. The real sin of the rich person is to fail in trust, to have put one’s trust in mammon” (Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness, 265).

54


a person is reinforced in the final verse. Consistent with the theology of retributive justice, such a rich person can be assured that his property is secure, unlike those who have amassed their wealth through sinful means. Furthermore, he will be honored among the assembly, a promise that seems to refer to the practice in synagogues of publicly announcing generous benefactors.108 That the righteous wealthy person is the recipient of such public acclaim probably indicates that such a person was not all that common in Ben Sira’s day. In fact, the social realities involving the rich and the poor created a deep theological problem for Ben Sira, as we will see in the next section. As a transition to a discussion of the social realities exhibited in chapter 13, we can note that a similar notion to the perspective in 31:811 is expressed in Sir 13:24: Wealth is good if there is no iniquity involved but poverty is evil in the opinion of the proud109

Di Lella suggests that 13:24a may be ironic since Ben Sira considered wealth without iniquity to be quite rare; but regardless, one can see that on the theoretical level Ben Sira saw that the evaluation of money was a function of the moral state of the individual acquiring or possessing it.110 Likewise, the implication of the second stich is that poverty is not necessarily a bad thing and that only the arrogant would make a rigid application of retributive justice to equate poverty indiscriminately with a moral or spiritual defect on the part of the poor. In seems clear, then, that while Ben Sira operated within the overall framework of retributive justice, his view of economic disparities was considerably 108 CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 781. In context, the “praises” are almost certainly concerning his generosity. Cf. “G ‘his alms’ (= wtqdc) is probably an interpretation, but suggests the right meaning. A rich man who was pious would show his piety by generous almsgiving.” BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 419. 109 The final word !wdz is taken as pride by Baldauf, Box & Oesterley, Peters, Schechter & Taylor, and Skehan & Di Lella. In parallel to !w[ in the previous stich it is taken in the more general sense of “a wicked person” by Lévi, Smend, Spicq, and the versions: avsebou/j || )h+X. In the six occurrences in the biblical corpus !wdz typically means pride; but its use in the context of rebellion, especially against God, allows its semantic range to be extended to the more general sense of sinfulness (= rebellion). The same juxtaposition of the concepts of pride and sin can be seen in other uses of !wdz in Sirach, e.g. 12:14; 35:23. Thus, the primary biblical meaning of pride/insolence is probably in view in Ben Sira’s use as well. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 57; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 365; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:98; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 118; SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, xxviii; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 251; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 23; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 637-638. 110 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 255.


55

nuanced. Only the arrogant would seek to draw definitive moral and theological judgments about people simply from their particular socioeconomic standings.

2.1.3 Conclusions Before moving forward, it will be helpful to pause and summarize our conclusions regarding the basic theological dimensions of wealth and poverty in Ben Sira’s thought. We began this section by showing how money and possessions are relativized in Sirach. Both through direct comparisons and through the use of wealth as a metaphor, Ben Sira redirects the reader’s attention to those things he considers more valuable: a good wife, friends, a good reputation, health, and, most of all, Wisdom and the fear of God. This rhetorical usage of money presupposes its high value for the force of the comparisons and metaphors to work. In addition, the use of money as a symbolic pointer to the “ultimate treasure” of Wisdom/fear of God implies that money is not intrinsically bad in Ben Sira’s view. Rather, it can be a sign of God’s blessing and should not be despised. From a consideration of the ways in which money is relativized, we turned to an examination of how the nature of wealth and poverty is situated in the framework of retributive justice in Ben Sira’s ethics. We found that both the divine judicial model and the Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang model were operative in Ben Sira’s understanding of retributive justice as a whole, and in his understanding of wealth and poverty in particular. Because of God’s role as Creator and his providential oversight of creation, it is true both that actions tend to create their own appropriate consequences and that God interacts with creation in such a way that the virtuous are rewarded while the sinful are punished. Nevertheless, within this framework there are hints that the issue of wealth is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it is a blessing and a reward for virtue; on the other hand, it entails certain temptations toward greed and social injustice. Hence, Ben Sira acknowledges that, in the practical realm, someone who is blameless and rich is a rare kind of person. While wealth is morally neutral and functional, its actual sociological distribution creates problems for Ben Sira. Although it is undeniably true that virtues such as diligence tend to result in financial gain and vices such as laziness tend to result in poverty, it is also undeniably true that the actual socio-economic stratification of rich and poor does not seem to correlate well with the expectations deriving from the prin-

56


ciple of retributive justice. How this theological framework intersects with social realities and the various theological strategies for resolving this problem is the focus of the next section. This will then provide the groundwork for understanding the theological logic behind Ben Sira’s view of generosity.

2.2 The Interface of Theology and Society As mentioned in chapter 1, Ben Sira lived much of his life in the final years of Ptolemaic rule but probably committed his teaching to writing during the initial decades of Seleucid control over Judea. Although the priestly aristocracy was the primary locus of local political power during the Hellenistic period (though subordinate to the Hellenistic overlords), it is also evident that by the middle of the third century there were other power brokers in the picture. While the Persians had supported the temple system as its means of administrating the region,111 the Ptolemies tended to adapt their bureaucratic administration to the local structures in whichever way was most practical for generating the necessary revenue. In Judea this policy opened up the possibility for those outside the temple system to acquire power.112 The principal example of this phenomenon is the so-called “Tobiad Romance” which is recounted in Josephus’s Antiquities (XII.154-236). While much of the narrative has been subject to embellishment, it is also likely that some key elements are historically accurate.113 According to the account, when the chief priest Onias failed to pay the required tribute to the Ptolemies, his nephew Joseph intervened and was able to secure the role of prostasia, which made him the Judean representative to the Ptolemaic administration. As such, he was in a particularly advantageous position to secure the right to collect taxes throughout Syria, a right that was granted to the highest bidder each year in Alexandria.114 The right to collect taxes was a coveted position because 111 See SCHAPER, The Jerusalem Temple, 528-539. 112 HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 36-37. 113 See the extensive discussion in GERA, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 36-58. Gera sees almost no historical value to the narrative, but the majority of scholars think that certain elements, including the manner in which taxes were collected, reflect historical reality. See the more moderate judgments in HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:268-269; and HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 37-41. 114 HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 40; ROSTOVTZEFF, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 1:338.

The Interface of Theology and Society

57

of the almost limitless potential for increasing one’s own wealth. The fact that the Ptolemies were willing to back a power broker who was not part of the priesthood would have important implications for the economic state of Judea in the following years. As Horsley points out, “Joseph’s expansion of Tobiad power in Judea and beyond relativized that of the high priest and prepared the way for further maneuvering by rival factions within the Jerusalem aristocracy, just at a time when the rivalry between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid imperial regimes was coming to a head.”115 When the locus of power shifted from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids at the beginning of the second century, the means for controlling Judea became something of a hybrid of the Persian and Ptolemaic methods. On the one hand, like the Persians, the Seleucids appear to have favored using the temple system as its way of controlling the region and collecting revenues. On the other hand, however, the Seleucids were also concerned with collecting maximum revenues, independent of who occupied the priesthood. Therefore, previous struggles among Jerusalem aristocrats for the right to collect taxes during the Ptolemaic period were transposed into struggles for control of the high priesthood during the Seleucid period.116 Of course, the most notorious example of this was the purchase of the high priesthood by Jason in 175 B.C.E. With the Seleucids in desperate need of financial resources, Jason was granted the high priesthood in exchange for his pledge to raise the tribute substantially (2 Macc 4:7-10). The upshot of this brief discussion of the shifting relationships between the Jerusalem aristocracy and the Hellenistic overlords is that, as “middlemen,” the power brokers of Jerusalem, whether priestly or lay, used financial promises to their Hellenistic rulers in exchange for positions of power, positions which typically entailed considerable financial gain for themselves. This competition for power and control among the Jerusalem elite naturally led to an increasing need to raise more internal revenue to support their pledges to the imperial administration.

115 HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 41. 116 There is a considerable historical problem here. The decree of Antiochus III on the occasion of his acquisition of Judea, which is preserved in Josephus (Ant. XII.138144), does not mention the high priest. Instead it seems to conceive of the temple state being ruled by the Jerusalem gerousia. The explanation for this may be that the high priest was the central figure of the gerousia (so TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 81; cf. Sir 50:1-4), but it is a complicated problem. For a discussion of the approaches taken by various scholars on this issue see GOODBLATT, The Monarchic Principle, 15-20, 83-99; cf. HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 44-45.

58


Thus, on one level, the overall economic situation of Judea improved during the Ptolemaic years; but on another level, this economic prosperity tended to benefit the Jerusalem elite in a disproportionate manner.117 With each new bid for power a greater share of the burden on the country to raise the promised revenue fell on the heart of the economic system: the peasant farmers.118 The political circumstances of the third and early second centuries thus drove an increasingly widening gap between the poor and those who exploited them to support their own political ambitions.119 Near the end of the Ptolemaic period this was accompanied by accelerating inflation which, along with an increase in taxes, was disproportionately burdensome to the agricultural sector of the economy (rather than, e.g., the merchants).120 Therefore, the old adage “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer” would have been readily applicable to Judea in the time of Ben Sira.121 In attempting to reconstruct the social structure of Seleucid Judea, there are several models available from the social sciences and little textual evidence besides Sirach. The best methodological path, therefore, is to work inductively from Sirach in order to assess which sociological model best fits the picture presupposed in the book. Most scholars working on Sirach (and the Second Temple period generally) have found that Gerhard Lenski’s model of agrarian societies is a helpful beginning model for assessing the statements in Sirach.122 According to

117 See BICKERMAN, The Jews in the Greek Age, 151-152; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 24-26; also note the helpful discussion in GRABBE, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 191-194 118 Cf. VAN DER SPEK, The Hellenistic Near East, 418. 119 HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 50-51. 120 BICKERMAN, The Jews in the Greek Age, 156. 121 It should be noted in this regard that one cannot necessarily say that the overall socio-economic situation of Ben Sira’s time was comparatively worse than in other centuries of the Second Temple period, such that there was a particular fiscal crisis in Seleucid Judea on which Ben Sira’s theological deductions are wholly dependent. Rather, the socio-economic plight of the average Judean peasant would probably look remarkably consistent from one century to the next in contrast to the socioeconomic changes that characterize the modern, industrialized West. The socioeconomic factors outlined here are only intended to sketch the environment in which Ben Sira’s thought took shape without implying that similar deductions could not have been drawn in other difficult economic circumstances. 122 Horsley, Tiller, and Wright have been the most constructive in this task and all of them have found Lenski’s model to be helpful, although in need of important adjustments for Seleucid Judea. See the excellent discussions in HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 53-70; id., The Politics of Cultural Production in Second Temple Judea, 123-145; HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira and the So-


59

Lenski, an agrarian society has a very small upper class and a large lower class with an enormous social chasm between them. In terms of social mobility it is far easier to move down the social pyramid than up it.123 The upper class can be subdivided into the ruler, the governing class, the retainer class, the merchant class, and the priestly class while the lower class can be subdivided into the artisans, the peasant class, the unclean and degraded classes, and the expendable class.124 However, it is clear that in the late Second Temple period, Judea was essentially a temple-state such that Lenski’s separation of the priestly class from the governing and retainer classes does not apply.125 Nevertheless, with the cross-cultural, social insights of Lenski in mind, it is possible to work inductively from the book of Sirach to reconstruct a picture of Ben Sira’s social location in Seleucid Judea. A great deal about the social location of Ben Sira and his audience is evident in Sir 38:24-39:11. Here Ben Sira informs us that the scribe is socially superior to the farmer and the various craftsmen such as the smith and the potter. Although he acknowledges that the work of the artisans is essential to the life of the city and is worthy of respect,126 he

123

124

125

126

ciology of the Second Temple, 74-107; WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 559-578; id., Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 189-222. I use the phrase “social pyramid” for the sake of convenience. Lenski presents the structure schematically as widest at the level of the peasants and drastically narrowing both above and below it. Furthermore, unlike a pyramid, the classes are not simply layered on top of one another, but overlap to a degree. Thus, for example, it is possible for someone in the retainer class to have more power and status than someone in the governing class (Power and Privilege, 284). LENSKI, Power and Privilege, 189-296. Lenski uses technology as his principle of categorization (e.g. hunting and gathering, horticultural, agrarian, and industrial). For a helpful summary of Lenski’s distinctives and strengths see the short discussion in CROSSAN, The Historical Jesus, 43-46. Horsley provides a nuanced evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of Lenski’s model with respect to Seleucid Judea and the picture sketched below follows his discussion substantially (Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 53-70). In a pre-industrial city that was part of an agricultural economy, the number of elite members of a society must have been small, probably not much above 5% of the total population, because of the lack of resources to support a larger sector. In a place like Jerusalem, the temple-state would have been the central controlling force in the economy. Capital would have flowed in from the surrounding areas through taxes and religious tithes. Limited benefits flowed back down the socio-economic scale through tangible items such as loans (and sometimes debt forgiveness) and aid from religious tithes (cf. Deut 14:28-29), and intangible items such as military protection provided by the elite. Therefore, the existence of craftsmen and artisans served primarily to produce the goods desired by the elite, not the general population. See

60


also views scribes as more important because of their role in dispensing counsel, their participation in legal proceedings, and most importantly, the studying and transmission of the law of God (38:31-34). In addition, unlike the general tradesmen, the scribes had the prestige to appear before rulers and to travel to foreign lands, perhaps as ambassadors (39:4).127 The socio-economic environment in which Ben Sira lived can be conceptualized concentrically. In the center of both the city and the economy were the ruling elite, which in the case of Jerusalem meant the temple-state, and the retainers who aided them (cf. 6:34; 7:14; 10:1-3; 33:19; 39:4; 1 Macc 12:6).128 The aristocracy was not a monolithic entity and there were rival factions, but due to the function of the temple in the religious, political, and economic life of Judea, the high priestly family comprised the core of the elite. Even though there were likely some non-priests who were part of the aristocracy (as well as some priests who were not part of the aristocracy), the fact that the Tobiad family sought to intermarry with the high priestly family only confirms the dominant role of the latter in the composition of the aristocracy.129 As the bearers of the religious traditions, the scribes were in a socially precarious position when the actual behavior of the elite conflicted with the prescriptions of their traditions (as we will see concerning the treatment of the poor). Moving further out were the craftsmen, artisans, and merchants. Finally, there were the agricultural workers and the peasantry, who probably comprised nearly 90% of the total population. When Ben Sira speaks of the poor/peasants, it is clear that they are subsistence workers who constantly stand on the brink of financial ruin.130

127

128

129 130

ROHRBAUGH, The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts, 133-137; OAKMAN, The Countryside in Luke-Acts, 152-160. The statements in Sir 38:1-3 seem to imply that physicians were of similar social standing to the scribes, superior to the craftsmen but inferior to the ruling elite. Wischmeyer even raises the possibility that Ben Sira was a physician (Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 47). Of course, above the elite would have been the Hellenistic ruler, but this is a position that Ben Sira hardly addresses outside of the passage in 9:17-10:18. See WRIGHT, Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship, 76-91; WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 51-52. HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 63-65; cf. WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 56-61. The most common terms Ben Sira uses are ld and words deriving from hn[ (II), though he also uses other terms for poor/poverty such as !wyba, $wm, rwsxm, !ksm, and Xr/Xyr. Wright observes that this vocabulary basically reflects what one finds in earlier wisdom literature (Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 560). Yet, it should also be pointed out that the words ld and hn[ (II) frequently occur either in isolation or in combination in Pentateuchal and prophetic texts concerning issues of social justice.


61

They apparently had some minimal possessions such as basic food and shelter (cf. Sir 29:22; 31:4; 34:24). At the bottom of the social pyramid, in Ben Sira’s view, were slaves and the destitute beggars (see the rather harsh statements in Sir 33:25-33; 40:28-30; but cf. 4:1-10; 7:20-21).131

2.2.1 Social Realities in Ben Sira’s Judea The passage in Sirach that best illuminates the harshness of social conflict within the Judean society of Ben Sira’s day is found in Sir 13:2-23.132 Within this pericope there is a clear break following v. 13, which divides the lesson into two distinct parts. The obvious rhetorical difference between the two sections is that the first is almost completely communicated in the second person while the latter section is in the third person, a difference that has important implications for interpretation. Perhaps due to the mention of the poor person in 13:3, a number of interpreters read the whole of chapter 13 as being about the opposition of the rich and the poor.133 However, as Wright points out, the use In addition, while the wisdom writers are sometimes critical of the poor, they do not use these terms in those contexts (so Fabry; contra Pleins). Rather, ld and hn[ (II) are used in Proverbs in contexts that proscribe oppression, require justice, and encourage charity. For lexical discussions see DOMERIS, Touching the Heart of God, 14-26; FABRY, dal, 208-230; GERSTENBERGER,`änâ, 230-252; PLEINS, Poor, Poverty, 402-414; WHYBRAY, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 14-22. 131 WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 40-41. For the topographical arrangement of agrarian society as basically representative of social standing see ROHRBAUGH, The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts, 134-136; also cf. HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 62-69. A survey of the usage of words like ld and !wyba in Sirach shows that the boundary between peasants and beggars was often fuzzy and easily crossed. 132 There is debate over whether 13:1 concludes the previous section or begins a new section. Beentjes and Smend argue that 13:1 is best understood as concluding the previous section, but most other scholars interpret 13:1 as opening a new pericope. I find the issue difficult to decide but the more general, proverbial nature of the statement in 13:1 may suggest that can be read as transitional, being applicable to the material both before and after it. Beentjes also argues that 13:24 (13:23 in his numbering) is part of this section as well. Corley, on the other hand, makes a good case that 13:24 is best considered as part of the pericope ending in 14:19. In my opinion, the arguments adduced by Beentjes and Corley are best negotiated by viewing 13:24 as a Janus-faced verse which transitions from 13:2-23 to 13:25-14:19. See BEENTJES, How Can a Jug Be Friends with a Kettle?, 87-93; CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 118, 127-128; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 100. 133 Cf. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 127; HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 187-188; MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 167-168; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 119-120; and, ambivalently, SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 252-

62


of the second person address implies that the advice in vv. 2-13 is intended for Ben Sira’s students who would have been part of the upper classes and would not have been poor themselves.134 This use of the second person address would apply both in the oral stage of Ben Sira’s teaching and in the committing of the teaching to writing since only society’s intellectuals would have enjoyed the ability to read such a work.135 Nevertheless, the presence of the third person statement about the rich and the poor in 13:3 as well as the structural and thematic similarities between 13:2-13 and 13:15-23136 reveal that Ben Sira perceived a certain underlying correspondence between the way the wealthy/powerful deal with those beneath them, whether they are among the “retainer class” or among the peasantry.137 The relationship between the two sections is therefore one of highlighting the manipulative and exploitive nature of many of the wealthy who possess social and political power. That Ben Sira’s students enjoy a relatively better social standing than the peasants does not insulate them from this danger.

2.2.1.1 The Rich and the Retainer Class In Sir 13:2-13, a passage which is textually problematic, Ben Sira speaks to his students about the potential hazards in dealing with the aristocracy, who were the next step up in the social hierarchy. At the beginning of the section Ben Sira draws a striking comparison to initiate the lesson:

134 135

136 137

253. This perspective is also likely reflected in the secondary gloss in manuscript A and in the Syriac at the end of v. 2: “or why should a rich person associate with a poor person?” WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 566. So also HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple, 86. The primacy of oral/aural instruction as Ben Sira’s foremost medium of teaching is reflected in Sir 6:32-37. See HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 11. Sir 13:14 is a secondary addition. It is missing from manuscript A, the Syriac, and G I, but it appears in G II and the Latin. This observation also means that those who interpret all of chapter 13 as being about the opposition of the rich and the poor do not seriously misinterpret the text, only that their observations need to be reconfigured into the broader framework of the opposition of the rich/powerful to their social inferiors, among whom the poor are a prominent example.

The Interface of Theology and Society 2

3

63

Do not138 lift what is too heavy for you and do not associate with someone wealthier than you How can a clay pot associate with a kettle since if the latter strikes the former it will be smashed? The rich person does wrong and brags about it but a peasant is wronged and begs for mercy139

Ben Sira begins by advising his students about the dangers of associating with those who are wealthier than they are. Given their status as the retainer class, this can only refer to the aristocracy. Ben Sira then illustrates the danger through the metaphor of a kettle smashing a clay pot (v. 2) and then through the comparison with how the rich treat the poor (v. 3). This juxtaposition of the students’ need for caution (v. 2) with the observation of how the rich treat the poor (v. 3) is programmatic for what follows in vv. 4-13 and vv. 15-23.140 The principle in view is that the wealthy will not hesitate to destroy those less powerful than they, as is evidenced by the inequity in how the rich and poor must respond to exploitation. Although the rich person is the one in the wrong, he boasts of it while his poor victim must beg for forgiveness. What is clear is that the primary motivation for the wealthy is not his moral compass but the acquisition and retention of wealth and its attendant power. Therefore, anyone below him on the social ladder must be careful. The fact that the only thing standing in the way of the complete exploitation of the retainer class is their usefulness to the elite becomes clear in what follows: 138 This use of hm developed out of its adverbial use (“how?”/ “why?”) in the context of rhetorical questions implying a negative answer, e.g. its use in 10:9 (cf. 13:17). See VAN PEURSEN, Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira, 231-232. Skehan (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 249) translates it as a rhetorical question “why?” but the Greek supports van Peursen’s understanding. The other uses of hm elsewhere in this chapter (13:3.17.18) are best understood as interrogatives since they occur at the beginning of each clause and with verbs in the third person. 139 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. 140 Cf. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 66. Beentjes makes a similar observation but then goes on to add that “the confrontation between the rich and the poor is elaborated very amply in Sir. 13,4-13 in the course of which it strikes the eye very much that, although the theme ‘rich / poor’ is the centre of interest, nor ‘šyr or dl have been used there [sic]” (How can a Jug be Friends with a Kettle?, 89). As mentioned above, vv. 2-13 are most naturally read as addressed to Ben Sira’s students in the retainer class. That this section is not in reference to the dealings of the rich with the poor is evident by the nature of the interaction in what follows. Given what we know about the sociology of agrarian societies, it is hardly plausible that the elite would lavish gifts of delicacies on the peasantry, socialize with them, or approach them in order to engage them in prolonged conversation. Rather, the descriptions in vv. 4-13 breathe the air of those with access to the inner workings of the aristocracy.

64

Wealth, Poverty, and the Problem of Justice 4 5 6

7

8

If you are useful to him he will work with you but if you are exhausted he will discard you If you have (anything) he will live with you he will impoverish you and it will not grieve him When he needs something from you he will flatter you he will smile at you and gain your trust He will speak kindly to you and ask, “What do you need?” he will embarrass you with his delicacies As long as he profits he will trifle with you141 two or three times he will grind you down But later he will see you and pass by you and shake his head at you Watch out not to be overly confident and do not be ruined with those who lack insight142

Both the utilitarian role of the socially inferior and the deception practiced by the wealthy are in the foreground here. Ben Sira’s students should not make the mistake of thinking that the wealthy honestly care for them. Rather, to be naïve about why the elite seem to care about them will only lead to poverty and shame because the elite’s only true interest is in profiting from their interactions with those beneath them. Those who allow themselves to be duped by the deceptions of the rich will find themselves exploited with no means of redress. Therefore, shrewdness is required for those whose livelihood is dependent on the aristocracy. One must serve them well since this opens up possibilities for social advancement, but one must also exercise great caution and insight in order to avoid becoming the victim of the elite’s exploitive and malicious tactics (cf. Sir 8:1-2). Under these circumstances, Ben Sira’s students share a certain congruity with the poor since both are socially inferior to the wealthy; in contrast to the poor, however, they have more utilitarian value and the elite are therefore less brazen in their dealings with them. The student must measure carefully his interactions with his social superiors, as is evident in the next section of the lesson. When an influential person approaches, keep your distance and then he will beckon you even more 10 Do not be too forward lest you be rejected and do not be too removed lest you be detested 11 Do not have confidence that you can interact with him as an equal and do not trust his lengthy conversation 9

141 For the durative aspect see VAN PEURSEN, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 111. 142 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix.


65

For by his lengthy conversation he is testing you and while smiling at you he is examining you 12 One with power deals cruelly and does not show pity against the life of many he devises schemes 13 Watch out and be careful that you do not walk with violent men143

There is a subtle shift in Ben Sira’s discourse here. While in vv. 2-7 he spoke about the dangers of interacting with the wealthy, here the subject is “the person of influence” who possesses socio-political power.144 Yet in the economic structure of an agrarian society, such as Seleucid Judea, the wealthy and the powerful are groups that overlap considerably. In Sir 8:1-2 the powerful and the rich are placed in synonymous parallelism and it is likely that these two sections (vv. 2-8 and 9-13) function in a similar way.145 In the first section the emphasis was on the threat of financial ruin that the elite pose, while in the second section the focus is on the social downfall that one can experience at the hands of the elite. Just as the wealthy may temporarily feign interest in their inferiors in order to profit, so the powerful person may engage an inferior in lengthy conversation solely to gather information that can be used against the latter at an opportune time. The concern of the powerful is solely for his own agenda and he lacks any true concern for those beneath him, even those who serve him. For this reason, Ben Sira’s students are instructed to exercise caution.146 What is required is balance. Being too forward can result in rejection, while being too reclusive may rouse the suspicions of the elite.147 The clear sociological picture which emerges from Sir 13:2-13 is the difficult position in which those like Ben Sira find themselves. On the 143 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. 144 Observed by Alonso Schökel, who gives 13:1-7 the title “Trato con el rico” and 13:813 the title “Trato con el noble.” ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 186187. 145 WRIGHT/CAMP, Who has been Tested by Gold, 164. In addition, Beentjes points out some linguistic similarities between the two sections, such as the use of rmXh in vv. 8.13 and the use l[ + lmx in vv. 4.12 (How can a Jug be Friends with a Kettle?, 92-93). 146 SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 93. It is notable in this regard that this passage directly follows the lesson in 11:29-12:18 on the need for discerning between true friends and dangerous enemies. Cf. SCHRADER, Unzuverlässige Freundschaft und verläßliche Feindschaft, 19-59, especially 20-23. 147 In this regard Spicq cites Calmet with an interesting comparison: “Alexandre le Grand disait qu’on ne devait approcher les princes que comme on s’approche du feu; assez près pour en ressentir la chaleur, assez loin pour n’en être pas brûlé” (L’Ecclésiastique, 635). There are also well-known parallels between this text and Papyrus Insinger; see SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 92-93.

66


one hand, their livelihood depends on their relationship with the aristocracy; on the other hand, the elite are not to be trusted too readily. This is the central rhetorical point of chapter 13 and the appeals to the conflict between the rich and the poor serve this goal by exposing the true disposition of the aristocracy towards those beneath them (both in 13:3 and 13:15-23). In other words, the rich are no respecter of persons when it comes to exploitation; everyone beneath them is fair game if it serves their agenda. For Ben Sira’s audience, this is a more chilling indictment of the moral bankruptcy of many of those in power and raises an important theological problem. For a sage such as Ben Sira, the theory of retributive justice predicts that virtue leads to prosperity while vice leads to poverty. Yet, in social reality it is often quite the opposite. Those who are wealthy and powerful frequently exhibit corruption both in their acquisition of wealth and their use of it. This is especially clear in regards to their dealings with the poor, which is our next topic.

2.2.1.2 The Rich and the Poor The pericope of 13:15-23, which develops the observations in 13:2-3, is divisible into two complementary sections: a principle of separateness derived from creation (vv. 15-20) and its sociological outworking among the rich and the poor (vv. 21-23).148 In the first section Ben Sira highlights incompatibilities among animals and identifies what he views as their human parallels: 15 16 17 18 19 20

Every creature loves its own kind and every person, someone like himself Every living thing is near its own kind and a person will associate with his own kind How can a wolf be associated with a lamb? likewise, the wicked and the righteous What peace does a hyena have with a dog? how can a rich person be at peace with a pauper? Wild asses of the wilderness are food for a lion so also the peasants are the feeding grounds of a rich person Humility is an abomination to pride and a needy person is an abomination to a rich person149

148 CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 117. It may be better to understand v. 20 as a transitional verse that links vv. 15-19 and vv. 21-23. 149 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix.


67

While this passage is rich in allusions to prior biblical traditions and parallels to Hellenistic literature, for our purposes a few points can be highlighted.150 First, as Corley has shown, in vv. 15-16 Ben Sira employs a collage of creational language from Genesis (cf. 1:24-26; 7:13-16).151 But whereas the creation account pictures a taxonomic separation of species wherein humanity represents one group, here that taxonomic distinction is extrapolated into the human race itself in terms of socioeconomic divisions. Although it is true that Ben Sira places human differences within a framework of creational polarities (33:7-15),152 it is also evident that this framework works in terms of God’s providential provision for the current standing of the world. There is an element of theodicy to claims such as these inasmuch as they presuppose the question of why such a state should be so. That our passage here also views such social arrangements as a problem is evident by the fact that Ben Sira both alludes to creational ordering but also breaks it by acknowledging significant divisions in the human species.153 In support of this reading is the observation that the use of “associate” (rbx) in vv. 16b 150 For an extensive analysis of Sir 13:15-23 see the excellent treatment of CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 117-153. For possible parallels in other literature see MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 8-10, 18. 151 Corley notes the creational language is distinctly priestly (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 128-129; cf. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 122). This is notable because even though Ben Sira would not have thought in terms of modern understandings of Pentateuchal sources, it is striking that, as Olyan has argued, when he refers to the Pentateuch he “alludes to P passage after P passage in order to tell his tale, ignoring for all intents and purposes other Pentateuchal narrative.” OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 270. Olyan goes on to demonstrate that Ben Sira’s understanding of the priesthood is closest to the ideology of the Priestly source and argues that this supports the thesis that Ben Sira was himself a priest, which was argued in detail in STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Cf. chapter 6 below. 152 BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 67. 153 Corley sees an additional allusion to Lev 19:18-19, the use of which he interprets to mean that “Ben Sira connects these laws by recognizing that just as one should not mix kinds of animals, so too one should befriend only one’s own kind of human being” (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 130-131; cf. SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 70; TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 147-148). While I agree somewhat with Corley on the level of the practical advice intended (especially in light of the larger context of 11:29-12:18), I would qualify this by saying that Ben Sira’s larger context also makes it clear that befriending one’s own kind is a matter of shrewdness given the current state of affairs, but that it is not necessarily in harmony with the creational order (unlike P’s approach to taxonomy, which is grounded in the created order). I am thus in closer agreement with the colorful description of MacKenzie that “Ben Sira here speaks as a man of the world, cold-bloodedly appraising the realities of wealth and political power, and giving shrewd Machiavellian advice to young men who will soon find themselves at grips with those realities” (Sirach, 66).

68


and 17a recalls the same double usage in v. 2. This ties vv. 16-17 into the larger context of unjust social stratification presented in this passage and the programmatic statement in 13:2 about the violence that ensues when a weaker vessel associates with a stronger vessel. Along the same lines, the use in vv. 17-19 of the language of a wolf (lu,koj/baz) associating with a lamb (avmno,j/Xbk) is likely an allusion to Isa 11:6.154 The allusion to this Isaianic text evokes a context that describes the eschatological peace that is coming. The rhetorical question of Ben Sira, “what fellowship does a wolf have with a lamb?” begs the response, “None, until the world to come.”155 The evoked Isaianic context thus casts the antagonism in Sirach between the sinner and the godly and between the rich and the poor as a state out of accord with the divine economy and one that awaits eschatological reversal.156 Continuing with the animal imagery, the hyena and the dog appear in v. 18. The hyena was a voracious hunter of livestock and dogs were frequently used as protection.157 However, the parallelism with the two surrounding verses seems to break down because, while hyenas are predatory, dogs are not their prey as lambs and wild asses are of wolves and lions. Rather, hyenas and dogs were simply natural enemies. Thus the second half of the verse is stated in terms of mere incompatibility rather than a predatory relationship. In v. 19 the use of a lion as imagery for the rich has a biblical precedent in Pss 35:17 and 58:7, though more frequently it is used to depict an external threat (e.g. Jer 5:6, which uses imagery similar to that of our Sirach passage).158 The animals hunted by the lions, which in Sir 13 154 So CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 135; CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 715; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 122; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 254. It is possible that the use of “lion” aids the allusion, but one would expect the Isaianic counterpart “calf” instead of “wild asses.” The word for lion is different in Isa 11:6 MT (rypk) and Sirach manuscript A (yra), but the same Greek word (lewn) is used in Sirach 13:19 and Isa 11:6 LXX. In this respect is it is very interesting that Trito-Isaiah’s reapplication of Isa 11:6 in 65:25 does use hyra for lion, but instead of Xbk for lamb it has hlj. 155 It is notable that the incompatibility of the wolf and the lamb as emblematic of a non-paradisal world is widespread in antiquity, surfacing in Greek and Mesopotamian, as well as Israelite, literature. For examples see CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 135-136. 156 For discussions of Ben Sira’s eschatology see WRIGHT, Eschatology without a Messiah in Ben Sira, 313-323; cf. CORLEY, Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach, 301-312. 157 Cf. Job 30:1. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 254. For both Hebrew and Greek, the word for hyena in Sirach ([wbc/uaina) occurs elsewhere only in Jer 12:9. For the problem of the word’s signification see LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 1-20, 655. 158 See MILLER, Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew, 183.


69

represent the poor, are the “wild asses of the desert” (rbdm yarp/o;nagroi evn evrh,mw|). The poor are also compared to wild asses in the desert in Job 24:4-5 (rbdmb ~yarp), the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where a form of this phrase occurs.159 The context of Job 24, like Sir 13, addresses the fact that the wealthy and powerful seem to prey on the poor and exploit the defenseless members of society. The speech struggles with the socio-economic injustice in the world and raises the question of why God does not seem to do anything about it (cf. Job 24:1). As with much of the book of Job, chapter 24 raises the issue of theodicy and does so in respect to the plight of the poor and needy. As Carol Newsom remarks, “Job’s complaint in chap. 24 is that, in opposition to all that traditional religion has claimed, oppression and criminality flourish on the earth without any discernible sign of God’s judgment.”160 Through evoking this text, Sir 13:19 thus raises the issue of theodicy in Ben Sira’s description of his socio-economic context. As in v. 17, Ben Sira’s subtle use of passages from the Hebrew Bible hints that these social realities are not as they should be and require an explanation. These illustrations are consistently applied to the antagonism between the rich and the poor. In v. 17b the comparison made is between the “wicked” and the “righteous,” whereas in vv. 18b, 19b, and 20b, the comparison is in terms of the oppression of the poor by the wealthy. The alignment of the poor with the righteous and the wealthy with the wicked may imply a significant overlap, but not an absolute correspondence, since later in the chapter Ben Sira considers it possible to be wealthy and innocent (13:24; cf. 31:8-11).161 Similarly, in v. 20 Ben Sira compares the way that those who are lowly are an abomination to those who are haughty with the attitude of the rich towards the poor. The rich and the haughty are associated, as are the lowly and the 159 The LXX of Job 24:5 uses o;noi evn avgrw/.| Thus, the Greek of Sirach does not evoke Job 24 as clearly as the Hebrew text does. Either Ben Sira’s grandson did not recognize the allusion original to the Hebrew or the Hebrew manuscript could have been glossed back towards Job 24 to create the allusion. Schechter & Taylor also see a potential background in Jer 2:24, which contains the phrase rbdm dml hrp (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 15). However, the fact that Job 24 corresponds more closely to the phrasing in Sir 13:19 and is more similar in content makes it more likely that it is the passage being referenced. Although Di Lella also recognizes a connection to Job 24:4-5, Reiterer does not list it among the literary connections between Job and Sirach (though he does discuss possible connections between Sir 13:23 & Job 20:6 and Sir 13:7.25 & Job 14:19-20). See REITERER, Das Verhältnis Ijobs und Ben Siras, 405-429; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 254. 160 NEWSOM, The Book of Job: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections, 510. 161 MACKENZIE, Sirach, 67; cf. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 141.

70


poor.162 This strong alignment in Ben Sira’s lesson between the wealthy and the wicked/proud, along with the imagery presented, gives a vivid illustration as to how pervasive social injustice was during Seleucid rule of Judea. Indeed, the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy is chillingly captured in the metaphorical statement that “peasants are the feeding grounds of a rich person” (13:19). The next section turns from the theme of exploitation and the resulting enmity to flesh out how this economic inequality manifests itself in social dealings. When the rich person stumbles he is supported by a friend but when a peasant stumbles he is cast out by a friend 22 A rich person speaks and his helpers are numerous and although his words are detestable they are reckoned as lovely. A peasant speaks and they say “Boo! Boo!”163 and he speaks with insight but there is no place for him 23 When a rich person speaks everyone keeps quiet and his reasoning they exalt up to the clouds When a peasant speaks they say “Who is this?” and if he stumbles they even push him down164 21

In this pericope, which seems to develop the thought of Prov 19:4-7, the scene no longer involves the direct conflict between the poor and the rich, but how third parties treat the two differently. When a rich person falls on hard times (lit. “shaken,” saleuo,menoj/jwm) he always finds a friend to help, presumably because the friend stands to gain something from the rich person once he recovers. On the other hand, when a poor person falls, even his friends reject him. Anticipating an important theme elsewhere in Sirach, Di Lella notes in passing that “the poor have

162 For how this verse adapts Prov 29:27 see CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 144-145. In this regard it is important to recognize that the previous proverb in 29:26 concerns the perversion of justice, perhaps through bribery, and thereby serves as the context in which 29:27 is read. See WALTKE, Proverbs 15-31, 453. 163 There are two options for interpreting [g [g: either as imperatives or as interjections. If they are judged to be imperatives, they would derive from [gn and have the possible meanings of “come” (Skehan & Di Lella), “go away” (Kaddari), or “strike” (Peters). If they are judged to be interjections then the sense is an onomatopoeic expression of contempt, as in the Syriac’s (wN (so Corley, Schechter & Taylor, and Smend). In this regard, the use of wql wq wql wq wcl wc wcl wc in Isa 28:10.13 (cf. 18:2.7) may provide an apt parallel. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 120; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 118; SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 49; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 250; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 128; Kaddari’s view is cited in ELWOLDE, Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah, 22-23, n.11. 164 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix.


71

only God to turn to.”165 The idea that God is frequently the only refuge for the poor has deep biblical roots and, as we will see, plays an important role in Ben Sira’s theology. In vv. 22-23 he reiterates the same social dynamic, but this time in the realm of speech. Even if the rich person says repulsive things, he is supported and commended as being wise.166 On the other hand, if a poor person speaks with insight he is not recognized and he is thrown down if he stumbles at all. The valuation of a person’s ideas based on his economic worth rather than on the content of his speech is lamented in other Second Temple wisdom texts as well (e.g. Qoh 9:16; Job 29:9).167 No doubt, in addition to the general human tendency to treat the wealthy and powerful with preference in order to curry favor, part of the reason that the elite are treated so differently is that others are afraid of how they may be treated if they do not capitulate to their wishes (cf. 13:2-3!).168 In a way analogous to 13:15-20, these verses portray the unfair treatment of the poor in society. The very ones who most need social support due to their vulnerability are precisely the ones who find themselves dismissed and abandoned, even by those closest to them. Ben Sira’s teaching here in 13:15-23 demonstrates sympathy with the peasantry, even though he is dependent on the elite, many of whom are oppressing them. Although he does not confront unjust social structures in the way the classical prophets did, he nevertheless comes relatively close in this passage.169 Given his own social standing, perhaps 165 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 254. 166 The rich person’s speech here is described as !yr[wkm (pual participle from r[k). It has the sense of being ugly, contemptible, repulsive, and unseemly. In the Greek, the word is avpo,rrhta, which occurs nowhere else in the LXX. In other Hellenistic works it has the sense of forbidden, unfit to be spoken, or abominable. See WAGNER, Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach, 161-162. 167 The comparison is made by SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 79; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 255. 168 CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 148. 169 Hengel describes this passage as one “delivered with prophetic solemnity” against “the power of the rich aristocracy, which makes unscrupulous use of it” (Judaism and Hellenism, 1:136-137) Tcherikover even suggests that Ben Sira “may well have been born and educated in poverty and have gradually climbed to prominence by force of his natural intelligence and of his devotion to the study of Torah and practical wisdom” (Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 148; so also REITERER, Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira, 36). Although not impossible, I wonder if there was actually sufficient opportunity for social mobility, not to mention educational resources available to a poor person (note 38:24!), for this to happen. From my point of view, Ben Sira’s quasi-prophetic sympathies for the poor are more likely to have derived from the prominence of this theme in the Torah, not to mention the prophets and even portions of Proverbs, rather than from a prior social location.

72


his own sense of shrewdness precluded his going further. Nevertheless, even if he did not confront the injustice, it clearly created a theological problem for him and to the ways in which he approaches that problem we now turn.

2.2.2 The Conflict between Social Reality and Retributive Justice This brief discussion of Sir 13 demonstrates that Ben Sira was aware that the basic framework of retributive justice was frequently challenged by social realities. Although he believed that virtue generally results in reward while vice generally results in punishment, he also realized that the equation was not absolute. One could not work backwards from the possession of wealth to conclude that a wealthy person was necessarily more righteous than those who had less.170 To put it in mathematical terms, the relationship between ethics and economics is not an “if and only if” correlation. In fact, in Ben Sira’s time the opposite seemed to be more common: those who were wealthy and powerful frequently acquired and managed their wealth in ways that were explicitly in conflict with the prescriptions of the biblical tradition. Yet, it must be borne in mind that since the framework is predicated on God’s just governing of the creational order, any exceptions are still an acute problem. The problem is not wholly resolved by relegating the idea of retributive justice merely to a “general tendency” since the exceptions to this tendency are precisely what challenges the validity of the theological framework.171 Whereas the Torah and the prophetic literature required justice and care for the poor (e.g. Exod 22 and Deut 15), too often the elite had exploited the poor and used their dire situations as a means to profit. In 170 Schreiner makes this point in his discussion of Sir 4:1-10 (Jesus Sirach, 31; see below, §7.3.2). Also see WILLIAMS, Those Who Ponder Proverbs, 18-23; Williams characterizes the notion of retributive justice in the wisdom literature as “typical” rather than “causal.” Cf. VAN LEEUWEN, Wealth and Poverty, 32. 171 Note Fox’s comments on the problem of retributive justice in relation to death in Qoheleth: “But this observation [that there are anomalies] does not neutralize the fundamental tension between justice and injustice, for the exceptions are the problem. The rule is not stated as a statistical generality of mortality patterns, but as a fact of God’s rule. Thus every exception, especially every premature death, breaches God’s justice.” FOX, A Time to Tear Down & A Time to Build Up, 58. Cf. “Il termine teodicea può essere allora conservato in quanto nella coscienza di ogni pur minima disarmonia dell’esistenza è racchiuso il problema più vasto di Dio, e in Israele in modo particolare di quell Dio che si prende a cuore la sorte del suo popolo.” PRATO, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, 3.


73

times of inflation and/or poor harvests, the peasantry could easily find themselves falling into ruin. The extension of loans by the wealthy could then serve as a means of control over those near the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid. Either through interest or the seizure of collateral, the rich could profit off the poor because the latter had little temporal latitude in their financial flexibility.172 In a socio-economic system where power and wealth are consolidated among a small elite, those who live just above subsistence levels will frequently find themselves at the mercy of these socially elite. Where there was an unscrupulous aristocracy, many peasants could find themselves in an inescapable spiral of escalating debt. This is why in the ancient Near East, where economies were agrarian and generally ruled by a temple-state, debt-release was such a powerful component of royal ideology.173 How does a sage like Ben Sira account for these social realities, which seemingly provide disconfirming data for the theological framework of retributive justice? Earlier sapiential texts had also wrestled with this problem, notably the books of Job and Qoheleth, and Ben Sira exhibits many of the same strategies for resolution developed by earlier authors.174 Nevertheless, in the end, he is aware that these explanations do not account for the whole problem.175

172 Although the biblical legislation is adamant about the financial protection of the poor, Seeligmann points out that the practice of the sabbatical year, in which one could not work the land, posed a greater threat to the peasant farmers than to others and would have led to the incurring of debts by the former. Although the prohibition against the charging of interest is usually accented in discussions of the Pentateuchal legislation, it is also important to realize that the legislators were emphatic that one was obligated to lend proactively to the needy whatever they might need (Deut 15:7-8). See SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 337. 173 See ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 43-44; WEINFELD, Social Justice, 45-74. As we will see below in chapter 5, the royal ideology of performing “hqdcw jpXm” became a crucial precursor to the semantic development of hqdc to mean “almsgiving.” This royal ideology eventually became democratized such that its practice was the duty of every Jewish person, a move which is reflected in Sir 4:1-10 (see §5.2 and §7.3.2) 174 For a broad discussion see CRENSHAW, Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel, 380-395. On the books of Job and Qoheleth see FOX, A Time to Tear Down & A Time to Build Up, 51-70; LOADER, Different Reactions of Job and Qoheleth to the Doctrine of Retribution, 43-48; NEWSOM, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations, 115-125. 175 Cf. “Perhaps we can assume that the multitude of attempts to solve the nagging problem of the delay in retribution indicates that Sirach was never quite happy with any of his solutions.” CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 61.

74


2.2.3 Strategies for Resolution In one sense, the whole problem of counterevidence for the framework of retributive justice is softened by the symbolic and comparative theological dimensions of wealth and poverty discussed above in §2.1.1. In relation to the book of Job, Newsom points out that narratives concerning the different fates of the wicked and the righteous have an “iconic” value to them in that they make a claim about the underlying structure of the created order. Anecdotal experiences which seem to provide counterevidence are thus not wholly sufficient to deprive the theological framework of its pedagogical power.176 By affirming the theological framework the student is not thereby forced to deny experiences to the contrary, but is rather motivated towards the ethical life.177 In this way, the student finds virtue to be worth pursuing while at the same time realizing that the relativization of wealth simultaneously redirects his gaze towards the ultimate treasure, that of Wisdom. The “goodness” of wealth is affirmed as something that comes from virtue and is not necessarily intrinsically evil; at the same time, its “goodness” paradoxically becomes jeopardized as soon as the student becomes too enamored with it. Yet, in another sense, the problem still persists. While the relativization of wealth and its iconic value are important to keep in mind, it is also essential to realize that the pedagogical function of the iconic story finds its power largely in the degree to which those who accept the iconic claim find it a persuasive description of reality. The greater the reduction in counterevidence, the more satisfying the paradigm will be. Likewise, too much counterevidence will begin to erode the effectiveness of the iconic claim to the point where it might be doubted or even rejected altogether.178 From this perspective, then, we can say that part 176 NEWSOM, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations, 122-125; so also, in relation to Proverbs, SANDOVAL, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 61-66. 177 Regarding the parallel issue in the book of Proverbs, Gowan comments, “The proverbs were not explaining why people are poor but why a person should work. The self-help morality of mid-nineteenth-century America…could justify its conclusions that the rich are rich because they are righteous and the poor are poor because of their sins only by a carefully selective and thereby highly distorted reading of the Old Testament.” GOWAN, Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament, 348-349. Similarly, Levin comments, “Its aim is not so much to pin down the reason for the poverty as to help people avoid it.” LEVIN, The Poor in the Old Testament, 255. 178 Williams believes that Qoheleth represents a sharp polemic against the idea of retributive justice (Those Who Ponder Proverbs, 20); similarly, LOADER, Different Reactions of Job and Qoheleth to the Doctrine of Retribution, 46-47. However, I find


75

of the pedagogical thrust of Ben Sira’s discourse on wealth and justice derives from his ability to convince his students that the idea of retributive justice remains a persuasive framework for viewing the world and ordering their lives.179 The fact that the socio-economic conditions of the time provided such a challenge to this framework resulted in the following strategies for reducing the counterevidence.

2.2.3.1 Limited Deferral One way in which injustices are handled by Ben Sira is through deferral.180 This strategy comes in two varieties, the psychological and the temporal, which have in common the affirmation that injustices will be requited within a person’s lifetime.181 The first strategy of deferral that Ben Sira employs is the claim that despite perceived social injustices, those who seem not to have been punished actually suffer psychological retribution. In a somewhat gloomy passage, Ben Sira details how mental anguish plagues humanity (40:1-10). Near the end, he notes that this is allotted for all humans and animals, but “for sinners sevenfold” (40:8). This notion of anxiety is also attributed to those who have acquired wealth (31:1-2; see above).182 Therefore, the reader can be as-

179

180

181 182

more persuasive the conclusion of Fox: “He is not skeptical about this doctrine, in the sense of doubting its validity. To differ is not to attack. Nor is he disputing theodicy. He treats the inequities he observes as an intractable problem, not as evidence for or against a particular solution” (A Time to Tear Down & A Time to Build Up, 68). Crenshaw draws attention to the debate form in Sirach, which is employed “to refute antagonists who used the delay in retribution as an excuse to multiply transgression” (The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 51). It is probably also fair to say that in light of earlier works such as Job, Ben Sira was fully aware of the internal difficulties of a doctrine of retributive justice independently of how large or vocal a group of antagonists might have been. So also BEENTJES, Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 510. The more difficult and logically antecedent problems of the origin of evil and its existence in a world created by a benevolent God (as well as the problem of free will) cannot be considered here. But see BEENTJES, Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 510-521; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 80-89; GILBERT, God, Sin, and Mercy, 118-135; WINSTON, Theodicy in Ben Sira and Stoic Philosophy, 239-249; and the extensive treatments represented by the monographs of PRATO, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira; and WICKE-REUTER, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung. For similar approaches in earlier sapiential texts, see FOX, A Time to Tear Down & A Time to Build Up, 63-66; WALTKE, Proverbs 1-15, 39. CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 57. Crenshaw views this psychological dimension to be one of Ben Sira’s chief contributions to the problem of theodicy

76


sured, those who have gotten to where they are through sinful means do not live a truly happy existence, for their consciences are stalked by guilt and anxiety. Even if their outward lives do not indicate the kind of retribution one would expect, one can be assured that there is internal retribution that is hidden from perception. The other variety of deferral to which Ben Sira appeals is far more common in his book. Frequently, one encounters statements that maintain that just recompense is forthcoming but has been temporarily delayed. Whereas for Ben Sira retributive justice generally functions both as a constitutive aspect of the created order (Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang) and from God’s judicial involvement in human affairs, the resolution of current situations seemingly in violation of the principle of retributive justice derives, as one would expect, mainly from divine intervention.183 Correlatively, as Crenshaw observes, the key concept in the idea of temporal deferral is that of God’s providential timing.184 This notion is deeply rooted in Ben Sira’s understanding of God’s role as providential Creator. For Ben Sira, everything, including evil, poverty, and natural calamities (cf. 11:14; 33:7-15), was created for God’s mysterious purposes.185 Therefore, while a delay in the repayment for deeds may appear to challenge temporarily the doctrine of retributive justice, there is always the possibility that God, for purposes unknown to humanity, has decided to defer retribution or reward until a future time. Everything hinges on the divine timing (51:30). As the sovereign Creator, God has every right to administer justice in whatever way best serves his purposes. One of the reasons given by Ben Sira for an apparent delay in vindication for the righteous is that of divine testing. Immediately after the opening wisdom poem in chapter 1, Ben Sira tells his students that in serving God they should prepare themselves for testing (2:1), a statement which Calduch-Benages takes as programmatic for the recurrence of a trial motif throughout the book in which it always occurs in con-

and notes that the impossibility of empirical disconfirmation departs from the strongly empirical orientation of much of the wisdom literature. 183 Some statements hint towards a Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model in which there is a delayed dissolution of wrongly acquired wealth after a period of apparent success. For example, Sir 40:13-14 claims that “wealth from injustice is like an overflowing river…which rolls over stones in its rising, but in an instant comes to a complete end” (cf. 9:6 and 21:4). For the text-critical issues in 40:13-14 see SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 466. 184 CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 55. 185 BEENTJES, Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 515-521. Cf. PRATO, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, especially 13-61.


77

junction with the pursuit of Wisdom.186 For this reason, the student is instructed to: Accept whatever happens to you be patient during times of humiliation For gold is tested in the fire and those who are acceptable in the furnace of humiliation Trust in him and he will help you make your paths straight and hope in him187 (2:4-6)

The idea behind Ben Sira’s instruction is that not all suffering can be linked to sin, a point made clearly in the earlier book of Job.188 Rather, sometimes periods of hardship are actually a byproduct of the pursuit of Wisdom. Thus, God has temporarily allowed a perceived incongruity in the framework of retributive justice for a higher motive: that of training the one who fears God. Nevertheless, in due time the student will not be disappointed or forsaken (2:10-11); rather he will eventually emerge from the trial safely in the providential care of God (33:1-2). For our purposes, it is worth noting that the situation being described in 2:4-5 was apparently understood as the state of poverty during the transmission of the book. The Syriac has “in the furnace of poverty” for 2:5b ()twNKSMd )rwKB), while some Greek manuscripts add an additional stich after 2:5 that reads: “In illness and poverty trust in him.” Additionally, in the case of the wicked a delay in retributive justice can provide an opportunity for repentance (17:23-26; 18:11-12.20-21; see below, §7.3.1), a divine attribute Ben Sira encourages his students to imitate (8:5).189 Interestingly, in some places Ben Sira claims that retribution will not delay in a way that recalls the Chronicler’s doctrine of immediate retribution (Sir 7:16; cf. 5:7; 33:1). Perhaps this tension is eased if we realize that neither claim represents an absolute principle; rather they are both subsidiary aspects of God’s providential timing. God will bring retribution and reward when it suits his purposes, which are not always clear to the finite mind. The ultimate point, for Ben Sira, is that 186 CALDUCH-BENAGES, Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira, 138, 150; similarly, HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 101-105. 187 This passage is not extant in Hebrew; my translation follows the Greek. For a discussion of the text criticism of this passage see SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 183-185. 188 Cf. CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 55. The qualification of the principle of retributive justice by the motif of testing is a phenomenon wider than just the sapiential literature. It was also at work in the redaction of Deuteronomy itself, as noted by Gammie (Theology of Retribution, 10-11). 189 Cf. GILBERT, God, Sin, and Mercy, 129-132.

78


retribution does in fact come and that the doctrine of retributive justice is an accurate way of perceiving the world. In other words, we might say that claiming a lack of delay would seem to be pedagogically motivated while affirming the possibility of a delay would seem to be apologetically motivated, but both are aimed at persuading the students that they should take God’s administration of justice seriously. The conviction underlying Ben Sira’s statements about both immediate and deferred retribution is that God is able to intervene radically at any given point. This idea provides no solace for those who have acquired wealth and/or power through sinful means because even if they believe they have escaped accountability, God may intervene at any moment to bring them to ruin. Likewise, those who have been unfairly oppressed ought to continue in obedience, knowing that when God’s time is right he will reward them (cf. 51:30). Therefore, it is not surprising to find the theme of instant reversal interwoven throughout Ben Sira’s statements concerning the wealthy and the poor. Nowhere is this clearer than in chapter 11:190 4

5 6

Do not mock someone who is clothed in a loincloth and do not make fun of someone’s bitter day For the works of the LORD are extraordinary and his actions are hidden from humans. Many downtrodden have sat on a throne and those no one expected have worn a crown Many exalted have been greatly disgraced and those who are honored have been delivered up191

In these verses Ben Sira cites common events from the past to demonstrate the principle that drastic social reversals are possible. Ben Sira appeals to the fact that humans possess limited knowledge and cannot always foresee radical socio-economic changes that may occur in the near future. The thought in vv. 5-6 recalls the hymnic motif of God’s inversion of socio-economic roles for the sake of justice (1 Sam 2:7-8; Ps 113:7-8; cf. Isa 16:14).192 In the pericope preceding this one, Sir 9:1710:18, the same motif is applied to the proud and the humble (10:14190 It is important to acknowledge that most commentators see a structural break following 11:6, the first passage considered below. For the same idea at Qumran, especially in 4QInstruction see WRIGHT, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, 114-116. 191 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. 192 Noted by SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 234. The lack of lexical correspondence between Sirach on the one hand and 1 Samuel and Psalms on the other makes it unlikely that Ben Sira is making a direct allusion to these texts, though Di Lella does see an allusion to Isa 16:14 in v. 6.


79

17).193 These two understandings are simply two sides of the same coin since it is precisely the proud/oppressive who are the ones susceptible to being overthrown. That those who are “downtrodden” (~yakdn) have become royalty in ways that no one could have predicted while their oppressors have been brought low is cited with the intention to warn Ben Sira’s students against treating those socially inferior to them with contempt (cf. 13:2-13!). Given the difficulty of upward social mobility in agrarian societies, this claim is a bold one.194 A secondary, indirect effect of these verses is that these past events, though admittedly limited, provide a basis of encouragement for the oppressed, whose plight will not go unnoticed by God forever. This is precisely the point being made a few verses below. After exhorting his students not to chase wealth since that will turn out to be a fool’s errand (11:10), Ben Sira provides the following perspective: One can work, toil, and hurry and still fall behind all the same 12 Another walks around crushed and perishing, lacking strength and abounding in weakness But the eye of the LORD looks on him kindly and he shakes him out of the putrid dirt. 13 He raises his head and exalts him such that many are astounded at him195 11

Here the same motif of reversal is present but the divine motivation behind it is now incorporated into the discussion. Whereas 11:4-6 simply noted that these kinds of socio-economic reversals were possible in God’s mysterious providence (cf. 18:25-26), here Ben Sira claims that God looks kindly on those who walk around “crushed and perishing” (dbaw XXr). The idea that God has a special affection for (and even identification with) the poor has deep and profound roots in Israelite thought and will be taken up in more depth in chapter 5. However, for now it is sufficient to note that Ben Sira observes that one’s social position is not always solely a function of one’s work ethic, but often de-

193 There has been much disagreement over the delimitation of this passage. For the various options as well as an argument in favor of viewing 10:19-11:6 as a unified pericope see DI LELLA, Sirach 10:19-11:6, 157. 194 Wright, commenting on a similar use of the motif in 4QInstruction, says, “These lines might be read not as a claim about any real expectation that the mevin might advance socially, but as an expression of confidence about what is possible with God.” WRIGHT, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, 116. 195 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix.

80


rives from other factors over which one has no control.196 It is precisely in these cases that God has a particular interest in enacting a social reversal. This is the relevant context for the well-known statement in 11:14 (cf. §2.1.2.3) that poverty and riches both come from God. Rather than justifying the socio-economic status quo, in context this verse functions to ground God’s ability to bring about a reversal of the status quo in his role as sovereign Creator. All things, good and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are under his control. Knowing this, the student should not be overly concerned about any perceived incongruence between ethics and social standing; rather, he should remain obedient and continue to trust in God’s providence. This is the argument that Ben Sira advances a few verses later:197 My son, stand fast in your duty and engage yourself with it and in your work grow old 21 Do not marvel over the actions of a sinner rise early for the LORD and wait for his light For it is easy in the sight of the LORD to enrich a poor person suddenly, in an instant. 22 The blessing of God is the lot of the righteous and in due time his hope will bear fruit198 20

These verses bring together the previous aspects of our discussion and draw out the specifically ethical implications. If we recall that these instructions were given to Ben Sira’s students, who were not poor, the claim that it is easy for God to make a poor person rich “instantaneously” is an argument by analogy. By citing the most radical socioeconomic reversal, Ben Sira encourages his students that any social injustice they may encounter is just as easy for divine providence to overcome. Of course, the secondary implication, as above, is that even those near the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid have hope that divine justice will eventually right the wrongs done to them.199 The fact 196 This is an important counterpoint to the notion that the sages’ applications of the framework of retributive justice to the area of wealth are self-serving justifications for their own social positions. As Malchow points out, “what is striking about the wisdom literature is that although these attitudes exist, they are in the minority. In fact, the wise express many opinions that move in the opposite direction” (Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature, 121). 197 The intervening verses (11:18-19) revisit the notion that the inability to foresee the time of death renders the miserly pursuit of wealth a foolish endeavor (cf. 11:10-11). These two verses will be considered in connection with 14:3-19 in the next chapter. 198 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. 199 The statement to “wait for his light” in 11:21 would have evoked the image of (eschatological) deliverance. Noted by SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 240.


81

that God can bring it about “in an instant” provides some psychological relief to those suffering under injustice and provides a strong incentive to persist in faithfulness. The only sure path is to trust wholeheartedly in God and his promise to bless the righteous (cf. 11:23-24). By linking exhortation to incentive, these verses address current socio-economic inequities through the lens of providential deferral. By claiming both that it is easy for God to bring about a socio-economic reversal and that “in due time” the righteous will receive their reward, Ben Sira implies that the present inequalities are not necessarily an obstacle to the principle of retributive justice, but are only the result of a temporary suspension for purposes that only God knows, as he stated earlier in 11:4.200 Nevertheless, given that one must still live in the unjust conditions of the intervening period, it is clear that the longer justice is deferred the less powerfully the principle of retributive justice functions pedagogically.201 Apparently sensing this, Ben Sira closes this passage in chapter 11 by addressing this concern. A day’s prosperity makes one forget misfortune and a day’s misfortune makes one forget prosperity. 26 For it is easy in the sight of the LORD on the day of death to repay someone according to his conduct. 27 A time of misfortune makes one forget luxury and the end of a person reveals things about him 28 Before death call no one blessed by his end a person is known202 25

Ben Sira first blunts the aforementioned concern by observing how quickly people tend to forget past conditions. When retributive justice is enacted, whether for reward or punishment, the intervening period of incongruence with the principle is quickly forgotten (cf. 18:24-26). Ben Sira is willing to extend the priority of the present over the evanescent past all the way to the day of death. For Ben Sira, even a prolonged period of injustice can be set right on the day when someone dies, whether that involves the punishment of the oppressor or the rewarding of the righteous. Elsewhere, in a way reminiscent of Ps 73, he even suggests that no one will reach death unrecompensed (9:11-12; cf. 16:613). Presumably, from the flow of the argument, Ben Sira would consider what happens on a person’s final day, when God makes recom200 Cf. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 91. 201 The principal of deferral is common in sapiential literature. Interestingly, the composer of Ps 92 calls those who doubt that justice will eventually come “stupid” (92:78). 202 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix.

82


pense, to be sufficient to overcome any experiences of the past. Thus, the principle of retributive justice is held out indefinitely since, as long as one is alive, the possibility is still open that he will receive a full and adequate recompense, whether positively or negatively. As Di Lella notes, “Ben Sira suggests that only the final hours of a person can tell us what kind of life he has lived: if he dies content and at peace, his past poverty and affliction count as nothing; if he dies in disgrace and anxiety, his past wealth and prosperity are meaningless.”203 From this passage and from others (e.g. 1:13; 18:24-26; 28:6)204 it is clear that for Ben Sira death is a crucial factor in how he thinks about the doctrine of retributive justice.205 Although in the passage just discussed the notion of death is employed to support the doctrine of retributive justice, overall death produces a much more serious problem for the doctrine. Since Ben Sira believed in the finality of death, he had no recourse to the option of deferring justice further into the afterlife.206 Therefore, when someone escaped into death with no recompense for his behavior it raised the question of theodicy. While the idea of psychological retribution discussed above, which would be empirically unfalsifiable, could ameliorate this concern to some degree, the fact remains that inevitably there will be some unrighteous rich who die an easy and peaceful death while the innocent poor person suffers all the way to his last breath. For someone committed to both the doctrine of retributive justice and the finality of death, other resolutions must be sought within the mortal life. For Ben Sira, there are two ways of handling this dilemma: the limited extension of retributive justice beyond the grave through the presupposition of a person’s solidarity with his

203 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 241; similarly, Schreiner, who draws an interesting parallel to Jer 17:11 (Jesus Sirach, 71). There are also numerous parallels in Greek literature, some of which are listed by Skehan & Di Lella. Cf. KAISER, Das Verständnis des Todes bei Ben Sira, 181-182. 204 Possibly also 7:36; see FANG CHE-YONG, Sir 7,36* (Vulg 7,40) iuxta hebraicam veritatem, 18-26. 205 CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach, 56. 206 The possibility of a belief in resurrection in the original text of Sirach has been argued by SARACINO, Risurrezione in Ben Sira?, 185-203. The argument that Ben Sira held to a more limited resurrection at the time of Elijah’s return is advanced by PUECH, Ben Sira 48:11 et la Résurrection, 81-90. Scholars are generally skeptical about any idea of resurrection in Ben Sira’s thought, though some eschatological role might be envisioned for Elijah (though this would be the exception that proves the rule). See the discussions in ADAMS, Wisdom in Transition, 208-210; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 95-96; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 86-87; WRIGHT, Eschatology without a Messiah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 319-322.


83

descendants and recompense through the alternative currency of honor. We will examine these in turn.

2.2.3.2 Hints of Resolution Beyond Death The first option open to Ben Sira, should there be loose ends remaining at the time of death, is a kind of recompense that moves beyond death.207 This is possible because of a certain continuity between parent and child such that some aspects of a person’s life will inevitably carry over into the next generation. When the father dies, he will seem not to be dead for he has left one like himself after him208 (30:4)

This generational continuity allows an extrapolation of the principle of retributive justice from father to son, a principle long part of Israel’s traditions (e.g. Exod 20:5). For Ben Sira, then, the ambiguous significance of death likewise results in a potentially different function for the righteous and the wicked.209 While the wicked can expect that their children will subsequently lose their inheritance and dishonor their name, the righteous can have confidence that what they leave to their children will endure and their name will continue to be honored.210 Indeed, the closest Ben Sira ever comes to a notion of immortality is the idea of the enduring good name, a theme to which he repeatedly returns, especially in relation to the wise (15:5-6; 37:23-26; 39:9-11; 40:12-

207 Boccaccini comments, “Ben Sira goes decidedly beyond the limit of death in his discussion of retribution while remaining anchored to a system that excludes any hypothesis of life to come… It is obvious that the boundaries of individual existence, so uncertain and fleeting, were by then felt to be too narrow for divine retribution to fulfill.” BOCCACCINI, Middle Judaism, 121. In addition, it is worth pointing out that Ben Sira believed both that there was no afterlife in which recompense could happen and that there was a sense in which one could transcend death. He is, therefore, a good example that a belief in the resurrection was not a theologically ad hoc conclusion to escape the problem of retributive justice. Rather, there were already theological tendencies that were deeply rooted in Israel’s traditions which provided the groundwork for the emergence of the belief. See the short discussion of Ben Sira’s role in the topic in LEVENSON, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, 194-196. 208 The Hebrew is not extant here; my translation follows the Greek. 209 See PRATO, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, 354-363; cf. REITERER, Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira, 229-233. 210 However, elsewhere Ben Sira seems to imply that postmortem honor through one’s children can be problematic as well (cf. 16:1-4).

84


14; 41:6-13).211 In this regard, it is most interesting that in the passage just examined in the previous section, Sir 11:28, Ben Sira argues for retribution in this life; yet the Greek has shifted the meaning towards this idea of a postmortem recompense by translating tyrxa with kai. evn te,knoij auvtou: “and through his children a person will become known.”212 It is important to note that this last passage was treated above in relation to the symbolic power of wealth. Since a good name can endure forever, it is far superior to any amount of money (41:12-13).213 From this standpoint, the wise student will discern that any temporary gain to be had from accumulating wealth unjustly will be far inferior to a more modest life lived with integrity. Because there was a nexus between a person’s name and essence, the honorable memory of someone had the effect of “actualizing” that person’s presence in the contemporary community.214 Even though a person’s life is finite, the days of Israel are endless (37:25), which ensures that the wise and righteous can partially transcend death since their memory endures among the community of Israel.215 This motif is part of the larger “anthological temper” of wisdom literature wherein the body of knowledge that is “wisdom” accumulates among the sages over generations.216 Those with a good name continue to “dwell” in the conversation of those seeking wisdom. Strikingly, Ben Sira puts his theology of the value of a “good name” into vivid practice by including in his book a lengthy encomium that

211 Schrader believes this concept arose under Hellenistic (and perhaps Egyptian) influence (Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 258), but it could just as easily have arisen as a natural development out of earlier Israelite thought such as is represented in Ps 112:6 and Prov 10:7 (cf. Job 18:17). See COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 78-79. Also cf. ADAMS, Wisdom in Transition, 204-208. 212 In the Hebrew Bible tyrxa is sometimes used to speak of one’s posterity (e.g. Pss 37:37; 109:13; Dan 11:4) and is used this way in Sir 16:3, but it is probably not Ben Sira’s intended sense here. See PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 101. 213 This statement is placed in a climactic position regarding the body of the work. The concept is then fleshed out negatively in 41:14-42:8 and positively in the “Praise of the Ancestors”. SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 13; cf. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 184-185. Of course, the whole notion of reputation is primarily one involving honor, which serves as an alternative means of recompense even within one’s lifetime. This will be discussed in the next section. Cf. CAMP, Honor and Shame in Ben Sira, 175. 214 CHILDS, Memory and Tradition in Israel, 71; DI VITO, Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity, 221-225. 215 BURKES, God, Self, and Death, 110-113. 216 KUGEL, Wisdom and the Anthological Temper, 17-18, 25-26.


85

praises the ancient heroes.217 Right at the beginning of the section, in 44:3, he identifies these heroes as “men of renown” (~X yXna). Some of them have names that are still praised (44:8) while the specific names of others have been forgotten, although their deeds are still recounted and their inheritance remains with their descendants (44:9-11).218 It is because of their faithfulness that their descendants, their glory, and their reputation will continue to be remembered and praised within the assembly (44:12-15). For our purposes it is especially important to note that in 44:11 Ben Sira claims that: Their wealth (~bwj) remains with their offspring and their inheritance with their descendants

Thus, the prologue to the “Praise of the Ancestors” demonstrates the principle that whatever a virtuous person possesses remains secure among his descendants. In contrast, the possessions of those who have acted wickedly are in jeopardy among their descendants (41:6).This temporal extension of fiscal retributive justice to a multi-generational framework provides additional theological space for the correction of injustices that appear to have gone unrecompensed at the time of death.

2.2.3.3 Wisdom and Honor Although Ben Sira entertains the possibility that wealth and reputation after death can provide some means of recompense, he also believes that one’s reputation can serve as a means of recompense during one’s own lifetime through the attainment of honor. In a section beginning in 10:19 Ben Sira offers an alternative means by which a righteous poor person can be recompensed in this manner.219 217 Pointed out by SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 18. Cf. MACK, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 77-78; PERDUE, Wisdom and Creation, 286. 218 Some scholars such as Box & Oesterley, Lee, and Smend believe the ones without memory in 44:9 represent sinners whose names have been “blotted out” (such as the northern kings), but in light of vv. 10-12 I agree with Spicq and Di Lella that it is more likely that they are the ordinary people who, although having lived devout lives, were eventually forgotten (cf. Qoh 1:11). BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 481; LEE, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50, 228; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 501; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 419; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 801-802. Cf. LIM, Nevertheless These Were Men of Piety, 338-341. 219 The two subunits cited below, 10:19-24 and 10:30-11:1, agree with the structural analysis of MINISSALE, La versione greca del Siracide, 56-57 (contra SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 227-229). For the various possibilities for subunits within the larger poem (10:19-11:6) see GILBERT, Wisdom of the Poor, 158-166.

86

Wealth, Poverty, and the Problem of Justice 19

20 22 23 24

Which offspring are honorable? Human offspring. an honorable offspring is the one who fears God. Which offspring are dishonorable? Human offspring. a dishonorable offspring is the one who transgresses the commandment Among brothers their leader is honored, but the one who fears God is (honored) in His eyes. Sojourner, foreigner, alien, and pauper: their glory is the fear of God. A peasant who is wise should not be despised, nor should any violent person be honored. Prince, judge, and ruler are honored but no one is greater than the one who fears God…

A peasant is honored because of his insight while a rich person is honored because of his wealth. 31 Honored in his poverty, how much more in his wealth! dishonored in his wealth, how much more in his poverty! 11:1 The wisdom of a peasant raises his head and makes him sit among nobles220 30

In this passage Ben Sira disconnects the wealth-righteousness nexus that would follow from a strict understanding of retributive justice and orients socio-economic categories around the ideas of honor and shame. While some in modern Western culture would not consider the acquisition of honor as something as desirable as the acquisition of wealth, in Ben Sira’s setting the sociological function of honor and shame served as a powerful cultural value.221 In the ancient world honor was a dominant value in social organization and interaction. Because honor is not an abstract or intrinsic value, it is always a function of the society in which one lives. It involves one’s own sense of worth, one’s claim to worth, and the recognition of one’s worth by “authorities” within the social group.222 Because the ascription or acquisition of honor is often tied to social standing, it is a commodity that sociologically can function in parallel to wealth. The competition of social groups often involves different ideas of what is honorable and shameful such that within a given culture the ascription and acquisition of honor is largely a function of the shifting identification of which people 220 For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. 221 For general discussions of honor and shame in the ancient world see MALINA/NEYREY, Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts, 25-65; MOXNES, Honor and Shame, 19-40; PITT-RIVERS, Honour and Social Status, 19-77; and the collected essays in GILMORE (ed.), Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. 222 MALINA/NEYREY, Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts, 25-27.


87

are considered the most valuable bestowers of honor.223 Therefore, where retributive justice failed to materialize in terms of concrete socioeconomic results, the ascription of honor and shame could serve as an alternative means of recompense. As David deSilva has demonstrated, Ben Sira locates the attainment of honor within the sphere of the pursuit of wisdom, the fear of God, and obedience to the Torah.224 In 10:19 he observes that humans are capable of both honor and dishonor and identifies this contrast as being between those who fear God and those who transgress the Torah. Likewise, he reveals the alternate “authorities” for the bestowal of honor in 10:20.24. Although social honor is typically correlated with positions of power, Ben Sira redirects his students to God as the one from whom honor should be sought. The fact that elsewhere Ben Sira commands them not to be ashamed of the Torah (42:1-2) implies that there was a wider cultural voice suggesting that they should, perhaps due to the socio-political currents at the time. For this reason, he appeals elsewhere to a sub-group within society as the locus of the right kind of honor, that of the “assembly” (cf. 1:30 and 31:11).225 In this way, the honor that comes from fearing and obeying God is presented as a rival “value” to the honor that comes from one’s socio-economic standing in the wider social hierarchy.226 Just as we observed above that wealth is relativized by wisdom, so here this alternate source of honor enters the picture as the instrument of that relativization. The symbolic use of wealth functioned to exalt wisdom as the preeminent value while the ‘currency’ of honor introduces a means of compensation for those who, by pursuing wisdom and obedience to the Torah as being of greater value than wealth, run this risk of being exploited by those who are willing to violate the Torah in order to acquire wealth and power at the expense of others. It is far better from an honor standpoint to be an absolute social outsider, such as a sojourner, foreigner, alien, or pauper (10:22), who fears God, than an aristocrat who attains his wealth and status through transgression of the Torah. This will result in honor from God, which in its recollection

223 Cf. MOXNES, Honor and Shame, 26-27. 224 DESILVA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 443-446. So also WRIGHT/CAMP, Who has been Tested by Gold, 168. 225 Di Lella notes that ~yxa in 10:20 “means ‘brothers, kin,’ members of the same religious or political community.” SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 230. 226 Wright & Camp make the insightful observation that this move also has the effect of securing more honor for the scribe/sage than for those to whom he is socially inferior (Who has been Tested by Gold, 170-172).

88


among the faithful community provides ongoing fame.227 Thus, the alternative currency of honor dovetails with the supreme value of the enduring good name, described above. In this light, it is no surprise that Abraham, who is presented as one of the most ideal figures in the “Praise of the Ancestors,” is depicted as someone who was tested and yet remained in faithful conformity to the Torah, earning him eternal unblemished glory (44:19-21).228 It is not difficult to see how this description of Abraham would have been relevant to the society of Ben Sira’s time. It is important, then, that in 10:23 Ben Sira calls his students to implement this alternative value system.229 A peasant who is wise should be honored while the oppressor should be disgraced. This runs exactly counter to the social reality presented above in 13:20-23, but is in conformity with the prescriptions of the Torah. Therefore, the framework of retributive justice is reinforced by the availability of the social commodity of honor, which can be dispensed even if socio-economic injustices continue to persist. In the long run, the honor gained from God and the faithful community will prove to be of more value than either wealth acquired wrongly or any social honor resulting from it. This is because the latter will inevitably come to an end, leaving the wicked with only disgrace (1:30; 11:4-6; 41:6-8, 18).

2.3 Summary and Conclusions This chapter has sought to delineate the theological framework within which Ben Sira deals with the topics of wealth and poverty. It is significant that the pericopes which frame the book reveal through comparison a claim to wisdom’s superiority over riches. This rhetorical strategy suggests that for Ben Sira the desire for money represented one of the chief rivals to the desire for wisdom and therefore was suitable for use to express the unsurpassable value of Wisdom. Of course, Wisdom as the dispenser of good things was able to grant material prosperity to those who pursued her, but one’s priorities must be kept in order.230

227 DESILVA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 446-449. 228 Cf. GREGORY, Abraham as the Jewish Ideal, 66-81. 229 Cf. “Persons deserving contempt were those who failed to keep commandments, rather than foolish sluggards who had provoked earlier sages’ ire.” CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom, 153. 230 It is striking how similar this dynamic is to statements in the “Sermon on the Mount” (cf. 6:24.33). As we will see below, Ben Sira’s understanding of generosity in

Summary and Conclusions

89

The realization that Wisdom is able to dispense material goods ties into Ben Sira’s acceptance of the doctrine of retributive justice, which holds that virtue leads to success while vice leads to ruin. However, because he lived at a time when social injustice was not uncommon, the doctrine, coupled with a belief in the finality of death, created a profound problem for him. On the one hand, Ben Sira believed in money’s essential neutrality and held open the possibility, at least theoretically, that one could be wealthy and righteous while, on the other hand, he seems to have conceded that the righteous wealthy person was in reality quite rare. But Ben Sira does not thereby abandon the doctrine of retributive justice. Rather, he buttresses it with various strategies that have the effect of reducing the force of the counterevidence. He grounds notions of deferred justice and recompense to one’s descendants in the providential plans of God, which are frequently hidden from human view. He also invokes the idea of honor and shame, which functions as an alternative currency for rewarding the oppressed righteous and indicting the unjust rich. In some ways the discussion of honor brings us full circle back to the first section of this chapter. The symbolic function of wealth and the alternative currency of honor involve a reorientation of one’s priorities in light of a Wisdom-Torah piety. It is Ben Sira’s Torah-centered stance that results in the relativization of wealth and the basis for honor. This way of seeing the world, which stood in direct conflict with much of the political environment of his day, drew him into sympathy with those who were oppressed and poor. While it is a commonplace to point out that Ben Sira was no social critic in the sense of the prophets, it is also true that he was thereby no closer to a type of Realpolitik.231 In fact, in his description of the actions of the wealthy in chapter 13 he speaks of the abuse of wealth and power that, if not prophetic in stance, embodies the worldview of the prophetic and legal literature which insisted on the necessity for social justice and the protection of the poor, even if his practical aim is primarily, though not exclusively, the selfpreservation of his students.232 general, and almsgiving in particular, has some notable theological correspondences to ideas found in the Synoptic Gospels. 231 Cf. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 29-32; WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 63; WRIGHT, Discourse of Riches and Poverty, 568. 232 This dynamic is especially clear in 4:1-10, which will be treated in §7.3.2. Prophetic and legal concepts of social justice and protection of the poor had already influenced the wisdom literature during the composition of the book of Proverbs and so it is not surprising that Ben Sira stands within that tradition as well. See DELL, The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context, 160-178.

90


A number of the various theological dimensions of wealth, poverty, and justice examined in this chapter will serve as groundwork for the rest of the study. In fact, we might conclude that if Ben Sira’s various strategies for resolving the problem of injustice were wholly successful, then in theory there would be no room for generosity to the poor qua poor. Working within the logic of retributive justice, any exhortation to help those in need because they are needy is predicated on a certain incongruity between merits and life situation.233 If deferred justice or alternate currencies such as fame and honor were sufficient to settle retributive justice accounts, then generosity in this sense would not only be unnecessary, but would have to be understood as going beyond the plans for recompense imbedded in divine providence. Therefore, Ben Sira’s theology of generosity is inexorably connected to the theological framework of retributive justice, its social breakdown, and the partial, but ultimately unsuccessful, means of ameliorating the problem presented in this chapter. The aspects of the framework of retributive justice and the complications that social realities introduce into the framework delineated in this chapter will prove to be essential for Ben Sira’s understanding of the manner in which one should practice generosity, as the following chapters show. The next chapter will explore how the finality of death, which is so crucial for Ben Sira’s conception of justice, is a key concept in his understanding of the motivation for acting generously (Sir 14:319). Furthermore, given God’s special relationship with the poor, one should be generous to all who are in need. His belief that the poor can be righteous and honorable, along with his deep indebtedness to Israel’s Scriptures, plays a fundamental role in his theological understanding of loans and surety (chapter 4) and almsgiving (chapters 5-7). In particular, chapter 7 will show that Ben Sira’s belief in retributive justice is the essential matrix for how he perceives the theological nature of generosity, which is understood as an act of imitatio Dei.

233 So FOX, A Time to Tear Down & A Time to Build Up, 61-62. Cf. GUTIÉRREZ, On Job, 88. Of course, regardless of the question of retributive justice, there might still be legitimate motives for other types of generosity, such as a gift to a friend.

Chapter 3 Death, Generosity, and the Good Life In chapter 2 the various theological and social dimensions of wealth, poverty, and retributive justice were examined and the finality of death was seen to play a crucial role. On the one hand, it functions as a parameter in which retributive justice can work while, on the other hand, it creates a fundamental problem when economic inequities persist. Thus, Ben Sira’s conviction that there is frequently a disparity between socio-economic realities and the merits of individuals involved opens up the possibility for generosity as a means of social recourse. In this chapter we will examine how the finality of death functions ethically in Ben Sira’s thought as a means to encourage generosity. To do this we will examine Sir 14:3-19. At first glance generosity appears to be a minor theme in this passage. The first part deals with the evils of miserliness and the second part emphasizes the enjoyment of life. But upon closer inspection the fundamental contrast is between those who do not use their money well, either on themselves (vv. 4 and 6) or on others (vv. 5 and 7), and those who do use their money to good effect, either on themselves (vv. 11.14.16) or on others (vv. 13.16). As such, generosity in the broadest sense of the word is the overall topos of this chapter. As we will see, for Ben Sira the finality of death produces two interrelated implications: it is a virtue to be generous towards oneself regarding the enjoyment of life and to be generous towards others.

3.1 Introduction to Sirach 14:3-19 There is some disagreement among scholars over the delimitation of this pericope. There is no doubt that 14:19 closes the pericope since 14:20 begins a poem extolling wisdom. Because these wisdom poems constitute the structural framework for at least the first half of the book, it is clear that 14:19 concludes the third major section of the book of Sirach (cf. §1.2.3). For the beginning of the pericope, there are essentially two options and scholars are almost evenly divided between them.

92

Death, Generosity, and the Good Life

The first option is to view either 13:24 or 13:25 as the beginning of the pericope. On this view, the discussion of the happy person whose countenance reflects his good heart and clean conscience in 13:25-14:2 introduces a contrast between two kinds of people whose choices with money (13:24) will ultimately determine the quality of their lives. As such, this short subunit prepares the reader for the contrast between the miser in 14:3-10 and the person who uses wealth wisely in 14:11-19. This delimitation is adopted by Eberharter, Gilbert, Hamp, Peters, Schreiner, Segal, and Spicq.1 The second option is to view 14:3-19 as a self-contained unit, with the unit of 13:24/25-14:2 functioning independently. Box & Oesterley take this approach and label 13:24-14:2 as simply “a collection of miscellaneous proverbs.” A similar approach is reflected in the commentaries of Alonso Schökel, Crenshaw, MacKenzie, Schrader, Skehan & Di Lella, and Smend.2 Nevertheless, the difference between the two ways of delimiting the passage is probably more a degree of emphasis. In his commentary, Di Lella notes that 13:24 and 14:3 both concern wealth and if 13:24-14:2 is added to 14:3-19 the unit consists of twenty-three lines, a stylistic pattern Ben Sira seems to prefer.3 Yet, it is also clear through both content and structure that 14:3-10 and 14:11-19 are distinct subunits. The former concerns the improper use of wealth and is framed by an inclusio involving the miser (!y[ [r). The latter is set off structurally by the use of ynb to open v. 11 and concerns the implications of the inescapability of death for one’s use of money.4 Therefore, the explicit contrast between two approaches to the use of money seems to me to produce a stronger connection between 14:3-10 and 14:11-19 than between 13:2514:2 and 14:3-19. This decision is still compatible with the view that the overall pericope begins in 13:24/25. I thus agree with the above commentators who regard the contrast between the happy life of the goodhearted person and the distressed countenance of the wicked person in 13:25-14:2 as prefatory, but I view this passage more as a transitional 1

2

3 4

EBERHARTER, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 56; GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 172; HAMP, Sirach, 37; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 118; SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 80; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 87; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 637. Sauer is a variation of this position in that he comments on 13:25-26; 14:1-10; and 14:11-19 as separate sections (Jesus Sirach, 122-127; cf. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 129 n.17). ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 189-190; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 356366; CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 716; MACKENZIE, Sirach, 68; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 271; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 100. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 258-259. Notably, before 14:11 the Latin inserts the title: de benefaciendo quia mors non tardat (“concerning beneficence since death does not delay”).

93

The Improper Use of Wealth: Miserliness (Sirach 14:3-10)

unit that bridges the picture of injustice presented in chapter 13 with the exhortation to generosity in chapter 14. Therefore, although cognizant of the function of 13:25-14:2, I will focus on 14:3-19.

3.2 The Improper Use of Wealth: Miserliness (Sirach 14:3-10) Text

#wrx hz hml !y[ [r Xyalw rz [b[bty wtbwjbw wtbwjb hdxy alw wt[r tmwlXt wm[w

rXw[ hwan al !jq bll rxal #bqy wXpn [nwm byjyy yml wXpnl [r wnmm [r !ya wXpnl [r

Xpn Xbym [r !y[w wnxlX l[ !ya hmwamw

wqlx awh j[m [[cwb] !y[b ~xl l[ jy[t !y[ [r !y[

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Textual Notes [3b] Manuscript A has hwan al in 3b as in 3a, but the Greek’s i[na ti, (= hz hml) is widely accepted. For the final word, Latin (aurum) agrees with manuscript A, while the Greek has crh,mata (“wealth”) and the Syriac has )NwMM (“mammon”). The reading of manuscript A is accepted; the Greek probably is either giving an approximation or has read crhmata for crusion.5 [5b] Manuscript A’s hrqy seems awkward. In light of the versions (euvfranqh,setai || )dQN) most commentators correct to hdxy. [7-8] These two verses have dropped out of the Hebrew, probably from homoiarchton ([r).6 Verse 8 is also missing in the Syriac. The Greek for these two verses reads: ka'n eu= poih/| evn lh,qh| poiei/ kai. evpV evsca,twn evkfai,nei th.n kaki,an auvtou/ ponhro.j o` baskai,nwn ovfqalmw/| avpostre,fwn pro,swpon kai. u`perorw/n yuca,j The Syriac of v. 7 reads: )(+ wh )(+M B)+)w 4dN n)w ht$YBB )zXN htYrX)Bw

5 6

SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 131. cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 366. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 89.

94


From these, Segal reconstructs the following Hebrew:7

wt[r ha,r>y: tyrxabw hX[y hggXb byjyy ~aw Xpn hzwbw ~ynp byXm !y[ [r Xya [r Peters’ reconstruction is similar, but he has hlgy instead of hary (hiphil), rytsm instead of byXm, and twXpn instead of Xpn.8 In the first case, both reconstructions are plausible in light of the Greek, but Segal’s reconstruction also makes better sense of the Syriac’s )zXN. For the second, Segal’s suggestion appears to be more likely in light of the versions. For the third, the Greek’s plural (yuca,j) supports Peters’ reading of twXpn, strictly speaking, though it is possible that Xpn is original and the Greek has interpreted it collectively, as in Segal’s reconstruction. [9a] Manuscript A’s lXwk is a corruption. The Syriac’s )LKS may reflect either lkX or lysk. The Greek’s pleone,ktou is the better reading, which may reflect [cwb. Smend remarks that it is unclear how lXwk would have arisen from this, but Segal suggests that it may be an idiom for !y[ [r. Both Hamp and Schreiner opt for lysk.9 Sauer reads lXwm and translates “im Auge dessen, der vergleicht, ist der ihm zugewiesene Teil zu klein.”10 [9b] Segal argues that manuscript A’s wqlx dbam wh[r qlx wqwlw is too long and cumbersome to be considered original. He suggests that the Greek’s kai. avdiki,a ponhra. avnaxhrai,nei yuch,n reflects the Hebrew reading Xpn Xbym [r !w[w. In light of the rest of the passage !w[ should be corrected to !y[ (so Peters, Segal, and Skehan).11 [10a] While manuscript A has !y[ [r !y[, the Greek has simply ovfqalmo.j ponhro.j (= h[r !y[). It is difficult to know whether the Hebrew represents an accidental reduplication or the Greek represents a simplification. [10b] Manuscript A’s hmwhm (“commotion”) is retained by Segal, while Smend and Skehan emend to !ya hmwam (“there is nothing”). The Greek’s evlliph.j may reflect rwsxm, which Segal suggests was an error for hmwhm, or it could be an approximation of the sense given by Smend’s emendation. In my opinion Smend’s reading makes better sense of the context. In manuscript A there are two additional lines 7 8 9

10 11

SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 87. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 122. HAMP, Sirach, 38; SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 81; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 90; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 132; cf. WAGNER, Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach, 270-271. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 124. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 122; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 90; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 258.


95

after 10b, which appear to be a reduplication based on the Syriac (contra Fuchs).12 Translation Wealth is not suitable for an uncaring person and of what use is gold to the miser? 4 What he denies himself he collects for another and with his goods a stranger will indulge himself 5 The one who is stingy towards himself, to whom will he be generous? he does not enjoy his own goods 6 No one is worse than the one who is stingy towards himself the recompense of his stinginess is with him 7 If he behaves generously, he does it accidentally and in the end he reveals his wickedness 8 The miser is an evil person turning away and despising others 9 In the view of the greedy person, his portion is too small and miserliness withers the soul 10 The eye of the miser is ravenous for food but there is nothing on his own table 3

Comments This unit builds upon the previous section in 13:25-14:2 by showing how the inner decisions one makes with regard to money affect one’s quality of life. The negative example of the miser is presented first and then the positive example of the generous person is presented as a contrast.13 Verse 3 is structured with synonymous parallelism, whereby the uncaring person (!jq bl) is related to the miser (!y[ [r). Both of these terms are idiomatic. The first does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible or in Sirach, but it is similar to the modern expression for someone who “has no heart.” The second idiom is found in Prov 23:6 and 28:22, where it indicates someone who is stingy. These two texts serve as background for 14:3-10 insofar as they concern the actions of a miser towards table guests (23:6) and the fact that miserliness often results in a reversal whereby the greedy person eventually finds himself in poverty (28:22; cf. Sir 14:10, see below). In contrast to this, Prov 22:9 speaks of the !y[-bwj, who is defined as someone who “gives some of his bread to the poor,” i.e. someone who is generous. Consistent with Ben Sira’s 12

13

SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 90; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257-258; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 133; cf. FUCHS, Textkritische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Ekklesiastikus, 33-34. That generosity is the main point of the contrast is also held by RYBOLT, Sirach, 34.

96


previous connection between a person’s inner disposition and his countenance in 13:25-14:2, Waltke notes that the idiom used in Proverbs (and here) derives from the understanding of the “eye” as revealing a person’s inner quality and the modification with “good” or “evil” is indicative of his practical usefulness to those around him.14 It is significant that the term !jq bl is in parallel with !y[ [r. The implicit correlation between someone who is uncaring and the character flaw of greediness is one that is maintained throughout this pericope, both in its negative aspect (vv. 3-10) and in its positive aspect (vv. 11-19).15 For Ben Sira, a person’s view of money affects in parallel ways how he treats himself and how he treats others. Consistent with his belief in the inherent neutrality of wealth (13:24; 31:8-11), he accents the functional importance of wealth in 14:3. In the first stich he describes wealth as “unsuitable” (hwan al) for the uncaring person, implying that wealth is only suitable when its use manifests a concern for others. In parallel to this, the second stich employs a rhetorical question to suggest the uselessness of money to the miser. Because the value of wealth is functional rather than intrinsic, the hoarding of money is evil because it strips money of its ability to do good either for oneself or for others (cf. 14:8).16 The logical absurdity of miserliness is fleshed out in the following verses. In 14:4 he gives the principal reason why miserliness is absurd. The miser will eventually lose his possessions to others anyway. The verse is in synonymous parallelism such that the generic recipient of the miser’s possessions in v. 4a (rxa) is further specified in the next stich as a stranger (rz).17 This, of course, is striking since normally people are 14

15 16

17

WALTKE, Proverbs 15-31, 209 n.81. Also, note Matth 6:22-23, “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (NRSV) and the discussion in LUZ, Matthew 17, 396-398. Box & Oesterley (Sirach, 366) observe that both terms appear juxtaposed in rabbinic literature with analogous meanings (e.g. Pirqe Aboth V 29). For the larger history of this idiom consult ULMER, The Evil Eye in the Bible and in Rabbinic Literature, especially 1-20. Cf. GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 172, 174. Interestingly, the idea that unused wealth is useless and therefore evil is also present in the “parable of the talents” in Matt 25:14-30, although, importantly, there the failure to use the money was not out of greed but out of a misidentification of the master as harsh. While the most natural reference of the rz would be to a Gentile, in 41:21c and perhaps in 40:29 it simply means “another person.” In 45:13 and 18 it is used for Israelites who are not eligible for the priesthood, but this usage may be explained on the basis of an allusion to Num 17:5. In 11:34 the rz appears to be characterized ethically, not just ethnically. This would explain the other uses of rz which do not refer simply


97

more inclined to give money or goods to those closest to them, such as family members or friends. At the point of death, one’s possessions would pass to one’s descendants. While v. 4 is unclear as to whether this transfer will occur in the miser’s own lifetime or when he dies, the contrastive parallel in v. 15 might suggest that it is the latter. But regardless, the point is that the miser doesn’t just lose his possessions, but he loses them to those to whom he would normally have been least likely to grant them (cf. 14:13). Thus, miserliness will eventually lead to a worse result than generosity with respect to the final location of one’s money. For the miser, insult is added to injury by the observation that the stranger will “indulge himself” in his goods. The verb used by Ben Sira, [b[bty, either comes from [wb, [[b, or [b[b.18 Whichever root is being employed, the sense is clearly of a stranger reveling in the miser’s goods, surely an image that would have greatly disturbed a miser by virtue of his disposition. In 14:5-7 Ben Sira continues to explain the absurdity of the miser’s life. In v. 5a, he presents a rhetorical question that argues from the lesser to the greater. If someone cannot even bring himself to be generous to himself, then he certainly will not be generous to others. The contrast between the two is emphasized by the use of a chiasm to structure the question: byjyy | yml || wXpnl | [r.19 In v. 5b Ben Sira gives the logical antecedent of the rhetorical question: if the miser loves money so much that he does not use it for his own enjoyment, how much less will he be inclined to be generous to others?20 At first glance,

18

19 20

to a Jew/Gentile distinction. Regarding Sir 11:34, Di Lella remarks that the rz “may be the pagan or Hellenized Jew who has given up his faith. Either of these characters could ‘estrange you from your own,’ i.e., alienate you from your own people and your glorious Jewish heritage.” SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 246. Regardless of whether or not an ethnic dimension attends the usage here in 14:4, the negative connotation of rz clearly suggests that he is not someone to whom the sage would desire to leave his inheritance. PENAR, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira, 43; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 121; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 131; WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 223-224. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 259. Skehan (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257) renders v. 5b as a continuation of the question in 5a: “To whom will he be generous who is stingy with himself // and does not enjoy what is his own?” On this reading v. 5b functions epexegetically to explain what it means to be “stingy with himself.” Most other commentators view v. 5a as a question and v. 5b as a statement. This approach understands v. 5b to provide the underlying rationale behind the rhetorical question in 5a. So BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 366; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 118; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 123; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 23.

98


there appears to be a lapse in logical progression in v. 5 since the argument turns on the presupposition that acting generously is worth doing. But of course, to the miser this is not a given by virtue of the very fact that he is a miser (cf. 37:11). It would appear that the rhetorical force of v. 5 is resolved by understanding it in light of v. 7 and the preface to the pericope in 13:25-14:2. In 14:7 Ben Sira claims that if the miser acts generously (assuming the Hebrew byjyy ~aw) it is by mistake,21 but in the end, he reveals his miserliness (assuming the Hebrew hary tyrxabw wt[r). This contrast suggests that the point of v. 5 is not to persuade someone who is miserly not to be so by pointing out that it would result in a lack of generosity (an argument that would hardly convince a miser), but to aid Ben Sira’s students in discerning true generosity. If one observes what appears to be a generous person, but that person behaves in a miserly fashion in regards to the rest of his life, then one has good reason to doubt the sincerity of that generosity.22 More likely, it is an error on his part and in due time the façade of generosity will give way to the miser’s true disposition. The use of hary tyrxabw indicates that the issue is a matter of perception. It is not completely clear whether tyrxa here refers to the end of the pretense of generosity, i.e., with the sense of the future, “eventually,” or whether it refers to the end of the miser’s life, i.e. representing an idea similar to Sir 11:28 (“before death call no one blessed // by his end a person is known”).23 Both senses of tyrxa are found in Sirach (compare Sir 11:28 and 48:24; another ambiguous case is found in Sir 3:26). In addition, the statement in v. 5 presupposes that Ben Sira’s students accepted the virtue of being generous. Our passage, then, also warns Ben Sira’s students that faux generosity will eventually be exposed for what it is. This reading of 14:5.7 dovetails with our observations about the prefatory nature of 13:25-14:2. There Ben Sira transitions to discussions about righteous and unrighteous uses of wealth by drawing a correlation between one’s inner disposition and one’s outward countenance.24 21

22

23 24

The nature of the mistake is not exactly clear. The Greek has “from forgetfulness” (evn lh,qh|) while the Syriac has )(+, which can be “in error” or “from forgetfulness.” Eberharter characterizes it as “an unconscious drive” or “instinct” (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 57). Of course, there are plenty of altruistic and philanthropic people who lead modest lives in order to have the resources to help others. But one suspects Ben Sira is thinking of the one who lives a miserly life out of irrational greed for accumulating wealth, rather than a person who is “stingy” with himself in order to be generous. So SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 73. Eberharter (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 57) and Spicq (L’Ecclésiastique, 639) interpret it as the former, while Snaith (Ecclesiasticus, 73) interprets it as the latter. Cf. CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 716.


99

Thus, the argument of 14:5.7 would appear to proceed on a parallel course. Someone’s core values will eventually manifest themselves outwardly. If a person’s generosity does not seem consistent with his overall attitude concerning wealth, then it is probably not the kind of true generosity that leads to a happy life. In this way, the alternation between treating oneself well and being generous to others in vv. 4-7 prepares for, and has its counterpart in, the positive use of wealth being advocated below in 14:11-19. Between vv. 5 and 7 comes v. 6, which applies the notion of retributive justice to the life of the miser. Ben Sira characterizes the miser as the worst type of person. While these seem like strong words considering that society is full of persons who commit extremely depraved acts, it should be recalled from chapter 2 that for Ben Sira money functions like a ‘god-term’ which is a, if not the, chief temptation to compromise a life of wisdom and Torah-obedience. As such, one’s use of money serves as a barometer of one’s inner qualities. The miser displays an incoherent obsession with the simple possession of money, so much so that he will not even use it for his own pleasures. For him, money functions as an idol. This idolatrous love for money produces within itself its own retribution. Verse 14:6b reads “the recompense of his stinginess is with him” (wt[r tmwlXt wm[w), in the sense that the very nature of the miser entails its own inherent punishment.25 According to this Hebrew phrasing, it is easy to see the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model of retributive justice at work in Ben Sira’s understanding of miserliness.26 Although money is a neutral value for him, there is no neutral use, given the state of his economic environment. Non-use is an evil use because it is essentially withholding a potential for good both from oneself and from others (cf. 14:3). As Snaith comments, “Money that is not being used for one’s own pleasure or for helping others is out of circulation and, in Ben Sira’s view, a waste.”27 But according to 14:6b, this wastefulness carries with it its own punishment, though here Ben Sira does not state exactly what it is. In light of v. 16b below it is likely that the primary punishment he has in mind is the deprivation of the enjoyment of the good things in life. Since the miser’s possessions will eventually pass to someone else (14:4) and he will have no opportunity to enjoy them in Sheol (14:16), his absurd hoarding of money only punishes himself. In addition, he misses the opportunity to use his wealth to 25 26 27

The Greek has the more ambiguous: kai. tou/to avntapo,doma th/j kaki,aj auvtou/. BACKHAUS, Qohelet und Sirach, 39. On this model in Sirach see §2.1.2.2-3. SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 72-73.

100


build friendships, which not only bring pleasure in this life but can also provide support in the future (Sir 14:13; cf. 6:14-16; 29:8-13).28 A yet further dimension of this retribution emerges when the failure to be generous here is set within the wider context of Ben Sira’s teaching. Given that his possessions will pass over to strangers eventually (14:4), he might as well distribute it to those who are in need of it so that he might get ‘credit’ among the assembly for distributing his wealth (as in 31:11). In the grand scheme of things, one will inevitably lose one’s wealth anyway. Would it not be wiser to “invest” it in his present enjoyment of life and in a good reputation that will extend beyond one’s death?29 Note the sentiment of 31:23-24: The one who is generous with food is blessed the testimony of his generosity endures The one who is miserly with food is publicly denounced the testimony of his miserliness endures30

The fact that the miser neither gives thought to this type of ‘credit’ among his peers nor even uses his wealth for his own enjoyment demonstrates his madness in that he does not even follow the most natural animalistic instinct for self-preservation.31 As such, his miserly obsession degrades and reduces him to an existence unbecoming to a person with even the most rudimentary grasp of wisdom. As Spicq colorfully describes him, “Aussi bien le cupide est-il puni dans son vice même; se refusant à lui-même ce qu’il refuse aux autres, il est, peut-on dire, son propre ennemi, manquant à cet amour naturel de soi-même, dont les animaux les plus féroces pourraient lui donner l’exemple. C’est un monstre.”32 This idea that the non-use of money is evil is further fleshed out in the following verse. After claiming that there is no one worse than the miser (v. 6), Ben Sira explicitly states that he is “evil” in 14:8. Although the Hebrew of manuscript A is missing, the reconstruction of !y[ [r Xya [r by Segal and Peters is likely in light of the versions (see above). The 28 29 30 31

32

SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 124-125. For an extensive discussion of Sir 6:14-16 in its context see CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 35-63. Cf. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 124. From manuscript B with slight emendations (cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 422): hnman w[wr twd[ // r[Xb zgry ~xl l[ [r // hnman wbwj twd[ // hpX $rbt ~xl l[ bwj. As we will see, the notion that generosity is an “investment” has multiple layers in Sirach. Not only can it function as an “investment” with friends, but certain kinds of generosity are a type of investment with God. Based on Prov 19:17, Ben Sira and many others held that generosity towards the poor would be repaid by God (see the discussion of Sir 29:8-13 in chapter 5). SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 639; cf. EBERHARTER, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 57.


101

double use of [r in the idiom for the miser and in defining him as an “evil person” is a powerful rhetorical strategy. It reinforces that miserliness is by its very nature a wicked state. Through parallelism, Ben Sira highlights the functionality of wealth as the determining factor in the miser’s evil. It is not his possession of wealth that makes him evil, but the fact that he refuses to use it for his own enjoyment or to alleviate his neighbor’s needs. In 14:8b the first description of the miser’s wickedness is that he “turns away” (avpostre,fwn pro,swpon; perhaps ~ynp byXm, see above), an idiomatic description of those who ignore those in need (see Sir 4:4-5; Tob 4:7; cf. 2 Chr 30:9; Isa 54:8; Mic 3:4). The use of this phrase probably indicates that part of the miser’s wickedness is that he is not generous to the poor (as opposed to lacking generosity just to friends of similar socio-economic standing; cf. 14:13). The description of the second evil characteristic of the miser is somewhat difficult. The Greek has u`perorw/n yuca,j, “he disregards people” (plural). This is reflected in Peters’ reconstruction of twXpn.33 On this reading, which is presupposed in most commentaries, this phrase would complement the first part of the stich in describing the miser’s disregard of others. However, Segal reconstructs simply Xpn (singular) and takes “despising the soul” in the sense of the miser’s disregard of himself (so also Skehan & Di Lella).34 While it is possible that the singular is original and was understood collectively by the Greek, there seems to be no reason to favor the particular understanding of Segal. From the perspective of the Greek, then, the sense of v. 8b is about the miser’s lack of generosity to others, which naturally develops the thought of v. 7. While vv. 4-6 focused primarily on the miser’s inability to enjoy his own goods and climaxed with the observation that this tactic ultimately leads to its own form of retribution, vv. 7-10 place the primary emphasis on the way in which a lack of generosity toward others ultimately leads to a withering of one’s own means. In 14:9-10 Ben Sira closes this subunit by tracing the way in which the miser’s lack of generosity leads ineluctably towards the loss of the very thing that drives him. The scene of these verses is the supper table,35 a significant social setting for Ben Sira, as is apparent in the long

33 34 35

PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 122. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 87, 89; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257, 259. It is also possible to read 14:9 in the more general sense of someone who is discontented with his “portion” in life. This seems to be the angle Di Lella takes in his discussion, although Skehan’s translation of Xpn in 9b as “appetite” may suggest a meal setting for vv. 9-10 (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257, 259). Sauer discusses the meal behavior of the miser in a paragraph labeled as verses “9f.” (Jesus Sirach, 125). Which-

102


teaching on proper etiquette at meals and banquets in Sir 31:12-32:13. This extensive discussion begins by chiding greed as something that God hates and can only result in disappointment for the greedy person (31:12-15). A similar dynamic is at work here in chapter 14 and vv. 8-10 present a logical sequence that greed sets in motion. The person who lacks generosity towards others sets his own desire to hoard money over the immediate needs of others. It is only natural, then, that before long his craving for more develops from just denying others a portion of what he already has to thinking himself more worthy than they of the portion that they have.36 In 14:9a Ben Sira notes that the greedy person views his portion as too small. Because in his contemporary Hellenistic culture the various aspects of a meal were embedded in a social framework, this judgment of the miser is an important one. In Greco-Roman social meals, the portion of food (quantitative and/or qualitative) allotted to an individual and his place at the table were commensurate with his socio-economic status (also cf. Gen 43:33-34).37 Therefore, guests were expected to accept their place and not to usurp that of another person. In fact, the social culture of the meal suggested that “because the meal is a time of sharing and companionship, one’s behavior should be concerned with the welfare of the other or with the enjoyment or pleasure of the group as a whole.”38 The disposition of the miser cuts across these social mores by viewing his own portion as too small (v. 9a), which leads his eye to be “ravenous for food” (v. 10a). In addition to providing a nice word play with j[m in v. 9a, the word used for “ravenous” (jy[) is particularly graphic since its nominal form refers to birds of prey (e.g. Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6; Jer 12:9; Ezek 39:4; cf. Gen 25:30 [j[l]). The verbal form appears only in 1 Sam 14:32 (Qere); 15:9; and 25:14, where it has the sense of “darting down upon spoils.”39 As Ben Sira warns in 31:14-16, this kind of behavior at a meal will only lead to being loathed by fellow diners. Given that table fellowship was a key ingredient of social interaction and the fostering of friendship, not to mention an important component of ethical demeanor, the violation of such social mores through the greedy desire for the portions of others isolates the miser. The great irony is

36 37 38 39

ever scope one takes as primary to v. 9, its placement between v. 8 and v. 10 suggests a secondary aspect, either more general with v. 8 or more specific with v. 10. SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 639. See NEYREY, Ceremonies in Luke-Acts, 364-365; THEISSEN, Social Integration and Sacramental Activity, 153-155. SMITH, Meal Customs (Greco-Roman), 653. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 367.


103

that miserliness “withers the soul” (v. 9b). Generally in the Hebrew Bible dryness is associated with death and moisture with life (cf. Ezek 37:1-14). The phrase Xpn Xbym seems to mean a loss of ability to enjoy good things. The only other place in the Hebrew Bible where a similar phrase occurs is in Num 11:6 where the people speak of the “withering of their souls” since they can only eat manna rather than the fine foods they enjoyed in Egypt.40 The difference in Sir 14:9-10, of course, is that the miser is fully able to prevent this “withering of the soul” if he would only use his money to enjoy life (v. 5). Yet, his miserly lifestyle has prevented him from enjoying food on his own table (v. 10b). He is so obsessed with the possession of money that he will not enjoy what he is quite able to enjoy, while at the same time being ravenous for the good things of others. If he would simply enjoy good food with his own money (cf. 14:11.14.16), he would not be so ravenous for the portions of others. In other words, his miserliness has cost him the pleasure that money could provide and, by denying himself, he sets himself up for social behavior that will eliminate the pleasure of friendship and social involvement. In conclusion, Sir 14:3-10 outlines for Ben Sira’s students the theological interconnection between self-deprivation and a lack of generosity in the life of the miser and how both aspects of this evil disposition lead to self-destruction and the loss of the very thing the miser idolizes. The deconstructive nature of miserliness and greed in relation to the inevitability of the loss of possessions at the point of death provides the framework within which Ben Sira exhorts his students both to enjoy the fine things in life and to have a generous disposition. The conceptual absurdity of miserliness in light of the finality of death is countered by the proper use of wealth in Sir 14:11-19, which in analogous ways intertwines one’s own enjoyment of life with a generous disposition as characteristic of the proper use of wealth.

40

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 367; In light of this background, Skehan’s translation “but his stinginess withers his appetite” makes good sense of the context (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257).

104


3.3 The Proper Use of Wealth: Enjoyment of Life and Generosity (Sirach 14:11-19) Text

!Xdh $dy lalw $l dgh al lwaX qwxw wl !t $dy tgyXhw rb[t la hwat qlxbw lrwg ydwyl $[ygyw gwn[t Xqbl lwaXb !ya yk w[wgy [wg ~lw[ qwxw xmwc rxaw lbwn hzX lmwg dxaw [wg dxa wyrxa $Xmy wydy l[pw

$l byjyh $l Xy ~a ynb hmhmty al twm yk rwkz bhwal bjyh twmt ~rjb ~wy tbwjm [nmt la $lyx bz[t rxal alh $Xpn qynpw xqw !t hlby dgbk rXbh lk !n[r #[ l[ hl[ xrpk ~dw rXb twrwd !k wbqry bwqr wyX[m lk

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Textual Notes [11a] There are two forms in manuscript A: $Xpn twrX $l Xy ~a ynb and $l byjyh $l Xy. The Greek (te,knon kaqw.j eva.n e;ch|j eu= poi,ei seauto.n) suggests that each stich of manuscript A preserves part of the original, which has been expanded. The verse is quoted in b. ‘Erubin 54a in a form that reflects the Greek and is close to portions of both stichs in manuscript A. Thus, the Talmudic and Greek versions allow the secondary expansions in manuscript A to be identified and eliminated and the original form of the stich to be reconstructed.41 [11b] Another form of the idiom dy lal is found in Sir 5:1. While the Greek translator seems to have understood the sense correctly in 5:1, here la is understood literally as “God” and so the stich is taken to be about presenting sacrificial offerings. Hence, rather than being about the enjoyment of life, as in the Hebrew, the Greek understands this verse as an exhortation to be generous towards the temple system: kai. prosfora.j kuri,w| avxi,wj pro,sage (cf. 7:29-31). [12a] Manuscript A has hmhmty twm alw gwn[t lwaXb al yk rwkz. The Greek reads mnh,sqhti o[ti qa,natoj ouv croniei/, which suggests that the phrase alw gwn[t lwaXb is a later insertion in the Hebrew, evidently created under the influence of v. 16b (so Segal, Skehan, and Smend).42 The remaining al and twm should then be transposed. 41 42

RÜGER, Text und Textform, 19; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 90, cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 367. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 90; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 258; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 134.

The Proper Use of Wealth: Enjoyment of Life … (Sirach 14:11-19)

105

[12b] Manuscript A has lwaXl. [13b] In light of the Greek (kai. kata. th.n ivscu,n sou e;kteinon), Box & Oesterley suggest emending $dy tgyXh to $dy tgyXhk. Smend also entertains this possibility but ultimately retains the reading of manuscript A.43 [14b] Manuscript A contains a doublet here. Rüger points out that the first version, rb[t la xa xqlhbw, is likely the older since it can be explained as a transmissional corruption of a Hebrew Vorlage for the Greek, which reads kai. meri.j evpiqumi,aj avgaqh/j mh, se parelqa,tw. Therefore, the reconstructed reading is obtained by emending the phrase xa xqlhbw to hwat qlxbw (so Rüger; followed by Gilbert). Box & Oesterley suggest also adding bwj.44 [16a] Manuscript A reads $Xpn [qy]npw !ytw xal !t. Evidently xal is a mistake for xqw and !ytw is a reduplication (so Segal). Smend reconstructs xqlw, but the context demands an imperative (so also the Greek and Syriac). In addition, qynpw is retained by most commentators, but in light of the Greek’s avpa,thson Smend and Holloway emend to tpw.45 Holloway notes the connection to the similar language in Sir 30:23 and sees in both verses an appropriation of the Epicurean theme of “selfdeception” as a means of coping with the reality of death. Holloway’s suggestion for how the notion of self-deception in v. 16a would fit into Ben Sira’s argument is possible, but I am not convinced. In the Epicurean line of thought this self-deception is intended to direct one’s attention away from death and this is exactly what happens in the other place cited by Holloway, Sir 30:23, a verse which is spoken in the context of being joyful and avoiding anxiety for the sake of a long life.46 But in 14:16 it would seem a little peculiar and even self-defeating for an exhortation about averting one’s mind from the reality of death to be 43 44

45

46

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 367-368; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 134; cf. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 91. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 368; GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 175-176; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 19-20. Cf. FUCHS, Textkritische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Ekklesiastikus, 36. An awkward and forced attempt to retain the full text of manuscript A is found in PENAR, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira, 44. See Gilbert’s discussion for a critique of Penar. HOLLOWAY, Beguile your soul, 231-233; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 91; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 135. Also cf. KISTER, arys-!b rps lX wXwrypl, 327, who draws attention to the similar phrasing in the Hebrew of Sir 42:7. I find Holloway’s identification of this Epicurean theme in Sir 30:23 to be persuasive, which is aided by the fact that there is no text-critical decision to be made since the Hebrew has tp. It is worth noting that he has mistakenly read it as xp (from hxp) throughout his discussion of 30:23, but the t is fairly clear in the facsimiles and is correctly transcribed in BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 54.

106


followed by nine stichs devoted to a starkly pessimistic view of the finality and inescapability of death. This is because, as we will see below, in vv. 11-19 the issue is not so much the existential crisis brought on by the reality of death, as it is for Qoheleth; rather the reality of death is taken as a given and is rhetorically emphasized in service of the primary theme of chapter 14: the proper use of wealth.47 In this regard, the Epicurean notion of averting one’s attention from the reality of death would better fit Qoheleth’s line of argumentation (though there it is God who distracts the person; cf. 5:20) and, in fact, would seem to disrupt the principal point being made in our passage (see the exegesis below). Although avpa,thson is in the active voice in 14:16, the middle voice of the verb can mean “to live pleasurably.”48 It is just as possible that the same Greek language in 14:16 and 30:23 (for the latter the Hebrew does have tp) could be explained as a loose gloss of qynp, in anticipation of the later text, or as an unintentional misreading of tp for qynp.49 The Syriac’s )Srt is closer to the Hebrew. On balance, the evidence appears to me to favor retaining the reading qynp. [16b] This is the reading of manuscript A, which agrees with the Greek. The reading in b. ‘Erubin 54a omits Xqbl. After this verse, manuscript A and the Syriac have “everything that is lovely to do, do before God.” This line is retained by Schrader, who argues that it dropped out of the Greek through homoioarchton based on lk (cf. Sauer).50 It is omitted as a gloss by the majority of scholars, including Box & Oesterley, Gilbert, Hamp, Peters, Skehan, and Smend. In my opinion this line obviously interrupts the flow of thought between v. 16b and vv. 17-19. The addition is explainable as an attempt to guard against reading 14:16 as providing too much license (Box & Oesterley) and/or an attempt to bring the verse in line with the thought of Qoh 9:9-10 (Skehan).51 47

48 49

50 51

Holloway is aware of the functional role of wealth in the passage and comments that Ben Sira advised “those seeking to enjoy their wealth mindful of their own mortality to use those same enjoyments to ‘beguile’ themselves into forgetting, at least momentarily, about their end” (Beguile your soul, 232). Besides two examples from the Shepherd of Hermas, BAGD (p. 82) also crossreferences Sir 14:16 for this entry. Holloway notes the array of textual variants in the Greek witnesses and concludes that apathson is the lectio difficilior (Beguile your soul, 232). But this variety might also suggest that the Greek reading was viewed as problematic during the transmission process. Also note the Latin’s justifica and the discussion in Thiele’s apparatus (Vetus Latina: Sirach, 438). SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 267; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 126. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 368; GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 173; HAMP, Sirach, 39; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 124; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 258;


107

[18b-d] Comparison with the Greek and the Syriac reveals that in manuscript A half of v. 18 was skipped through parablepsis (rxaw - dxaw). The missing portion has been restored in the margin. Translation 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19

My son, if you have something, treat yourself well and enjoy yourself as much as you can Remember that death does not delay and the decree of Sheol has not been told to you Before you die be good to your friend and give to him (a portion of) what you acquire Do not deprive (yourself) of daily delights and let no desirable portion pass you by Will you not leave your wealth to another and your earnings to those who cast lots? Engage in commerce52 and gratify yourself for in Sheol there is no seeking luxury All flesh like a garment wears out and the ancient decree is “they shall surely die” Just as leaves grow on a flourishing tree where one withers and another one sprouts So also the generations of flesh and blood, one dies and another flourishes All his deeds will completely decay and the work of his hands will follow after him

Comments After describing the incorrect use of wealth that is characteristic of a miserly life, Ben Sira presents the correct use of wealth, which consists of two components: enjoying what one has and being generous toward others. The contrastive nature of the two subunits is especially evident in the way in which most of the ideas expressed in vv. 3-10 in relation to miserliness are inverted as they are applied to enjoyment and generosity. Yet, there are a few differences in the way Ben Sira argues against miserliness and for enjoyment and generosity. The clearest shift in method of argumentation is the increased appeal to death and the underworld that attends his exhortations towards enjoyment and generosity, which were only briefly mentioned in the previous section. Never-

52

SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 135; Cf. RÜGER, Text und Textform, 20, 104. Literally, “give and take” (so SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 257). I have translated the phrase in accord with its idiomatic meaning; see below.

108


theless, the theological logic of the two subunits is essentially complementary and thus they must be read in light of each other.53 Just as Ben Sira began the discussion on miserliness with the functionality of wealth, he also begins his discussion on enjoyment in the same way. In v. 11 he states the principle directly: “My son, if you have anything, treat yourself well and enjoy yourself as much as you can.” The word used for “treat yourself well”, byjyh, is the word used in 14:310 for being generous and appears in a similar sense in Ps 49:19. Because the good things in life are gifts from God they are to be enjoyed (cf. Sir 32:13; 39:25).54 Just as there was a constant interplay in vv. 3-10, especially in v. 5, between self-deprivation and the lack of generosity on the part of the miser, so in this subunit there is a juxtaposition between being “generous” to oneself and to others. Of course, being “generous” to oneself is bound by limits. As Schrader points out, the phrase $l byjyh cannot be taken to mean overindulgence to the point of gluttony since elsewhere Ben Sira is quite clear on the virtue of moderation and the sin of gluttony (Sir 18:30-33; 23:6; 31:12-22.27-28; 37:30-31).55 Likewise, the pursuit of the good things in life must not be permitted to overtake one’s personal resources. This is clear from the language of v. 11 where Ben Sira conditions the imperative to enjoy oneself with the phrase $l Xy ~a, which limits the extent of self-indulgence to whatever is within one’s means. This is reinforced in the second stich by the qualification to “enjoy yourself as much as you can.” The idiom “as much as you can” ($dy lal) also appears in Sir 5:1 and in the Hebrew Bible in Deut 28:32 and Prov 3:27 (cf. Gen 31:29; Neh 5:5; Mic 2:1). This limitation of enjoyment to that which is within one’s means is in harmony with exhortations elsewhere in Sirach. In Sir 29:22-23 he advises: Better is the life of the poor under the shelter of his roof than splendid delicacies among strangers

53 54

55

So also GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 174. MACKENZIE, Sirach, 69. One of the striking differences between Sir 14:11-19 and Qoheleth is that the former passage does not introduce the theme of “God’s gifts” into the argument, though it can be deduced from elsewhere in the book. See below. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 271. Also note the polemic in Wis 1:16-2:24 against those who use the finality of death and the common destiny of all people as license to sin. Instead of finding the breakdown of retributive justice to be a problem, these people see it as an opportunity for hedonism and oppression. Of course, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon counters this with the idea of punishment in the afterlife (2:21-24), a theological move not available to Ben Sira. See the discussion in WINSTON, The Wisdom of Solomon, 114.


109

Whether little or much, be content with what you have so that you will not hear the reproach of being a guest

The ensuing verses in 29:24-28 articulate the painful loss of selfsufficiency that comes to those who try to live beyond their means. Those who have borrowed more than they should, in contradiction to 14:11, receive the rebuke of the creditor (29:28) and, while they may begin by enjoying delicacies among strangers (29:22), they end up serving at their host’s table and forfeiting their own portions (29:26-27). Elsewhere Ben Sira advises against giving too much away, lest one must ask for some of it back or, worse, become dependent on one’s children (33:20-22). Likewise, the virtue of moderation that attends the exhortation in 14:11 relies on a sense of balance in the use of money. This is all part of recognizing the proper role of finances in the life of the wise (cf. §2.1.1). Those whose main compass is the pursuit of Wisdom rather than the pursuit of wealth will find neither moderation nor enjoyment difficult, since their perspective is not controlled by money, but by a discernment of God’s intention for human life within the created order. But there is an important difference between 29:21-28 and 14:11. The former emphasizes the woes that can occur if one does not practice moderation, while in 14:11 the accent is not so much on the need to practice moderation as it is on the rationale behind treating oneself well, as is clear from the way the thought of v. 11 is developed in v. 12. For Ben Sira, a key component of the created order that is germane to the functionality of wealth is the finality of death. In 14:12 he begins with the imperative to “remember (rwkz) that death does not delay,” which identifies the propositions in v. 12 as the underlying reasons behind the exhortation in v. 11. The fleeting nature of life makes the present time precious and this is the basis for the present enjoyment of life’s pleasures (cf. 14:16 below). What compounds the urgency of enjoying life is that, according to v. 12b, “the decree of Sheol has not been revealed to you.” The expression lwaX qwx is somewhat odd.56 In light of the temporal dimension of v. 12a, there is a consensus among commentators that qwx, “decree,” has the sense of the fixed temporal limit of human life, i.e. the appointed time of death (cf. Qoh 9:12).57 Elsewhere

56

57

Notably, the Greek has diaqhkh, a common translation for qx in Sirach (also in 14:17), but without precedent in the rest of the LXX. See WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 178181. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 272; cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 259-260; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 134; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 640. In his study notes to Sirach, Burton Mack says that “the decree of

110


in Sirach, it is emphasized that the day of a person’s death is fixed by God (Sir 17:1-2; cf. 11:14). For this reason, Schrader argues that Sheol here is not “eine selbständige mythische Mächtigkeit” but that lwaX qwx means “die Anordnung bezüglich Scheol, womit die göttliche Anordnung bezüglich des Datums des Eintritts des jeweiligen Menschen in die Scheol gemeint ist.”58 Schrader’s conclusion that qwx here has the implied sense of a divine ordinance, rather than an ordinance by Sheol as a personified mythical power, is quite reasonable, especially since Ben Sira’s conception of Sheol stands in considerable continuity with the basically non-mythical understanding of Sheol in the Hebrew Bible (see the discussion below on v. 16) and elsewhere he seems to equate “death’s (twm) decree” with the “decree from God” (41:1-4).59 Just as the observations about death in v. 12 were linked with v. 11 through the imperative rwkz, 14:13 is connected to the observations in v. 12 through the initial clause “before you die” (twmt ~rjb). In light of the uncertainty of the appointed time for death, it is also important to be generous to friends. Schrader notes that it is somewhat peculiar that in v. 13 the object of one’s generosity is “a friend” since elsewhere Ben Sira is adamant about the requirement of being generous to the poor. He therefore suggests that the friend (bhwa) is to be identified with the pupil’s Xpn in v. 11 (notably dependent on his text-critical decision on v. 11). Schrader is aware that these nouns do not match in gender but judges this to be inconsequential. Aware that this explanation is somewhat strained, he concludes that, “Diese Deutung mag kühn erscheinen, aber eine andere bietet sich nicht an.”60 Yet, it seems to me that a much simpler solution than that of Schrader is to accept that,

58 59

60

Hades may refer either to death’s appointed time or to the decree that one must die as expressed in 14:17” (Sirach, 1552). However, the latter suggestion is impossible because the decree in v. 12 is said not to have been revealed to the student, which would make no sense if only five verses later Ben Sira not only quotes the decree as an adaptation of what is said in Gen 3, but also describes it as ancient (~lw[ qwx), meaning that it was revealed long ago and has been known throughout the ages. It is inconceivable that the students would not know that eventually they must die. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 272. A similar approach is evident in SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 259-260. Even in the most striking passage in which death (twm, n.b. not lwaX) is personified, Sir 41:1-4, “death’s decree” in 41:3 is placed in parallel to “the decree from God (la)” in 41:4 and Sheol only appears as a location: the abode of the dead (41:4d). See KAISER, Der Tod als Schicksal und Aufgabe bei Ben Sira, 76-77. For an extensive study of Sir 41:1-4 and a well nuanced assessment of death in Sirach see REITERER, Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira, 203-236, especially 209-227. Also see COLLINS, The Root of Immortality,179-185; KAISER, Das Verständnis des Todes bei Ben Sira, 182-185. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 273.


111

while Ben Sira repeatedly encourages generosity to the poor elsewhere (e.g. 3:30-4:10; 7:32-36), here he simply chooses to speak of generosity in the category of “friends,” a quite prominent concern of his.61 This makes perfect sense of the context of chapter 14, which contrasts the socially isolationist behavior of the miser (cf. 14:5.9-10) with the wise person’s enjoyment of life. The socio-economic standing of the friend is not mentioned here and indeed the openness of the category encourages the reader to apply the admonition to any friend, rich or poor. Elsewhere, Ben Sira advises supporting a friend who is poor or has fallen into poverty (22:23-26) and identifies a friend as one of the potential recipients of almsgiving (29:10).62 Because his range of friendship transcends strict socio-economic categories, the enjoyment of life and its concomitant sharing with friends is not limited to friends of Ben Sira’s social standing. Just as the description of miserliness in 14:3-10 hints at a lack of generosity to the poor while also leaving the description of the miser broad enough to apply to any of his associates, so Ben Sira chooses to specify generosity to one’s friends rather than to the poor per se, categories which overlap in his thought. Therefore, it is unnecessary to construe v. 13 as an awkward restatement of v. 11, as Schrader does. Given that earlier Ben Sira juxtaposed miserliness towards oneself with miserliness towards others, it should be no surprise that here he makes an analogous point with respect to generosity (cf. v. 16). The way in which Ben Sira structures his exhortation towards generosity (bhwal bjyh) is identical to the imperative in v. 11 to “treat yourself well” ($l byjyh). Thus, the uncertainty of death in v. 12 operates as a hinge verse from which are derived parallel conclusions about using wealth for one’s own benefit and for that of others. Although the enjoyment of life’s pleasures is the predominant theme in 14:3-19, the symmetry between this notion and generosity is important for appreciating a fundamental dynamic in Ben Sira’s understanding of the proper use of wealth. The second stich of 14:13 reads literally “and [that which] your hand obtains, give to him” (wl !t $dy tgyXhw). The verbal noun hgXh is a “morphological innovation” based on the hiphil of gXn with the sense of “ability” or “property acquired by a person in his lifetime” (cf. Sir

61 62

Corley observes that Ben Sira’s interest in friends and friendship exceeds that of any other book in the Hebrew Bible (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 1). On 22:23-26 see the discussion in CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 205211.

112


35:12).63 One can easily see the contrast with the picture of the miser who believes his own portion to be too small and so, like a bird of prey, is ravenous for more. The life of a truly generous person, on the other hand, reveals a symmetry between what he obtains and what he gives to his friends. As we saw in the previous chapter, to the wise person the possession of a friend is more valuable than the possession of money and, therefore, practicing generosity towards a friend is actually “trading up” (cf. 6:14-15; 7:18; 29:10-11; 37:6).64 Of course, for Ben Sira, the companionship of true and faithful friends is one of life’s great joys, better than money and the fine things in life, such as wine and music (40:20). From this angle, we can see how the fostering of friendship through generosity is interrelated with the use of money for one’s own enjoyment.65 The exchange of gifts in Hellenistic culture was a common custom among friends and associates and was considered an important part of social relationships.66 In 14:14-15 Ben Sira returns to the ideas in vv. 4 and 11, but in inverted order. In v. 14 he states the negative corollary to v. 11. Instead of instructing the student to be generous to himself, he tells him not to deprive himself of “daily delights” or to let something desirable pass him by. This notion of carpe diem is grounded in the rhetorical question of v. 15. This question is phrased in terms of the inevitability of death, but its explanatory power for v. 14 depends on reading it in light of v. 12. It is the inevitability of death combined with the unknowability of when death will occur that results in the advice to enjoy the daily delights (~wy tbwjm). The urgency of the advice in v. 14 is also evident in the use of rb[t la, which implies that one must enjoy the good things of life in the present, while it is still possible. There is a striking relationship between the rhetorical question directed at the student in v. 15 and the description of the miser in v. 4. It is the miser’s actions in v. 4a that are the inverse of the advice in v. 14, but the rhetorical question of v. 15 implies that the wealth of both the miser and the wise student will follow the same course: being left to others (rxal in both cases). But there is a noticeable difference in the 63

64 65

66

DIHI, Amoraic Hebrew in the Light of Ben Sira’s Linguistic Innovations, 20. Dihi points out that the combination of hgXh and dy occurs three times in the Amoraic literature. KAISER, Carpe diem und Memento mori bei Ben Sira, 197. It should be noted that while Schrader’s reading of bhwa in v. 13 as equivalent to Xpn in v. 11 seems somewhat strained, the discussion here reveals that there is in fact a deeper connection between the exhortations of these two verses along the lines of Schrader’s reading. WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 109.


113

second stichs of these two verses. Consistent with Ben Sira’s belief that the inheritance of the wicked does not stay with their descendants (cf. 41:6), the wealth of the miser will be acquired by “a stranger” (rz). However, the description in v. 15b that their earnings will be left to “those who cast lots” is ambiguous. If one takes v. 15 to be a rhetorical question that threatens the consequences of failing to heed the advice of vv. 11-14, then the casting of lots for the inheritance could be the precursor to a stranger’s enjoyment of one’s goods (as in 14:4). On this reading, any wealth (lyx) that is left behind is wealth unused either for oneself or for the benefit of others and therefore wasted. This seems to be the reading of Sauer, who comments on v. 15 that “Ein Vermögen, das nach dem Tode hinterlassen wird, ist ein leeres Vermögen. Es findet keine sinnvolle Verwendung. Es wird verlost. Vgl. dazu Ps 22,19.”67 On the other hand, Box & Oesterley remark that “in Palestine brothers divided their patrimony by lot as late as, and probably much later than, the second century.”68 If this is the sense, then the students are presumed to be among those whose inheritance will remain with their descendants (cf. 44:10-11) and the scenario of v. 15b stands in contrast to the reception of the miser’s wealth by the stranger in v. 4b. Indeed, given that elsewhere Ben Sira presumes that the final destination of one’s inheritance is an indication of how well one’s life was lived (cf. §2.2.3.2), it seems unlikely that any and all wealth left behind to one’s descendants would have been considered wasted. In fact, in Sir 33:24 Ben Sira advises his students to distribute their inheritance at the hour of their death, which of course presumes that they still had possessions to pass on. A mediating position appears to be taken by Spicq, who comments that “à la mort tout sera dispersé aux héritiers; inutile de laisser quelque chose après soi.”69 Spicq’s statement would seem to do justice to 67

68 69

SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 127. Similarly, Hamp (Sirach, 39) and Duesberg & Fransen (Ecclesiastico, 155) cross-reference both Ps 22:19 and Ps 49:11. The latter text speaks of how the fool perishes and leaves his inheritance to others. It is important to point out that Sauer does not say whether he believes that the division of the inheritance is by strangers or heirs, only that leftover wealth finds no meaningful use. As such, it is not wholly clear whether the scholars who cite Ps 22:19 and/or 49:11 do so only to illuminate the idiom of “casting lots” for an inheritance or if they also mean to correlate the broader settings in which this activity takes place in the Psalms and in Sir 14:15. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 368. Di Lella cross-references Ps 49:11 but then also cites Box & Oesterley (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 260). SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 640. Alonso Schökel (Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 191) takes a different mediating position when he says that if one does not have children then the goods will be dispersed (“si no tiene hijos, sus bienes se dispersarán”).

114


to the texture of the passage. The fact that v. 15 is phrased differently from v. 4 suggests that the division of the earnings by lot is somehow different from losing one’s property to strangers and, given Ben Sira’s statements about inheritance elsewhere, it seems that what is in view is the need for balance. It is not that all one’s resources should be exhausted before death, as though anything left to one’s heirs is completely wasteful. Yet, neither should one pass over the great opportunity to use wealth in a way that brings enjoyment to one’s own life and the lives of others. Here in chapter 14, the emphasis is on the proper use of wealth and, from this angle, there is certainly an element of wastefulness in that which is left behind. But it should not be taken as absolute; it is wasteful in the pragmatic sense, in terms of the possibilities for using wealth that have been lost.70 This is clear from the context, especially what follows in v. 16. In 14:16 Ben Sira largely sums up and recapitulates what he has argued in vv. 11-15. In v. 16a the simple triad of “$Xpn qynpw xqw !t” concisely brings together Ben Sira’s view of the positive function of wealth. Money should not be a static entity, but must be employed for positive ends. It is imperative that the students give to others, acquire things for themselves, and enjoy the good things of life.71 In fact, in ancient Near Eastern texts, including Hittite grants, Ugaritic and Akkadian texts, and in documents found at Elephantine, the combination of xql and !tn (or the cognates) “is often used when the donor has the power to do whatever he wishes with the item that he is granting.”72 In Mishnaic Hebrew this combination has the idiomatic sense of engaging in commerce. Thus, the wider linguistic context suggests that here in Sirach there is an emphasis on the functionality of wealth: the liberty to use the wealth one has acquired for the enhancement of one’s life. The reason is again grounded in the finality of death. Verse 16b revisits the theme of v. 12, but instead of focusing on the unknowability of the time of death, v. 16b focuses on the state of existence after death. As such it complements v. 12, but goes beyond it. Because in Sheol there is no luxury to seek, one should take the opportunity to enjoy the present life. What is remarkable is that all three imperatives of v. 16a 70

71

72

Although I think Sauer’s comments are generally amenable to my reading, I think the characterization of the inheritance as an empty fortune (“ein leeres Vermögen”) is a bit of an overstatement. The verb qnp occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, in Prov 29:21. From the context, its meaning seems to match the Aramaic and Syriac cognates which have the sense of “pamper, indulge.” The Arabic cognate connotes the idea of leading a prosperous, enjoyable life. See PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 124. GREENFIELD, Two Proverbs of Ahiqar, 198.


115

would seem to be grounded in the principle of v. 16b. In other words, giving to others, acquiring things, and enjoying oneself all seem to fall within the purview of what Ben Sira considers the good life.73 This is not surprising given his earlier disapproval of the miser’s life along with his warnings against over-indulgence and commendations of moderation elsewhere. For Ben Sira, the good life is one that is a balance of “give and take.” Both unrestrained hedonism and pennypinching miserliness are errors that paradoxically will result in a diminution of life rather than the enhancement of life.74 For the second time in this passage Ben Sira refers to Sheol as the abode of the dead. Here in 14:16 he characterizes it as a place in which luxury is not able to be sought (gwn[t Xqbl lwaXb !ya yk). Ben Sira’s view of Sheol, both here and elsewhere, is in substantial continuity with the picture of Sheol in the Hebrew Bible.75 It is primarily understood as a nebulous “holding tank” for the dead (Sir 48:5; 51:6.9), which is deep and dark (Sir 22:11; 51:5; cf. Job 10:21; 17:2). It is joyless and without possessions (Sir 14:16; cf. Job 15:29; Ps 49:17). Its inhabitants do not discuss things or praise God (Sir 41:4; 17:2776; cf. Ps 6:6; Isa 38:18), but rest (Sir 22:977; cf. Job 3:11-16; 14:12; Jer 51:39) apparently in a state of diminished existence (cf. Ps 88:13; Job 14:21; Qoh 9:10).78 Only by a special act of divine intervention does a person ever leave (Sir 48:5; cf. 1 Sam 2:6). Sheol is not beyond the range of YHWH’s power (Amos 9:2; Ps 139:8), yet its inhabitants do not have access to YHWH (Ps 88:5). Although in the Hebrew Bible Sheol most often occurs in relation to the destination of the wicked, there are some indications that all the

73 74

75

76 77 78

Cf. WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 216. Sauer captures the idea elegantly: “Daraus erwächst aber nicht ein ungehemmter Hedonismus; im Gegenteil: Aus den Erfahrungen des Alltags ensteht die Verpflichtung, diese Haltung auch der Umwelt mitzuteilen. Die Schönheit dieser Welt soll nicht dazu verleiten, noch mehr Güter anzusammeln, um noch mehr Schönheit zu erleben. Das Gegenteil ist rightig. Das Erleben der Schönheit dieser Welt führt dazu, von dieser Schönheit auch anderen auszuteilen” (Jesus Sirach, 127). The classic study is TROMP, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. More recently, see JOHNSTON, Shades of Sheol, especially 69-85; and LEWIS, Dead, Abode of, 101-105. Also cf. LEVENSON, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, 35-66. Greek: a[|dhj, no Hebrew is extant. Greek: a[|dhj, no Hebrew is extant. Ezek 32:21 portrays Sheol as normally inactive, but Isa 14:9-11 indicates that for a prominent person such as the king of Babylon the inhabitants of Sheol temporarily are in commotion, though they proclaim their state as “weak” (hlx). See JOHNSTON, Shades of Sheol, 76.

116


dead go there (e.g. Ps 89:49).79 Notably, Ben Sira clearly affirms that Sheol is the destination of both sinners (21:9-10) and the righteous (41:4). Yet, because Ben Sira does not hold to retribution in the afterlife, Sheol is the common lot for all people, sinners as well as the righteous.80 It is this commonality of destiny, without hope for the eventual enjoyment of reward, that is the basis for Ben Sira’s exhortation to enjoy what one has earned in this life.81 This leveling effect of death and the nature of Sheol results in an urgency for using wealth well in the present. The invocation of Sheol in 14:16 leads Ben Sira to conclude this section of his work with three verses that reflect on the role of death. It is remarkable that he argues his point by weaving together biblical imagery with a Hellenistic literary motif. In 14:17 Ben Sira begins by observing that all creatures (rXb lk) “wear out like a garment.” The expression hlby dgbk also appears in Isa 50:9; 51:6; and Ps 102:27, and a similar idea appears in Job 13:28.82 In all four cases the context involves, in varying ways, the transience of people (or creation) before the everlasting omnipotence of God. The image has an air of inevitability about it; but this principle of decay and death is, for Ben Sira, anchored in a divine ordinance.

79

80

81 82

Cf. TROMP, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, 212; contra Alexander Heidel, who claims that it “applies to the habitation of the souls of the wicked only” (The Gilgamesh Epic and OT Parallels, 184). In fact, the appeals of the righteous to be delivered from the power of Sheol may indicate that their current experience bears resemblance to Sheol and, should God allow them to die, then that would be their final destination (cf. Ps 16:10; 30:4; 49:16; 86:13). In his discussion of Ps 89:49 Levenson observes that there are two competing conceptions of Sheol in the Hebrew Bible: “The one that sees Sheol as the universal destination comports well with ancient Mesopotamian and Canaanite notions of human destiny as finally one of pure gloom. This conception survives in the Hebrew Bible, especially Wisdom literature, the category to which most of these exceptional passages belong. But it is very much at odds with most of the relevant texts, which instead assume a distinction between those who go to Sheol and those who die blessed, like Abraham, Moses, and Job” (Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, 75). Also note 1 En. 22, where Sheol is divided into four compartments, two each for the righteous and for the wicked. See the discussion in COLLINS, The Root of Immortality, 181. Gilbert thinks Ps 102:27 is the primary text in view (Qohelet et Ben Sira, 177). Wright only mentions the Isaianic passages and concludes, rightly in my opinion, that “the phrase seems to be just the sort of saying that could easily have become proverbial, and thus, it would not prove a dependence on the Hebrew Scriptures” (No Small Difference, 207). The similar phrases in Ps 102:27 and Job 13:28 would appear to support Wright’s conclusion.


117

In v. 17b, he appeals to the “ancient decree” (~lw[ qwx) that everyone must die (w[wgy [wg). Given that the decree applies to all the living and that the verb is doubled with the infinitive absolute, the episode involving Adam and Eve naturally comes to mind. Yet, a problem with this is that in Gen 2:17 and 3:3-4 the verb that is used in twm, not [wg. The latter is used, however, twice in the flood account, in Gen 6:17 and 7:21, which is also creational in scope. In both of these cases, the verb appears in relation to the phrase rXb lk (as in Sir 14:17; also cf. Job 34:15). The distinctive doubled use of the verb in the infinitive absolute does not occur in these verses as it does in the Adam and Eve story. Nevertheless, beyond the divine pronouncements of death in the early portions of Genesis, it is difficult to think of a plausible reference for the “ancient decree.” Therefore, I cautiously view 14:17b as an allusion to Genesis, albeit freely rendered.83 This coincides with Gilbert’s judgment that “Ben Sira never quoted exactly a text from Genesis 1-11. Pancratius C. Beentjes indeed proved this. However, at times Ben Sira made incidental use of an expression from Genesis 1-11 without necessarily and clearly referring to its original context.”84 If Ben Sira had Gen 2-3 in mind, then he has taken what was decreed concerning Adam and Eve and applied it to all creatures.85 The underlying assumption of this appropriation of Gen 2-3 would be to locate the punishment of Adam and Eve in the mortality of the human race, an exegetical move that is well attested during the Second Temple period and beyond (cf. the translation of Gen 2:17 by Symmachus; L.A.B., 13:10; Apoc. Mos. 14:2; 4 Ezra 3:7; 2 Bar. 17:2-3; 23:4). Indeed, this belief also seems to underlie other statements about death in Sirach, such as 25:24 (cf. 8:5-8).86 On the other hand, Sir 17:1-2 (also cf. 33:14-15 and 41:4) seems to counter this view by viewing mortality as God’s original design for humanity. This text gives no 83

84

85

86

So also BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 368; CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 716; HAMP, Sirach, 39; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 124; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 275; and SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 136. Interestingly, the Greek of Sir 14:17 is close to the LXX of Gen 2:17 except that the former is in the singular (like the MT of Gen 2:17) whereas the latter is in the plural. It is possible, of course, that the Greek version of Genesis available to the grandson had the singular as well. Cf. WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 163. GILBERT, Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1-11, 90. Gilbert’s essay examines six texts, but he does not make a judgment on Sir 14:17. The work referenced by Gilbert is BEENTJES, Jesus Sirach en Tenach. As Schrader points out, it is not wholly clear whether rXb lk refers to all humans or all living creatures (Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 275). The former would be closer to the Adam and Eve story while the latter would be closer to the Flood narrative. The texts are collected and discussed in KUGEL, Traditions of the Bible, 96-97.

118


indication that mortality is in any way a punishment.87 Exactly how 14:17b is to be aligned with these other texts in Sirach is not completely clear. Nevertheless, 14:17 further develops the notion mentioned in relation to v. 16 that death for Ben Sira has a leveling effect on humanity. We are all destined to die and this is ordained by God. Later Ben Sira will draw the conclusion that the divine ordination of death implies that people should not resist or fear their mortality (41:3-4); but here the common lot of humanity reinforces the urgency of enjoying life. In v. 12 Ben Sira noted the temporal uncertainty of death; in v. 16b he noted the nature of Sheol; and here he notes the inescapability of mortality. These three observations about humanity’s destiny interlock to localize the functionality and benefits of wealth exclusively in the present life, which supports the conclusion that the non-use of wealth is utterly absurd. In 14:18-19 Ben Sira continues his reflection on the inevitability of death. Commentators are fond of noting that the comparison of the seasonal cycle of trees with human generations88 is also found in Homer’s Iliad (vi 146-149; xxi 463-464), though many also point out that there are some precursors in the Hebrew Bible as well (Isa 40:6-8; Job 14:1-2; Ps 90:3-10; cf. Isa 34:4; 64:5; Jer 17:8; Ps 1:3; Qoh 1:4).89 Nevertheless, the closeness of the language to the Iliad is so striking that Middendorp and Sanders both conclude that Ben Sira has consciously borrowed from Homer.90 Collins, on the other hand, argues that the topos could have been proverbial by that time and wouldn’t require any direct dependence on Homer.91 Whether or not Ben Sira was trying to

87 88

89

90 91

See COLLINS, Before the Fall, 296-298. The idiom “flesh and blood” (~dw rXb) also occurs in Sir 17:31 (no Hebrew is extant but the Syriac has )Mdw wh )rSB). It does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, but is common in the rabbinic literature and apparently underlies a few NT verses such as Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; and Eph 6:12. For all four of these verses the Peshitta uses )Mdw )r$B (cf. Heb 2:14). SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 275; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 260; cf. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 127. Baumgartner highlights that these themes in Sir 14:17-19 primarily occur in the Hebrew Bible as a motif in lament songs (Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 183-184). As Sir 40:1-2 shows, Ben Sira was not coldly dispassionate about death, despite his conviction that its status as divine ordinance merited acquiescence (41:3-4). MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 19; SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 39-40. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 40. In fact, this passage from Homer was echoed repeatedly in Greek literature. See GARNER, From Homer to Tragedy, vvi.


119

show off his learning to garner respect among his educated peers, as Schrader thinks, the use of an analogy that was recognized by Jews and non-Jews alike rhetorically links the specific divine decree of v. 17 with a common consensus of antiquity. The transience of human life is a given and in v. 19 Ben Sira arrives at his most pessimistic conclusion concerning the finality of death. Here Ben Sira ascribes the same fate to human works as he does to humans themselves. Death is such that one cannot even hope to transcend it through abiding works. Just as eventually all people will “surely die” (w[wgy [wg) so their deeds will “surely rot” (wbqry bwqr). With vivid imagery Ben Sira closes the passage by stating that all their works will be dragged after them into Sheol as in a procession (wyrxa $Xmy).92 The point of this description is the transience of human actions, not that a person’s deeds will affect his existence after death.93 This is clear from the fact that wyrxa $Xmy stands in parallel to wbqry bwqr. As Schrader has noticed, this stands in tension with one of Ben Sira’s strategies for dealing with unrecompensed deeds at the time of death.94 As we saw in §2.2.3.2, Ben Sira holds out the possibility of ongoing fame and an everlasting name for those who live a life of wisdom and Torah obedience. Schrader is inclined to resolve this tension by viewing 14:19 as only speaking about the works of evil people. But this seems unduly harmonistic. Because vv. 17-18 have emphasized Sheol as the common lot of all people, the most natural reading of v. 19 is that it applies to all people as well. It appears to me that a better resolution can be given when this verse is viewed in connection with the whole flow of the argument from 14:16b-18. In light of Ben Sira’s assertion that there is no enjoyment in Sheol and that all people must die, the claim that all of a person’s works follow him into oblivion should be understood as spoken from the vantage point of the disjunction between the present life and the hereafter. In other words, just as one cannot use wealth for enjoyment in Sheol, so also no benefit can be obtained in Sheol from what one has previously done on earth. This is part and parcel with Ben Sira’s understanding of retribution only in this life and the finality of death. His remarks elsewhere about the endurance of one’s name are

92 93 94

This is the sense given in SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 92. So SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 276-277; contra Peters, who interprets this verse in connection with Rev 14:13 (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 125). SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 278.

120


made for the benefit of the living, whose satisfaction regarding their reputation outweighs the lack of recompense they are currently experiencing. But once a person has slipped into the netherworld there is no indication that he will have the pleasure of experiencing the lasting effects of his works (cf. Job 14:21) and from this vantage point, 14:19 is applicable. Admittedly, this explanation does not completely resolve the tension between 14:19 and Ben Sira’s “theology of the name.” Nevertheless, it seems significantly ameliorated by the contextual consideration that the decay of a person’s works should be understood in relation to Ben Sira’s exhortations regarding the use of wealth in the present life.

3.4 The Main Themes of Sirach 14:3-19 in Broader Context Relevant to the thought of 14:11-19 is the warning in Sir 11:18-19, where Ben Sira employs the unexpectedness of death as a warning against deferring enjoyment. There is one who becomes wealthy from self-affliction and this is his allotted reward:95 When he says, “I have found rest and now I will feast on my goods” He does not know when his appointed time will be96 95

96

This stich is broken in manuscript A but the Syriac (hrtw( hL )wL )Ld tY)w) suggests a possible reconstruction of wrkX byxy Xyw (so Peters, Smend, and Adler; the latter translates it as “And (there is) that endangereth his reward”). Segal reconstructs it as wrkX byxy awhw. The Greek version (kai. au[th h` meri.j tou/ misqou/ auvtou/) likely presupposes wrkX qlx hzw. The Greek reading is adopted by Box & Oesterley, Lévi, and Skehan & Di Lella, and my translation here reflects it as well. However, there is not a great difference in the overall meaning of the two readings. ADLER, Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira, 479; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 355; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:77; PETERS, Liber Iesu Filii Sirach, 32; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 69, 72; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 237, 239; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 107-108. How to reconstruct the end of this stich, ]lx[ ]y hm, is uncertain. The Greek has ti,j kairo.j pareleu,setai and the Syriac has htrX )Ywh )NM. Possible solutions that have been suggested are: @lxy ~wy hm (Smend), qlx hyhy hm (Adler, Box & Oesterley, and Lévi), and wqx hyhy hm (Peters and Segal). Segal suggests that the Greek presupposes @lxt t[, which would appear to be closest to Smend’s reconstruction. But he also notes that in the transmission of the Greek klhroj = qlx could have been misread as kairoj. With Peters and Segal, I reconstruct wqx hyhy hm since Ben Sira elsewhere uses qx in the sense of a divinely appointed time, especially the time of death (cf. 14:12; 38:22; 39:31; 41:2-4). The best case for Ben Sira’s use of qlx in this fashion is 41:4, but there the reading is likely to be emended to qx (see Skehan). ADLER, Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira, 471; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 355; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:76-77;

The Main Themes of Sirach 14:3-19 in Broader Context

121

and he will leave it to another and die

The person described in 11:18-19 is someone who amasses wealth through self-affliction (twn[thm). While Di Lella cross-references these two verses mainly with the description of the miser in 14:3-10, the logic of the passage more nearly approximates the argument in 14:11-19.97 The hoarding of money by the miser in 14:3-10 is absurd to Ben Sira because death will eventually cause that money to be passed on to others. The focus of this passage is on the non-use of wealth. However, the person in 11:18-19 lives a life of deprivation but eventually wishes to enjoy it, just as Ben Sira would advise. But here enters another facet of death’s relation to the functionality of wealth. What complicates the picture in 11:18-19, as in 14:11-19, is not simply that one cannot take along wealth into Sheol, but the derivative concern that one never knows when death is near. Therefore, it is not just imperative to use wealth, but to put it to use both wisely and immediately. In this way, Ben Sira’s thought draws quite close to the thought of Qoheleth. The most striking similarity is that, as Collins observes, “Like his near-contemporary Qoheleth, and unlike the older Hebrew tradition, Sirach is haunted by the shadow of death.”98 Indeed, the whole notion that death is a fundamental reason for the present enjoyment of the good things in life is a prominent theme in Qoheleth and, for this reason, interpreters frequently cite texts from Qoheleth as background to Sir 14:11-19 (cf. Qoh 2:24-25; 3:13; 5:17-20; 6:12; 7:14; 9:6-10; 11:8). The question then arises: what is the relationship between these two texts? In his essay on the subject, F. J. Backhaus argued that there is no direct literary relationship between the two. His conclusion regarding the lack of literary relationship between Sir 14:11-19 and Qoheleth is largely based on the absence in the Sirach passage of four important characteristics of Qoheleth: the formula bwj !ya, the combination of “eat”-“drink”-“be merry”, the question “what advantage is there?,” and the lexeme qlx.99 Rather, similarities between the two texts result from a common location within the Israelite wisdom tradition. In his study published a year later, Schrader concludes that the similarities in outlook between the two books are significant enough to

97 98

99

PETERS, Liber Iesu Filii Sirach, 34; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 72; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 468; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 108. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 239, 259. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 78. Similar observations are made by BURKES, God, Self, and Death, 110; and REITERER, Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira, 204. BACKHAUS, Qohelet und Sirach, 45-47.

122


suggest that Qoheleth has influenced Ben Sira in some way. Yet, in addition to the observations of Backhaus, Schrader also points out that it is peculiar that in Sir 14:11-19 there is no mention of God as the giver of joy and the good things in this life, as one finds in Qoheleth (e.g. 2:25; 3:13; 5:18-19; 9:7-10). Furthermore, Ben Sira’s expression of the theme of carpe diem occurs in language that is somewhat different from what is found in Qoheleth. Therefore, while Ben Sira probably knew Qoheleth and perhaps was influenced by his general outlook, a conclusion of actual textual dependence in this case is difficult to prove.100 A few years later Marböck returned to the question and provided a comprehensive summary of the debate up to that point. In his analysis he thinks that the evidence favors the conclusion that Ben Sira knew and echoed Qoheleth, including an echo of Qoh 9:7-10 in Sir 14:11-16.101 Around the same time Gilbert also revisited the question of the relationship between the two books, but his study focused on the specific case of 14:11-19. He highlights the same differences as Backhaus and Schrader did, but adds to them a conceptual component. He observes that the theological function of death in the two books is fundamentally different, which results in a substantial difference in how the idea of carpe diem functions in their thought (see below). Lacking solid textual correspondences, Gilbert believes the analogies of thought can best be explained by “l’air du temps, l’impact de la pensée hellénistique.”102 The differences, both textual and conceptual, discussed by Backhaus, Schrader, and Gilbert are substantial enough that, in regards to Sir 14:11-19, I am inclined to agree with Gilbert’s assessment. There is no doubt that, viewed within the context of the Hebrew Bible, Sirach and Qoheleth share a preoccupation with death and a disposition towards the idea of carpe diem that is unique. But given their similar historical settings, it is best to view them as two independent thinkers who were immersed in a similar philosophical/theological milieu.103 To this 100 SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 284. This conclusion, at the end of his exegesis of 14:11-19, seems to differ somewhat from his earlier citation on page 114 of Sir 14:11-19 as evidence that Ben Sira knew and used Qoheleth. 101 MARBÖCK, Kohelet und Sirach, 275-281. 102 GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 178. Of course, such a concept was not simply a Greek invention, but had deep roots in the Near East, as is clear in Collins’ crossreferencing of the Epic of Gilgamesh (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 93-94). 103 One naturally thinks first of the Epicureans, whose denial of the afterlife led them to advocate the enjoyment of life. Of course, the materialistic understanding of the world in Epicureanism differed fundamentally from the views of both Qoheleth and Ben Sira, which resulted in important differences in how the enjoyable life was to be approached. See HOLLOWAY, Beguile your soul, 220-233, especially note 63. On the notion of the idea of carpe diem and its relationship to the contemplation of death in


123

end, let us consider the place of the major themes of Sir 14:11-19 in their broader context. The idea of leaving one’s wealth to others at the time of death is a common theme in sapiential literature.104 In Prov 13:22 the contrast drawn between the righteous and the wicked is that the inheritance of the former remains with their descendants while the inheritance of the wicked passes over to the righteous. A more specific case is given in Prov 28:8 where those who amass wealth through exploitation, specifically the charging of exorbitant interest, are told that their wealth will pass over to those who are kind to the poor. In other words, in Proverbs this same dynamic works, whereby death is a catalyst for redirection of money away from the wicked/oppressive and towards the righteous/generous and this movement is distinctly set within the model of retributive justice. The same idea is reflected in Job 27:13-19 where the wicked and the oppressive are placed in parallel (v. 13) and the inheritance which they piled up (v. 16) is said to be destined for the hands of the just and innocent (v. 17). Yet, when this motif recurs in Qoheleth it takes on a different flavor. Qoheleth, consistent with his perspective on wealth in general, calls into question the earlier pattern whereby death redistributes wealth in accordance with retributive justice. In 5:9-6:10 he reflects on the way death does not seem to operate according to the earlier model and in 6:1-2 he specifically notes that he has observed people who obtained their wealth from God, but were not able to enjoy it because it passed over to a stranger (yrkn). This, concludes Qoheleth, is both absurd (lbh) and a sickening injustice ([r ylx). Earlier he had despaired because all his wealth necessarily must be left to others and it is quite possible that the heirs of his possessions will be foolish (2:18-21; cf. Ps 39:7). Apparently Qoheleth observed the same despair in his contemporaries as well (4:8). Thus, for Qoheleth, death is not primarily an instrument of retributive justice, but a deeply problematic reality that erodes the motivation for amassing wealth. Instead, this existential crisis leads Qoheleth to recommend the use of wealth for the enjoyment of life while there is still opportunity.105

the wider Hellenistic world see the texts discussed in HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:123-124; KAISER, Carpe diem und Memento mori bei Ben Sira, 185-189; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 278-283; and WICKE-REUTER, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung, 263-267. 104 Parallels are listed in HAMP, Sirach, 38; and SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 81. 105 See the discussion in WHYBRAY, Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy, 87-98, especially 91-92; cf. GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 176-177.

124


Ben Sira appears to steer a middle course between the use of this motif in connection with the doctrine of retributive justice in Proverbs and the incongruity noticed by Qoheleth. On the one hand, Ben Sira seems to view death, in general, as an instrument of retributive justice (Sir 41:6; 44:11) and that is clearly its use in the threat against the miser in 14:4. On the other hand, Ben Sira’s preoccupation with death results in a “leveling” effect in the area of wealth. All must die and leave their possessions to others, whether they are miserly or generous. But for Ben Sira, this does not lead to despair over productivity in the same way that it did for Qoheleth; rather, it becomes the foundation for a reorientation of the perspective on wealth. Instead of lamenting the injustice that death sometimes introduces into economic distribution, Ben Sira uses death positively as a means to exhort his students towards enjoyment of life and generosity to friends.106 Or, as Gilbert nicely characterizes the difference, for Ben Sira the opposition to miserliness is morally based while for Qoheleth it is existentially based.107 The inevitability of death, combined with the functionality of wealth, liberates one to use money in ways that profit others and enhance one’s own quality of life.108 This different approach to the idea of carpe diem results in a significant addition by Ben Sira. Whereas the existential orientation of Qoheleth’s view of wealth in relation to death produces only statements encouraging one to enjoy what happiness may be had in this life, for Ben Sira the moral orientation of wealth in relation to death produces the complementary component of generosity.109 Although the primary emphasis of Sir 14:11-19 is on contrasting miserliness with one’s own enjoyment of life, the contrast with Qoheleth is telling. It is precisely in the intrusion of notions of generosity that Ben Sira’s moral orientation to the relationship between death and wealth surfaces. Although Ben Sira diverges from Qoheleth in this regard, the combination of the finality of death with the admonition towards generosity does surface in other texts. The main themes of Sir 14:3-19 are also well represented in non-Jewish texts. Already in the Egyptian text Instruction of Ptahhotep (late second millennium) we read: 106 Elsewhere Ben Sira advocates the amelioration of injustice through generosity, but this is not present explicitly in Sir 14:3-19. 107 GILBERT, Qohelet et Ben Sira, 176. 108 As we will see in chapters 5 and 6, for Ben Sira generosity is doubly advantageous because by fulfilling the commandments to assist those in need one is also “investing” the money such that one will benefit from it as well (cf. Sir 3:30-31; 29:8-13; 35:15). 109 GILBERT, Qoheleth et Ben Sira, 178.


125

Be generous as long as you live What leaves the storehouse does not return… Kindness is a man’s memorial For the years after the function… Don’t be mean toward your friends They are one’s watered field And greater than one’s riches.110

In later Demotic texts that are roughly contemporary with Qoheleth and Sirach the inevitability of death is grounds for treating oneself well (Inst. Ankh. 8:7-8). In addition, the time of death is viewed as fixed (P. Insinger 18:5-6) and unknown (Inst. Ankh. 12:5; 20:12). Stinginess and miserliness are condemned (Inst. Ankh. 12:18; 21:16; P. Insinger 16:22; 17:8; 25:15; 18:13-19:5); moderation (P. Insinger 6:12-15) and sharing with friends are advocated (Inst. Ankh. 15:7), and there are warnings against the false security of wealth, especially since wealth must be left to others at the time of death (Inst. Ankh. 18:16-17). Nevertheless, in the Demotic texts these themes do not receive quite the same integration as they do in Sir 14:3-19, where enjoying life and generosity are dual implications of the finality of death. In Greek texts similar ideas can also be found and, in fact, the sentiment of carpe diem is ubiquitous in Greek literature, though in most cases the focus is on enjoying the momentary pleasures of life.111 After reflecting on the inevitability of death, Theognis recommends being accommodating to one’s friends (Elegies 1070-1071), but the direction in which Ben Sira takes the theme of carpe diem is not well attested.112 Turning to the Latin poets, the inevitability of death and the unknowability of the time of death converge in Horace’s famous ode, from which the phrase carpe diem originates. “Don’t you ask, Leuconoe – the gods do not wish it to be known – what end they have given to me or to you…How much better to accept whatever comes, whether Jupiter gives us other winters or whether this is our last…While we speak,

110 All translations of Egyptian literature are from LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature. Here the text is Instruction of Ptahhotep 34-35 (Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1:72). 111 See, e.g., the citations in HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 2:83-84; KAISER, Carpe diem und Memento mori bei Ben Sira, 185-189. 112 The text of Theognis reads: “Be happy soul: new souls will soon abound // And soon I’ll be inanimate black ground // My soul: be changeable with all your friends, // Adapt yourself to each one’s mood and style; // Now, be like this, and then, behave like that: // Cleverness conquers even excellence.” Translation from WENDER (ed.), Hesiod and Theognis, 134. Middendorp (Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 18-19) considers this passage to be the background for Sir 14:16, but see the cautious assessment in SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 32-33.

126


envious time will have flown past. Harvest the day [carpe diem] and leave as little as possible for tomorrow” (Odes I.11).113 Here the context involves enjoying romantic love while there is still time. Such an orientation towards the enjoyment of life is the predominant and characteristic one in the Greek and Latin literature. Therefore, the wider use of the carpe diem theme in antiquity provides an illuminating backdrop to Ben Sira’s understanding of death in Sir 14:3-19. What is remarkable about Ben Sira’s expression of the theme carpe diem is that having a generous disposition (14:5.7.13) is understood to be integral to what it means to be wise and to live the good life. In this regard, the best parallel to the connection between death and generosity in Sir 14:11-19 (though not the theme of carpe diem) is the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:16-21. In both cases someone lays up great resources for himself only to lose it through his unexpected death; but whereas in Luke the primary emphasis is on the sin of greed and on “being rich towards God” (i.e. being generous to others),114 Ben Sira focuses on the necessity of trusting in God’s providence in chapter 11 and on the wisdom of using money both for one’s own enjoyment and for the benefit of others in chapter 14. While Ben Sira shares with the wider Hellenistic world, including Qoheleth, the idea that death should prompt one to enjoy life in the present, his brief references to generosity in his discussions of miserliness and the enjoyment of life are distinctive. On the other hand, he shares with the Gospel of Luke the understanding that death should prompt one to be generous to others. But uniquely for Ben Sira, death leads to two related ethical demands: to enjoy the good things of life (carpe diem) and to be generous. Only in Ben Sira are these dual implications of the finality of death held together in this way.

113 Translation from WEST, Horace Odes I, 51. Similar ideas are present in other Latin poets, notably Virgil. 114 See the discussion in FITZMYER, Luke X-XXIV, 970-972. Also see below §5.4.1. Of course, Luke does not share Ben Sira’s view of the finality of death.

Conclusions and Implications

127

3.5 Conclusions and Implications In this chapter we have explored the way the finality of death affects Ben Sira’s understanding of the functionality of wealth. Whereas §2.1.1 showed how wealth is relativized intrinsically, Sir 14:3-19 relativizes it functionally. There is no neutral use of wealth. Either one hoards it or one uses it for good. In both cases, the ethical implications of one’s actions involve whether or not one enjoys life and the use or non-use of money for the benefit of others. In the Hellenistic world, the latter dimension, especially as it relates to cultivating friendships, stands out as a distinctive aspect of Ben Sira’s understanding of the theme carpe diem, though later authors such as Luke would develop it more. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that in Sir 14:3-19 the only explicit recipients of such generosity are “friends” (v. 13), though the socio-economic standing of these friends is not specified. Strictly speaking, Hamp is certainly correct to note that “hier ist zunächst nicht an Almosen gedacht, sondern an Gastfreundschaft.”115 At the same time, one senses that, for Ben Sira, generosity towards different levels of the socio-economic pyramid are related in terms of one’s disposition, as is clear from his juxtaposition of generosity to the poor and to “a kinsman or a friend” in Sir 29:9-10 (see §5.3 below). To anticipate the conclusions of the following chapters, we might say that Ben Sira counsels generosity to friends, whether rich or poor, and generosity to the poor, friends or not. Thus, the moral orientation towards the proper use of wealth that was studied in this chapter resonates with the theological shape of Ben Sira’s view of generosity to those in need more generally.

115 HAMP, Sirach, 39.

Chapter 4 Generosity through Loans and Surety 4.1 Introduction Within the book of Sirach, the most sustained instruction regarding the use of wealth for generous purposes occurs in chapter 29, where Ben Sira treats the topics of loans, almsgiving, and surety. Similar to the way generosity played a distinctive role in the previous chapter, here the role of generosity will be seen to be pivotal in the way Ben Sira’s thought negotiates the relationship between his religious traditions and the socio-economic realities of his time. In order to understand this aspect of Ben Sira’s understanding of generosity, a detailed exploration of Sir 29:1-20 will be the subject of the next two chapters. The present chapter will consider Ben Sira’s understanding of two related forms of financial generosity: loans and surety. These topics are actually treated twice in Sirach, once in 8:12-13 and again in 29:1-7.1420, and a comparison of the two is revealing. In their first treatment each topic receives only one verse and the tone is cautionary; in the second treatment Ben Sira’s advice is considerably expanded and recast in a more positive, theological light. In addition, a section on almsgiving intervenes between the discussion of loans and surety in the second text, but for reasons that will become clear this topic will be deferred until the following chapter. As background to the discussion of loans and surety in Sir 29 it will be illuminating to consider his earlier statements on these subjects in Sir 8:12-13.

129

Loans and Surety in Sirach 8:12-13

4.2 Loans and Surety in Sirach 8:12-13 Text

dbamk tywlh ~aw ~lXmk tbr[ ~aw

$mm qzx Xya hwlt la $mm rty br[t la

12 13

Textual Notes The Hebrew text is extant only in manuscript A, but these two verses, consisting of four stichs, are relatively free of textual problems. In the first stich of 8:13 the Hebrew’s $mm rty is ambiguous. The Greek’s u`pe.r du,nami,n sou (“beyond your ability;” cf. Latin: super virtutem tuam) reflects an adverbial understanding of the Hebrew in the sense of “in excess of your (means)” while the Syriac’s kNM nY$(d nML (“for one more powerful than you”) takes the phrase substantively in the sense of “one superior to you.” Both are understandable as derivations from the extant Hebrew and so independently attest to the correctness of the reading in manuscript A.1 The parallelism with v. 12 and the overall tenor of chapter 8 (see below) suggest that the interpretation reflected in the Syriac is the better reading of the Hebrew (so Box & Oesterley, Segal, and Smend; contra Skehan).2 The second stich of 8:13 is the only place in Sirach where the verb avpoti,nw occurs, and there is no consistent rendering of the verb ~lX elsewhere in the book. In context, this is an appropriate translation (cf. Ps 37:21; Prov 6:31; 22:27).3 Translation 12 Do not lend to someone who is more powerful than you but if you do lend, consider it lost 13 Do not go surety for someone greater than you but if you do go surety, consider it something you have to repay

1 2

3

PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 79; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 79. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 344; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 54; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 210; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 79. Peters believes the Syriac may have been influenced by the sense of v. 12 (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 79). But, the idea of v. 12 is consistent with the overall theme of the surrounding context, that of becoming unwisely entangled with those who are more powerful. Thus, the Syriac’s understanding of v. 13 appears to fit this theme a little better than the Greek. The latter could just as easily have been influenced by the other place Ben Sira discusses surety in Sir 29:14-20. Note especially 29:20, where the Syriac agrees with the Greek: “as much as you can.” Admittedly, the parallelism with 8:12 would be better if the text read $mm rty Xya. Also see WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 193.

130

Generosity through Loans and Surety

Comments This short section on loans and surety is located in the middle of a larger section of material in 8:1-19, which follows a short section on giving generously to the poor and precedes a discussion on women and friends in 9:1-16.4 The overall tone of 8:1-19 is cautionary and the theme that binds it together is the avoidance of social situations that put one at the mercy of others, especially those whose ethical standards might predispose them to take advantage of the situation to the student’s detriment. In this way, the section also has an air of common sense about it, as the student is enjoined not to fall prey to the characteristic qualities of the people mentioned. The structure of chapter 8 is debated. Box & Oesterley divide the chapter into six stanzas, Skehan & Di Lella and Schreiner into seven (though they disagree on which verses belong together), Segal into nine, and Peters into ten.5 In relation to our verses, 8:12-13, the question is whether they constitute a distinct subunit (Box & Oesterley, stanza 5; Schreiner, stanza 5) or are to be grouped with either verses 10-11 (Skehan & Di Lella, stanza 5, though the commentary further breaks the stanza into vv 10-11 and 12-13) or verse 14 (Peters, stanza 7; Segal, stanza 7). Whereas 8:8-9 are structured by alternating la and yk and 8:15-17 by alternating ~[ and yk, vv. 10-14 all simply use la. Nevertheless, I consider v. 14 ([jp]Xy wnwcrk yk jpwX ~[ jpXt la) to be a transitional verse since it begins with la but incorporates the combination of ~[ and yk in a way that parallels vv. 15-17. This would suggest that structurally vv. 10-11 and 12-13 are a unit, although in terms of content they are best seen as two subunits of two verses each. In 8:1-3 the student is instructed not to contend with the powerful, quarrel with the rich (whose resources outweigh his own), or argue with a “loud mouth.” The reason implied in all of these admonitions is 4

5

There is almost universal agreement that 8:1-19 constitutes a distinct unit. The major exception is Smend who sees a break between 8:7 and 8:8. He argues that 8:8-9 provide an opening to a new unit that runs from 8:8 to 10:29 with 8:10-19 constituting a subunit within this larger section (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 77). But given that there are several intertextual connections between 8:1-7 and 8:8-19 (see below) and that these 19 verses share a thematic social concern that is completely different from the content found in chapters 7 and 9, it is best to see 8:1-19 as a unified section. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 342-45; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 76-77; SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 54-57; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 52-55; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 209-211. Box & Oesterley, Schreiner, and Segal do not explicitly discuss the subdivision of the text and their positions represented here are based on headings they provide for each group of verses and/or the implications of their paragraph divisions in their commentaries.

Loans and Surety in Sirach 8:12-13

131

that the student runs the risk of a downfall at the hands of the unscrupulous. This motif is then inverted in the following four verses where it is the student who now has the upper hand. Yet, here the student is instructed not to use these situations as an opportunity to mistreat others. One should not mock the ill-bred, lest his own ancestors may be insulted (8:4), or reproach someone who is trying to turn away from sin, since we are all sinners deserving of punishment (8:5). The following two verses focus on two inevitable frailties: growing old and finally dying. The student is instructed not to disdain the old or to rejoice over someone’s death. The underlying theological assumption that prevents one from approaching others in a Machiavellian way is Ben Sira’s notion of retributive justice (cf. §2.1.2.2-3). Not surprisingly, then, in 8:8-9 Ben Sira turns to the respect of the sage. Students should busy themselves with the teachings of the wise and the elderly rather than slighting them, because there is a substantial payoff at the end: discipline that enables one to serve princes. The attention to the wisdom of the elderly in v. 9 connects back to v. 6 where Ben Sira advises not to disdain someone who is old. The teaching found in vv. 10-19 then returns to the theme of avoiding social interactions which place one in a precarious position with others. One should not “kindle the coals of sinners” (v. 10), lean on the insolent for support (v. 11), go to court against a judge (v. 14), travel with the reckless (v. 15), pick a fight with the quick tempered (v. 16), consult with fools (v. 17), or tell secrets to strangers (vv. 18-19). The theme throughout is that by putting oneself at the mercy of others precisely in the areas where they are most prone to sin, and thus take advantage of the situation, one becomes vulnerable to ruin. It is in this context that the instruction on loans and surety is found in 8:12-13. The teaching on lending in v. 12 and the teaching on surety in v. 13 follow the same structural pattern and seem intended to be contemplated in light of one another. These verses open with the warning against becoming financially vulnerable to someone who possesses more social and/or political power. As all commentators point out, the logic is simple. If one is socially inferior then there is no guaranteed manner of recourse to enforce the repayment of the loan or the debt for which one stood surety. The notable presupposition, which will be even more obvious in Sir 29, is that the court system at the time must have been sufficiently unreliable such that it could be manipulated in favor of the more powerful borrower.6

6

WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 80.

132


For this reason, Ben Sira advises the student to count the loan or the surety-debt as a loss. The precise sense of ~aw in the second stich of both verses is not completely clear. One possibility is to take it as providing the grounds for the statement in the first stich of each verse. Then the sense is that one should not lend to or go surety for someone more powerful because if one does, one has no reasonable hope of recouping the money.7 This fits the logic of the chapter well, but in the verses surrounding 8:12-13 Ben Sira repeatedly uses yk or !p to provide the grounds for his exhortations (cf. 8:8.9.10.14.15.16.17.18), which suggests that he has a different understanding in mind here. A similar approach is to take ~aw as conjunctive and principial. On this reading, vv. 12a and 13a express prohibitions regarding the powerful, while vv. 12b and 13b express the reservations one should have for others to whom one might lend or go surety, i.e. those of equal or lesser social standing.8 Finally, if one takes it as a disjunctive concession then the sense is that one should not lend or go surety, but if one does then it should be counted as a loss. In the following chapter Ben Sira follows a prohibition with a disjunctive, concessive use of ~aw (Sir 9:13) so it is possible here as well. Sauer’s translation also takes it as disjunctive and concessive, but in the sense of loans that have already been made: “Aber wenn du bereits geliehen hast, betrachte es als verloren.”9 Given the theme of Sir 8, I am inclined to view vv. 12b and 13b as in some way connected with the idea of being at the mercy of those more powerful (similarly, compare the function of vv. 10b and 11b in the closest related subunit). Thus, the disjunctive, concessive use appears to be the most likely interpretation, whether in terms of future loans or surety or those already made, though there is not a drastic difference in the different options in terms of their practical implications. Even on the understanding of ~aw as disjunctive and concessive, the principial interpretation is present as a secondary implication of the stich. Both verses end with elliptical clauses (dbamk, ~lXmk), which have a substantival sense: “as someone who will lose (it)” and “as someone

7

8

9

Cf. “The injunction of v 12a is sociologically validated by the experience of many recorded in v 12b. The reason why one should ‘count…as lost’ the loan made to a person more powerful than oneself is that one has no way of effectively ensuring repayment.” SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 213. This approach seems to underlie Skehan’s translation of ~aw in vv. 12b, 13b: “or when you lend, count it as lost…think any pledge a debt you must repay” (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 210). It should be noted that Skehan’s rendering of 13b as principial is almost necessitated by his decision in favor of the Greek’s understanding of the first stich, which he renders, “Go not surety beyond your means.” SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 96.

Loans and Surety in Sirach 29

133

who will repay (it).”10 Apparently those who would default on a loan or leave their surety to pick up the tab were prevalent enough that Ben Sira cautions against entering into such a financial endeavor unless one is willing to consider the sum of money as lost (in the case of loans) or as a debt which one will be forced to repay. In Sir 29:1-7, 14-20 below, Ben Sira will flesh out this rationale in considerable detail, giving us a striking picture of the social distrust of his time. For now, however, it can simply be observed that Ben Sira considers those who lend money or go surety to be placing themselves in a very precarious position, socially and financially (cf. 1 Sam 22:2). In the overall context of Sir 8, vv. 12-13 are pessimistically cautious, brief and pragmatic.11 The concern of these statements is to protect the students from being exploited and they thus share the reservations of Ps 37:21 regarding loans to the unscrupulous and are also in basic continuity with the warnings against surety in Proverbs, which are consistently negative in nature (cf. Prov 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26-27).12 As we will see in the next section, the discussion of loans and surety in chapter 8 lacks the more explicitly theological grounding found in the later discussion of chapter 29 concerning the connection to the commands of the Torah or the general benevolence of these acts, especially notable since this larger section follows the admonitions to give generously to those in need (7:32-36).13

4.3 Loans and Surety in Sirach 29 Commentators are agreed that 29:1 begins a new pericope because of the obvious change in content, from the issue of controlling one’s tongue to financial matters. Within chapter 29 itself, commentators divide the text differently. All commentators see a break between vv. 20 and 21 and thus classify 29:21-28 as a subunit. Gilbert notes that the presence of pro,sece (“take care”) in 28:26 and 29:20 brackets 29:1-20 as a distinct section.14 Beginning in 29:21 the discussion shifts from the perspective of those with means who are exhorted to give generously (vv. 1-20) to the virtue of moderation in contrast to the impoverished ruin that results from greedy financial mismanagement. 10 11 12 13 14

See VAN PEURSEN, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 357, 390. Cf. WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 46. SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 56-57. MORLA ASENSIO, Poverty and Wealth, 161. For a discussion of 7:32-36 see §7.3.2. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179.

134


But there is a difference of opinion with respect to vv. 1-20. Based on content and syntax there are natural divisions beginning in vv. 1.8.14, with vv. 1-7 dealing with loans, vv. 8-13 dealing with alms, and vv. 14-20 dealing with surety. Both Gilbert and Duesberg & Fransen follow this observation and break the text into three distinct sections.15 Similarly, Skehan & Di Lella consider vv. 1-20 to be one section consisting of three poems.16 Segal also makes a strong break between vv. 1-20 and vv. 21-28, but in the commentary he subdivides vv. 1-20 into seven subunits: vv. 1-3.4-5.6-7.8-10.11-13.14-17.18-20.17 Another option is reflected in the commentaries of Alonso Schökel, Box & Oesterley, Eberharter, Fritzsche, Peters, and Smend. These commentators take vv. 1-13 as one subunit and vv. 14-20 as another subunit.18 There is good reason for concluding that vv. 8-13 belong more closely with vv. 1-7 than with vv. 14-20. These two sections are the only two that explicitly ground their teaching in conformity to the commandments of the Torah and both sections seem to have Deut 15 in mind.19 Furthermore, in Ben Sira’s theology, giving alms is a kind of loan, albeit a uniquely theological one, and loans are understood to be an act of mercy (29:1). A mediating position can be derived from the observation that whereas vv. 1 and 14 present introductory thirdperson principles, vv. 8-13 are phrased in the second person. It would be possible, then, to see 29:1 as the overarching principle which governs vv. 1-13 and is fleshed out in two ways: regarding ‘normal’ loans (vv. 2-7) and regarding ‘special’ loans, i.e. alms (vv. 8-13).20

15 16

17 18

19

20

DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 220-225; GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 368-369. Crenshaw divides the chapter into only two sections: vv. 1-20 and vv. 21-28, though he does note in his brief comments that there is a strong disjunction in v. 8 (Book of Sirach, 773-776). Also, cf. SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 709-713. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176-179. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 247; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 410-412; EBERHARTER, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 103-105; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 160; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 234-240; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 242. Cf. “1-13 En dieciséis versos nos ofrece Ben Sira un comentario al precepto de Deut 15:7-8.” ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 247. Similarly, PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 235-237. This approach seems implied in the commentary of Sauer. In his introductory comments to Sir 29:1-20 he only divides the text into the giving of loans in vv. 1-13 and going surety in vv. 14-20. Yet, in the actual exegesis he treats v. 1 separately from vv. 2-7 and vv. 8-13. He sees v. 1 as applying to a neighbor in need, the exemplary examples of whom are widows, orphans, the poor, and the hungry (Jesus Sirach, 209210).


135

I agree that the sharpest division in chapter 29 comes between vv. 20 and 21 and that there are three subunits in vv. 1-20, with a greater conceptual affinity between the first two than either has with the third. However, there is a sharp syntactical break in v. 8 (“Nevertheless”: plh.n || mdB) that is indicative of two very different understandings about the recipients of loans (vv. 1-7) and of alms (vv. 8-13), which results from the fact that the two cases concern two different kinds of loans.21 As we will see in the next chapter, the almsgiver does not need to worry over a repayment from the recipient because ultimately it is a loan to God via the poor. In addition, in the Greek, forms of daneizw/danoj appear in vv. 1a.2.4, but not at all in vv. 8-13; likewise, in the Syriac, forms of the root pzY appear in vv. 1a.2.4.5.7, but not at all in vv. 8-13. On the other hand, the reference to the commandments in v. 1b provides a connection with vv. 9.11. As such, it seems to me that the mediating position is the best approach. Therefore, for heuristic reasons this study will examine 29:1-20 in the following way. The rest of this chapter will consider the topics of loans and surety in 29:1-7 and 14-20. Because these two topics were treated together in Sir 8:12-13, their expansion here warrants studying them together in relation to this earlier passage. The reason behind the interjection of the special case of almsgiving in the middle of the discussion of loans and surety in chapter 29 depends on a theological understanding of the poor that must be elucidated before vv. 8-13 can be discussed most profitably. Therefore, despite the fact that vv. 8-13 belong most closely with v. 1-7, a discussion of this subsection will be delayed until the next chapter.

4.3.1 Loans in Sirach 29:1-7 As mentioned in the introduction (§1.2.2), in passages where there is no extant Hebrew I will work mainly from the Greek version while using the Syriac version as a text-critical control. My translation will reflect the “eclectic” text derived from the text-critical discussion. 1 2

21

The Critical Greek Text o` poiw/n e;leoj daniei/ tw/| plhsi,on kai. o` evpiscu,wn th/| ceiri. auvtou/ threi/ evntola,j da,neison tw/| plhsi,on evn kairw/| crei,aj auvtou/ kai. pa,lin avpo,doj tw/| plhsi,on eivj to.n kairo,n

The syntax of 29:8 in the Syriac is common for beginning a new discourse unit. See VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 329-331.

136

Generosity through Loans and Surety 3 4 5

6

7

stere,wson lo,gon kai. pistw,qhti metV auvtou/ kai. evn panti. kairw/| eu`rh,seij th.n crei,an sou polloi. w`j eu[rema evno,misan da,noj kai. pare,scon ko,pon toi/j bohqh,sasin auvtoi/j e[wj ou- la,bh| katafilh,sei cei/raj auvtou/ kai. evpi. tw/n crhma,twn tou/ plhsi,on tapeinw,sei fwnh,n kai. evn kairw/| avpodo,sewj parelku,sei cro,non kai. avpodw,sei lo,gouj avkhdi,aj kai. to.n kairo.n aivtia,setai eva.n ivscu,sh| mo,lij komi,setai to. h[misu kai. logiei/tai auvto. w`j eu[rema eiv de. mh, avpeste,rhsen auvto.n tw/n crhma,twn auvtou/ kai. evkth,sato auvto.n evcqro.n dwrea,n kata,raj kai. loidori,aj avpodw,sei auvtw/| kai. avnti. do,xhj avpodw,sei auvtw/| avtimi,an polloi. ouv ca,rin ponhri,aj avpe,streyan avposterhqh/nai dwrea.n euvlabh,qhsan

Textual Notes [29:1a] The Syriac’s rendering has the subject and predicate reversed. In place of the subject o` poiw/n e;leoj the Syriac has the predicate )B+ )LBwX )Mr (“he piles up good rewards/interest”). As the Hebrew Vorlage to e;leoj, dsx is usually suggested22 (Di Lella, Fritzsche, Segal, Smend, etc.; cf. 46:7 and 49:3), though Peters suggests hqdc (“Almosen”).23 The latter can be discounted since one would expect evlehmosu,nh| for hqdc. The majority of commentators believe the Syriac’s syntax is correct since it conforms better to the parallel with the second stich, but the content of the Syriac’s predicate is probably a gloss influenced by the rest of the chapter (cf. 29:8-13 and the Syriac addition after 29:28). [29:4a] The Greek’s polloi. w`j eu[rema evno,misan da,noj appears to have arisen under the influence of v. 6b. Better is the reading of the Syriac: )tPzY) w(Bd )PwzY rYG ))yGS.24 [29:5c-d] Instead of the Greek’s parelku,sei cro,non, the Syriac has h$PN xYPM, which suggests either that the borrower groans at the time of repayment or that he causes the lender to groan since he is not being repaid. Duesberg & Fransen, Peters, and Smend follow the Syriac, whi22

23

24

This is a common equivalence in the LXX and depends on a semantic shift in the meaning of dsx during the Second Temple period. On this lexical shift, see JOOSTEN, dsx ‘bienveillance’ et e;leoj ‘pitié’, 25-42. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 410; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 160; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 235; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 369-370; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 256; cf. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176-177. So PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 236; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176-177; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 369; and SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 256; contra BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 411.


137

while Box & Oesterley, Segal, and Skehan & Di Lella accept the Greek. For v. 5d the Syriac has hL bhY ))YGS )NBzLw (“and [only] after much time does he give it to him”), which is accepted by Box & Oesterley and Smend (but not Peters). However, Segal observes that this can hardly be correct since the subsequent verses are about the ultimate defrauding of the lender. The danger in lending is not that people repay late; it is that they never repay at all (or in the best case scenario, half). Therefore, it seems to me that the best solution is to view the Syriac of v. 5d as mistaken. Yet, its origin is explainable as a corruption of the idea present in the Greek of v. 5c2. Therefore, with Segal and Skehan & Di Lella I accept the Greek readings for both stichs of v. 5c-d.25 Translation 1 2 3 4 5

6

7

He who lends to his neighbor acts mercifully and whoever gives him a hand keeps the commandments Lend to (your) neighbor in his time of need and repay (your) neighbor on time Keep your word and be trustworthy with him and on every occasion you will find what you need There are many borrowers who seek a loan and they cause trouble for those who help them Until he receives it he kisses his hand and speaks in a humble way about (his) neighbor’s wealth But at the time for repayment he delays and repays with excuses and finds fault with the time If he is able, he will scarcely recoup half and will regard it as a find But if not, he (the borrower) has defrauded him of his wealth and he (the lender) has acquired an enemy gratis Curses and insults he will repay him and instead of praise he will repay him with dishonor Many turn away not on account of wickedness (rather) they are afraid of being defrauded for no reason

Comments The first section of chapter 29, which appears to expand considerably the earlier instruction on loans in 8:12, is easily divisible into two main sections: the proper perspective and practice of loans (vv. 1.2-3) and the practical dangers of lending (vv. 4-7).26 For the sake of clarity in dis25

26

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 411; DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 220; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 234, 236; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 177-178; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 368; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 256-257. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179.

138


cussing the first section, it will be easier to begin with the practical realities of lending that are reflected in vv. 4-7 and then to return to vv. 13. In 29:4-7 Ben Sira accents both the widespread practice of requesting and giving loans and the often hazardous nature of lending. He begins by noting that requests for loans are a commonplace and that all too often the end result is the defrauding of the lender. How this happens is specified in vv. 5-7. Before he receives the loan money the prospective borrower flatters the potential lender. The nuance of the Greek phrase e[wj ou- la,bh| (Syriac: qzYd rYG )Nd(B) could be understood as referring to a period of time in which the borrower tries to persuade the lender to grant the loan or simply in the sense of “at the time of the transaction.” In order to secure the loan the obsequious supplicant engages in actions designed to flatter the potential lender with praise. While kissing is a common greeting in biblical literature, specifying the hand as the object is highly unusual. Kisses are generally signs of affection or respect; but the action of kissing someone’s hand is probably a gesture that crosses over into submission and servility, perhaps similar to kissing someone’s feet (cf. Esther 13:13 [LXX]; Luke 7:38, 45).27 The expression of submission through an act that connotes intimacy and loyalty intensifies the level of betrayal. One is reminded of the observation in Prov 27:6 that “Well meant are the wounds a friend inflicts, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” This gesture of praise in v. 5a is complemented in v. 5b with words of praise regarding the wealth of the potential lender. The Greek has tapeinw,sei fwnh,n, literally “he will humble the voice,” which Di Lella interprets to mean that he “speaks softly, thus suggesting that the money requested would be a trifling sum in view of such wealth.”28 For such an interpretation it is interesting that whereas the action of kissing is directed to the lender himself, the borrower’s words are directed towards his wealth. Of course, the latter is indirectly related to the lender since the praise of his wealth implies the praise of his stature (perhaps including that he has been blessed by God with such fortune).

27

28

So SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 177. While in Job 31:27 Job refers to kissing his own hand, there is no reference in the Hebrew Bible to kissing the hand of another person, though it can be found in later sources. For example, in T. Abr. 20:8-9, which probably dates to the late first century C.E., Abraham is said to offer a respectful kiss to Death’s hand and, as a consequence, immediately dies. See KEENER, Kissing, 628-629. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 370. Cf. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179.


139

The duplicity of the actions and words is revealed in v. 5c-d when the repayment is due. He delays returning the lender’s money and instead “pays back” excuses (avpodw,sei lo,gouj avkhdi,aj)29 and blames the due date rather than taking responsibility. It is not completely clear from Ben Sira’s description whether the borrower never intended to repay the loan in the first place or whether he had good intentions but simply defaulted. The overly deferential character of the actions in v. 5a-b suggests it is the former.30 In any case, for the lender the result is the same. In v. 6 Ben Sira describes the social corrosion that occurs when the lender tries to recoup his money. Now that the borrower has control over the money, the tables are turned. No longer is he is the servile petitioner; rather, the lender now is the powerless one and is relieved if he is cheated out of only half his money. He is so pleased to have recovered even half of the loan that he considers it a “find,” or a “windfall” (NRSV), as though he was lucky enough to find it. This is because more often than not the lender loses the entire amount and recovers nothing (v. 6c). While the borrower initially “repays” with excuses when the loan is called due, the disintegration of the earlier façade escalates as the only repayment the lender receives consists of curses, insults, and dishonor.31 The self-deprecating speech of v. 4 turns into indifference in v. 5 and finally into abusive speech in v. 6. The showering of praise in v. 4 becomes the showering of defamations in v. 6e-f.32 Whereas the lender should have been repaid his money and the appropriate honor for even helping the one in need, he instead receives no money. And to add a touch of humorous irony, Ben Sira remarks in v.

29

30 31

32

The word avkhdi,a is rare in biblical literature. In the LXX it translates hhk in Isa 61:3 (“weary”) and hgwt (“grief”) in Ps 118:28. It also has the sense of “weary” in Bar 3:1. While in wider Greek literature avkhdi,a means “indifference” or “apathy” (BAGD, 30), here in Sir 29:5 the Syriac’s h$PN xYPM probably implies that hhk, hgwt, or an equivalent was in the Hebrew as well. Thus, lo,gouj avkhdi,aj seems to be idiomatic for making excuses or being unconcerned. See FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 160. So SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 710. Di Lella interprets v. 6e-f as though the borrower eventually repays but reviles the lender while doing so (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 370). However, the Greek uses accusatives rather than datives (kata,raj kai. loidori,aj avpodw,sei auvtw/| kai. avnti. do,xhj avpodw,sei auvtw/| avtimi,an; cf. Syriac: )r(c )rQY) pLXw hL (rP )tYXwcw) and so it is better to see the curses as the ironic repayment in place of money, as does Segal (~lXh arys-!b rps, 178). The symmetry is nicely brought out by Eberharter who comments: “Sie vergessen sich dann sogar soweit, daß sie den Gläubiger noch mit Schmähungen überschütten” (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 104).

140


6d that, as a bonus, the lender has acquired an enemy gratis, or more colloquially, “at no additional cost” (dwrea,n || nGM). Because of this common treatment, many people refuse to lend because they fear being defrauded (v. 7). One’s ability to discern the reliability and intentions of the borrower are inversely proportional to the risk involved in lending and, since so many borrowers are very adept at winning the confidence of potential lenders, many people simply refuse the practice altogether.33 The language in the Greek is literally “many turn away,” a stock phrase for refusing to help those in need. It is remarkable that although “turning away” is condemned elsewhere in Sirach (e.g. 4:4-5; 14:8; 29:9), here Ben Sira concedes that many people who refuse to lend do this not because of wickedness (ponhri,aj || )tw$YB), but because they fear being defrauded. Why does Ben Sira offer this concession about the disposition of those who “turn away”? It seems to me that the best explanation is that Ben Sira is an utter realist. The harsh socio-economic realities of Seleucid Judea created numerous tensions in the practice of generosity (cf. §2.2.1). It is not so much that Ben Sira is inconsistent in his thinking, as that the complicated brokenness of social conditions makes the idealistic precepts of the received tradition regarding generosity difficult to implement in a consistent way. Ultimately, caution and balance come to characterize the sage’s navigation of the interface between tradition and social reality, and this is evident here in 29:1-7 as well. The use of dwrea,n in the Greek to modify the fraud in v. 7b connects the concession to the reality of v. 6. This wordplay highlights that Ben Sira is not ignorant of the realistic dangers in lending and is somewhat sympathetic to why many refuse to do so.34 Therefore, while risk is always an inherent part of extending a loan, in Ben Sira’s time the risk involved appears to have been considered very serious. Against this dismal picture of social relations in regard to money, Ben Sira’s exhortations to his students in vv. 1-3 are all the more striking. Within these three verses there are two ways to divide the material. One way is to observe that v. 1 contains the primary principle on which Ben Sira’s discussion proceeds while vv. 2-3 contain specific admonitions in light of this principle. Thus, one could divide these verses by the use of the indicative for the principle in v. 1 and the imperative (or, 33

34

As we will see in the discussion of Sir 12:1-6 below in §7.3.1, discernment regarding the character of a potential recipient is a problematic criterion for giving. Additionally, it should be remembered that in light of Sir 18:33 and 29:21-28 the borrower runs a considerable risk as well. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 180. Sauer points out that the vividness of the descriptions in vv. 4-6 reveal “ein erschreckendes Bild seiner Zeit” (Jesus Sirach, 210).


141

in the case of v. 3b, the second-person indicative) for the admonitions in vv. 2-3.35 However, Gilbert divides this section into two sets of three stichs by noting that vv. 1-2a take the perspective of the potential lender while vv. 2b-3 take the perspective of the potential borrower.36 Because the two stichs of v. 2 reflect reciprocal concepts, this verse acts as a hinge within the subunit of vv. 1-3. Ben Sira begins his instruction with two statements in which lending to one’s neighbor and extending a helping hand are placed in parallel and acting mercifully and keeping the commandments are placed in parallel. There are a number of developments that this principle shows in comparison to the previous statement in Sir 8:12. First, the negative caution that was expressed in 8:12 is replaced by a positive imperative. That social conditions were no more conducive to safe lending is apparent in vv. 4-7, but it is remarkable that the motivating factor for lending has changed. In 8:12 the sole concern of the warning was the student’s financial self-interest amid social dangers. The emphasis was on the risk of lending. But here in 29:1, the admonition is not only positive, but placed within an ethic of mercy (probably dsx) and grounded in Torah-obedience. Ben Sira, as is often his procedure, does not cite the commandment that applies here; but he apparently expects his students to know the passage he is referencing. Considering that there are only a few passages in the Pentateuchal legislation that deal with loans, the possibilities are fairly limited. But it is not clear whether Ben Sira has one particular passage in mind or a synthetic idea of the Torah’s teaching on loans as a collected whole. The versions provide no help in deciding the matter since the Greek has the plural evntola,j while the Syriac has the singular )NdQwP. Nevertheless, there is virtually a consensus that the primary text in view here is Deut 15:7-11,37 which states: If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. 8 You should rather open your hand, willingly lending e7

35 36 37

So also DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 221; cf. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 209-210. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179. While some commentators cite additional passages, this text is the only one cited in ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 247; HAMP, Sirach, 77; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 235; and SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 209. Duesberg & Fransen somewhat strangely cite the pericope right before this, Deut 15:1-6, as the primary background (Ecclesiastico, 221). In fact, outside of the legislation against charging interest (see below), Deut 15:7-11 and 24:10-13 are the only sections of the Pentateuch that address lending to a neighbor.

142


enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. 9 Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,” and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt. 10 Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. 11 Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”

It is obvious that this Deuteronomic passage concerns not just anyone, but specifically the poor, fellow Israelite ($crab $nybalw $yn[l $yxal). Furthermore, it is evident that the generosity depicted here is that of a loan, as is clear from the use of the verb jb[ in v. 8 and the worry over lack of repayment in v. 9.38 While the poor person is the primary focus of this pericope, the larger context juxtaposes [r with xa as the people under consideration. The rhetorical effect is to make these demands applicable to anyone in need within the Israelite covenant community.39 Neither socio-economic (or familial) distinctions nor social justice institutions, such as the law of the šümi††â , can be allowed to mitigate the obligation to be generous. Now, when we return to Ben Sira’s statements in 29:1-2, we notice that the person with whom the sage is dealing is characterized as a “neighbor” (plhsi,on || hrBX). Just as we saw regarding friendship, Ben Sira’s understanding of neighbors and kinsmen can transcend socioeconomic boundaries (cf. Sir 22:23-26; 29:10).40 In vv. 1-2a the neighbor is clearly someone who is in need (cf. v. 14), while in v. 2b the neighbor 38

39 40

Loans and interest on agricultural commodities were widespread in the ancient Near East. The expansion of the idea of lending to encompass any kind of economic need in Deut 15 reflects the transition to a more urbanized setting. See PLEINS, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible, 59. HAMILTON, Social Justice and Deuteronomy, 37-38. See the study of BEENTJES, The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira, 75-89. Beentjes concludes that xa is used for both blood relatives and for any member of the same nation. Similarly, the use of the word [r is not necessarily limited to those who live nearby or those of a comparable socio-economic standing, though in Sir 15:5 the [r appears to be Jewish. Elsewhere, [r is used predominantly with the sense of associate, companion, or friend. Likewise, in Greek society, there was a spectrum that spanned from immediate blood relatives to strangers. There were pseudo-kinship groups such as phratries (“brotherhoods”) and gene (“clans”), which were wider than relationships by blood or marriage. Both played vital roles in the social structure of the Athenian polis and provided a concentric conception of family allegiance: immediate family, male kinsmen, and, finally, associates in civic activities. See POMEROY, Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece.


143

is sufficiently well off to give a loan to the sage. Thus, the principle of v. 1 appears to be applicable to anyone who is in need, whether or not that person is of the same socio-economic standing as the sage.41 In fact, the warning in Sir 8:12 regarding lending to those who are more powerful implies that borrowing was not solely the activity of the poor and indigent.42 Given that the disjunctive syntax of v. 8 brackets out the poor in need of alms as being in a different category, it would seem that the focus of Deut 15 on any Israelite who is “poor and needy” has been further expanded in Ben Sira’s thinking to include anyone who falls into need, whether or not they are strictly classified as “the poor.” In this regard, Sir 29:1-3 is more aligned with the social situation, if not the practice of lending itself, that is presupposed by Deut 24:10-13.43 There is also a second and more significant difference between the two contexts. In Deut 15:7-11 the concern over lack of repayment stems from the approach of the year of remission, while in Sirach the concern stems only from the potential moral deficiency of the borrower. The practical application of the šümi††â law is mentioned in 1 Macc 6:53 and was still a live issue for Hillel (cf. m. Šeb. 10.3-6; m. Git.̣ 36a) and other rabbis (cf. Šabb. 148b; m. Mo‘ed Qat. 2b, 9b; m. Git.̣ 43b-44a; Qiddushin 38b) and so presumably was a topic of discussion in Ben Sira’s time as well.44 There is a promissory note from Murabba‘at that stipu41

42

43

44

Some scholars identify this pericope as concerning loans to the poor (or even the indigent), but there seems to be no reason to limit it in this way and v. 2b seems to cut against this, unless one imagines the sage as having fallen into poverty. But one can fall into financial straits such that a loan is needed without thereby having become “poor” per se. Cf. DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 170. This observation is consistent with depictions of lending in the Hebrew Bible as well. It is noticeable that in the prescriptions regarding the taking of pledges for loans in Deut 24:10-13 the conditional phrase “if the person is poor” in v. 12 implies that the borrowing “neighbor” of v. 10 is a larger category that just the impoverished (who is also called a “neighbor” in v. 13). It is conceivable that those among the upper classes might have used loans to try to inflate their standard of living and thereby gain a higher social standing. Interestingly, this same pattern of development can be seen in the diachronic development of the laws on charging interest. Whereas Exod 22:24 and Lev 25:35-38 specify that the law applies to “the poor,” Deut 23:20-21 applies the law to “your brother but not a foreigner.” While Gamoran believes on the basis of the passages in Exodus and Leviticus that “your brother” in Deut 23:20-21 is poor as well, we have already seen that Deuteronomy uses the language of “brother” to broaden the application of legislation to anyone in Israel, which is confirmed by its opposition to the foreigner in this passage (so also Neufeld). See GAMORAN, The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest, 130-131; NEUFELD, The Prohibitions against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws, 399-401. Also cf. SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 345-346. Cf. FALK, Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, 2:204-208.

144


lates that the šümi††â law would not be operative for the loan. The relevant section also provides for a one-fifth interest rate and the right of seizure upon default.45 However, already by the time of Hillel moves were being made to exclude such stipulations.46 Yet, the possible legal remission of the debt does not enter into Ben Sira’s equation as to why many refuse to lend. There is no clear answer for why this aspect of lending is passed over in silence, but perhaps the climate of the time made the issue of the šümi††â law something of a moot point. If many borrowers were content simply to default on their debts and to spurn the lender, then whether debts could be collected before or after the sabbatical year loses some of its relevance. The more pressing concern is that with no inner moral constraint on those who borrow there is no incentive to grant a loan at any time, not just as the year of remission is approaching. This would explain why Ben Sira believes that there is no shame in keeping written records of financial dealings (42:7), even though loans granted on an informal basis were not uncommon.47 It also illuminates the sudden switch of perspective from the student as lender in vv. 1-2a to the student as borrower in vv. 2b-3. The student must repay a debt at the due date; otherwise he risks financial collapse (cf. 18:33). By being honest and faithful he will establish credibility as a reliable borrower, thus ensuring that in the future he will find a lender when he is in need (v. 3b). It is this kind of ethical reliability that is the foundation for the reciprocity envisioned in v. 2. In fact, as Gilbert points out, v. 2 and v. 5b-c share verbal correspondences such that the actions of the student are in explicit contrast to the common actions of defaulting debtors. Verse 2, then, is literarily central and the reciprocity reflected therein is to be understood as the core of Ben Sira’s sociological vision, which stands in contrast to the reality expressed in vv. 4-7.48 From this vantage point, it is all the more remarkable that Ben Sira does not address other strategies that evolved to counteract the possi-

45

46

47 48

The text is published in BENOIT, et al, Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât, 100-104. The relevant section can be found in lines 5-8. The editors classify the stipulation as the prozbul, but there is no mention of rerouting the loan agreement through the courts or any other third party (cf. the procedure in m. Šeb. 10.3-4). FALK, Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, 2:208. Other rulings such as the prozbul were being made that on the surface look to circumvent Deut 15, but were in actuality designed to maintain responsible lending by guarding against embedded interest through fluctuations in market value between the time of a commodity loan and the repayment. See CHILTON, Debts, 114. FALK, Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, 2:204. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 179.


145

bility of defaulting on a debt. In order to reduce the risk involved, creditors had introduced two safety measures. The first was to lend against collateral. On the basis of Exod 22:24-26 and Deut 24:10-13 (cf. Ezek 18:7-13) it appears that originally a pledge was taken at the due date and was held until the debtor repaid the debt, but eventually creditors started demanding collateral up front.49 In the event that the potential debtor did not possess the requisite collateral he could ask a third party to go surety for him, a practice which Ben Sira addresses in 8:13 and below in 29:14-20. However, while the goal of collateral was simply to secure repayment, another measure was instituted that went further. By charging interest the creditor was able not just to encourage repayment sooner rather than later, but also to earn money on the transaction as well. While lending on collateral was still a form of helping one’s neighbor (the pledge only helped to protect the creditor from default), the charging of interest sought to profit from the plight of one’s neighbor. Seeligmann astutely observes that these two procedures appear to have emerged separately and that the distinction between the two remains in Sir 29.50 Yet, a qualification must be made. On one hand, it appears clear enough that Ben Sira (in agreement with the Torah) did not have an implicit objection to lending on collateral. If he had, he would not have advocated that his students be willing to participate in the practice as a third party (i.e. going surety). Furthermore, his cautious disposition in 8:12-13 and 29:14-20 (see below) demonstrates that he was not blind to protecting oneself from being exploited by unscrupulous debtors. On the other hand, it is notable that in his instructions to his students as lenders in 29:1-7 he does not say anything about the taking of collateral to protect themselves. As a debtor, a person may offer collateral in order to secure a loan for himself or, as a third party, for his neighbor, but given the gloomy picture of lending in vv. 4-7 it is somewhat surprising that Ben Sira does not suggest the taking of collateral as a means of protection.

49

50

There is debate on whether the pledge originally was held throughout the period of the loan or only during the time between the due date and the actual (late) repayment. For the latter view, see SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 330-336. SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 338-339. But it should also be noted that the two could be combined in complicated ways. For example, a third-party surety could exact interest from a debtor in return for the risk he assumes in going surety. This procedure is one of the options for interpreting v. 19 (see below) and would somewhat undercut Seeligmann’s argument that the two procedures remained distinct in Sirach.

146


In line with Seeligmann’s observations, it is perhaps more significant that Ben Sira does not mention the charging of interest, as Smend had already pointed out.51 However, while not explicit, I do think the charging of interest is indirectly addressed by Ben Sira insofar as the whole discussion is framed as being about the mercifulness (e;leoj ≈ dsx) of lending to one’s neighbor (v. 1). When a person falls into need there are really only two reasons one might lend to them. If one charges interest, it is to use their need as an opportunity to make more money from them; but if one does not charge interest, then it is solely to help them, since the risk involved for the lender is only countered by his sense of generosity in conformity to the divine commands. Consider the three Pentateuchal passages on lending on interest: If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbor's cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor's only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate. (Exod 22:24-26 [25-27 English]) If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit. (Lev 25:35-37) You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. 21 On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess. (Deut 23:20-21 [19-20 English])

In the passage from Exodus the taking of collateral is conceded, but lending at interest is forbidden. The passage in the Covenant Code understands lending as being acceptable only when it is done out of generosity.52 In the legislation from Leviticus, the proactive dimension 51

52

This observation by Smend has been repeated by virtually every commentator since (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 256). As one example, Crenshaw says that “In accord with the prohibition against charging Jews interest on loans, it plays no role in this discussion of loans” (Book of Sirach, 774-775). SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 339. It should be noted that the final clause of Exod 22:24 is com-


147

of helping the kinsman is added. Finally, in Deuteronomy there are two fundamental changes. First, the prohibition on interest is widened from being just applicable to monetary loans to being applicable to any kind of loan. But, secondly, the prohibition is explicitly restricted to being applicable only to fellow Israelites. It is perfectly legitimate to charge interest on a loan to a foreigner. The proactive dimension found in the Holiness Code appears in Deut 15 as well, though the charging of interest is not mentioned. Nevertheless, the polemic in Ezek 18 makes it clear that this legal requirement was frequently ignored (cf. Ezek 22:12). In addition, texts like Ps 15:5 and Prov 28:28 presuppose that lending at interest was a considerable problem. Closer to the time of Ben Sira, Aramaic papyri at Elephantine from the mid-fifth century reveal that Jews there lent both money and produce on interest.53 Among the Tebtunis Papyri there are two Greek documents dating from 182 and 174 B.C.E. (i.e. exactly contemporary with Ben Sira) that detail loans on interest between Jews “of the epigone” in Egypt. In the earlier document the house of the borrower stood as collateral and interest was only to begin accruing if the debt was not repaid by the end of the year (along with a 50% penalty for failure to meet the deadline). Thus, within the temporal terms of the agreement, the loan was technically “without interest” (atokos), though the lender stood to profit considerably when the time for repayment elapsed. But in fact, in most cases the adjective atokos designated a loan with “embedded” interest. In other words, one would agree to a loan of more than one actually received from the lender. In the second document, a business partner is required to repay a loan that bore a 24% interest rate (normal in Ptolemaic Egypt), yet here it is not a cash loan, but a loan on capital.54 These examples are not meant to suggest that as a general rule Jews during the Second Temple period disregarded the legislation against charging interest, though some obviously did. But they do suggest that the classification of loans as either without interest or with interest was by no means as simple in the Hellenistic economic world as is suggested by the rather straightforward prescriptions of the Torah. The degree to which a specific loan between two Jews actually violated the

53

54

monly assigned to a secondary layer, as evidenced by its change from the singular to the plural. STEIN, The Development of the Jewish Law on Interest, 6. Stein comments, “That biblical injunctions are completely ignored is not surprising, if one realizes that even strict monotheism was not adhered to by the Egyptian Jewish colony.” For the documents and a nuanced discussion of them see MODRZEJEWSKI, The Jews of Egypt, 112-119.

148


Pentateuchal legislation frequently could be a gray area. Against this background, Ben Sira’s failure to mention interest explicitly is somewhat surprising. Ben Sira does not enter into a halakhic debate about the parameters for lending; rather he considers lending only from the vantage point of mercy and covenant faithfulness. The fact that this concept in v. 1 is paralleled by the idea of “extending a helping hand” indicates that for Ben Sira lending fulfills the commandments only when it is done from a disposition of generosity. The important point is that one helps others in need, not a certain position on the complexities of the nature of charging interest. By side-stepping the issue of charging interest and going to the core orientation of lending as an act of mercy, Ben Sira grounds the whole discussion in a piety which is directly opposed to the exploitation of others, either by using their needs to further one’s own wealth or by taking advantage of others’ generosity through the evasion of the responsibility of repaying a debt. In this regard, the fundamental opposition of vv. 1-7 highlights the fact that Ben Sira does not exhort his students to lend in a merciful way, i.e. without interest; rather he presupposes that lending qua lending should be de facto merciful. In other words, it is significant that v. 1 is cast in the indicative, not as an imperative, because he frames the entire discussion of loans in a wisdom piety that is necessarily generous by nature. Ben Sira does not bypass the social realities that make lending a risky venture in order to impress upon his students the necessity of lending to their neighbors. Remarkably, he goes into impressive detail concerning just how risky such an activity can be. But while this may dissuade others from lending (v. 7), the sage must be willing to lend anyway because such generosity is divinely mandated. Gilbert astutely observes that the only biblical precedent for such generosity in the face of such risk is found in Ps 37.55 This psalm contrasts the different ways of life of the righteous and the wicked and is often classified as a wisdom or instructional psalm. A central theme of the psalm is that the righteous should not worry about the current exploits of the wicked because eventually God will intervene to vindicate the righteous and judge the wicked. Especially important for our purposes is that in v. 21 the psalmist says, “the wicked person borrows and does not pay back, but the righteous person is generous and keeps giv-

55

GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 181.


149

ing” (!twnw !nwx qydcw ~lXy alw [Xr hwl).56 This is then followed by the assurance that “those blessed by the LORD shall inherit the land and those cursed by him shall be cut off.” The difference between Ps 37 and Sir 29 is notable. Whereas the former handles the exploitation of the righteous by the wicked by appealing to the coming divine judgment, Ben Sira roots his understanding of lending solely in obedience to the divine commands and the notion of mercy. It is not until later in the passage, during the discussion of almsgiving, that he introduces the possibility of divine recompense. The fact that Ben Sira’s understanding of lending is conceptualized in terms of Torah-obedience while also remaining cognizant of the real possibility that the borrower will not repay is a significant development over the treatment of loans in earlier biblical texts.57 By attending to the larger context in which this pericope is set, a better appreciation for the nature of this piety is gained. Based on Harvey’s model, shown in the introduction (§ 1.2.3), chapter 29 is situated in the first section of the second half of the book. This section is introduced by the wisdom poem in 24:1-34, which depicts Wisdom as having been localized in the Jerusalem Temple (24:8-11) in the form of the Torah (24:23).58 This perspective on wisdom seems to govern the remainder of the section in 24:1-32:13, which is titled by Harvey as “Applying Wisdom to the Covenant Community.”59 Topics in this section largely revisit topics from the first half of the book, especially specifically social ones, such as a contrast between godly and wicked women (25:13-26:18; cf. 9:1-9), friendship (27:16-21; cf. 6:15-17; 9:10-16; 13:15-23; 19:13-17; 22:19-26), and the raising of children (30:1-13; cf. 7:23-25; 16:14; 22:3-4).60 56

57

58

59 60

Seeligmann suggests that the context here implies that !tn has the specialized meaning of “lending” (Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 321). Cf. “En envisageant le prêt sans intérêt, comme la Torâ prescrit (Sir 29,1b), il développe son analyse plus qu’aucun auteur biblique avant lui. Seul le Ps 37,21 avait parlé brièvement du débiteur qui ne restitue pas.” GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 181. See SCHNABEL, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul, 69-92; SHEPPARD, Wisdom and Torah, 166-176. It should be pointed out that in some places, such as Sir 24:23, the “Torah” seems to refer to some form of Deuteronomy while in other places, such as Sir 38:34-39:1, the “Torah” seems to refer to the whole Pentateuch. Cf. HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 119-120. HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order, 57, 61. Within this larger section, Skehan & Di Lella have 10 subsections, two of which are 29:1-20 and 29:21-30:13 (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, xv). Smend, on the other hand, sees chapter 29 as part of a subsection that runs from 27:4 to 29:28 (Die Weisheit des Jesus

150


Within this section, which applies the understanding of wisdom in chapter 24 to the covenant community, is situated the discussion of loans, almsgiving, and surety in 29:1-20. What is notable is that an appeal to the Torah is never made in discussions of financial generosity in the first half book. Therefore, the placement of chapter 29 in the section that begins with the Wisdom-Torah poem in chapter 24 implies a Torah-grounded perspective in Ben Sira’s teaching on this topic, a dimension not as explicit in his earlier treatment of these topics.61 The overall effect of this literary context is that it takes his economic ethics and pushes them beyond the merely pragmatic into the realm of the overtly providential.62 The truly wise person faithfully acts in accordance with God’s demands, even if such action appears to be pragmatically unwise. To conclude our discussion of Ben Sira’s understanding of loans, we might characterize his teaching as utterly realistic in regard to the social risks involved in lending; but by rooting the practice in a Wisdom-Torah piety, the sage reveals the fundamental tension between faithfulness to the tradition and practical considerations in a less than ideal environment. For Ben Sira these harsh social realities do not mitigate the obligation to lend to someone in need, even if an air of caution attends this act of mercy. While the refusal of many to lend to their neighbors is understandable, the Wisdom-Torah ideal of generous mercy to one’s neighbors takes precedence. This is a considerable development beyond the instruction in 8:12, which was primarily concerned with guarding against possible exploitation. The very difficulty in assuming this risk brings the virtue of being generous into greater relief. The lower the recipient is on the socio-economic pyramid, the less inclined to lend one might be. Nevertheless, as we will see in the next chapter, the poor occupy a special theological category such that the concern over a possible default is wholly ameliorated by the structure of the divine economy. But before considering this special kind of

61

62

Sirach erklärt, 242). Similarly, Peters places chapter 29 in a subsection ranging from 26:28 to 29:28 (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 220). Cf. “For the general understanding of the book, it is important to note the point of connecting the admonitions of wisdom literature (‘help a poor man’) with the Mosaic covenant (‘for the commandment’s sake’, 29.9). The variation between admonitions of a very general tone and explicit mention of obeying the commandments given by Moses is to be explained by the fact that Ben Sirach was intentionally defining the values of the well-established wisdom tradition in terms of the Mosaic covenant: that wisdom which is universally sought is in fact truly represented by and particularized in the Torah given by God through Moses (see especially 24.23).” SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 331. See SCHNABEL, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul, 87-88.


151

loan, let us consider an alternate practice of lending, that of going surety.

4.3.2 Surety in Sirach 29:14-20

14 15 16 17 18

19 20

The Critical Greek Text avnh.r avgaqo.j evgguh,setai to.n plhsi,on kai. o` avpolwlekw.j aivscu,nhn evgkatalei,yei auvto,n ca,ritaj evggu,ou mh. evpila,qh| e;dwken ga.r th.n yuch.n auvtou/ u`pe.r sou/ avgaqa. evggu,ou avnatre,yei a`martwlo,j kai. avca,ristoj evn dianoi,a| evgkatalei,yei r`usa,menon evggu,h pollou.j avpw,lesen kateuqu,nontaj kai. evsa,leusen auvtou.j w`j ku/ma qala,sshj a;ndraj dunatou.j avpw,|kisen kai. evplanh,qhsan evn e;qnesin avllotri,oij a`martwlo.j evmpesei/tai eivj evggu,hn kai. diw,kwn evrgolabi,aj evmpesei/tai eivj kri,seij avntilabou/ tou/ plhsi,on kata. du,nami,n sou kai. pro,sece seautw/| mh. evmpe,sh|j

Textual Notes [29:15] The Syriac omits this verse, probably through homoioarchton (tbwj).63 [29:16-17] The Syriac renders v. 16 as )Lw( qwB$N )Br(d )twBY+ (“the goodness of a surety pardons iniquity”), apparently reversing the nominative and the accusative and presupposing bz[ as the verb (probably under the influence of v. 17; so Segal).64 As Smend points out, if we presuppose that underlying dianoi,a| in v. 17 was Arc.yi then the Syriac’s hQrP qB$ hYrB qB$dw becomes understandable as a misreading (Arc.y)o .65 The translation of avca,ristoj evn dianoi,a| as “the one inclined to-

63 64

65

SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179. Both qbX and bz[ came to include the meaning “forgive” in the Second Temple period because of a shift in the understanding of sin to that of a debt. This understanding of bz[ can be seen, for example, in 11QMelchizedek ll.6-7. See ANDERSON, From Israel’s Burden to Israel’s Debt, 17-18. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 260. As Hadot has shown, the word rcy in Sirach does not have the intrinsic sense of an “evil inclination” which constrains someone, as in later writings. Rather, the word has a voluntarist dimension. The present verse is discussed only briefly in HADOT, Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la sagesse de Ben Sira, 112.

152


wards ungratefulness” is similar to that of Gilbert (“un ingrat par inclination”).66 [29:18] The Greek’s evggu,h pollou.j avpw,lesen kateuqu,nontaj is in need of emendation. The placement of the participle kateuqu,nontaj after the verb is a little awkward and the Syriac does not reflect it. Smend omits it from his translation. Peters, who retains the participle, suggests that the Greek has misread ~yrIV'aum. as ~yrIV.a;m. (so also Segal). The corrected vocalization gives the sense of “prosperous.” The presence of the participle is retained and emended to this sense by most commentators.67 [29:19] The Syriac has )h+X yhL( wLBQML pdrdw (“the one who persists in taking sins upon himself”) instead of the Greek’s diw,kwn evrgolabi,aj. Box & Oesterley follow the Syriac here, but the whole of v. 19 in the Syriac appears to be periphrastically expanded.68 It is, therefore, probably better to follow the Greek. [29:20] The Greek has avntilabou/ (“help”) while the Syriac has the more specific bwr( (“go surety”). Segal suggests that the Greek reflects rz[, which could be confused for br[. Due to the similarity to Sir 8:13, most commentators opt for the Syriac here.69 Translation 14 A good person will go surety for (his) neighbor but the one who has lost any sense of shame will abandon him 15 Do not forget the goodness of your guarantor for he has given his life on your behalf 16 A sinner ruins the goods of the guarantor 17 and the one inclined towards ungratefulness abandons his rescuer 18 Surety has ruined many prosperous people and tossed them about like waves of the sea It has exiled powerful people and they wandered around foreign nations 19 The sinner falls in going surety and his pursuit of profit causes him to fall into lawsuits 20 Go surety for (your) neighbor as you are able but be careful that you do not fall yourself.

66 67 68 69

GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 184. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 239; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 260. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 412; on the Syriac of Sir 29:19 see VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 48-49. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179; cf. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 240; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 369; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 261.


153

Comments As with the discussion of loans, in this pericope Ben Sira begins by stating the overarching principle, follows it with an exhortation, and then gives a descriptive account of the perils of the practice. However, he then concludes this section with a description that has a rhetorically ethical function (v. 19) and with another imperative (v. 20). Whereas the imperatives on lending in vv. 2-3 addressed the student as both lender and borrower, here these situations are reversed and divided. In v. 15 the exhortation is given from the perspective of the student who receives the benefit of his neighbor’s going surety for him and the command involving the student as the one going surety is delayed until the end of the passage in v. 20. Gilbert divides this pericope into two sections, vv. 14-17 and vv. 1820 and views v. 15 as the central verse of the first section (much like v. 2 in vv. 1-7).70 But a more likely division seems to occur between vv. 18 and 19 since vv. 16-18 all concern the exploitation of a well meaning guarantor by an unscrupulous borrower, against which the sage warns his students in v. 15. Verse 19, on the other hand, concerns the practice of unscrupulous guarantors who exploit those in need. These two sides of the practice are then integrated in the cautious exhortations of v. 20. Therefore, structurally v. 14 gives the dual principles of the goodness of going surety and the need for the borrower to honor his guarantor. This is then fleshed out chiastically in vv. 15-18 regarding the role of the borrower and in vv. 19-20 regarding the role of the guarantor. We will consider these three subunits in order. In v. 14a Ben Sira states the principle that going surety for one’s neighbor is a characteristic of the good person. In this way it mirrors the goodness of lending found in v. 1. Originally, the practice may have evolved when a normal two-party loan was on the brink of insolvency and a third party intervened in order to prevent the seizure of property or person(s) from the debtor. In an extreme case the borrower (or a pledged member of his family) could have faced debt-slavery unless a third party intervened on his behalf.71 But eventually it came about that if a lender had sufficient doubts as to the ability of the borrower to repay the loan and the latter was not in a position to offer a pledge, he would request a third party to offer up collateral in order to secure the loan.72 If the borrower defaulted, the guarantor was then responsible for satisfying the obligation. Because the guarantor is the last hope be70 71 72

GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 184. Similarly, cf. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 210; DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 172. See FALK, Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, 2:213.

154


fore financial collapse or the loss of the borrower’s freedom, the generosity of going surety can often involve high stakes, both for the borrower and for the guarantor. The phrasing of v. 14b is somewhat ambiguous. The Greek reads: kai. o` avpolwlekw.j aivscu,nhn evgkatalei,yei auvto,n, which could be understood either as referring to a potential guarantor or to a potential borrower. In the former scenario, the sense is that while a good person goes surety for his neighbor (v. 14a), the shameless one abandons his needy neighbor by refusing to go surety for him. In the latter scenario, the sense is that even though a person does a good deed by offering to go surety, the shameless borrower abandons his obligation, leaving the generous guarantor responsible for the debt. In favor of the latter interpretation is the fact that v. 17 recapitulates the idea but with the subject and object identified. It is the ungrateful one who abandons (evgkatalei,yei) his rescuer.73 Thus, v. 14 provides the fundamental sociological tension that drives the rest of the discussion. The aspect of goodness and generosity in going surety is what produces the vulnerability of being exploited. The modern tongue-in-cheek aphorism “no good deed goes unpunished” would have resonated with Ben Sira’s attempt to navigate the ideological virtue of financial generosity and the social reality that many have been financially ruined by doing so. This modern aphorism also highlights the fact that lurking behind this tension is the more general systemic tension involved in Ben Sira’s understanding of retributive justice. The following six verses bring this dynamic into greater relief. After the dual principles of v. 14, Ben Sira provides an exhortation in v. 15 that contrasts with the principle in v. 14b. Rather than acting as someone who has “lost any sense of shame,” the student is to remember the goodness of his guarantor. The assumption is that his generosity demands a level of gratefulness commensurate with the risk he incurred on the borrower’s behalf. This “remembering” also naturally includes the timely repayment of the debt for which he stood surety, in conformity with the admonitions of vv. 2b-3. In the event that circumstances require the guarantor to satisfy the creditor, this gratefulness would then include the recompensing of the guarantor for the debt since he has now become the “new” creditor (thus moving the situation into the scenario described in vv. 1-7). The second stich of v. 15 emphasizes this by reminding the student that the guarantor “has given his

73

GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 184. Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371. The verbal correspondence is only in the Greek. In the Syriac qr( is used in v. 14b and qB$ is used in v. 17 (but see the text-critical note on v. 17 above).


155

life on your behalf.” Di Lella comments that this statement is “an exaggeration to dramatize the point,” though if so, it is not by much.74 The precarious position of the guarantor is aptly illustrated in v. 18, which describes the way in which a guarantor runs the risk of complete financial ruin and of becoming a vagabond in foreign lands. His instability and loss of control over his own financial fate is vividly pictured as being “tossed about like waves of the sea.” The only similar image elsewhere in Sirach occurs in 33:2, but the motif also recurs frequently in Greek literature (cf. Jas 1:6).75 The reference in the following pericope to the insults of the creditor (v. 28) suggests that the miserable life of the one who must serve in the house of a foreigner, a fate worse that poverty (vv. 22-24), is to be identified as that of those who have come to ruin through surety.76 Therefore, while the biological life of the guarantor may not be at risk, the fuller sense of “life” envisioned by Ben Sira certainly is. He describes such financial ruin as “a miserable life” (v. 24) and elsewhere he uses terms similar to the description in 29:21-28 to instruct his students that it is “better to die than to beg” and that being dependent on a stranger is “not to be considered a life” (40:28-29).77 From this vantage point, the comment in v. 15b that the guarantor risks his life should not be downplayed as less serious than it is.78 The magnitude of thankfulness that should be elicited from the borrower is buttressed by viewing it against the background of the descriptions of the exploitation by the wicked borrower in vv. 16-17. These two stichs are placed in parallel such that the “sinner” is identified with the “one inclined towards ungratefulness.”79 He abandons his 74 75 76

77 78 79

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371. Note the similar “life and death” characterization in Prov 6:1-5, on which see below. See the discussion and examples cited in DIBELIUS, James, 81-82. The description in vv. 21-28 is taken by Peters (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 240-242) and Eberharter (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 105-106) to allude to the merchant who goes abroad to try to become wealthy, but the reference to the creditor in v. 28 and the correspondence between the references to wandering through foreign lands in v. 18 and vv. 22-24 make it more likely that the subject of vv. 21-28 is the person who has been ruined financially from the practice of going surety. It is thus a contrast to the warning in v. 20. See DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 224; GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 184; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 211; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 180; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 376; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 711-712. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 473. Similarly, HARRINGTON, Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom:, 29-30. Weil argues that the wicked person in v. 16 is a creditor, but in the context of vv. 15b-17 this person can only be identified as the debtor. WEIL, Gage et cautionnement dans le Bible, 227.

156


financial obligations with no thought for the financial disaster it will bring the one who was kind enough to stand surety for him. The reason is his internal disposition. He is “inclined towards ungratefulness” and therefore does not recognize, as Ben Sira does, that his guarantor was in fact “his rescuer.” Despite being pulled from the brink of disaster, he is ungrateful to the point that he thinks nothing of plunging the one who helped him into the same disaster from which he was rescued. This appallingly corrupt phenomenon must have been fairly common in Ben Sira’s day.80 The scope of this vulnerability is accented in v. 18 by the phrases “many prosperous people” and “powerful people.” This phenomenon is common enough to be well-known, and not even the wealthy and powerful are able to extricate themselves once they are at the mercy of an unscrupulous borrower. Given this stark reality, the student is encouraged to be aware that when a third party agrees to go surety for him, he does so at considerable risk. This risk should be recognized (v. 15b) and repaid with gratefulness. As with lending (cf. v. 2b-3), Ben Sira calls his students to a financial ethic that reestablishes trust between neighbors. Once a “sense of shame” is lost, the social fabric begins to deteriorate and those who pay the most acute price are those in true and dire need who cannot find a “rescuer” because an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust has been cultivated through greed and the corresponding lack of empathy. After addressing the social problem of the wicked borrower, Ben Sira turns to a new situation in v. 19. This verse is obscure in terms of the persons involved, which has led to two different interpretations. The first interpretation takes the “sinner” as referring to a creditor who extends a loan, hoping to seize the pledge in the case of insolvency. His “falling (evmpesei/tai) into lawsuits” would be for failing to return the pledge in violation of the prescriptions of the Torah (Exod 22:25; Deut 24:12-13). This is the interpretation of Di Lella and Weil. Di Lella comments that the person under consideration “is probably…the person who readily accepts the pledge of debtors in the hope that they cannot repay the loan, which would then give him the right to keep the pledge.” The way Di Lella has phrased his interpretation, it sounds as though it is only a two-party transaction rather than a surety. Rather, in this context, if the “sinner” is the creditor then he would accept the pledge of the guarantor, hoping that the debtor would default so that he could keep the guarantor’s property. However, in this scenario his prosecution in court would depend on the transferal of the Torah pro-

80

SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 211.


157

scriptions from the situation of a two-party loan to that of a third-party surety.81 The second interpretation involves identifying the “sinner” with the guarantor so that the transaction imagined is one in which the guarantor charges either a fee or interest for his willingness to go surety and thus seeks to profit off the desperation of his neighbor.82 He will come to grief for precisely the reasons explained in the previous verses: his ability to profit is based on the willingness of the debtor to repay the debt as well as his surcharge. The language of falling into lawsuits would then elaborate the “coming to grief,” i.e. it will not be long until this guarantor has an absconding debtor and the unscrupulous, risktaking guarantor is dragged into court by the creditor who seeks to recoup the loan. In addition, the identification of the “sinner” with the unethical guarantor provides a transition to the contrast presented in v. 20. A possible counterargument would be that according to vv. 16-18 many people have been ruined by going surety, not just the sinner who seeks to profit. In reply, it should be remembered that Ben Sira often conceives of financial matters in terms of the model of retributive justice, but he is also aware that social realities have resulted in disparities within the model. Because v. 19 sets up v. 20, it has the rhetorical effect of showing the improper response to the social realities of vv. 16-18. The obscurity of the phrasing of v. 19 prevents knowing for certain which option Ben Sira had in mind, though it is possible that he was simply referring to any immoral involvement in surety, which could include both interpretations of the sinner as the creditor and as the guarantor. Whereas the risk involved in going surety might tempt some to see the only two “wise” choices as either declining to stand surety or to offset the risk involved by profiting off the practice, Ben Sira sees this approach as characteristic of the sinner. While it appears to be practical, it is in reality unwise since it exploits those in need. Such a person sows the seeds of his own downfall by taking this route.83 However, consistent with his recognition that social realities are 81 82

83

Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371-372; WEIL, Gage et cautionnement dans le Bible, 227-228. So BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 412; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 163; GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 184-185; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179; and SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 261. Additionally, the passage is understood this way by FOX, Proverbs 1-9, 215; and SANDOVAL, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 108. In light of our discussion in chapter 2, one will immediately hear the echo of the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model of retributive justice.

158


not always commensurate with the theological paradigm of retributive justice, he also is aware that the risk can be just as real for those who go surety in an upright manner, as is clear from the language of v. 20. In contrast to the seemingly pragmatic dichotomy of declining surety or offsetting the risk through profit, Ben Sira concludes his discussion with an imperative to stand surety for one’s neighbor. This positive command provides a counterpart to the indicative regarding the good person in v. 14a and frames the discussion with an inclusio. However, unlike Ben Sira’s discussion of lending and borrowing in vv. 1-7, this exhortation is explicitly tempered with a caution. The practice of standing surety should be only in proportion to one’s means (kata. du,nami,n sou) in order to prevent financial ruin. By phrasing v. 20b in terms of falling, Ben Sira echoes the language of v. 19 which concerned the downfall of the sinner. It is notable that in vv. 19-20 the word evmpi,ptw (“fall”) appears three times as a sort of Leitwort. It occurs in six other places in the Greek of Sirach and frequently has moral or retributive dimensions (2:18; 8:1; 9:3; 27:26; 28:23; 38:15).84 The effect in 29:1920 is to provide symmetry between the student and the unscrupulous guarantor. Both are subject to falling due to the inherent risk involved in going surety, but the employment of wise discernment by the student will minimize this risk whereas the unwise pragmatism of the sinner leads inexorably to his downfall. Nevertheless, the motivation of the wicked is profit while the motivation of the good person is kind generosity. There is, therefore, a tension between the social/ethical vision of Ben Sira and the harsh socio-economic realities of his time. On one hand, there is a moral order such that the student can be assured that by engaging in sinful financial practices he can expect to be ruined; but on the other hand, the proper, generous practice of surety by no means insulates the student from the social dangers involved. However, in light of this tension it is striking that Ben Sira encourages surety at all. Whereas the caution in Sir 8:13 was cast wholly as a negative warning, here the expansion of the topic, while providing more detail of the risks involved, also casts the advice in more positive terms (vv. 14 and 20). Even more remarkably, the generosity recommended by Ben Sira despite the dismal social portrait of vv. 16-19 (cf. §2.2.1) stands out as a unique development within Israelite and Jewish tradition. In this regard, it is immediately noticeable that, unlike the preceding discussions of loans and alms, Ben Sira’s discussion of surety con-

84

Cf. MINISSALE, The metaphor of ‘falling’, 253-275.


159

tains no appeal to “the commandments” (cf. 29:1.9.11).85 The obvious reason for this is that the legal material in the Torah never discusses the practice of going surety by a third party, though it does mention the taking of a pledge for a loan and prescribes limits around the practice (cf. Exod 22:24-26 and Deut 24:10-13).86 Yet, the idea of a third-party surety is found only in the wisdom literature, which better reflects the day to day business dealings in Israel. It is here that we get a window into the precarious practice of going surety for others. It is noted by all commentators that Ben Sira’s position on surety differs from that in Proverbs since the latter is uniformly against the practice (cf. Prov 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16; 22:26-27; 27:13), though an explanation of this difference is infrequently offered. There are essentially two answers to this problem that have been proposed and they hinge upon the interpretation of the ambiguous language in the verses from Proverbs. As an entry into the problem, consider the situation envisioned in Prov 6:1-5. Here the sage states: $ypk rzl t[qt $[rl tbr[-~a ynb (v. 1). There is no question in this passage that the student is in the role of the guarantor, but it is not completely clear who the other parties are. The parallel references to going surety and striking hands must refer to the same event, but there is disagreement over the identities and roles of the [r and the rz. Fox is representative of one position in understanding the [r as the creditor and the rz as the debtor. He translates the verse: “My son, if you’ve provided surety to your neighbor, shaken hands for a stranger.” This would accord with other proverbs in which the stranger is the debtor (20:16), although it is significant that in 22:26 the 85

86

Though, interestingly, the Syriac and the Latin introduce the idea of obedience to the divine commands in v. 19: lPN )twBr(B )YdMd yhwNdQwP l( rB(d )y+X // peccator transgrediens mandata Domini incidet in promissionem nequa. In terms of a two-party loan on collateral, the pledge is typically a “movable” item such as a garment or some other item of value (cf. Deut 24:12-13 and Gen 38:17-18). In extreme cases, it could be a person, either the borrower himself (cf. Gen 43:9; 44:32) or a relative (cf. 2 Kings 4:1). The difference between the latter case and the third-party transaction discussed in the wisdom literature is that in the latter scenario the person who offers to go surety does so voluntarily. In the former the relative is offered up as surety by the second party (the borrower). The direst example is found in Neh 5 where people pledged their children as well as the immovable pledge of their land in order to be able to eat. It is no wonder that such creditors were among the most despised members of Israelite society. Limits regarding movable pledges included the proscriptions against seizing the pledge in order to recoup the loan, refusing to return a poor person’s garment by nightfall, and taking items crucial to survival (e.g. a millstone). See the discussions in SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 323-324; and DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 171-172.

160


social location of the debtor is left open (see below). In support of this reading, Fox argues, “Why would a guarantor attempt to escape the trap by begging and badgering his neighbor (v 3b) if the latter were the borrower? Only the lender could release the surety, and he would not agree to do so at the borrower’s request.”87 On this reading, the negative attitude towards surety in Proverbs stems from the fact that it is primarily concerned with going surety for a stranger. Ben Sira, on the other hand, addresses going surety for a neighbor. Therefore, the difference between the two is primarily derived from the different social relationships in mind.88 The alternative reading of Prov 6:1, though, identifies the [r as the borrower. Waltke is a good representative of this approach and translates the verse: “My son, if you have become surety for your neighbor, [if] you have struck your palm for a stranger.” Waltke correctly points out that Fox’s argument is flawed since it is quite understandable that the guarantor would badger the borrower to be released from his obligation since “the guarantor’s future depends on the goodwill of the borrower to pay the debt.” In addition, Waltke argues that the neighbor is cast in a negative light as a “trap” in vv. 3-5 just as the rz is elsewhere, and, in fact, in some contexts a [r is characterized as a rz.89 On this reading, the [r and the rz are in parallel in the same way that tbr[ and $ypk t[qt are, such that rz has its more limited sense of someone who is outside the guarantor’s family or close circle of associates, who in this context is also characterized as a [r. Either the two are to be considered synonymous descriptions,90 as a sort of parallelistic merism for “anyone,”91 or two different ways of perceiving the same person. In regard to the latter, Waltke raises the possibility that the foolish guarantor considers the person a “neighbor” while the sage realizes that in actuality he is functionally a “stranger.” On the basis of this alternative interpretation, the difference between Proverbs and Sirach is a genuine development. Rybolt, Segal, Smend, and Snaith explain the development in terms of a change in the 87 88 89 90 91

FOX, Proverbs 1-9, 210-211. SANDOVAL, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 111. WALTKE, Proverbs 1-15, 325, 331-332. Fox is aware of the latter point as well (Proverbs 1-9, 212). Clifford takes this approach: “This passage forbids providing surety for someone outside one’s own family, ‘your neighbor,’ ‘another’ (zār)” (Proverbs, 75). This seems to be the implied interpretation of Gilbert, who says, “Pr 6, 1-5, le plus tardif peut-être, presse le garant à se dégager au plus vite en importunant le débiteur, connational ou étranger, jusqu’à ce qu’il honore lui-même sa propre dette” (Prêt, aumône et caution, 185).


161

socio-economic climate whereby loans on surety had become an economic necessity by the time of Ben Sira.92 While this might explain why Ben Sira concedes the practice, as in 8:13, it is not wholly sufficient to explain why Ben Sira believes the willingness to go surety is characteristic of a good person (29:14) and encourages his students to engage in the practice (29:20). Another way of coming at the problem of relating Sirach and Proverbs is to consider the function of the other four statements regarding surety in the rest of the book of Proverbs: To guarantee loans for a stranger brings trouble, but there is safety in refusing to do so (11:15) It is senseless to give a pledge, to become surety93 in the presence of94 a neighbor (17:18) Take the garment of one who has given surety for a stranger; seize the pledge given as surety for foreigners (20:16 = 27:13) Do not be one of those who give pledges, who become surety for debts. If you have nothing with which to pay, why should your bed be taken from under you? (22:26-27)

At face value these proverbs appear to reject categorically the idea of going surety, but what is more telling is their placement in the final form of the book. This has been elucidated by the insightful analysis of Scherer.95 The first two proverbs are juxtaposed with statements that accent generosity and the proper use of wealth (11:16-17 and 17:17). For the third statement, the context concerns proper and improper financial dealings and the verse that follows 20:16 concerns dishonest gain. This may suggest that the guarantor in v. 16 is being portrayed as having gone surety for less than honorable reasons. Therefore, Scherer concludes that in the final form of Proverbs the avoidance of surety in these verses “has nothing to do with selfishness and does not contradict the general high esteem for charity in the Old Testament and even in Proverbs itself. Nevertheless, the responsible man cannot afford to risk 92

93 94 95

RYBOLT, Sirach, 63; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 179; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 259; SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 146. Snaith attributes the change both to socioeconomic changes and to “Ben Sira’s own deep sense of piety.” For the common practice of going surety see MURPHY, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 46-47. On the difficulty of rendering this nominal form see FREEDMAN, Biblical Hebrew ‘rb, ‘to go surety,’ and Its Nominal Forms, 25-26. I have altered the NRSV’s “for a neighbor” because ynpl cannot mean “on behalf of.” See WALTKE, Proverbs 15-31, 58. SCHERER, Is the Selfish Man Wise?, 59-70, especially 61-64.

162


his own existence and the existence of the family committed to his care.”96 Furthermore, Scherer points out that in the final passage, 22:2627, the second verse seems to qualify the previous admonition with a conditional statement, “which may imply that the warning is not absolute – thus going in the direction of Ben Sira.”97 The overall effect of Scherer’s analysis is that while these individual proverbs advise against surety, the redaction of the book appears to move in the direction of balancing these statements with admonitions regarding generosity, and possibly even hinting that there may be circumstances where surety is permissible, if still not advisable. This is not to say that the final form of Proverbs is nearly on the same page as Ben Sira, only that the redaction of the book begins to show an awareness that the use of wealth is complex and often prudence in the face of risk must be balanced by considerations of generosity and charity. It is this initial movement that comes into full bloom in Ben Sira’s thought in 29:14-20. One factor that may have contributed to this more positive view is that while the Torah legislation does not address the practice of surety, the narrative portions do. In Gen 43:9 Judah offers himself as surety and this may have lent some credence to the practice. Even more suggestively, in Isa 38:14 Hezekiah asks God to be his surety: “O Lord, I am oppressed; be my security!” (ynbr[ yl hqX[ ynda). As we will see below, not all Second Temple authors approved of surety, but it is easy to see how some, such as Ben Sira, might have concluded that if God and the patriarchs engaged in surety then there could be some virtue to the practice.98 In addition, Ben Sira’s positive and proactive attitude towards surety in this passage appears to move beyond simply envisioning a different social transaction from that in Proverbs, or a change necessitated by a different socio-economic climate. Rather, Ben Sira has come to regard surety as a type of generosity.99 Although the practice is not addressed in the Torah legislation, it appears that Ben Sira understands it along similar lines as he does two-party loans. To engage in either practice without the goal of profiting from the needy person is by definition an act of mercy which is fundamental to the social vision of the Torah, even if surety is not explicitly addressed

96 97 98 99

SCHERER, Is the Selfish Man Wise?, 64. SCHERER, Is the Selfish Man Wise?, 62. But also see WALTKE, Proverbs 15-31, 233-234. Cf. SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 328. Similarly, Duesberg & Fransen remark that “Ben Sira riporta la cauzione a una forma di elemosina” (Ecclesiastico, 223).

Ben Sira’s Understanding of Loans and Surety in Broader Context

163

within it.100 As such, in comparison to 8:13, the topic of surety is expanded and given a positive ethical basis, just as the topic of lending was. The fact that the two topics now function to flank the topic of almsgiving heightens the tendency to understand them both through the lens of generosity to those in need. However, the discussion of surety in 29:14-20 has a tone of caution not present in the discussion of lending. While the topic of lending to those in need could be readily grounded in prior legal materials, no such foundation existed for the topic of surety. Not only did the Torah not address it, but the sapiential tradition discouraged it. Furthermore, even practical experience, in defiance of what the paradigm of retributive justice might predict, taught its precariousness even for those who were prepared to go surety for honorable reasons. A guarantor who is a good person still risks being abandoned by a shameless debtor (v. 14). In light of these converging factors of tradition and experience, it is no surprise that Ben Sira is cautious about avoiding ruin. What is so striking is that he does not disavow the practice altogether. The drive towards using one’s wealth to help those in need, itself a formidable component of the biblical tradition, was strong enough that once surety was understood as a kind of merciful loan it became an ethical obligation to help one’s neighbor in this way despite the lack of precedent in the tradition and the practical risks involved. As such, Ben Sira’s view of surety is a negotiation of different strands of tradition: the explicit caution over surety present in the sapiential tradition and the implicitly derived obligation towards those in need found in all strands of biblical tradition.101

4.4 Ben Sira’s Understanding of Loans and Surety in Broader Context Throughout the history of the ancient Near East, lending, both with and without interest, was an integral part of day to day financial dealings.102 The practice of surety is mentioned in Babylonian legal materi100 The aspect of supporting social cohesion as fundamental to 29:1-20 is accented by SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 210-211; cf. SANDOVAL, The Discourse of Poverty and Riches in the Book of Proverbs, 111. 101 We have already highlighted the ethical demands regarding those in need in the legal and sapiential traditions. For an exploration of other strands, such as the prophetic and priestly, see PLEINS, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible. 102 See MALONEY, Usury and Restrictions on Interest-Taking in the Ancient Near East, 1-20; HEJCL, Das Alttestamentliche Zinsverbot, 18-56.

164


als and some of the statements on surety in Proverbs are in the “Solomonic” portions, a fact which suggests that it was a part of preexilic Israelite economics as well.103 The widespread nature of these practices is not surprising given the human proclivity to protect and pursue wealth. Likewise, in ancient Greece lending and interest were part of the daily financial dealings of citizens long before Ben Sira. Already by the fifth century B.C.E. lending was accepted as part of normal banking and commercial dealings.104 While most citizens accepted the practice of lending at interest as a commonplace, it did not go uncontested. While ordinary loans usually entailed interest, an interest free loan, called an e;ranoj, was common among family members or close friends, especially in situations of dire need such as ransoming a captive or repaying an insistent creditor. Maloney notes that “since the ordinary rate in Greece was 12%, the eranos was considered a service par excellence. Its only return was well-deserved gratitude…It enjoyed high honor since the creditor parted with something which could be useful to him and which he might never receive back.”105 Although some reformers such as Solon tried to rein in excessive abuses in money lending, the practice of lending at interest persisted and was conceded to be a normal part of commercial dealings. But the most forceful opposition to lending at interest came from philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. The latter thought that money was merely “a medium of exchange” and therefore it would be “unnatural” to try to make money from money. Rather, lending at interest was fueled by greed that was contrary to humanity’s good.106 It seems clear that Ben Sira’s attitude toward lending would have found a receptive hearing among some contemporaries in his Hellenistic environment. Lending without interest, while risky, would have been highly honored, though Ben Sira’s position derives from a Wisdom-Torah ethic not shared by many of his Hellenistic contemporaries. 103 MINKNER, Die Einwirkung des Bürgerschaftsrechts auf Leben und Religion Altisraels, 21-32; DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 172-173. 104 See COHEN, The Elasticity of the Money-Supply at Athens, 66-83; GABRIELSEN, Banking and credit operations in Hellenistic times, 136-164; MALONEY, Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought, 79-80; MILLETT, Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens. 105 MALONEY, Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought, 81-82. It is interesting in this regard that throughout the grandson’s translation of the book he uses the normal word for lending, danei,zw / daneismo,j / da,noj, never the word e;ranoj. 106 MALONEY, Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought, 87. Cf. SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 347.


165

The caution that appears in Ben Sira’s understanding of such financial dealings is especially prominent among Egyptian wisdom texts. Just as Ben Sira advises elsewhere that it is dangerous to live off borrowed money (18:33), so Demotic texts reveal the same wariness (Inst. Ankh. 16:12; P. Insinger 26:16; cf. 6:24). In fact, this wariness in Demotic texts goes even further than Ben Sira does. In Inst. Ankh. 16:21-22 the sage advises not only exacting interest, but also taking a pledge to guard against loss: Do not lend money at interest without obtaining a security Do not be too trusting lest you become poor.107

The earlier text Instruction of Any had not only advised the taking of interest, but it also advised caution regarding a potential recipient of a loan: Let your hand preserve what is in your house, Wealth accrues to him who guards it; Let your hand not scatter it to strangers, Lest it turn to loss for you If wealth is placed where it bears interest, It comes back to you redoubled… Protect what is yours and you find it; Keep your eye on what you own, Lest you end up a beggar. (Inst. Any 5)108

Regarding roughly contemporary Jewish works, there are a number of references to lending, interest, and surety among the Dead Sea Scrolls. As one would expect, lending at interest is strictly prohibited, but it is interesting that in the Damascus Document lending at interest and standing surety are associated such that the latter is thereby rendered an illegal practice (4QDb 4 8-11). Murphy observes that this transformation of the advice in Proverbs against surety into a legal statute is unparalleled. Lending and surety were closely associated in other Jewish texts but the more typical deduction from this association was to permit surety, as Ben Sira does (cf. b. B. Meṣ. 71a).109 But perhaps the most interesting point of comparison for Ben Sira is the teaching found in 4QInstruction. Both Sirach and 4QInstruction are 107 LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3:172. 108 LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:138-139. 109 MURPHY, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 45-47. She suggests that the prohibition of a practice such as surety that was common in the surrounding culture helped to demarcate economic boundaries, thereby preventing the members of the community from being entangled in the outside tax-farming system.

166


Jewish sapiential texts that were written during the Hellenistic period, but they reflect starkly different social locations and eschatological outlooks.110 Whereas Ben Sira was part of the Jerusalem retainer class, 4QInstruction reflects a much lower social stratum since the addressee (the mevin) seems to be poor or at least on the brink of poverty.111 The topic of finances appears to be an important topic for 4QInstruction and it has both similarities and differences with Sirach in regard to loans and surety. Consider these three passages:112 As much as a man’s creditor has lent him in money, hastily pay it back, and you will be on an equal footing with him (sc. the creditor). If the purse containing your treasures you have entrusted to your creditor, on account of your friends you have given away all your life with it. Hasten and give what is his, and take back your purse, and in your speech (do not) act feeble-spirited. (4QInstructionb 2 ii 4-6) If a loan has been deposited with you, do not lay your hand on it, lest your hand be scorched, and your body be burnt by its fire. Just as you have taken it (sc. the loan), even so restore it, and joy to you if you are exempt from (any obligation arising from) it. Moreover, from any man whom you have not known take no money, lest he/it increase your poverty. And if he put the responsibility of it (i.e. the debt) on your head (or, poverty?), until death take charge of it, but let not your spirit be corrupted by him/it. And then (i.e. at death) you will sleep (i.e. die) in faithfulness (?), and at your death your memory will flower forever, and your posterity will inherit joy. (4QInstructionb 2 iii 38) If you borrow men’s money for your poverty, Let there be no sleep for you day or night, and no rest for your soul, until you have restored to your creditor his loan. Do not lie to him, lest you should bear guilt for it. Moreover, because of reproach to/from your creditor [ ] and you will not any more entrust it to his neighbor. Then

110 4QInstruction is often dated to the second century (i.e. approximately the same time period as Sirach) but there is debate over whether it is pre-sectarian or sectarian. Cf. HARRINGTON, Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom, 25; GOFF, Discerning Wisdom, 65-67. 111 WRIGHT, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, 112113. 112 These passages are based on the reconstructions in STRUGNELL/HARRINGTON, 4QInstruction. I have slightly altered their translation to conform to modern English usage.


167

against/to your poverty he (the lender, or his neighbor) will close his hand. (4QInstructionc 2 i 21-24)113

Several points emerge from these passages. First, similar to Sir 29:2b-3 the mevin should repay loans as quickly as possible, whether they were taken out on his own behalf or on behalf of friends. This prevents the mevin from being under the control of someone else (cf. Prov 22:7). Second, though the first passage is fragmentary, the mevin appears already to be in a situation of having gone surety for someone, something considered ill-advised elsewhere (cf. 4QInstructiona 8 2; 4QInstructionc 2 ii 23; 4QInstructiond 88 3; 88 7).114 In language similar to Sir 29:15, the instructor characterizes the situation as putting the mevin’s life at stake. This holds true whether the vulnerable party is wealthy, as in Sir 29, or poor, as in the case of the mevin. But as Goff notes, “Ben Sira, most notably in chapter 29, heartily endorses such practices. 4QInstruction has a much more cautious approach. Rather than applaud the addressee for being an ethical lender, the composition advises him to get out of the deal quickly.”115 In this regard 4QInstruction is substantially closer to the position of Proverbs. In the second passage the mevin is warned that if he receives surety he should resist the temptation to do anything with it except hold it for the duration of the loan.116 In addition, he is cautioned against lending to, or borrowing from, a stranger; but if he does borrow from a stranger, he is just as obligated to repay the loan. The whole teaching has an explicitly ethical dimension to it inasmuch as the moral quality of both lender and borrower directly correlates with the risk involved and, 113 This is the numbering of Strugnell and Harrington, who have renumbered the fragments by switching fragments 1 and 2. Thus, in earlier publications this text is numbered as 4QInstructionc 1 i 21-24. 114 Goff and Murphy agree that surety is being addressed in the present text. See GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 140-142; MURPHY, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 181; Cf. WRIGHT, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, 114. 115 GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 141. Goff goes on to say that “The mindset of 4Q416 2 ii 4-6 is compatible with that of Proverbs 6:1-5. Both texts portray going surety as a dangerous predicament that one should resolve as soon as possible. This is never the case in Ben Sira, although he acknowledges the practice entails risk (cf. Sir 29:18-20). This suggests that, when a loan defaults, the addressee of 4QInsruction is more vulnerable to harm or financial ruin at the hands of creditors than the students of Ben Sira.” But in Sir 29:18 Ben Sira actually warns that such ruin has happened to many prosperous and powerful people. The whole reason for caution in 29:14-20 is that no one is exempt from the life-threatening riskiness of going surety. 116 So GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 142.

168


and, therefore, also with the advisability of engaging in such a financial transaction. Similarly, 4Q424 2 3 involves an ethical component for the decision to go surety: “one who is a hypocrite, do not go surety for him among the poor.”117 As we will see in chapter 7, the moral quality of the recipient is also an important issue for Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving (cf. Sir 12:1-6). In the last passage cited from 4QInstruction the notion of refusing to sleep until the terms of the debt are satisfied echoes the advice in Prov 6:1-5118 and the imperative to remain an ethical borrower so that the mevin will have no trouble securing a loan in the future is similar to the advice in Sir 29:3-7. In both texts, the authors recognize that a common component of lending and borrowing is the propensity of the borrower to be dishonest either in securing the loan or in the repayment of the loan. Likewise, both texts call the student to a higher ethical standard in which honesty in financial dealings will pay social and financial dividends at a later point when the student again finds himself in need of a loan. To summarize, on these financial topics Sirach and 4QInstruction represent similar ethical standpoints, but reflect different social locations. Ben Sira addresses the topic from the standpoint of a member of the well-to-do retainer class that moves among the socially elite, while 4QInstruction reflects a lower social stratum, though one in which the mevin has some means to participate in lending, borrowing, and thirdparty transactions. As with Sirach, the Qumran documents presuppose lending and borrowing as a normal financial practice and strictly proscribe usury, as one would expect. Whether or not 4QInstruction is to be considered pre-sectarian, the theological trajectory at Qumran appears to have moved in the opposite direction from that of Ben Sira on the issue of surety. 4QInstruction reflects a perspective very similar to that of Proverbs, especially Prov 6:1-5, in strongly discouraging the practice, while the Damascus Document, obviously a sectarian work, raises this advice to the level of a legal statute.119 The theological movement in Ben Sira’s thought also proceeds from an association between surety and loans, but instead classifies both as either an act of mercy or an act of exploitation of those in need. This basic theological move then allows Ben Sira not only to permit the practice of surety, but to subsume it under the biblical in-

117 Cited in WRIGHT, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, 106. Cf. GOFF, The World and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 141 n.59. 118 Pointed out in GOFF, Discerning Wisdom, 57. 119 MURPHY, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 414.

Conclusions and Implications

169

junctions regarding care for the needy. Thus, going surety for one’s neighbor becomes a virtuous, merciful act that is characteristic of the good person (29:14), a position that would also be advocated in later rabbinic literature.

4.5 Conclusions and Implications In drawing this discussion to a close, let us highlight a few salient points. The discussion of loans and surety in Sir 29 demonstrates a considerable expansion of Ben Sira’s thought when compared with the brief, cautious statements in 8:12-13.120 Both topics have been cast in terms of the mercifulness of a Wisdom-Torah ethic regarding helping those in need. Rather than shy away from social realities, Ben Sira gives greater emphasis to the social and financial risks involved in the practices, but more positively insists on the goodness of them. When in the position of a lender (whether two-party or three-party), he does not advocate the taking of collateral, as the Torah allows, nor does he address the issue of interest other than implicitly excluding it by characterizing loans and surety from a standpoint of mercifulness and goodness. Even though his discussion of surety does not appeal to divine commands, and indeed there is no way it could, Ben Sira shows a positive attitude towards the practice. While Proverbs contains warnings against the practice, Ben Sira endorses surety in a manner similar to lending (if also more cautiously). Essentially, the theological presupposition behind this transformation is the realization that surety is like a loan in that one either does it out of generosity, thus incurring a certain risk, or in order to exploit the need of one’s neighbor for the sake of profit. Once this fundamental perspective on surety was adopted, it was quite natural to subsume it under the same ethic as lending, even if it was without precedent in earlier sapiential literature. In the wider cultural context, the particular aspects of Ben Sira’s view of loans and surety come into greater relief. He shows formal similarities to the Hellenistic philosophers in disavowing interest and in esteeming a merciful loan, but his motivation is different since it is grounded in a Wisdom-Torah ethic, rather than a certain metaphysical

120 If, as some scholars think, chapter 29 is part of a later edition of the book than 8:12-13 then this literary expansion probably is indicative of Ben Sira’s own development of thought. Cf. CORLEY, Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira, 41-45; ROTH, On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, 60.

170


understanding of humanity or economics. On the other hand, a helpful comparison with Ben Sira comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both advocate using wealth for merciful ends, but the association of surety with lending among the Qumran sectarians led to the conclusion that surety should be proscribed rather than endorsed. These comparisons illuminate that for Ben Sira the use of money for generous means is a theological trajectory that moves him beyond the commitments of his antecedent sapiential traditions. It is based on a developing understanding of a “divine economy” whereby the Torahobedient, wise person uses his money in ways that do not always accord with empirically prudent courses of action. This adherence to the social vision of the Torah at times brings him into direct conflict with social realities, not because Ben Sira is flawed in his thinking, but because the underlying ideological commitments of the Torah are undercut by the social structures of Ben Sira’s time, such that the accommodation of those ideals is not always able to be done consistently. The sage is thus required to negotiate the traditions he has inherited in light of the complexity of his current situation. In the broader sphere this was the dynamic seen to be at work in how Ben Sira negotiates the conflicts between the framework of retributive justice and the socioeconomic situation of Seleucid Judea. This problem, a fundamental one for all hermeneutical endeavors, comes to its most acute expression in his handling of the topic of almsgiving, to which we now turn in the next three chapters.

Chapter 5 Generosity through Almsgiving 5.1 Introduction In the previous chapter we examined Ben Sira’s teaching on loans and surety and focused on Sir 29:1-7, 14-20. In comparison to the brief instruction on the same topics in 8:12-13, the material on almsgiving in 29:8-13 at first appears to be intrusive. In this chapter we conclude our study of 29:1-20 by discussing the intervening material on almsgiving. As will be seen, the reason for the placement of this material between loans and surety is that for Ben Sira alms are a special kind of loan. The instructions on loans and almsgiving are linked by their underlying logic as well as by the fact that Ben Sira appeals to Deut 15 as the basis for his admonitions on both topics. The theological move of associating almsgiving with lending is deeply embedded in a tradition of reflection on earlier literature and would come to have profound consequences for the theological importance of almsgiving in both Judaism and Christianity. Against this backround, Ben Sira’s teaching on almsgiving stands near the beginning of a stream of theological reflection on the Hebrew Scriptures that would have important implications for later theologians.1 But to appreciate the antecedents to Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving in Sir 29, we will first need to consider some lexical and theological developments in the early Second Temple period. After this we will turn to an exegesis of 29:8-13 before broadening the discussion to include other works that deal with almsgiving in order to attain a better perspective on the place of Ben Sira in the larger phenomenon of the rising importance of almsgiving. Finally, we will examine the textual transmission of Sir 29 and see how subsequent thinking on almsgiving both draws out the implications of Ben Sira’s thought and then integrates these conclusions into the text of Sirach itself through intertextual exegesis.

1

See ANDERSON, Sin: A History.

172

Generosity through Almsgiving

5.2 Theological and Lexical Trends Important for Almsgiving In order fully to appreciate Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving it is necessary to trace the theological and lexical antecedents to his thought. In particular, the history of how “almsgiving” emerged as a meaning of hqdc and was treated as a meritorious act par excellence will shed considerable light on the passages discussed in this chapter and the next two. The primary theological conviction that underlies Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving is the notion that there is a special relationship between the poor and God. He indicates this in several places throughout the book.2 Do not despise the requests of a peasant and do not give him an occasion to curse you. When an embittered person cries out in the anguish of his soul then his Maker will heed the sound of his cry. (4:4-6)3 Do not despise a person bitter in soul there is one who exalts and abases (7:11)4 Another walks around crushed and perishing, lacking strength5 and abounding in weakness But the eye of the LORD looks on him kindly and he shakes him out of the putrid dirt. He raises his head and exalts him such that many are astounded at him. (11:12-13) The prayer of a poor person (goes) from his mouth to [God’s] ears and his judgment comes quickly (21:5)6 The bitterness of a crushed person induces a reprieve7 2 3 4 5 6 7

See the discussion in BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 91-94. See the text-critical discussion in the Appendix. Manuscript A begins the second stich with yk rkz, which should be omitted in light of its absence in the Greek and the Syriac. Although the Syriac agrees with the Hebrew reading of lk in manuscript A, most commentators emend to xk in light of the Greek (also see 31:4.30). No Hebrew is extant, but the Greek and the Syriac are in basic agreement. As it stands, manuscript B’s reading !wcr yrwrmt is difficult to understand. Box & Oesterley render it “a bitterness accepted.” Most commentators emend !wcr to #wcr. The final word of this stich, hxnh, should be understood as a hiphil, meaning “give a reprieve” (the nominal form appears in Esth 2:18). Box & Oesterley and Lévi emend to hxna “sigh”/“affliction” (cf. v. 19). However, better sense of the context can be made by retaining the reading in manuscript B, hxnh, in the sense of “induce a reprieve” (so

Theological and Lexical Trends Important for Almsgiving

173

his outcry hastens to the heavens8 The peasant’s cry for help pierces the clouds9 until it reaches (its goal) it will not rest It will not desist until God attends to it and the Righteous Judge executes judgment (35:20-22a)

A couple of these passages will be revisited in the following chapters, but for now it is sufficient to note that the idea of God’s special relationship with the poor recurs in contexts that are similar. It is not an abstract idea, but is utilized in contexts involving social injustice. The incongruity of socio-economic realities with the model of retributive justice, explored in chapter 2, creates situations in which Ben Sira draws out the social implications of the relationship between God and the poor. The prayers of the poor seem to have special access to God’s ears and their cries have a unique ability to move him to action. This special relationship, particularly in the context of social injustice, will prove to be a key component in understanding the contours of Ben Sira’s thinking on almsgiving. But in order to set up the discussion we will need to take a step back and trace how this motif developed theologically and the impact it had lexically. The supposition that the poor enjoy a special relationship to the deity appears in a number of passages from the Hebrew Bible. YHWH is

8

9

also Peters and Jensen). The idea is not that the bitterness of a crushed person is itself the provider of the relief, but that because of the theological dynamics of God’s relationship with the poor and oppressed, their state induces him to bring relief. This is exactly the topic in the remainder of chapter 35 and in chapter 36, where the vindication of the poor and oppressed transitions in vv. 23-25 into the vindication of Israel. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 439; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 154, 157; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:164-165; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 290. In this stich the marginal readings of manuscript B specify hq[c as cries that are from a female, i.e. the widow in vv. 18-19, but Segal emends the first word to wtq[cw so that it refers to the crushed person of the previous stich (cf. the Greek, h` de,hsij auvtou/). Smend emends to yn[ tq[cw. Box & Oesterley and Jensen retain the reading of manuscript B (!n[ hq[cw). However, the reading of manuscript B is explainable since one could see how the referent could be supplied by the Greek (singular) and the Syriac (plural). Therefore, I also retain the Hebrew reading, but my translation supplies the implicit referent (as does Skehan’s). The last word, htXx, is difficult. Segal and Jensen explain it as from hXx = Xwx (“hasten”). Smend emends to hqXx (cf. Greek: suna,yei), while Box & Oesterley suggest emending to htxX (cf. Syriac: )NKrM). With Segal and Jensen I retain it with the sense of “hasten” and view the Greek as a free translation. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 439; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 154, 157; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 223; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 412; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 315. Manuscript B’s ~[ lx !n[ should be emended to the marginal reading hplx ~yb[ in accordance with the Greek’s nefe,laj dih/lqen.

174


consistently portrayed as the defender and advocate of the poor in all theological traditions, and frequently this is expressed not just in terms of an abstract ideal of social justice but also in terms of YHWH’s solidarity with the poor (e.g. Exod 22:20; 1 Sam 2:8; Isa 11:4; Prov 14:31; 17:5). Familiar passages such as Exod 22, Deut 15, Amos 8, and Isa 3 all testify to YHWH’s demand that the poor and outcast be treated with mercy and justice. Furthermore, one can get a sense of just how deeply embedded in Israelite thought this idea was from the fact that this relationship is not just expressed in the Covenant Code, the oldest legal material in the Hebrew Bible, but is subtly presupposed by it.10 For example, the Covenant Code’s law against lending to the poor at interest, which was briefly considered in the previous chapter, reads: If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbor's cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor's only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate. (Exod 22:24-26 [25-27 English])

There are a couple of notable points from this passage. First, YHWH as lawgiver chooses to modify “my people” with “to the poor among you.” The MT is often viewed as awkward and emended to “one of my people,” but Propp makes the following observation in a sidebar entitled “speculation”: “Thus a literal rendering of v 24 might be, ‘If silver you lend to my kinsman, to the poor man among you.’ Yahweh claims the pauper as his own close family member, under his personal protection.”11 Propp’s suspicion seems to be confirmed by another observation. In a fascinating study of the use of “combined discourse” in Pentateuchal laws, Assnat Basnor notes that in this passage God’s “objective” stance as lawgiver is interlaced with the personal complaint of the poor person. As a result “it evokes the effect of solidarity and empathy to10

11

There is widespread agreement that the Covenant Code is the oldest legal material in the Bible, though dates ranging from the time of Moses to the monarchic period have been proposed. See the discussion in BLENKINSOPP, The Pentateuch, 197-204. The most important exception to this consensus is John Van Seters who has argued forcefully that the Covenant Code is the latest legal material in the Hebrew Bible. His book, A Law Book for the Diaspora, brings together and synthesizes much of his earlier work on the topic. This thesis has drawn sharp criticism from a number of scholars and Van Seters has recently offered a reply. See VAN SETERS, Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code and a Response to my Critics, 5-28. PROPP, Exodus 19-40, 260. Italics original.


175

ward the poor person, promoting an empathetic identification on the part of the reader.”12 Thus, God’s reasoning as lawgiver does not simply arise from an abstract idea of justice, but proceeds from his care for, and solidarity with, the poor person. Furthermore, this relationship is not presented as an idea to be newly accepted, but is presupposed by the discourse. Such solidarity is evident in numerous texts,13 but the most explicit expression of the idea comes to the fore in passages from Proverbs, such as these: Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, those who are kind to the needy honor him. (Prov 14:31) Those who mock the poor insult their Maker; those who are glad at calamity will not go unpunished (Prov 17:5)

The idea is clear: the nexus between the poor and God as Creator results in a correspondence in the way they are treated. If one mistreats the poor it has the correlative effect of insulting God as well. The presence of this motif in legal, prophetic and sapiential materials raises the question of why it is so pervasive. What is the theological origin of this concept?14 The picture that emerges from the Hebrew Bible as a whole is that the theological origin of this motif is to be located in exodus and cosmogonic traditions. First, according to the legal portions of the Pentateuch, Israel’s treatment of the poor and marginalized is based upon the fact that she was once a slave in Egypt and YHWH delivered her. This provides the impetus for the fair treatment of the vulnerable members of society (Exod 22:20-23). The fair treatment and eventual restoration of the debt slave in Lev 25 is repeatedly grounded in the exodus event. In addition, Deut 15 brings together the year of remission with lending to the poor, and the exodus event with the release of debt12 13 14

BASNOR, The Representation of Speech in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch, 231249. See the extensive list in GRIFFIN, A Study of Eleēmosynē, 83 n.30. This is obviously a different kind of question than asking about the actual sociopolitical circumstances that gave rise to prescriptions for treating the poor well. As will be seen, it is the literary-theological precursors to this concept that most readily explain the Second Temple conceptual and lexical developments involved in almsgiving. For an argument that the socio-political origins are located in the struggle between rival elite factions attempting to court favor with the masses in order to gain and/or maintain political stability see CHANEY, Debt Easement in Israelite History and Tradition, 127-139.

176


slaves in order to exhort the listener to be generous to the poor Israelite. Notably, the theme of God’s special relationship to the poor is accented as well. If one refuses to lend to the poor, one incurs guilt; but if one is generous to the poor, one will be blessed by God (vv. 9-10). As Levenson has shown, there also seems to be a correspondence between the year of remission, the exodus event, and the legal prescription of the Sabbath at Sinai. The rest provided on the seventh day, which is part of the created order, has as its social counterpart a royal decree of debt release in the seventh year. Levenson observes that in light of corresponding notions in Babylonian creation myths what is clear is that “a social reform has been retrojected into creation itself.”15 This particular social reform has been elucidated by Weinfeld’s study of royal decrees of debt-release in the ancient Near East. Weinfeld focuses his study on the idiom “justice (jpXm) and righteousness (hqdc),” which is used frequently in the prophetic texts to describe how a king should reign (e.g. Mic 3:9-12; Isa 32:1). This idiom has a conceptual overlap with the Mesopotamian social reform called kittam u mīšaram šakānum (“the performance of truth and righteousness”) which involved debt forgiveness, the release of slaves, the return of ancestral lands, and the eradication of economic injustices. In fact, the Hebrew cognate for the Akkadian term durārum/andurārum is rwrd, the technical word for the Jubilee release in the Hebrew Bible.16 For our purposes, the important point to be noted is that, for the most part, to do “justice and righteousness” had a specific content, the economic assistance of the poor, and a specific subject, the good and upright king. Now, while in the ancient Near East this was normally attributed only to human kings, in Israel it was first and foremost attributed to YHWH as the divine king of his covenant people.17 Particularly interesting in light of our discussion up to this point is that this description appears in the Psalter in places that combine aspects of creation and exodus. For example, in Ps 33:4-7 we read that YHWH “loves what is right and just (jpXmw hqdc),” followed by statements about YHWH’s creative power (v. 6) and an allusion to the parting of the Reed Sea (v. 7).18 Similarly, in Ps 89:10-15 the psalmist follows a description of YHWH’s cosmogonic battle with the sea with the statement that “righteousness and justice (jpXmw qdc) are the foundation of your throne.” 15 16 17 18

LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 102-107. The quote is from p. 103. WEINFELD, Social Justice, 7-12. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins By the Giving of Alms, 44. LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 105.


177

Due to the royal theology in which the king was the vicegerent of the deity, the wider Near Eastern emphasis on the human king’s performance of “righteousness and justice” through a release (rwrd) has its counterpart in the Hebrew Bible as well (cf. Jer 34:8-11). But the primacy of the kingship of YHWH as the granter of release allowed a shift in human referent with the collapse of the Davidic monarchy at the time of the exile. One can see this movement in the compositional history of Isaiah. Whereas the anointed figure who will carry out this ideal is a Davidic king in Isa 11:1-6, by the time one reaches Isa 61:1-3 the one who announces the rwrd is a prophetic figure who will bring to fruition the blessings earlier understood in relation to the Davidic monarchy.19 The fact that ultimately it is YHWH as king who does “righteousness and justice” means that it is not just the ancient Near Eastern king who executes this virtue, but people who are members of the covenant community are called upon to enact it as well. In other words, the theological model of YHWH acting as the divine counterpart to an upright ancient Near Eastern king in both creation and exodus opens up the motif for democratization among all faithful Jews. This democratization of the role of economic relief for the poor is evident not only in the attribution of the announcement of rwrd to a prophetic figure in Isa 61:1-3, but also in statements that concern common members of the covenant community. In Ezek 18 the prophet describes the righteous person as one who does hqdcw jpXm. As Weinfeld observes, this does not involve just refraining from common practices of exploitation and social injustice, but “it consists primarily in doing good: giving bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked (Ezek 18:7, 16). There is a similarity on this point to the royal proclamation of ‘freedom,’ as there too the king feeds the hungry, gives drink to the thirsty and clothes the naked.”20 Similar ideas underlie the statements in Isa 58:2 and Job 29:23-25. But as time went by, Jews in the Second Temple period started speaking more of hqdc and dsx than of hqdc and jpXm.21 Lexical examples of this pairing can be seen in Ps 33:5, where jpXmw hqdc is associated with hwhy dsx, and in Prov 21:21, where the sage employs the combination of dsxw hqdc as that which brings life. More significantly, in Zech 7:9-10 dsx is used to describe the one who enacts the vision of social justice represented by the phrase hqdcw jpXm.22 In Sirach this new pairing can 19 20 21 22

See GREGORY, The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah, 475-496. WEINFELD, Social Justice, 18. WEINFELD, Social Justice, 19. Cf. Isa 57:1 and Ps 36:11. All three words (hqdc, jpXm, and dsx) are associated in Isa 16:5 and Jer 9:23 (cf. 4Q437 3+4, 4-5). Among the Dead Sea Scrolls (h)qdc is frequently associated with dsx, either in reference to God (e.g. 1QHa XIX, 18; cf. 4Q381 33+35, 6;

178


be seen in 40:17 (see below). This shift in wording is understandable in light of the fact of democratization. While most Jews would not be in a position to render legal justice for the poor among them, they could enact the idea involved in “righteousness and judgment” by providing financial assistance and thus helping to effect the poor person’s “release” from his financial bondage. The merciful assistance of the poor would be the practical counterpart to the royal decree of rwrd. Now, given the democratization of the concept of financial assistance to the poor and the shift in lexical pairing from hqdc and jpXm to hqdc and dsx, we are in a better position to appreciate how the lexical meaning of hqdc as “almsgiving” could arise. Some have postulated that the lexical shift occurred under the influence of Aramaic, but in light of the foregoing discussion one can see how the theological developments of the postexilic period could instigate a shift in meaning as an internal development of the Hebrew language, though the two are not mutually exclusive and may be complementary.23 In regard to the theological component of the lexical development, Anderson aptly concludes, “For just as a king might demonstrate his righteousness by releasing the poor from debt, so the ordinary citizen could do his part through more personal acts of benevolence. Such acts of ‘liberation’ on the part of a private citizen were appropriately termed ṣĕdāqâh, ‘[deeds of] righteousness’.”24 Returning to Sirach with these theological and lexical developments in mind, we are in a better position to shed some light on how Ben Sira speaks about almsgiving in particular and generosity in general. First, it is noteworthy that Ben Sira is the first author unambiguously to use the Hebrew hqdc with the meaning of almsgiving, though the Aramaic cognate is used earlier in Tobit, probably written in the third century B.C.E., and in the roughly contemporary book of Daniel (4:24).25 Though without precedent in the Hebrew literature, his employment of the term with the specific meaning of “almsgiving” is unmistakable in

23

24 25

4Q427 7 i 22) or in reference to the treatment of the oppressed (e.g. 1QS X, 26; cf. 4Q298 3-4 ii 7). See ROSENTHAL, Sedaka, Charity, 411-430, especially p. 430; cf. HO, Ṣedeq and Ṣedaqah in the Hebrew Bible, 143. It is notable that neither of these scholars brings Sirach into their discussions. It is briefly mentioned in the discussion of HURVITZ, ‘hqdc’h gXwm lX wtxymc twdlwtl - ~yydwmlt ~yxnwm lX tyarqmh ~tyXar, 159 n. 14. Finally, the role of Sirach was brought to the forefront in the discussion of the lexical development of hqdc in PROCKTER, Alms and the Man, 69-80. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 44. For Aramaic as the original language of Tobit see FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 18-28; MOORE, Tobit, 33-39.


179

3:30; 7:10; 12:3; and 40:24 (and probably also in 3:14; 16:14).26 The Greek consistently uses evlehmosu,nh to render hqdc in these passages and the Syriac uses )tQdz (or variants). This consistency allows us to deduce with a good deal of certainty that the Hebrew of Sir 29:8, 12 also employed hqdc. As Bultmann has noted, the word evlehmosu,nh appears rather late in Greek usage and is related to e;leoj.27 This is notable in light of Weinfeld’s observation that in the Second Temple period hqdc came to be paired with dsx, which is frequently rendered in the LXX as e;leoj.28 The pairing of hqdc as almsgiving and dsx as a merciful act occurred because they were linked as two kinds of generosity. While in rabbinic literature the former typically denoted financial donations to the poor and the latter more typically characterized specific acts of aid, such as aiding the sick or burying the dead, Ben Sira does not seem to use the terms with this later distinction firmly in mind.29 The discussion of almsgiving in 29:8-13 appears in the midst of the financial topics of loans and surety, while elsewhere Ben Sira speaks of good deeds that take up the classic Jewish ideas associated with dsx. In fact, in Sir 37:11 Ben Sira uses the phrase dsx lmgt in reference to generosity, which is a recognizable precursor to the rabbinic phrase ~ydsx twlymg. In rabbinic thought ~ydsx twlymg were of greater merit than hqdc, but both were highly valued and considered indispensable aspects of true piety.30 In Ben Sira no hierarchy of value is indicated and the two aspects of generosity are clearly related, both lexically and theologically.31 Thus, it may be that in Sirach the pairing of hqdc and dsx reflects emphases which in the rabbinic literature would become distinctions.32

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

See PRATO, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, 393-394. BULTMANN, evlehmosu,nh, 485-487. Cf. JOOSTEN, dsx ‘bienveillance’ et e;leoj ‘pitié’, 25-42. While the Greek consistently uses evlehmosu,nh for hqdc in contexts of charity, dsx is translated by e;leoj, ca,rij, and occasionally by another word such as euvse,beia. See BONSIRVEN, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ, 151-153. WEINFELD, Social Justice, 19. Similarly, Stadelmann says, “Ob bei Ben Sira, der beide Termini bereits als festes Begriffspaar verwendet hat, diese Unterscheidung schon so klar definiert war, läß sich nicht sagen. Doch deutet sein Wortgebrauch zumindest ansatzweise in Richtung der späteren Definition” (Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 97). It may be recalled at this point that in our discussion of 29:1 in the previous chapter we noted that many commentators reconstruct dsx for the first stich. If that reconstruction is correct, it would seem to suggest that the conceptual boundaries between hqdc as financial assistance and dsx as specific deeds of assistance are not overly rigid, at least for Ben Sira.

180


The best place to see the linkage of hqdc and dsx also leads to another significance of this pairing. In Sir 40:17 Ben Sira pairs the two in the following way:

!wkt d[l hqdcw trkt al d[k dsxw But mercy like eternity will not be cut off33 and almsgiving will endure forever

There are a couple of interesting things to note about this verse. First, this verse comes at the end of a section in 40:11-17 which details the wiping out of social and economic injustices. Bribes and injustices will be wiped out (40:12) and riches gained from injustice will come to a sudden end (40:13-14). In contrast to this, dsx and hqdc will endure forever. The pairing of these two in this context strongly suggests that Ben Sira is using these two words in the specific sense of generosity to the poor, i.e. deeds of charity and almsgiving.34 This is reinforced by the claim that hqdc “rescues” in the next section (40:24), which is indisputably to be understood in the sense of “almsgiving.” The Greek of 40:17, therefore, is quite correct to render hqdc with evlehmosu,nh rather than the more general dikaiosu,nh.35 Second, the idea that hqdc will endure “forever” (d[l) is not a common idea. It is found only in Ps 111:3, where hqdc is used in the sense of God’s righteousness, and Ps 112:3.9, where it occurs in a similar manner to Sir 40:17.36 I am not aware of any commentators who have considered an allusion to Ps 112 to be at work in Sir 40:17, but it is striking that these are the only two extant passages that express this idea in this way and it appears twice in Ps 112. If Ben Sira does have Ps 112 in mind, then it would mean that he is reading earlier texts though the lens of the shifted lexical meaning of hqdc. This would not be at all surprising given that in Ps 112 hqdc is first in parallel to “wealth and

33

34 35 36

This translation follows the Masada Scroll. Manuscript B has jwmy al ~lw[l dsxw. The Greek’s ca,rij w`j para,deisoj evn euvlogi,aij probably presupposes hkrb !d[k dsxw, which suggests a slight corruption of the Masada Scroll’s reading and may have been influenced by 40:27. Segal cites Ps 15:5 and Prov 10:30 as similar to the reading in manuscript B, but it may be that the latter was adjusted in light of Ps 112:6, especially given the contextual links between these two passages. Cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 463; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 271. Contra SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 463, 471, who translate it with the generic meaning “righteousness.” Cf. the discussion in §2.1.2.4. In Isa 9:6 and 32:17 the combination also occurs, but there hqdc is used either instrumentally or as the cause of that which does last forever. Thus, only Ps 112 uses the idea of hqdc enduring forever in a comparable way to Sir 40:17.

Sirach 29:8-13: Almsgiving as a Type of Loan

181

riches” (v. 3) and then in parallel to “they have distributed freely, they have given to the poor” (v. 9). Given this parallelism, it would be quite natural for a later reader like Ben Sira to interpret hqdc in terms of showing financial beneficence to the poor in the specific sense of “almsgiving” (cf. Baba Bathra 10b).37 Although the possible dependence of Sir 40:17 on Ps 112 may be debatable, the overarching observation that Second Temple interpreters, including Ben Sira, tended to interpret earlier texts in light of the lexical meanings of their own day is a crucial point for understanding the origin of Ben Sira’s teaching on the benefits of almsgiving in Sir 29:8-13.

5.3 Sirach 29:8-13: Almsgiving as a Type of Loan 8 9 10 11 12 13

The Critical Greek Text plh.n evpi. tapeinw/| makroqu,mhson kai. evpV evlehmosu,nh| mh. parelku,sh|j auvto,n ca,rin evntolh/j avntilabou/ pe,nhtoj kai. kata. th.n e;ndeian auvtou/ mh. avpostre,yh|j auvto.n keno,n avpo,leson avrgu,rion diV avdelfo.n kai. fi,lon kai. mh. ivwqh,tw u`po. to.n li,qon eivj avpw,leian qe.j to.n qhsauro,n sou katV evntola.j u`yi,stou kai. lusitelh,sei soi ma/llon h' to. crusi,on su,gkleison evlehmosu,nhn evn toi/j tamiei,oij sou kai. au[th evxelei/tai, se evk pa,shj kakw,sewj u`pe.r avspi,da kra,touj kai. u`pe.r do,ru o`lkh/j kate,nanti evcqrou/ polemh,sei u`pe.r sou/

Textual Notes [29:8b] This stich is missing in the Syriac. Since poverty and almsgiving are important themes in the Syriac version, the omission must have been unintentional. Both stichs of v. 9 in the Syriac show an attempt to interpret this verse in light of v. 8a. If Segal’s reconstruction is correct then the copyist or translator may have skipped from hqdcbw in v. 8b to rwb[b in v. 9a.38 [29:9] Syriac has: “and so as to keep the commandment give him leeway and if there is a loss do not take it to heart” ()NdQwP r+MLd kY)w kLB l( )tYt )L )NrSwX )whN n)w yhYXwr)). The Syriac of this verse seems to reflect an attempt to cope with the missing line from v. 8 and

37 38

HURVITZ, ‘hqdc’h gXwm lX wtxymc twdlwtl - ~yydwmlt ~yxnwm lX tyarqmh ~tyXar, 158-159. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176, 178. Peters reconstructs the Hebrew of the beginning of v. 8b as hqdc l[ (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 237).

182


to bridge to the beginning of v. 10. Therefore, the Greek is followed as the better witness.39 [29:10b] Whereas the Greek has ivwqh,tw (“let rust”), the Syriac has yhwYMYSt (“place it”). The Syriac’s reading is supported by the Latin’s abscondas illam (cf. katakrube auto in manuscripts 70 and 248), so Peters; contra Box & Oesterley, Segal, and Di Lella who follow the Greek.40 Smend’s translation follows the Syriac, but in his commentary he remarks that “Vielleicht sind 248 70 nach Gr. II geändert, aber eher möchte ich ivwqh,tw für Aenderung halten.”41 Segal raises the possibility that the reading underlying the Syriac and Latin may have arisen as a contrast to the use of ~yX in the next stich. But the symmetry could also be understood as supporting its originality. In light of the use of kati,wtai in Jas 5:3 (cf. Matt 6:19), Peters believes that originally the Greek had a form of tiqhmi in agreement with the Syriac and Latin, but that the familiar NT passages have influenced the transmission process. In addition to finding the agreement between the Syriac and the Latin to be persuasive, this reading also seems to be a smoother rendering of the stich. At the end of the stich the Greek has eivj avpw,leian (“unto ruin;” cf. Latin: in perditionem) while the Syriac has )tS)w (“and a wall”). Peters omits both; Segal and Skehan & Di Lella follow the Greek/Latin reading; and Box & Oesterley, Duesberg & Fransen, and Smend follow the Syriac.42 It is difficult to mount an argument in favor of one over the other, though the Syriac’s reading may have been influenced by its mistaken rendering of v. 13 (see below). I believe the Greek is the more likely reading. Although following the Syriac/Latin reading at the beginning of the stich and the Greek/Latin reading at the end is not advocated by any other commentator, the resultant sense of my analysis of this stich is essentially the same as that of Segal and Skehan & Di Lella.43

39 40 41 42

43

Cf. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 178. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 411; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 237; SEGAL, arys-!b rps ~lXh, 176, 178; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 258-259; id., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 50. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 411; DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 222; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 237; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176, 178; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 259. It is interesting that my translation is almost the same as that of Skehan, who renders the stich as “and leave it not under a stone to rot.” The use of “leave” would suggest that Skehan has followed the Syriac at the beginning of the stich, but the use of “rot” at the end better fits ivwqh,tw than eivj avpw,leian (cf. Skehan’s textual note: “to rot: the


183

[29:11a] The Syriac has )BwXBw )twQYdzB, whereas the Greek has katV evntola.j u`yi,stou. Box & Oesterley, Duesberg & Fransen, and Smend believe the Syriac is more sensible, but the Greek is followed by Peters, Segal, and Skehan & Di Lella (cf. Fritzsche).44 Van Peursen observes that there is a pattern in the Syriac of suppressing references to the law (e.g. 9:15; 19:20; 32:17; 32:24; 44:20), though it should be observed that the Syriac retains the reference to the commandments in 29:1 and even adds a reference in 29:19 (cf. §4.3.2, n.84).45 In addition, almsgiving is a particular interest of the Syriac translator, as is evident by the lengthy addition at the end of chapter 29 (see below), which suggests that the translator may have simply glossed this half-stich in light of the parallel statement about almsgiving in v. 12.46 Although there are cases in the Greek where “Most High” has been added secondarily, there are still no fewer than twenty occurrences of !wyl[ in the Hebrew manuscripts and so the reading cannot be dismissed on these grounds alone.47 In fact, a close parallel to the phrase in 29:11 occurs in 44:20 (!wyl[ twcm || no,mon u`yi,stou) and in the cases where !wyl[ is found in the Hebrew it tends to occur in association with Torah, covenant, and the commandments.48 [29:11b] The Syriac has kL tY)d )M lK instead of the Greek’s to. crusi,on. Again, Box & Oesterley, Duesberg & Fransen, and Smend follow the Syriac, while the Greek is favored by Peters, Segal, and Skehan & Di Lella (cf. Fritzsche).49 The Greek appears to be the more natural reading, provides a complementary wordplay with “treasure” in v. 11a, and makes better sense of the context, which is concerned with uses of wealth. If the underlying Hebrew was bhzm, perhaps at some point it was mistaken for bhym.

44

45 46 47

48 49

Gr supposes the corrosion of copper coins”). SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 368-369. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 411; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 162; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 235; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176, 178; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 368, 371; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 259. VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 85. Similarly, GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 182. Admittedly this title occurs more frequently in the Greek version of Sirach than in the Hebrew, and this may be attributed to a rise in its popularity during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. But, as Horbury notes, “Ecclesiasticus itself will have contributed to the popularity of this title.” HORBURY, Deity in Ecclesiasticus, 285. Also see AITKEN, The God of the pre-Maccabees, 264-265. HAYWARD, El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira, 193-196. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 411; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 162; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 235; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176, 178; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 368; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 259.

184


[29:13a-b] The Syriac has kXYNt yh ))YGS lBQwLw )BrQL )rw$w for v. 13a2-b. For the origin of this reading, Smend suggests that, “Er hatte in seinem Texte tmx als schlechte Variante neben tynx, und las $l xynt für $l ~xlt. Dagegen kann aaygs auch Fehler für aans (= Gr.) sein.” Segal makes a similar suggestion and adds that arwXw could be a mistake from arrXd.50 Translation 8 9 10 11

12 13

However, with the poor person be patient and do not keep him waiting for alms For the sake of the commandment help the poor and according to his need do not turn him away empty-handed Lose (your) money for a kinsman or a friend and do not place it under a stone to go to ruin Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High and it will profit you more than gold Store up almsgiving in your treasury and it will deliver you from every calamity More than a strong shield and a robust spear it will fight for you against an enemy

Comments This pericope begins with a sharp disjunction, “however” (plh.n), which serves to set financial dealings with a poor person in a different category than that which is described in the previous verses regarding loans. Yet, as was mentioned in chapter 4, the comparison with 8:12-13 and the underlying logic of the theology of almsgiving indicate that in chapter 29 Ben Sira had come to understand almsgiving as a particular kind of loan. Structurally, this pericope forms a chiasm.51 Verses 8 and 12-13 refer to almsgiving and vv. 9 and 11 ground the exhortation in the divine commandments. This suggests that v. 10, which provides a contrast in two different ways to use one’s money, is the center of the pericope. Thus, the pericope is fundamentally about the functionality of wealth and the superiority of a “divine economy” to that of the normal way of using money. In 29:8 Ben Sira exhorts his students to be patient with a poor person in contrast to the reservations that they might have about extending a loan or going surety for others. As Di Lella notes, “the case of the

50 51

SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 178; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 259. BEENTJES, The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira, 83-84.


185

poor is totally different from that of the unprincipled borrower.”52 The reason for this distinction is not to be located in his appeal to the Torah in v. 9 since the Torah was also invoked for lending in general (29:1). Rather, the categorical distinction arises principally from the theological nature of the poor. We have already seen in chapter 2 that Ben Sira is aware that economic distribution within society does not correlate well with the model of retributive justice. There are plenty of cases in which a wise, righteous person finds himself in dire financial circumstances. This socio-economic breakdown in the model of retributive justice is foundational for the existence of the virtue of generosity and thus there are those among the poor who should be assisted. In conjunction with this is the traditional assertion that the poor enjoy a special relationship with God such that how one treats them entails a certain disposition to God as well. The categorical difference in the nature of the poor person’s plight requires that one be patient (makroqu,mhson) in dealing with him. There is a hint of irony in the relationship between v. 8a and v. 8b. While one is required to be patient with the poor, one cannot request that he have patience in waiting for alms. Griffin points out that this is because the plight of the poor person is urgent and therefore any delay in assisting him could portend disaster for him. The virtue of patience also implies that helping him is not a one-time act, but is something that one is required to continue doing. Also related to their urgency is the fact that for Ben Sira almsgiving must be done with full volition. It is not enough simply to give alms; one must do so at the first recognition of need53 and it must be in proportion to the need of the poor person (cf. v. 9b: “according to his need,” kata. th.n e;ndeian).54

52

53

54

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 370; similarly, GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 181. Box & Oesterley see more continuity with the previous section, commenting that “the man is justified who will not part with his money for the reason just mentioned; nevertheless there are other reasons which should induce him to part with it” (Sirach, 411). GRIFFIN, A Study of Eleēmosynē, 85-86. In relation to this idea Griffin cites Sir 34:25 as “The bread of charity is life itself for the needy; he who withholds it is a man of blood.” This verse is problematic because it is not extant in the Hebrew. The Syriac’s )dSXd )MXL presupposes the Hebrew dsx ~xl while the Greek’s a;rtoj evpideome,nwn presupposes the Hebrew rsx ~xl. Either is easily explainable as a corruption of the other, but in light of the overall context of 34:21-27 it appears that the Greek is the correct reading since the passage is about the active exploitation of the poor, making the reference to withholding generosity seem intrusive. So also BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 436; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 221; contra SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 414. The use of kata. with the accusative can mean “according to” (i.e. in proportion to his need) or “during” (i.e. while he is in need). Skehan & Di Lella opt for the latter, but

186


The word translated “alms” in v. 8b is evlehmosu,nh, which, as we noted above, certainly presupposes hqdc. In his insightful study of evlehmosu,nh in Tobit and Sirach, Griffin discerns four ways in which the Greek word is used: as a charitable deed, as monetary alms, as a characteristic of a person, and as a characteristic of God. While his case for these four meanings in the Greek of Tobit seems persuasive, I am not sure that Ben Sira’s grandson exhibits all of these in his work. In particular, it is difficult to find any grounds for distinguishing the first two categories and Sir 3:30; 16:14; and 40:24, which Griffin places in the category of charitable deeds, could just as easily be classified as monetary alms.55 Nevertheless, what is clear is that in Sir 29:8-13 the use of evlehmosu,nh has the (primary) sense of monetary alms.56 Next Ben Sira provides the first of two reasons for giving alms to the poor. It should be done on account of the commandment (ca,rin evntolh/j || )NdQwP r+MLd kY)w). Unlike the plural usage of “commandments” in 29:1, here both versions use the singular. Yet, again it is to be observed that Ben Sira does not think it necessary to cite the commandment; he expects his students to recall the appropriate Torah passage. Commentators are generally agreed that the passage in question, as with 29:1, is Deut 15:7-11.57 As noted in the previous chapter, this passage concerns the granting of loans to a poor person even when the year of remission is near. The implication is that with the “poor and needy kinsman” the prospect of forfeiting the right to collect on the loan should not deter one from the willingness to lend. Thus, in Deut 15 the commands concerning lending begin to slip into the category of

55

56

57

this interpretation would seem to be almost tautological since assistance is necessary, by definition, when the “poor” and “needy” are in want (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 368). Griffin (A Study of Eleēmosynē, 83) opts for the former, but perhaps the best rendering is that of Sauer, who translates, “und entsprechend seiner Not” (Jesus Sirach, 208). GRIFFIN, A Study of Eleēmosynē, 7-8. In the third category Griffin places Sir 3:14; 17:22; 31:11; and 40:17. Here again, it seems to me that the last three of these can be understood quite naturally with the dominant usage of evlehmosu,nh as monetary almsgiving. Sir 3:14 is his best example of a personal characteristic, but even there it is not certain. For his fourth category, a characteristic of God, he cites Sir 17:29. Segal views this pericope as addressing not just monetary alms, but also deeds of generosity. Commenting on 29:11 he says, “~ydsx twlymgbw hqdcb rmwlk :twcm” (arys-!b rps ~lXh, 178). It is puzzling that Peters comments on Sir 29:9 that “Auch hier ist die Rede vom Darlehen, nicht von einem eigentlichen Almosen” and just below on 29:11 that “Auch dieser Vers handelt vom Darlehen, nicht vom Almosen” (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 237). An exception is Rybolt, who believes that Ben Sira “does not refer to any single verse in the Bible but gives the sense of many passages (such as Lev 19:9-10)” (Sirach, 63).


187

giving generously without concern for repayment. This is particularly clear near the end of the pericope: Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. 11 Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.” 10

In order to offset the potential loss of the loan in the year of remission, the command to give generously to the poor and needy neighbor is buttressed by the promise that YHWH will provide a blessing to those who do so.58 It is immediately noticeable that a similar rhetorical progression takes place in Sir 29 where the programmatic statement concerning lending in 29:1 is first fleshed out with the necessity to lend despite the risk of not receiving a return (vv. 2-7) and then with the topic of almsgiving (vv. 8-13). This suggests that the discourse in Sir 29:1-13 may have arisen through theological reflection on the implications of Deut 15. This possibility is strengthened by two other connections that are found in the Greek of v. 9b. The phrase “according to his need” (kata. th.n e;ndeian) is similar to the phrasing of Deut 15:8 (o[son evpide,etai kaqV o[son evndeei/tai) while the idea of not sending the needy person away “empty-handed” (keno,n) recalls the similar (and uncommon) usage in Deut 15:13 (cf. 16:16).59 The Greek of v. 9b uses avpostre,yh|j, “turn away,” which recalls the use of the same verb in 29:7. In contrast to the “many who turn away” from granting a loan out of fear of not recouping it, Ben Sira commands his students “not to turn away” from helping the poor, even though it is much more likely that they will not recoup any of this money from the recipient.60 This wordplay highlights the categorical difference introduced syntactically in v. 8 by the use of plh.n.

58

59

60

In light of the surrounding context, the command to give (!tn) liberally in v. 10 may have the specialized sense of “lend generously.” See SEELIGMANN, Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel, 323. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 178. In both cases Segal’s reconstruction resembles the Hebrew of Deut 15. For Sir 29:9b he gives: ~qyr wnbyXt la wrwsxm yplw. Because the Syriac of 29:9 shows confusion one cannot exclude the possibility that the Greek translation has strengthened connections to Deut 15 in a way that goes beyond what the original Hebrew had. The Syriac of v. 9 shows confusion and does not reflect the same connection between vv. 7 and 9. Segal also reconstructs the Hebrew differently, reading w[nmn in v. 7 and wnbyXt in v. 9 (~lXh arys-!b rps, 176).

188


In terms of the larger conceptual environment in which v. 9 partakes, Griffin and Sauer have both seen an aspect of imitatio Dei in this passage.61 Deuteronomy 15 connects the prescriptions regarding generosity to the poor with the exodus/conquest complex (Deut 15:4.15) and in the account of the exodus God promises that the people will not go out “empty-handed” (Exod 3:21). Therefore, the language of v. 9 may suggest that Ben Sira views adherence to the “commandment” as imitating the way God deals with his people, and the poor in particular. Yet, the motif is not explicit and can only be derived as a subtle implication of the phrasing of the text insofar as it alludes to Deut 15. In chapter 7, however, it will be seen that almsgiving does have an aspect of imitatio Dei for Ben Sira, but such a motif is more clearly present in the language of 3:30-4:10, a passage that has numerous verbal and thematic connections with 29:8-13. Rather than a theological relationship between God and the student being the key concept behind this discourse, it is the special relationship between God and the poor which is most central in Ben Sira’s thought in 29:8-13. In 29:10 Ben Sira characterizes almsgiving as “losing (your) money,” which, in light of the teaching in vv. 11-13, must be seen as ironic or even tongue-in-cheek. One loses it only on the plane of normal human economics. In reality, though, this “lost” money is an investment that will pay exceptionally good dividends. While the object of almsgiving is the poor person in vv. 8-9, here he is described as “a kinsman or a friend.” Based on the equivalencies elsewhere in Sirach, it is likely that the Hebrew read [rw xa (cf. 7:12; 33:20).62 As was discussed in the last chapter, this pairing is found in the larger context of Deut 15 with the intention of including any and every member of the covenant community as the object of the prescribed generosity. However, in regard to Ben Sira, the similar phrase in 33:20 suggests that the [r and the xa are not synonymous.63 Rather, the term xa can refer either to a blood relative or, more generally, to a member of the larger nation while the 61

62

63

Griffin comments that “the Lord does not ignore his people who are in need, and neither should his faithful people who have a surplus” (A Study of Eleēmosynē, 88). Similarly, Sauer says, “Diese Verpflichtung wird aus dem Gottesverhältnis abgeleitet; denn auch Gott, der da reich ist, teilt seine Schätze den Menschen aus, ohne gewiß zu sein, für die ausgeteilten Güter einen Dank zu erhalten” (Jesus Sirach, 210). So SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176; cf. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 183. For Sir 33:20, the Hebrew has bha but the Syriac and Greek presuppose xa. See BEENTJES, The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira, 84-85; CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 220 n.5. Di Lella notes that the reference to son, wife, kindred, and friend in this verse represents the four “significant others in the life of a Jewish adult male.” SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 405.


189

term [r can refer either to a friend or, more generally, to a neighbor.64 The exact scope of this combination is not completely clear from the context, but Corley and Gilbert are probably correct to read it as encompassing fellow Israelites given that this is the sense of the word pair in Deuteronomy (cf. Isa 58:1-10).65 Furthermore, a division between Israel and the nations would be the most natural division in terms of the reference to God’s command to help the poor since it was fellow Israelites who were the principal beneficiaries in view in the Pentateuchal laws regarding social generosity.66 In contrast to this ironic “losing” of one’s money through almsgiving, Ben Sira sees the alternative as letting the money go to waste under a stone (v. 10b). The idea is that the person is hiding the money and the stone serves as a marker so that he can locate his buried fortune.67 The procedure was typically used when the owner of the money was worried that it would be stolen and it was considered by many to be a prudent thing to do (2 Enoch [J] 51:1-2; b. Bab. Meṣ. 42a; b. Šabb. 102b).68 This perspective provides some insight into the irony of Sir 29:10. Rather than seeing this procedure as a smart way to retain one’s money, Ben Sira sees it as “going to waste.” This metaphorical judgment is concretized in the Greek’s rendering with the use of ivwqh,tw (“let rust”), which, Skehan observes, envisions the actual corrosion of copper coins.69 This inversion of judgment regarding the hiding of money in the ground increases the irony of the first stich, where Ben Sira advised “losing” one’s money by giving alms. Readers of the New Testament will immediately recognize a similar inversion of this idea in Matthew’s version of the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30).70 There the slave who buried the master’s money is chided for failing to invest the talent with bankers so as to earn interest. 64 65 66

67 68 69 70

BEENTJES, The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira, 88-89; CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 74. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 209; GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 183. Commenting on the liberation provided by the sabbatical year and the Jubilee, Levenson remarks that “the philanthropic attitude of biblical law is not presented as a timeless, universal principle. This law exists within the unique covenantal relationship of YHWH and Israel, his ‘treasured possession among all peoples,’ and often reflects the specialness and differentness of the covenantal nation, as indeed it does here.” LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 103. FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 162. DAVIES/ALLISON, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3:406-407. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 369. In Luke’s version the slave hides the money in a napkin. See the discussion in FITZMYER, Luke X-XXIV, 1227-1240.

190


Just as in Sirach, his talent “goes to waste” since it is taken from him. The placement of the parable in Matthew’s Gospel implies a Christological and eschatological significance. It comes just before the scene of the final judgment in Matt 25:31-46, which also possesses similar theological dynamics as Sir 29:8-13 (see below). This renders the aspect of gaining interest through the banking industry as an allegory for the workings of a divine economy. Whereas the parable itself envisions interest for the master, Matthew’s comments on it in 25:29 reveal that the faithful slave will receive his own reward as well.71 Returning to Sirach, though, we notice that Ben Sira takes the theme in a different direction. In v. 11 he elaborates on the thought of v. 10 by making this ironic juxtaposition of the functions of wealth more explicit. In the first stich “losing money” in almsgiving is further defined as “laying up treasure,” the meaning of which we will take up in relation to the next verse. But first it should be observed that this laying up of treasure is understood to be in accordance with the divine commandments.72As in v. 9, the reference to the command most likely refers to Deut 15. Unlike the two previous references to the commandments in this chapter, the reference in v. 11 identifies the commandments as those “of the Most High.” The Greek word u`yi,stou suggests the Hebrew !wyl[, though Segal reconstructs yy.73 The phrase “commandments of the Most High” is also found in Sir 44:20 (!wyl[ twcm || no,mon u`yi,stou; cf. 19:17 and 23:23) and the similar phrase !wyl[ trwt is found in Sir 41:8; 42:2; and 49:4 (cf. 4Q525 2-3 ii 4).74 Although neither phrase appears in the Hebrew Bible, the idea can be easily understood as a natural derivation from passages such as Pss 78:56 and 107:11.75 The use of !wyl[ elsewhere in Sirach tends to carry overtones of God’s providential care for his people and his proclivity to bless them, especially with possession of the land, for obedience to the commandments.

71 72

73 74 75

For a nice discussion of the original parable and Matthew’s redaction of it see LUZ, Matthew 21-28, 246-262. Recall that this is true only of the Greek version, not the Syriac (see the text-critical discussion above). In another place Ben Sira gives a much more pragmatic reason for helping one’s neighbor: that one will have a share in his future prosperity (Sir 22:2326; cf. Inst. Ankh. 17:18-20). SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 176. Cf. GREGORY, Abraham as the Jewish Ideal, 69-70; WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 181-182. HAYWARD, El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira, 185-186.


191

This is particularly clear in the pericope concerning Abraham in 44:1921.76 This broader usage may help to explain Ben Sira’s incorporation of the phrase here since he seeks to convince his students that although almsgiving appears as a “loss” (v. 10a), in actuality “it will profit you more than gold” (v. 11b).77 Although the Greek word for “profit” (lusitele,w) occurs elsewhere in Sirach only in 20:10.14, a similar idea to 29:11 can be found in Sir 16:14. There Ben Sira reminds his students that every act of hqdc brings a reward (rkX) and every person will be recompensed according to his deeds. Even if one elects to interpret hqdc in the more general sense of a “righteous deed” (as do Skehan & Di Lella),78 the point being made is that according to the model of retributive justice acts of piety are expected to be repaid. The Greek has made this more specific by interpreting the Hebrew’s hqdc in 16:14 in the sense of almsgiving (evlehmosu,nh). Similarly, in Sir 12:2, which is in the context of a discussion of almsgiving, Ben Sira claims that when one acts charitably towards the righteous, one can expect to “find reward, if not from him, then from YHWH ” (cf. §7.3.1). Likewise, here the introduction of the reference to the “Most High” suggests a divine economy which does not operate according to normal intuition. The “profit” that Ben Sira mentions is not produced on the human economic plane, but on the divine. On the human plane it appears to be a “loss,” but on the divine plane it is an investment. This underlying divine economy comes more to the fore in the statements of vv. 12-13. Here the language of laying up treasure in v. 11 is 76

77

78

HAYWARD, El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira, 185-191, 196; cf. GREGORY, Abraham as the Jewish Ideal, 66-81. It is worth noting that Hayward and I differ in our understanding of the exact scope of Abraham’s obedience to the “commandments of the Most High.” If the Greek wording accurately reflects the Hebrew text, there may be a subtle play on words here. In v. 10 one loses “silver” while in v. 11b it profits the almsgiver “more than gold.” Obviously, silver and gold were simply ways of saying “money” in antiquity. As such, they are taken as equivalent by Di Lella in his interpretation of 29:10-11 (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371). Yet, it is interesting to note that by the early second century the Seleucids had stopped minting gold coins except on special occasions. Consequently, gold coins were much scarcer than silver coins and thus carried with them, at least in the Western part of the kingdom, greater prestige. If we imagine that Ben Sira’s audience would have regarded gold coinage as more desirable than silver coinage (even for monetary equivalencies) then the loss of “silver” to get something even “more valuable than gold” takes on an added dimension of nuance. See APERGHIS, The Seleukid Royal Economy, 218-220, 228; ROSTOVTZEFF, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 1:446-447. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 268.

192


is given more explicit detail. In v. 12a he says, “Store up almsgiving in your treasury.” Di Lella is certainly correct that to modern ears the notion of “storing up almsgiving” (literally, “locking up”, su,gkleison) sounds ironic since the act of almsgiving is by definition “losing” your money to those in need (i.e. little hope of being repaid).79 The fact that Ben Sira seems to presuppose that the logic of such an action would have been intelligible to his audience implies that it was a well-known understanding at the time. The origins of this theological understanding can be traced back into the teaching of the books of Proverbs and Psalms. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the Hebrew Scriptures consistently reflect the view that the poor enjoyed a special connection with the God of Israel. Verses such as Prov 14:31 and 17:5 were cited to the effect that one’s actions towards the poor entailed YHWH as a corresponding object. Particularly notable is that in Prov 14:31 being generous to the poor is considered a way of honoring God. Yet, while “honoring” (dbk) someone generally indicated the ascription of esteem, it frequently takes a concrete form in the sense of presenting a gift. This is clearly seen earlier in the book in Prov 3:9 (cf. Num 22:37; 24:11; Judg 9:9; Ps 50:3).80 The dynamics at work in Prov 14:31 appear to operate on this understanding as well since gifts to the poor are equated with honoring God. The honor-gift nexus between God and the poor is explicit just a few chapters later in Prov 19:17, which states that: Whoever is kind (!nwx) to the poor lends to the LORD, and will be repaid in full

This verse would come to play a significant role in the history of interpretation in regard to the virtues and merits of almsgiving in both Judaism and Christianity.81 It envisions a triangular theological relationship, wherein the nexus between the poor person and God functions as a financial conduit.82 When one “lends” to the poor through almsgiving, God functions as a “co-signer,” such that he is responsible for repaying the alms. The reference to “your treasury” in 29:12a, then, refers to something like a heavenly storehouse, wherein a gift to the poor functions as a “deposit” in heaven. As Anderson colorfully illustrates the idea, “It is as though the poor person was some sort of ancient

79 80 81 82

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 371. Noted by FOX, Proverbs 1-9, 151. Fox entertains the possibility of Prov 14:31 as an example of this sense. Also see DOHMEN/STENMANS, kābēd, 19-20. See ANDERSON, Sin: A History. Also see GREGORY, Wealth and Poverty.


193

automatic teller machine through which one could make a deposit directly to one’s heavenly account.”83 From this vantage point, the ironic nature of the language in Sir 29:10-12a is clear: from the human standpoint one is “losing” one’s money by giving alms, but on the higher plane of the divine economy it will “profit you more than gold.” The underlying assumption is the theological connection expressed in Prov 19:17. The student would already be familiar with the idea that pursuing Wisdom can bring wealth and that she fills the treasuries of her devotees (Prov 8:18-21; Sir 1:16-17). The relativization of wealth in Sirach, which was discussed in §2.1.1.2, implies that the treasuries stocked through Lady Wisdom are ultimately more valuable than the storehouses stocked through normal human economic dealings. This theological hierarchy goes a long way to explaining the logic of 29:10-12. To anticipate our discussion below, we can observe that for Ben Sira the giving of alms is counterintuitive, but those who pursue Wisdom will discern that the divine economy provides a far sounder way to dispense one’s money. To adapt a widely circulated Gospel saying, Ben Sira believes that “those who seek to save their money will lose it, but those who lose it for the sake of the Most High will gain it.” Nevertheless, it must be admitted that this foundational verse, Prov 19:17, is somewhat ambiguous about the terms of repayment. The emphasis is on the symmetry between the gift to the poor and the fact of repayment. What is left unstated are the tangible ways in which one might be repaid. This is where the linguistic shift in the meaning of hqdc becomes particularly important. As we noted in the introductory section, the fact that hqdc could mean almsgiving resulted in the read-

83

ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 47. It should be observed that Ben Sira’s thinking on “investing” money (i.e. alms) in a heavenly treasury in order to receive greater benefits in the future goes beyond the general idea of the merits of acting virtuously and is conceptually indebted to a culture that is thoroughly monetized (also cf. Matt 25:27). The monetization of Greek society resulted in new economic phenomena such as money changing, money lending, and banking. Though banks in ancient Greece were not the same as modern banking systems, they did result in an economic environment with deposits, credit, and investments (usually in land or merchant ventures). For recent treatments of the monetization of Greek society and the corresponding economic and conceptual effects, see especially COHEN, The Elasticity of the Money-Supply at Athens, 66-83; GABRIELSEN, Banking and credit operations in Hellenistic times, 136-164; PEACOCK, The Origins of money in Ancient Greece, 637-650; SCHAPS, The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece; SEAFORD, Money and the Greek Mind, especially 125-146.

194


ing by some interpreters of earlier passages through this new lexical lens.84 Consider these passages: Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit, but hqdc delivers from death. (Prov 10:2) Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but hqdc delivers from death (Prov 11:4) They have distributed freely, they have given to the poor; their hqdc endures forever; their horn is exalted in honor. (Ps 112:9)

One will notice that in all of these passages hqdc occurs in contexts involving the proper and improper uses of wealth (cf. Prov 8:18; Ps 112:3). Given the opposition of hqdc to wealth acquired through normal and/or sinful means, it can hardly be surprising that later readers saw these proverbs as teaching that unlike normal, unprofitable riches, almsgiving (hqdc) delivers from death.85 According to Ps 112:9, it is just such almsgiving, defined as giving generously to the poor, that endures forever and brings honor. It should come as no surprise, then, that the notion that the repayment of almsgiving comes in the form of future deliverance is precisely the way it is expressed in Sirach and other Second Temple texts. In vv. 12b-13 Ben Sira provides two ways in which depositing almsgiving in one’s treasury pays future dividends: (1) it delivers from every calamity; and (2) it will “fight for you” against an enemy with greater efficacy than a strong shield and a robust spear. Thus, the repayment Ben Sira envisions is not so much monetary, as future deliverance from trouble. Likewise, the deliverance from death is present in the Hebrew of Sir 4:10.86 Given that wealth is relativized in relation to the value of health and security (Sir 30:14-16; cf. §2.1.1.1), this future protection is indeed “more profitable than gold” (v. 11b). Instead of giving money to the poor, one might opt to use it to try to ensure future security, even investing in weapons such as a shield and a spear. But for Ben Sira, almsgiving is more effective than these strategies simply because it operates on the higher plane of the divine economy.87 God has promised to repay the gift to the poor (Prov 19:17) and he can be trusted to do so. One can see this dynamic at work elsewhere in Sirach in 3:31, which follows a verse about almsgiving: 84 85 86 87

HURVITZ, ‘hqdc’h gXwm lX wtxymc twdlwtl - ~yydwmlt ~yxnwm lX tyarqmh ~tyXar, 158-159. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 48-49. See the text-critical discussion in the Appendix. GILBERT, Prêt, aumône et caution, 182.


195

wykrdb wnarqy bwj l[wp ![Xm acmy wjwm t[bw o` avntapodidou.j ca,ritaj me,mnhtai eivj ta. meta. tau/ta kai. evn kairw/| ptw,sewj eu`rh,sei sth,rigma The Hebrew of the first stich reads, “The one who does a good deed will encounter it on his path” (reading l[wp as a participle). The Greek has “The one who repays favors (ca,ritaj) remembers (it) in the future.” In other words, the Greek translation of the first stich seems to have in mind God as the subject: the one who repays “charities,” i.e. God, will remember the charitable deed mentioned in the previous verse at a future time and presumably repay the one who gave alms. The subject of the Hebrew, on the other hand, is the almsgiver, who will then reencounter the money/goods he previously gave away in the form of help further down his “path of life.” Of course, in the sapiential understanding of the providential arrangement of the world, God would be behind this dynamic as well, but in the Hebrew text he is an additional step removed from the surface of the verse. Thus, while the Hebrew text operates more nearly on the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model of retributive justice, the Greek has slightly reconfigured the verse to accord with the divine judicial model. In Sir 29:12 the Greek and the Syriac agree that the act of deliverance is effected by the almsgiving itself: it (au[th || yh) will deliver you. Yet, the reference to the commandments of the Most High in v. 11 reminds the reader that the Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang model is operative only because of the divinely providential ordering of the world (cf. §2.1.2). But this observation raises a further problem with Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving. If, as we saw in chapter 2, there is a significant breakdown in the model of retributive justice such that righteousness does not always correlate with wealth, nor sin with poverty, on what grounds can one expect that storing up almsgiving in one’s treasury will actually produce the promised deliverance? On one hand, it is the breakdown in retributive justice vis-à-vis wealth and poverty that is the sine qua non presupposition for the virtue of aiding the poor qua poor. On the other hand, that very conflict between theology and social reality would seem to undermine the reliability of the motivating rationale for giving alms in the first place. The sage would seem to be caught between the idealistic framework found in the sacred tradition and the socially accommodated way in which that very same sacred tradition has taken form. It is the attempt to negotiate this tradition that has placed Ben Sira in an almost impossible position.

196


In order to venture a solution to this problem, let us take a brief detour to consider almsgiving in the book of Tobit, which provides a slightly earlier and very similar treatment of almsgiving to that in Sir 29:8-13. In chapter 4 Tobit gives a testamentary speech to his son Tobias. After instructing Tobias concerning his burial wishes and exhorting him to honor his mother he says: “Revere the Lord all your days, my son, and refuse to sin or to transgress his commandments. Live uprightly all the days of your life, and do not walk in the ways of wrongdoing; 6 for those who act in accordance with truth will prosper in all their activities. To all those who practice righteousness 7 give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. 8 If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. 9 So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. 10 For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. 11 Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.88 5

The similarities between the treatment of almsgiving in Tobit and Sirach are striking. Both Tobit and Ben Sira use the language of “turning away,” though Tobit gives greater emphasis to the symmetry between the giver and God’s treatment of the giver according to the model of retributive justice. Both authors refer to “laying up treasure” and believe that it offers future deliverance on a day of trouble (cf. Tob 12:8-9). However, Tobit also explicitly refers to being saved from death (cf. Tob 14:10), proof positive of the (re)reading of Prov 10:2 and 11:4 in light of the lexical shift in hqdc mentioned above.89 Because Tobit was written before Sirach, it provides the explicit link between this interpretation of these Proverbs and the theological logic of Sir 29:12-13. In addition, Tobit sees almsgiving as “an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High” and later Raphael will claim that it “purges away every sin” (Tob 12:9). The redemptive aspect of almsgiving is understandable from the standpoint of a Diasporan piety since access

88

89

For the text criticism of this passage see FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 168-171; MOORE, Tobit, 161-168. The word for alms in v. 7, twqdc, is extant in 4QTobite, fragment 2. For the Qumran manuscripts of Tobit see FITZMYER, Tobit (DJD), 1-76. See ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 49-50; FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 171.


197

to the altar would not have been readily available.90 As Anderson observes, “Tobit is suggesting that placing coins in the hand of a beggar is like putting a sacrifice on the altar – for both the hand and the altar provide direct access to God.”91 What is interesting is that Ben Sira, who lives in Jerusalem and shows a great loyalty to the priesthood, shows the same conviction, though he does not speak of it in chapter 29 (cf. Sir 3:30; 35:1-4). The social/theological tension this creates will be examined more closely in the next chapter. However, it is especially important to recognize the place of this testamentary speech in the narrative of Tobit. In the opening chapter Tobit introduces himself as someone who has performed many acts of charity for his own people and details his pattern of righteousness (1:3.8). Because his acts of charity, particularly the burying of the dead, went against imperial wishes, he was forced into hiding. Then in chapter 2, Tobit sends out his son to look for some poor people to bring to dinner. When Tobias reports to his father that someone is lying strangled in the marketplace, Tobit rushes out to bury him. After returning and washing himself, he goes out into the courtyard where he becomes blinded by bird droppings. His marriage begins to deteriorate and in chapter 3 his situation is so dire that Tobit prays for death. It is in this context that Tobit’s testamentary speech comes. Narratively, Tobit’s claims about the efficacy of almsgiving seem ironic, even absurd.92 In fact, in the next chapter Tobit describes his plight in these words: “What joy is left for me anymore? I am a man without eyesight; I cannot see the light of heaven, but I lie in darkness like the dead who no longer see the light. Although still alive, I am among the dead. I hear people but I cannot see them” (5:10). Tobit’s description of his life as a “living Sheol” uses language that recalls his earlier statement that “almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness” (4:10). Thus, Tobit’s own assessment of his life seems as though it flatly contradicts his statement about almsgiving. Not only has his superlative almsgiving apparently not delivered him from death and from slipping into darkness, it seems actually 90

91 92

Scholars are divided over whether the book should be located in the Diaspora or in Palestine, but even if the author were located in Palestine, it still would be possible to make this deduction regarding those who lived in the Diaspora. It is notable in this regard that, unlike Ben Sira, Tobit never mentions the atoning efficacy of the sacrificial cult, even though he does ascribe sacrificial efficacy to almsgiving. For issues of provenance see DESILVA, Introducing the Apocrypha, 68-69; FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 50-54; MOORE, Tobit, 42-43. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 52. NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 31.

198


to have set in motion the events that have led to a living death. Almsgiving has been not just ineffective, it has been counterproductive. From this vantage point, it appears that that the situation in Tob 1-5 has narratively raised the exact issue that we have posed to Ben Sira about the efficacy of almsgiving in light of the frequent breakdown of the model of retributive justice. The rest of the book of Tobit brings the problems involving Tobit, Tobias, and Sarah to a happy resolution, mainly through the agency of the angel Raphael. That Tobit’s narratival function can be understood in terms of an apologetic for almsgiving is evident by the double reaffirmation of the efficacy of almsgiving at the end of the tale. First, the angel Raphael sanctions it by telling Tobit and Tobias: Prayer with fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than wealth with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to lay up gold. For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, but those who commit sin and do wrong are their own worst enemies. (12:8-10)

Then, Tobit’s second testamentary speech offers as his final words this instruction: “See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for this shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness, because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, Ahikar escaped the fatal trap that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself, and was destroyed. So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes, and what injustice does -- it brings death! But now my breath fails me.” Then they laid him on his bed, and he died; and he received an honorable funeral. (14:10b-11)

This speech is notable for several reasons. First, as Tobit’s final words, it carries a special importance in terms of what the narrator intends for the readers to learn from the tale, in this case that the principle of retributive justice, when applied to almsgiving, is indeed reliable. Second, Tobit reaffirms both his own initial testamentary claim about almsgiving and the claim of Raphael. In light of strong disconfirming evidence, Tobit remained committed to his ideal of almsgiving, and in the end it proved to be true. We are told in Tob 14:2 that he lived to the age of 112, an additional 50 years after his original testamentary speech. Thus, Raphael's assertion that almsgiving leads to a long life is con-


199

firmed by Tobit’s own life. Retributive justice in the arena of almsgiving has proven to be a reliable model. Therefore, a key teaching of the book of Tobit is that, even if it does not appear to be so, almsgiving really does deliver from death and benefit those who practice it.93 The reason for the intervening suffering, according to the angel Raphael, is that Tobit was being tested (12:1314). There is an obvious similarity to the book of Job, where at one point the discussion over Job’s suffering focuses on the issue of Job’s treatment of the poor (Job 29-31).94 At any rate, the author of Tobit apparently recognized the difficulty in commending almsgiving in a world where righteous deeds are not always recompensed fairly, and his tale seeks to reaffirm the goodness and efficacy of almsgiving in light of this challenge. Whether or not Ben Sira actually knew the book of Tobit, they clearly breathe the same theological air on many topics and especially on the issue of almsgiving.95 There are some similarities in the way Tobit handles the problem of retributive justice vis-à-vis almsgiving and the way that Ben Sira handles the more general problem of retributive justice. In order to neutralize disconfirming evidence for the model, Ben Sira employed a number of strategies including deferral, the extension of repayment to one’s descendants, and the alternative currency of honor and shame (cf. §2.2.3). Ultimately, Tobit’s answer in the area of almsgiving runs along the same line of thought. The appropriate recompense for his almsgiving does eventually come, but it is deferred for the sake of testing (cf. Sir 2:1-11; §2.2.3.1). In the end, though, the mystery of divine providence guided all events to their appropriate end such that Tobit himself affirms the reliability of the retributive justice model with respect to the practice of almsgiving. In addition, it is striking that, even despite the most pressing disconfirming evidence, Tobit still affirmed this principle in chapter 4. This is not just wishful thinking, given that the context of the speech is a testament before he thinks he is going to die. The specter of death would seem to render this affirmation quite hollow. Yet, as we noted in §2.2.3.2, earlier Jewish authors were inclined to see more continuity and solidarity between a person and his descendants than the modern Western mind is. It may be that Tobit’s affirmation of the efficacy of almsgiving in this earlier testament-

93 94 95

Cf. GRIFFIN, A Study of Eleēmosynē, 45-46. For Tobit’s interaction with the book of Job see PORTIER-YOUNG, Eyes to the Blind, 14-27. The Greek of Sirach clearly knows the Greek of Tobit since the Greek of Sir 4:4b is a supplemental gloss taken from Tob 4:7. See the discussion in the Appendix.

200


tary speech is operating on the presupposition of a “resolution beyond death” whereby Tobias will reap the benefits of both his own almsgiving and Tobit’s.96 Whether or not this is the case, the narratival function of this affirmation is to impress upon the reader that this theology of almsgiving should be maintained even in the face of (temporary) disconfirming evidence. Unlike Tobit, however, Ben Sira never addresses the problem of disconfirming evidence for his understanding of the benefits of almsgiving. Rather, he seems to presuppose its efficacy in the places where he does discuss it. In light of the discussion on retributive justice in chapter 2 and our discussion of how Tobit handles the problem, I suspect that if he were pressed on the matter he would offer explanations along similar lines: deferral, testing, honor, and the ultimate inscrutability of divine providence. But in the end, Ben Sira leaves the problem unaddressed, giving the impression that, for him, almsgiving works on a higher economic plane than normal socio-economic dealings. Even if in his mysterious providence God has permitted unjust incongruities on the normal socio-economic plane, almsgiving appears to operate at a more dependable level. Ben Sira hints that almsgiving is a divinely ordained means of closing the gap left by the breakdown of retributive justice vis-à-vis wealth and poverty by addressing the efficacy of almsgiving in discussions of social injustice (3:30-4:10; 34:21-35:26).97 For whatever reasons, he does not reflect on how the two are related from the standpoint of retributive justice, though this initial move to link theologically almsgiving and the problem of social injustice and economic inequality can be seen to underlie the solutions of later thinkers.

5.4 Sirach 29:8-13 in Broader Context In discussions of poverty in the Second Temple period it is not uncommon to encounter the claim that “the Jewish view” of poverty (sympathetic) and “the Greek view” of poverty (unsympathetic) were

96

97

This connection was suggested to me by Gary Anderson. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in Ben Sira’s discussions of wealth, poverty, and justice he does not justify current socio-economic standings by an appeal to the merits or demerits of the ancestors of the wealthy and the poor (cf. John 9:2). The idea that almsgiving may benefit one’s children can be found in Baba Bathra 10b. Wright & Camp view almsgiving as the only means offered by Ben Sira for redressing the economic situation in Seleucid Judea (Who Has Been Tested by Gold, 161).

Sirach 29:8-13 in Broader Context

201

diametrically opposed to one another.98 While this contrast can have some heuristic value, it also runs the risk of oversimplification. The biblical picture of poverty and wealth was complex and varied, at least in emphasis, by genre (cf. §2.1.2), but a general concern for the poor can be found across the biblical spectrum. In this regard, there is no question that the wider Hellenistic world generally attached greater shame and condemnation to the status of the poor, and therefore it was not unacceptable to disparage them, although it was forbidden to Jews (cf. Plato, Laws, 2.11.936b-c; Aristotle, Politics, 6.3.4.).99 In addition, it is not uncommon to find among the aristocracy the view that there was a correspondence between wealth and virtue, culture, and nobility on the one hand, and poverty and evil on the other.100 Yet, it must be recognized that Greco-Roman thought and culture was also varied, and much of what is extant, as with Jewish literature, is the product of the culturally elite. This must be taken into account when seeking to offer characterizations of “Greek thinking on poverty.” In fact, even among the extant literature there are some more positive views towards the poor that can be found, though these tend to relate to the ptwcoj rather than the penhj.101 Well before the time of Ben Sira one can find the view that the poor (ptwcoj) are in some way protected by Zeus. For example, there is a statement by Nausicaa in Homer’s Odyssey that captures the thought well:

98

This is the impression conveyed in the brief discussion by Griffin (A Study of Eleēmosynē, 64) and to a lesser degree in Jensen’s discussion (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 12-15). Additionally, one must be careful citing Greek condemnations of beggars as a contrast to Ben Sira’s view of poverty since “beggars” and the “poor” are not necessarily the same in Sirach. In some places, Ben Sira’s assessment of beggars actually comes quite close to the statements of the Greek authors (Sir 18:33; 40:28-30), though in 4:1-10 he seems to regard them as legitimate recipients of almsgiving. Cf. WRIGHT/CAMP, Who Has Been Tested by Gold, 160; cf. §2.2.1.1. 99 HAMEL, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, 194. For more examples see BOLKESTEIN, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, 185-191. 100 DEN BOER, Private Morality in Greece and Rome, 161. Of course, biblical texts give plenty of evidence that Israelite and Jewish aristocracy were prone to these ideas as well. 101 HAMEL, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, 195. Den Boer points out that the use of ptwcoj, penhj, and tapeinoj in Greek literature is slightly different from that in the LXX, where they frequently seem to be interchangable (Private Morality in Greece and Rome, 162-165; cf. HAMEL, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, 167-170). Since Bolkstein’s landmark study, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, the failure to take this into account has resulted in confusion and unfounded claims of too strong of a dichotomy between Greek and Jewish understandings of the poor and their relationship to God/gods.

202


For from Zeus are all strangers and beggars and a gift, though small, is welcome. Come, then, my maidens, give to the stranger food and drink, and bathe him in the river in a spot where there is shelter from the wind. (6.207-210; cf. 14.57)102

In Greek the first sentence reads: proj gar dioj eisin apantej xeinoi te ptwcoi te, dosij d’ oligh te filh te. The translation of Pope is remarkably close to the thought of Prov 19:17: “By Jove the stranger and the poor are sent; And what to those we give to Jove is lent.”103 However, while most translators and commentators believe the sense of the second clause is closer to that given by Murray in the citation above, this should not distract us from the importance of the overall statement. As Garvie comments, “Since such people come under the protection of Zeus, an offence against them is an offence against his personal timh, just as an offence against a slave would be one against the slave’s master.”104 Even though Pope’s translation goes beyond the Greek text, Den Boer astutely observes that the logic of Nausicaa’s claim presupposes as a motivation that those who care for the poor will be rewarded in some form by Zeus, since they were sent by him. Therefore, even if the language of “lending to Zeus” is absent from the text, the basic triangular idea can be readily derived from it.105 On the other hand, this citation from Homer must be balanced by occasional indications in his works that the inability of the poor to offer sacrifices to the gods necessarily placed them farther away from the gods than the rich were.106 In the Hesiodic period Zeus continued to be characterized by some as the defender of the poor and the oppressed.107 In a thought similar to what is found in Sir 11:1-6, Theognis appealed to the ability of Zeus to 102 103 104 105

Text and translation are from MURRAY (trans.), The Odyssey. POPE (trans.), The Odyssey of Homer, 92. GARVIE, Homer: The Odyssey, Books VI-VIII, 134. DEN BOER, Private Morality in Greece and Rome, 165. This reading of Homer’s text was disputed by Bolkestein who argues that the reference to the poor is incidental since it is derivative of the fact that he is a xenoj. Thus, Zeus is the protector of strangers, not the poor (Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, 177-181). Other than Hands (Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome, 78), Bolkestein has not found much of a following. His resistance seems to be unduly motivated by an attempt to see this idea as unique to Jewish (and more generally Near Eastern) thought. Even if the aspect of the xenoj is dominant, the inclusion of ptwcoj still must be explained. 106 GRANT, A Social History of Greece and Rome, 59-60. This idea was countered by Socrates in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, who argued that this would result in a preference for some wicked over some righteous. See HANDS, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome, 78. 107 DEN BOER, Private Morality in Greece and Rome, 166-167.


203

intervene on behalf of the poor: “Never in anger, castigate a man // For poverty, which wastes and kills the heart. // Zeus tilts his balance this way and then that, // One moment you’re a rich man, next you’re not” (Elegies, 155-158). Nevertheless, despite statements such as these, which show a certain correspondence with the thought of Ben Sira, the dominant attitude in Greco-Roman culture was more negative regarding the status of the poor. Because issues of status and origin were so determinative for one’s place and value in society, those who had fallen into poverty were more likely to receive financial assistance than those born into poverty. The reason for this is that the former person had communal ties to those who were in a position to help and could therefore appeal to their pity. The latter were more often than not judged as part of an inferior lot in life that was mostly deserved and merited scorn more than pity. Charity towards people in this group is not well attested.108 Therefore, while similar sentiments concerning the relationship of God/gods to the poor can be found in Greek and Jewish literature, they diverge on the implications of this conviction. In Greek society forms of charity primarily functioned to preserve and reinforce communal bonds. Helping those who had fallen into poverty was considered beneficial for the good of the polis, but it was never raised to the level of a legal statute. Furthermore, the recipients of benefactions still retained the social stigma of “poor” even if the assistance was enough to pull them back out of poverty. Thus, any sense of a connection between the poor and the gods did not ameliorate the shame that accompanied a (formerly) impoverished state.109 In addition, the view that poverty and wealth were ordained by the gods resulted in the conclusion by the Anonymous Iamblichi texts that “it was therefore right for the rich to help the poor, but a desire to cease to be poor and to become rich was contrary to justice and the will of the gods.”110 The latter judgment applied both to those born poor and those who had fallen into poverty. Despite similar sentiments that occasionally occur in Greek literature, the conception of beneficence in terms of a religious duty mandated by God/gods is where the Jewish approach fundamentally di108 DEN BOER, Private Morality in Greece and Rome, 172-173. 109 The Cynics, of course, exploited this stigma for rhetorical effect. They famously declared that “only the poor man is rich” and their paradoxical use of “rich” and “poor” to make their philosophical point came to have counterparts in Epicureanism and Stoicism. Desmond observes that this rhetorical development becomes plausible only when wealth is linked with vices and injustice. See DESMOND, The Greek Praise of Poverty, especially 27-104. 110 DEN BOER, Private Morality in Greece and Rome, 176.

204


verges from the larger Hellenistic world. It is telling that several centuries later the Emperor Julian castigates the pagan priests for failing to keep up with Christian acts of charity. He notes the latter’s “benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives,” and then observes that “it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.”111 Julian then quotes the passage from Homer cited above in order to show a religious precedent within paganism for such actions. The presupposition of his argument is that while charity was religiously grounded for Christians (and Jews), it was not being viewed this way by their pagan counterparts.112 Therefore, while there are some points of contact between the Greco-Roman world and the thought of Sir 29:8-13 that are worth noting, it is also clear that Ben Sira’s thought on the poor and almsgiving is far more indebted to a Jewish tradition of reflection and interpretation. Not surprisingly, then, the most fruitful avenues of comparison occur in Jewish and Christian literature.

5.4.1 Alms and a Heavenly Treasury in Jewish and Christian Literature In addition to the book of Tobit, which was discussed above, the theological ideas in Sir 29:8-13 are widespread among contemporary and later Jewish and Christian authors. Because of the biblical legacy, the idea that God is particularly close to the poor and the outcast is ubiquitous in early Jewish literature, and, correlatively, one frequently encounters generosity to the poor in stock images of piety (e.g. T. Iss. 7:5; T. Job 9-15; 45:1). More interesting for our purposes is that the derivative idea of a heavenly treasury also appears among the literature of the Second Temple period and beyond.113 As in Tobit, this idea is especially prominent in the testamentary genre. It appears implicitly in T. Zeb. 6:4-7, where the logic of Prov 19:17 seems to underlie the statement that, “be111 Translations from Letter 22 in WRIGHT (trans.), The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3:67-73. 112 STARK, The Rise of Christianity, 83-88. 113 Relevant texts are helpfully collected in MARMORSTEIN, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature, 20-24; id., The Treasures in Heaven and Upon Earth, 216228; STRACK/BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1:429-431.


205

ing compassionate, I gave some of my catch to every stranger… Therefore the Lord made my catch to be an abundance of fish; for whoever shares with his neighbor receives multifold from the Lord.”114 As with Ben Sira, the author of this passage understands this triangular repayment to come in concrete ways during his earthly life. Especially important in this text is the perceived symmetry between Zebulon’s acts of generosity and the way in which the Lord repays him. Whereas Ben Sira focuses on the better repayment of future protection in a day of need, T. Zeb. 6 seems to envision a repayment that corresponds to what was donated. Even more explicit is a statement given in the Testament of Levi. After exhorting his sons to walk according to the Law of God, he says, “Therefore, my sons, do righteousness on earth in order that you might find it in heaven” (13:5).115 Here the context does not specifically concern generosity to the poor, but piety in the general sense. Thus, the idea in this text is about a general sense of merit and reward, but here the author has in view reward in the afterlife in which merits on earth await the pious individual in the form of heavenly rewards. Similarly, in his treatise On Rewards and Punishments, Philo expounds the various ways in which people can be rewarded by God for obedience to the commandments. In the section on the reward of wealth he argues that, “For those who possess stored up in Heaven the true wealth whose adornment is wisdom and godliness have also wealth of earthly riches in abundance. For under the providence and good care of God their storehouses are ever filled” (XVII, 104).116 Of course, here Philo is not talking about almsgiving specifically, but about the general merit of obedience to the law. Whereas the theological appropriation of Prov 19:17 in Tobit and Sirach envisions a heavenly treasury that provides future rewards only during one’s lifetime (or possibly in the lifetime of one’s descendants), the acceptance of the possibility of an afterlife allowed the notion of a heavenly treasury to be transposed to a treasure in heaven. This does

114 Translations of the Pseudepigrapha are from CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 115 Scholars have frequently noted that chapter 13 fits awkwardly into the rest of the document. Kugler argues that in light of the connections with Aramaic Levi 82-101, T. Levi 13 is most likely reworked source material. The specific language in this verse is not found in Aramaic Levi 87 which indicates that it is to be attributed to the author of Testament of Levi. See KUGLER, From Patriarch to Priest, 211-212. 116 Translation from COLSON (trans.), Philo, Volume VIII, 375. For a discussion of the debate over Philo’s view of wealth and poverty see PHILLIPS, Revisiting Philo, 111121. The section cited here is briefly discussed on p. 116.

206


not necessarily preclude a reward in one’s own lifetime, as is clear from the Midrash on Prov 19:17: “Why has all this [come to pass]? Because of the righteous charity which they, in their blamelessness, dispensed to the poor. God considered it as though they had dealt righteously with Himself, as it is said, He who is generous to the poor makes a loan to the Lord; He will repay him his due, both in this world and the world to come.”117 The transposition of the heavenly treasury into rewards in the afterlife can be seen clearly in 2 Baruch (probably early 2nd century C.E.) as well: For the righteous justly have good hope for the end and go away from this habitation without fear because they possess with you a store of good works which is preserved in treasuries. Therefore, they leave this world without fear and are confident of the world which you have promised to them with an expectation full of joy. (14:12-13; cf. 24:1; 44:13-14; also see 4 Ezra 7:77)

In later Jewish literature there are countless examples of the theological understanding of almsgiving found in Sirach and Tobit. But for our purposes, let us consider just one section of text from the Talmud. In the tractate Baba Bathra there is a section covering several folia that reflects the theological themes we have been discussing.118 So essential to the ethics of Judaism was almsgiving that R. Assi is said to have taught that “charity is equivalent to all the other religious precepts combined” (9a; cf. Tosephta Peah 4:19).119 In folio 10a, appeal is made to R. Joshua b. Korḥah, who said, “Whoever turns away his eyes from charity is considered as if he were serving idols…Just as in the second case the sin is that of idolatry, so in the first case the sin is equivalent to that of idolatry.” This teaching makes sense only if one presupposes the content of 117 Translation from VISOTZKY, The Midrash on Proverbs, 87. 118 Another text that is particularly rich in theological statements about almsgiving as lending to God is Lev. Rab. XXXIV. Also see m. Peah 1:1; Shab. 156b; Rosh Hash. 16b; Gittin 7a-b. 119 All translations from EPSTEIN (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud. Later in folio 10b, several rabbis debate the meaning of Prov 14:34 and R. Joḥanan b. Zakkai gives the fascinating interpretation that “Just as the sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so charity makes atonement for the heathen,” which picks up the expiatory function of almsgiving found in Sir 3:30-31 and Tob 4:11 and applies it to the Gentiles. However, several other rabbis argue that almsgiving is ‘sin’ for the Gentiles because they do it out of self-aggrandizement (obviously, the disagreement over the interpretation of Prov 14:34 arises from the ambiguity of the word tajx). Curiously, R. Joḥanan also is cited as giving this view, which has elicited various theories to explain it. See the discussion in SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 208-209. That there are different ranks of charity with different degrees of merit can be seen in m. Avot 5:13; Soṭah 9a; and Ta‘an. 21a.


207

the statements from Proverbs that to spurn the poor is to despise their Maker (cf. Prov 14:31; 17:5; 19:17). In other words, it is the theological nexus between the poor and God that undergirds the association of neglecting charity with the sin of idolatry. Earlier we raised the issue of whether the ‘divine economy’ of almsgiving works on a more reliable level than normal economics, which are subject to a breakdown in the principle of retributive justice. These two economic realities are put together in an interesting way by R. Meir. He is cited as having taught: “The critic [of Judaism] may bring against you the argument, ‘If your God loves the poor, why does he not support them?’ If so, answer him, ‘So that through them we may be saved from the punishment of Gehinnom’” (10a). In this statement by R. Meir, the breakdown in the principle of retributive justice with respect to economics is providentially permitted so that the divine economy of almsgiving can work for the salvation of the pious.120 In other words, the recompense due the almsgiver is assured because God has ordained almsgiving as a salvific means of addressing the larger problem of retributive justice. This ameliorates the worry that almsgiving might also fail to be recompensed. Later in the folio, R. Judah says that charity “brings redemption nearer” and supports it by appealing to Isa 56:1 and reading hqdc there as “charity.” He then goes on to list the ten “strong” things that have been created and the list climaxes with the observation that “death is stronger than all, and charity saves from death, as it is written, Righteousness [ẓedaḳah] delivereth from death (Prov 10:2).” Thus, R. Judah reflects the same linguistic move found in Tobit and Sirach in his understanding of the redemptive and superlative nature of almsgiving. The same position on Prov 19:17 found in the Midrash is derived by R. Joḥanan from the duplicated idea in Prov 10:2 and 11:4. After citing these verses, he states, “Why this double mention of righteousness? – One that delivers him from an unnatural death and one that delivers him from the punishment of Gehinnom.” Here the earlier idea found in Sir 29 and Tob 4 that almsgiving delivers from death is refracted to

120 The same logic expressed by R. Meir also seems to underlie Cyprian’s reaction to a plague in 251 C.E. in which he sees the widespread affliction as an opportunity for Christians to practice deeds of loving-kindness, thereby fashioning themselves for glory. After acknowledging that the plague seems to strike the just and unjust indiscriminately, he says, “Although this mortality has contributed nothing else, it has especially accomplished this for Christians and servants of God, that we have begun gladly to seek martyrdom while we are learning not to fear death. These are trying exercises for us, not deaths; they give to the mind the glory of fortitude; by contempt of death they prepare for the crown.” Quoted in STARK, The Rise of Christianity, 81.

208


apply to two different kinds of death, normal mortality and eternal death in the afterlife. Finally, even more detailed in terms of the idea of a treasure in heaven in relation to generosity to the poor is the story of King Monobazus that is mentioned in folio 11a. References to the story also appear, with some variations, in Josephus Ant. xx. 2-4; y. Peah 15b; and Pesikta Rabbati 25.2. At the time of a severe famine, King Monobazus distributed his property among the poor and was scolded by his brothers for “squandering” what their father had worked so hard to accumulate. Monobazus replied: My fathers stored up below and I am storing up above…My fathers stored in a place which can be tampered with, but I have stored in a place which cannot be tampered with…My fathers stored something which produces no fruits, but I have stored something which does produce fruits…My fathers gathered treasures of money, but I have gathered treasures of souls…My fathers gathered for others and I have gathered for myself…My fathers gathered for this world, but I have gathered for the future world.

This passage shows remarkable similarities to Sir 29:8-13. The contrast between storing vulnerable riches on earth and almsgiving as a more reliable treasure in heaven has an earlier counterpart in Sir 29:10b-13. Yet, Monobazus’ belief in the afterlife allows a future, heavenly aspect to the reward not found in Ben Sira’s thought.121 As can be seen, deep theological reflection on the significance of almsgiving continued in Jewish literature, and with the acceptance of a belief in the afterlife and the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., certain dimensions of almsgiving were transposed and/or took on new significance in light of these developments. We will return to the relationship of almsgiving to sacrifice in the next chapter, but for now the examples cited give a sufficient picture of the theological vigor of Jewish reflection on the triangular construct involving God, the poor, and the almsgiver, which is found in earlier writings such as Sirach. It should come as no surprise to discover that the same theological trajectories are found in early Christian literature as well. In the discussion of Sir 14:3-19 in chapter 3 we had occasion to consider the parable in Luke 12:16-21, in which we noted the connection between the unknown time of death and the resulting wisdom of being generous. In 121 See the discussion in MARMORSTEIN, The Treasures in Heaven and upon Earth, 216220. It should be remembered that the idea of a “heavenly treasury” is to be distinguished from a “treasury of merits” that can be transferred from one party to another at the time of final judgment. SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 197.


209

both Luke 12 and Sir 14 we saw that the inevitability of death provided an impetus to do something more worthwhile with one’s money than simply hoarding it. A similar concern occurs here in Sir 29:8-13, but without the component of death. Here the emphasis is on the contrast between perishing silver and money invested wisely in one’s heavenly account. This has a counterpart in Luke 12:21 as well, where there is a contrast between those who “store up treasure for themselves” but are not “rich toward God” (i.e. generous). This is made even more explicit later in the chapter in v. 33 when Jesus says, “Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.”122 Thus, in Luke 12 some of the key theological components of Sir 14:3-19 and 29:8-13 are blended to encourage generosity. The unknowable time of death serves as the basis for demonstrating the foolishness of storing up earthly treasures in contrast to the wise storing up of enduring treasures through generosity, although in Luke Jesus includes the added dimension of a reward in the afterlife. Similar to Luke 12:33, probably the best parallel to the theology of Sir 29:8-13 can be found in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount.123 In chapter 6 Jesus expounds three important practices of Jewish piety: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (6:1-18).124 In vv. 1-4 the main issue for almsgiving concerns whether one does it to be noticed by others, notably a topic that is also discussed in Baba Bathra 10a-b (cf. Prov 21:13-14). The basic contrast here is between the “reward” of other people’s admiration and the (better) reward that comes from the Father for alms given in secret. The nature of the reward here, or in conjunction with prayer (6:6) and fasting (6:18), is left unspecified until 6:19-21, though one might conclude from the parallelism that it involves God’s approbation.125 After his instruction on almsgiving, prayer, and fasting Jesus provides this conclusion: Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (6:19-21) 122 Cf. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 106. 123 Matt 6:19-21 is probably closer to Q than is Luke 12:33. See DAVIES/ALLISON, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:627-631. 124 It is interesting to note that although the original text of Matt 6:1 had dikaiosu,nhn, numerous manuscripts have the reading elehmosunhn (L WZ Θ, etc.) in line with vv. 2-4. 125 DAVIES/ALLISON, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:583-584.

210


The similarities to Sir 29:8-13 are obvious. Both contrast “wasted” or endangered wealth on earth with the more valuable and secure treasure in heaven. In Matthew, however, the heavenly treasure more likely refers to an eschatological reward than to future aid in the present life (cf. Jas 5:3).126 In addition, by using this statement to pick up the refrain of God’s secret reward (6:1.4.6.18), the heavenly treasury is broadened out from referring only to almsgiving, as in Sir 29:8-13 and Luke 12:33, to refer to prayer and fasting as well. Thus, in Matthew the motif of a heavenly treasury is broadened to include other acts of meritorious piety, as was also seen in some Jewish sources. One further explicit example of a treasury in heaven in the New Testament is found in the story of the rich young man, which is present in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt: 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:1823). In all three versions the young man’s conformity to the prescriptions of the Torah is trumped by Jesus’ statement that “One thing you lack, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me.” All three evangelists report that, because the man was wealthy, this was the ethical coup de grâce in his quest for life. The function of almsgiving as a sort of “super commandment” can also be found in the Jewish literature (cf. Baba Bathra 9a, above). Furthermore, here in the Synoptics it stands juxtaposed with the customary commandment to follow Jesus, which implies that the two cannot be separated.127 In other words, the basic contrast of the story is between enjoying one’s wealth with moderate blessings and following Jesus by “losing” (to echo Sir 29:10) one’s possessions through almsgiving in order to gain a treasure in heaven.128 But aside from these obvious parallels to Sir 29:8-13, what is especially impressive is how the basic theological logic of a heavenly treasury informs the substructure of thought in some New Testament passages. Let us consider two examples, one from Paul and one from Matthew. In his salutation to the church at Philippi Paul thanks the Philippians for their financial assistance in this way: For even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me help for my needs more than once. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the profit that accumulates to your account. I have been paid in full and have more than enough; I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from

126 LUZ, Matthew 1-7, 395-396. Also cf. 1 Tim 6:17-19, which incorporates the idea of imitatio Dei to exhort the rich to lay up “the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.” 127 Cf. FITZMYER, Luke X-XXIV, 1197-1198. 128 Also see ANDERSON, Sin: A History, 167-178.


211

Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. And my God will fully satisfy every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:16-19)

Here Paul regards the assistance they provided as something that accumulates to their account, and the following verses make it clear that this is a divinely superintended account. Their gift thus functions like a sacrifice to God, much as almsgiving does in Sir 35:1-5 (see below §6.3), and as a result God will satisfy their needs according to the riches in Christ. The triangular construct is evident: Paul is functioning as the recipient and the Philippians as the “almsgiver.” This act generates credit in their heavenly account and the corresponding reward is dispensed from the riches in Christ Jesus to meet the daily needs of the Philippians. While there is no explicit allusion to Prov 19:17, the theological dynamic of this verse underlies the entire passage.129 The second example of an implicit use of this triangular relationship has weightier theological implications. In the judgment scene in Matt 25:31-46 Jesus says: Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ (25:34-40)

This passage is followed by a negative equivalent for the wicked in vv. 41-46. What is remarkable about this judgment scene is that the sole criterion of evaluation is the treatment of the poor.130 Again we can see 129 Although commentators recognize this theological dynamic, the background of Prov 19:17 or the idea of a heavenly treasury is rarely acknowledged. For a more explicit use of this triangular theological construct by Paul, see the exhortation in 2 Cor 9. 130 Rabbinic texts distinguish between charitable deeds (~ydsx twlymg) and alms (hqdc) with the former more virtuous than the latter (see BONSIRVEN, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ, 153). The deeds described in Matt 25:31-46 correspond more closely to ~ydsx twlymg, but for our purposes the more important point is the presence of the triangular theological logic of Prov 19:17. There is a similar scene to Matt 25:31-46 in the Midrash on Ps 118:19: “Open to me the gates of righteousness. When a

212


the underlying logic of Prov 19:17 (and 14:31; 17:5), which has been recognized throughout the history of interpretation. But here the traditional nexus between God and the poor is transposed into the relationship of Jesus to the poor.131 Generosity or neglect of the poor is understood as having been done to Christ. It bears pointing out that, against this background, for the theological logic of this passage to work it is necessary to presuppose a “high Christology” for Matthew.132 Although the implications for Matthew’s Christology are not frequently noted in modern discussions, it was a hallmark of the early history of interpretation. In the very first patristic author to cite this passage, Justin Martyr, we find the passage quoted to demonstrate that Christ is equal to the Father, though he passes over the nexus between Christ and the poor (Apol. 1.28; 1.51; and 2.8). Similarly, Irenaeus cites Matt 25:35-36 in conjunction with Prov 19:17, thus connecting the triangular relationship in Proverbs to that of Christ and the poor in Matthew (Against Heresies 4.18.6). After Irenaeus the association of Prov 19:17 and Matt 25:31-46, whether for Christological or ethical purposes, is an exegetical commonplace.133 This brief discussion of almsgiving and of the idea of a heavenly treasury in Jewish and Christian literature highlights the amount of theological energy expended among those who came after Ben Sira. Among both groups, care for the poor and almsgiving came to play a

man is asked in the world to come: ‘What was thy work?’ and he answers: ‘I fed the hungry,’ it will be said to him: ‘This is the gate of the Lord. Enter into it, O though that didst feed the hungry.’ When a man answers: ‘I gave drink to the thirsty,’ it will be said to him: ‘This is the gate of the Lord. Enter into it, O thou that didst give drink to the thirst.’ When a man answers: ‘I clothed the naked,’ it will be said to him: ‘This is the gate of the Lord. Enter into it, O thou that didst clothe the naked.’ This will be said to him that brought up the fatherless, and to them that gave alms or performed deeds of lovingkindness. And David said: I have done all these things. Therefore let all the gates be opened for me. Hence it is said Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will enter into them, I will give thanks unto the Lord.” Translation from BRAUDE, The Midrash on Psalms, 2:243. The comparison between Matt 25 and the Midrash on Ps 118 is made by Urbach, who suggests that they are evidence of a widespread tradition of charity, the origins of which can already be seen in Isa 58:6-7. See URBACH, l"zx lX hqdch trwtb twytrbxw twytd twmgm, 20. 131 There is considerable debate over the scope of these afflicted people, whether they include Christians, anyone in need, or some other grouping. For the options, see DAVIES/ALLISON, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 428-429; LUZ, Matthew 21-28, 267-274. 132 My thanks to Gary Anderson for alerting me to this implication. 133 GRAY, The Least of My Brothers, especially 12-14.

213


dominant role in ethical thinking.134 Yet, this theological expansion is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible itself, as well as in a linguistic shift in the semantic domain of the Hebrew word hqdc. The developments of the theological understandings of almsgiving are thus organically related to prior texts, and the earliest deductions along these lines are evident in Sirach and Tobit.

5.4.2 Almsgiving in the Textual Transmission of Sirach 29 The theological understandings of almsgiving explored in the previous section are interesting for another reason. They are not confined to later texts, but also begin to impinge on the textual transmission of the book of Sirach itself. In fact, chapters 29 and 35 appear to have been particularly attractive places for exegetical activity to affect textual transmission. For the purposes of this chapter, the textual transmission of Sir 29 is particularly interesting since there are six additional stichs appended to the end of the chapter in the Syriac translation: Text of the Syriac Addition to Sirach 29 yhYLKw) kdY)Bd )M nMw

)NKSML bh b+ b+

28c-d

)SKM tN) krSBd l+M

yhY$BL) wh yL+r( n)w

28e-f

)(B$B dX kL (rP whw

tN) pzwM wh )hL)Lw

28g-h

Translation 28c Give exceedingly much to the poor person 28d

and from what is in your hand let him eat

28e If he is naked, clothe him 28f

because you are covering your own flesh

28g And you are lending to God 28h

and he will repay you sevenfold

Comments This addition is a collage of biblical imagery, though the identification of the specific background texts depends to some degree on whether the addition originated in a Hebrew Vorlage or in the Syriac. The coherence of the six stichs suggests that they were added as a unified gloss, not incrementally. Smend suggested that they were present in the He134 For much fuller and broader discussions of this history see ANDERSON, Sin: A History, 135-188; GARRISON, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity; and MARMORSTEIN, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature.

214


brew Vorlage but Winter disagrees, arguing that “if they had been in the Hebrew, it would be hard to account for their deletion from the Greek.”135 However, Smend was not suggesting that they were in the Hebrew original, but “sind gewiss hebräischen Ursprungs, aber sekundär.”136 Smend bases this conclusion on the similarity of the language to Isa 58:7 and Sir 35:13. While one could imagine the former affecting the transmission of the text in either the Hebrew or the Syriac, the latter verse is more suggestive. In the Hebrew and Greek of Sir 35:13 it says that God will repay “sevenfold” (~yt[bX || e`ptapla,sia), but the Syriac goes to the extreme with “ten thousand times ten thousand” (nwBr wBr). Thus, 29:28h would seem to presuppose knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek version of 35:13, not the Syriac.137 Complicating matters is that following 35:12 in the Syriac text there is an interpolation from Prov 19:17 (wh )hL)L )NKSML rYG bhYd nM wh n) )L) )(wrP rYG wNM pzwM). This interpolation contains similar language to that of 29:28g. In manuscript B this gloss appears as a vertical marginal note (awh ~a yk twlwmg l[b ymw !wybal !twn yyy hwlm) and is probably a retroversion from the Syriac, loosely based on the Hebrew of Prov 19:17.138 This Syriac addition to 35:12 is conflated with the Syriac of 29:11 in a citation in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations so it must have arisen prior to the mid-fourth century.139 There are multiple ways to account for these data. If 29:28c-h emerged during the Hebrew transmission, then the correspondence of v. 28h and the Hebrew of 35:13 is readily explainable and the Syriac of 35:13 would then be a gloss. In this case, it would be more likely that the reading of v. 28g was the catalyst for the interpolation in the Syriac of 35:12, which in turn resulted in a marginal addition in the Hebrew represented by manuscript B. If, on the other hand, 29:28c-h arose either in the Syriac translation or transmission, then it would be necessary to suppose that the Syriac of 35:13 originally matched that of the Hebrew and Greek versions and was only exaggerated at a later point

135 WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 246. 136 SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 263. 137 The only other place in Sirach where “sevenfold” occurs is 7:3, where it is used in a different context. It also appears in the Syriac of 20:14, but not in the Greek. Again, there the usage is different from that in 29:28h and 35:13. 138 FUCHS, Textkritische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Ekklesiastikus, 77-78. 139 See OWENS, The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 56-65. Owens (59 n.39) carefully points out that the Syriac version of the gloss in Sir 32:12 is different from the Syriac of Prov 19:17. Along with clues from the surrounding context, this leads to the conclusion that Aphrahat’s quotation is specifically from the Syriac of Sir 29:11 and 35:12 and not a conflation of Prov 19:17 and Sir 29:11.


215

in the transmission process. On this understanding the direction of dependence between v. 28g and the interpolation in 35:12 could go either way. The significance of this discussion is twofold. First, in light of our earlier discussion on the vigor of theological reflection on almsgiving in Judaism and Christianity, the complex interplay between the texts of chapters 29 and 35 reveals the way that current theological concerns can show up as intertextual exegesis within the transmission of a text. Second, if these additional verses originated in the Syriac, the range of possibilities for allusions is expanded to include the New Testament, because the Syriac version of Sirach shows marks of Christian influence. For example, in rendering Sir 35:11b the Syriac glosses the stich as kL (rP )Ld nML pzw) )twdXBw, evidently under the influence of the Peshitta of Luke 6:34.140 A decision concerning the origin of the addition bears directly on the background to the admonition in v. 28e to clothe the naked poor person. Kearns, Smend, and Segal see an allusion to Isa 58:7, while Peters sees an allusion to Matt 25:36.38.141 Of course, the Isaianic background is possible on either theory of the origins of the addition, but a reference to Matt 25:36.38 is probably possible only on the theory of a Syriac origin. Given that Prov 19:17 and Matt 25:31-46 were frequently combined by early Christian writers, this would not be a surprising juxtaposition. However, both Isa 58:7 and Matt 25:36.38 use language similar to that of the LXX and the Peshitta, so it is impossible to decide the matter conclusively. In addition, the combination of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked in Sir 29:28:d-f reflects a stock combination in descriptions of piety (e.g. Ezek 18:7.16; Job 22:6-7; 31:17-32; Tob

140 SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 222. In his introduction, Di Lella states that many of the 74 cola and shorter variants found in the Syriac, but not in the Greek, “are probably of Christian origin” (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 57). Winter’s thesis of an Ebionite origin (The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac) has been critiqued by Owens (The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 42-48). Other criticisms have also been raised in VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 77-96, 121133. In a recent article Winter revisits the Syriac version of Sirach (Theological Alterations in the Syriac Translation of Ben Sira), but he does not respond to the criticisms of Owens or the alternative theory of a Jewish origin and Christian redaction put forth by Nelson (Syriac Version, 132). In light of the discussions in Owens and van Peursen, it is probably safer to conclude only that Christian influence can be detected in the Syriac version. 141 KEARNS, The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus, 282; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 242; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 182; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 263.

216


1:16-17; 2 En. 9:1; 42:8; 63:1; ’Avot de R. Nat. 7; etc.).142 Therefore, while Isa 58 and Matt 25 are possible associations, there also may be no specific allusion at work in v. 28e. While no explicit reason for feeding the hungry (v. 28d) is given, the rationale behind clothing the naked is given in v. 28f, “because you are covering your own flesh.” While the statement may simply have the sense of providing for one’s material needs, it is notable that the way the rationale is phrased provides symmetry with v. 28e. While some Second Temple writings such as Sirach and Tobit seemed to conceptualize the recompense of almsgiving as something of higher value than the money given, such as deliverance from death (Sir 29:11b, 12-13), other writers envisioned a symmetry between almsgiving (or deeds of charity) and the repayment one could expect from God (e.g. T. Zeb. 6:47). This symmetry apparently results from reading passages like Prov 19:17 through the theological framework of retributive justice, where symmetry in deed and consequence is frequently a constitutive aspect of the model (cf. §2.1.2.2). As such, the way one treats the poor is understood to have a direct bearing on how one can expect to be treated by God. The correlation is so strong here in the Syriac addition that the author does not promise a future recompense in kind, but instead uses the participial form )SKM, giving the sense “you are covering.” This rhetorical move essentially side-steps the possibility that the model would breakdown by telescoping the deed and its consequence. It is understood to be automatic. The rationale is developed further in vv. 28g-h. The conjunctive at the beginning of v. 28g indicates that these two stichs flesh out the theological dynamic in vv. 28e-f. As indicated above, stichs g-h represent an elaboration of the idea in Prov 19:17 in light of Sir 35:13. However, whereas Prov 19:17 states only that God will repay, in 35:13 and 29:28h it said to be “sevenfold.” In the Hebrew Bible the idea of “sevenfold” occurs only in retributive contexts to describe punishment (e.g. Gen 4:15.24; Lev 26:18.21.24.28; Ps 79:12; Prov 6:31).143 It also functions in this manner in the other two places it occurs in Sirach (7:3; 20:14 [Sy-

142 See the discussion in WIKENHAUSER, Die Liebeswerke in dem Gerichtgemälde Mt 25,31-46, 366-371; cf. URBACH, l"zx lX hqdch trwtb twytrbxw twytd twmgm, 20-21. 143 Also note that the judgments in the book of Revelation come in “sevens,” e.g. seals (6:1-8:1), trumpets (8:2-9:21), and bowls (15:1-16:21). Likewise, there are variant traditions of the number of Egyptian plagues, some listing seven (cf. Ps 78:44-71; 105:27-36; Wis 11:1-19:9). See KUGEL, Traditions of the Bible, 562-563.


217

[Syriac]). The general sense of this idea in these punitive contexts is completeness, exhaustiveness.144 The application of this idiom in a positive retributive context is striking. Ben Sira had already made the connection between giving generously and a sevenfold reward in 35:12-13, but there the context concerns sacrifices offered to God. It is wise to be generous in temple offerings and tithes because one can count on God “always” to repay and to do so “sevenfold” (35:13). The reapplication of Ben Sira’s understanding of reward in regards to sacrifice to a reward in regard to generosity to the poor is a natural one in light of Ben Sira’s statements earlier in chapter 35 that observing the commandments, acts of charity, and almsgiving all function like sacrifices (35:1-5).145 Thus, it is no surprise that the retributive reward language of 35:13 would be associated with almsgiving by later readers. In this way, the author responsible for the addition in the Syriac of chapter 29 presupposes an exegesis of almsgiving rooted in Ben Sira’s own understanding of almsgiving, sacrifice, and retributive justice. If God repays sacrificial offerings sevenfold and almsgiving can function as a sacrifice, then it is only natural to conclude that the reward for almsgiving will also be sevenfold and in accord with the theological model of Prov 19:17.146 This deduction about the nature of God’s repayment to the almsgiver provides the necessary perspective for understanding the first stich of the Syriac addition (v. 28c), which recommends charity in glowing terms. The reader is instructed to give exceedingly much to the poor person and no qualifications are offered. Unlike in some places of Ben Sira’s teaching (e.g. 12:1-6), there is no thought as to the worthiness of the recipient. If the addition arose in the Syriac, this would not be overly surprising because elsewhere the Syriac translator reveals his sympathy for the poor, either through adding a positive reference (e.g. 11:14; 49:12) or by avoiding statements that could give a bad impression of the poor (e.g. 13:20; 40:28).147 Occasionally he also inserts a negative comment about wealth (e.g. 11:18; 37:14; 38:21; 40:8-9).148 144 Di Lella comments that “according to biblical symbolism [‘sevenfold’] means many times” (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 301). 145 We will return to this passage in more depth in the next chapter. 146 This deduction provided the impetus for a substantial rewriting of 35:1-13 in the Syriac that shifts the main emphasis of the whole passage from sacrifice to charity. See WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 238-240; and VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 79-83, 87. 147 NELSON, Syriac Version, 124; WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 245-248. 148 NELSON, Syriac Version, 123-124; WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 245-247. It should be remembered that while no qualifications are given regarding the recipi-

218


Of greater significance is that the stich seems to encourage excessive almsgiving: “Give exceedingly much (bh b+ b+) to the poor person.” This admonition is quite understandable, given the conclusion that God will reward generosity to the poor “sevenfold.” Taken at face value, almsgiving is the best investment strategy imaginable, and apparently this was precisely what some were concluding in Late Antiquity. In Mishnah Peah there is the same sort of juxtaposition of sacrificial offerings to charity towards the poor that is found in Sir 35:1-13 (cf. 7:29-36).149 The tractate opens with five acts that are “not [subject to a specific] measure” including charitable deeds and certain offerings.150 However, the commentary on this section of text in y. Peah is careful to specify that deeds that one might perform are indeed without limits, but that the donation of money has specific limits. This qualification of m. Peah presupposes that some Jews in the late first and early second centuries were getting themselves into financial trouble by taking the Mishnaic teaching at face value. The rabbis were concerned that people might place their families in jeopardy through overzealous almsgiving.151 Similar tendencies to give extraordinary amounts of money to the poor can be found in early Christianity. As Anderson observes, for single Christians especially, this tendency could easily be folded into Jesus’ command to leave everything in order to follow him.152 We already saw this above in the discussion of the story of the rich young man where Jesus challenges him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Luke 18:22). In light of the reference to the heavenly treasury in 1 Tim 6:18-19, it is possible that the warning earlier in the book that “whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (5:8) parallels the concern of the rabbis in y. Peah.

149 150 151 152

ent of charity, the main point of the addition is the commendation of charity rather than an evaluation of poverty. So VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 93; Winter believes that the context (presumably 29:21-28) “might well have prompted the addition from the pen of one who felt strongly about the moral goodness of poverty” (The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 246). See the fuller discussion in ANDERSON, Sin: A History, 169-172. For a translation and notes on Mishnah Peah see BROOKS, Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture. ANDERSON, Sin: A History, 178-181. ANDERSON, Sin: A History, 180-181.

Conclusions

219

In conclusion, the addition to Sir 29 in the Syriac text represents an example of intertextual exegesis that is an outworking of themes and connections already implicit in Ben Sira’s own teaching and in line with the theological reflection on almsgiving that would emerge in Judaism and Christianity in late antiquity.153 In conjunction with the transmission of Sir 35:1-13, it is a fascinating example of how the boundaries between exegesis and transmission can often become blurred and the way in which texts often stand in a dialogical relationship to those who read them and pass them on.

5.5 Conclusions In our discussion of lending and surety in 29:1-7, 14-20 we noted that while Ben Sira is utterly realistic regarding the practical dangers involved in these financial dealings, he appeals to a higher WisdomTorah ethic as the grounds for the sage’s behavior. Thus, his advice reveals an underlying understanding of a “divine economy” that takes precedence over the kind of wisdom that advises merely what is pragmatic. This theological conviction emerges even more forcefully in this passage on almsgiving. Here any notion of caution is dropped because evidently Ben Sira conceives of almsgiving as operating on a “higher,” more reliable level. One does not have to be concerned about repayment from the poor because this “loss” effectively functions as a deposit in a heavenly treasury, a deposit which is more profitable than gold. With God as a “co-signer” on the “loan” of almsgiving, repayment in some form is assured. Unlike the practices of lending and surety, the security of the almsgiver is not contingent on the moral constitution of the recipient; rather, it is contingent on the promises of God (but see below, chapter 7). Furthermore, this repayment does not operate on a zero-sum view of wealth. One “loses” silver and gains something more valuable than gold: salvation from calamity and enemies. Thus, the divine economy 153 Another example is mentioned in PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 239-240. After discussing a Latin variant in Sir 29:12 he makes a vague reference to Hetzenauer that “nach v. 12 haben ‘aliae editiones’ folgenden offenbar erlauternden Zusatz: Die Wohltat des Mannes ist wie der Beutel bei ihm | und bewahrt des Menschen Gunst wie den Augenstern. || Und nachher erhebt er sich (sc. der Herr; s. 12,2) | und bringt Vergeltung auf ihr Haupt einem jeden.” Peters suggests that this passage is dependent on Sir 12:2; Prov 19:17; and Qoh 11:1. Unfortunately, at this time the critical Latin text of Sirach has not been completed up to chapter 29 and the nature of the “aliae editiones” to which Hetzenauer is referring is not clear.

220


of almsgiving is rigged in favor of the almsgiver. The poor person receives the monetary value of the alms to alleviate his needs while the almsgiver gets something even more valuable in return. In the “divine economy” it is a win-win situation. From this point of view, almsgiving is perhaps the wisest of all economic ventures. In Sir 14:3-19 we saw that Ben Sira believes that generosity is an important component of the good life. Nowhere is the contrast between miserliness and generosity found there more evident than in the subset of the latter involving almsgiving. In full awareness of the finality of death, the deliverance almsgiving provides on the day of necessity, not to mention its other benefits, exemplifies the wise generosity that leads to a long, enjoyable life. Although counterintuitive to some, hoarding one’s money (Sir 14:3-10; 29:10b) can only lead to diminished wealth and a stunted enjoyment of life. The wise person, on the other hand, realizes that “losing” one’s money to help friends or kindred (Sir 14:11-16; 29:10a, 11-13) is an investment that brings far greater rewards, not the least of which is a postponement of death, when no more enjoyment is to be experienced. Ben Sira does not address the problem of retributive justice as it relates to the triangular theological construct of almsgiving. While he is cognizant that the model of retributive justice frequently breaks down in the area of socio-economics, he seems to assume that almsgiving is not subject to the same problem. When Tobit addresses the problem narratively, he employs the same strategies for resolution that Ben Sira shows in his wider understanding of retributive justice, and we might expect Ben Sira to employ similar strategies if pressed on the matter. Perhaps it is the case that the genre of narrative can accomodate the complexities of such a question more easily than the aphoristic nature of Ben Sira’s work.154 His silence on the problem seems to suggest that, in his understanding, almsgiving operates by different rules. This confidence is derived from exegetical reflection on earlier biblical texts that view God as involved directly in the transaction of almsgiving. It ultimately cannot fail because almsgiving is bound up with the character of God. In later times, this optimism about almsgiving as the investment that sounds too good to be true would raise serious questions about possible limits on the practice, but for Ben Sira these theological problems are not yet on the horizon. Having now examined all three sections of Sir 29:1-20, we can conclude with some reflections regarding the overall structure of this section. In comparison to 8:12-13, on loans and surety, 29:1-20 expands 154 This possibility was suggested to me by Gary Anderson.

Conclusions

221

these topics in light of a Wisdom-Torah ethic, but also inserts a short pericope on almsgiving between them. The reasons for this redactional structure are now evident. First, because almsgiving is understood to be a special kind of loan, it merits discussion immediately following a general discussion of loans. Second, the placement of almsgiving between the topics of loans and surety allows the latter two to frame the former. The reconfiguration of the value of surety as an aspect of allegiance to the Torah’s vision of generosity, which was explored in the previous chapter, contributes to this framing structure. The theological shape of Sir 29:1-20 suggests that Ben Sira understands loans and surety as two important and complementary aspects of a WisdomTorah generosity, while almsgiving, as the central pericope, is is understood to be the embodiment of generosity par excellence.

Chapter 6 Almsgiving and Sacrifice in Sirach 6.1 Introduction One area where the application of Ben Sira’s theology of almsgiving becomes socially problematic is that of its relationship to the sacrificial system. At times in his book, Ben Sira describes the efficacy of almsgiving using sacrificial language, which raises the question of the nature of the relationship between giving to the poor and the status of the Jerusalem cult in Ben Sira’s theology. In trying to relate almsgiving and sacrifice, potential tensions surface on both the theological and practical levels. In order to assess the nature and degree of social and theological tensions in Ben Sira’s thought in relating these two issues, let us first return to a topic briefly discussed in chapter 2, that of the roles of the priesthood and the poor in Seleucid Judea.1 Then we will consider the roles of sacrifice and almsgiving in Sirach before seeking to understand their relationship in Ben Sira’s thought. After the return from exile, the monarchy was not reestablished and local power was mostly consolidated among the priesthood. Therefore, the temple was the center, not just of religious power, but also of political power.2 The imperial structure of the Persian Empire utilized local temples as fiscal instruments for governmental administration and, if Schaper is correct, it is likely that the Jerusalem temple functioned this way as well.3 When the Persian Empire was supplanted by the Hellenistic Empire, the Jerusalem temple continued to play a central role in the economy and under the Seleucid rulers the control of the temple went to the highest bidder. This created a situation where power strug-

1

2 3

See §2.2; GRABBE, A History of Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 189208, 235-236; HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 33-70. See GRABBE, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period, 135-137. SCHAPER, The Jerusalem Temple, 528-539.

Introduction

223

gles among the elite resulted in an increased economic burden on the general population.4 In terms of socio-economic conflict, the fiscal role of the priesthood placed both direct and indirect demands on the peasantry. Direct revenues were collected from the general population specifically for the support of the priesthood and these direct revenues were mandated by Israel’s authoritative traditions (cf. Num 18). The priests had rights to portions of some sacrifices (Lev 7), the “firstlings” of agricultural produce and livestock (Exod 13 and Lev 2), as well as various donations in the forms of gifts and vows (Lev 27). However, the greatest and most consistent form of support for the priesthood came through tithes. Yet it is also clear from Neh 10 that this duty was at times neglected, especially during times of financial hardship.5 In addition, the mediatorial role of the aristocracy between the Hellenistic overlords and the Judean state resulted in indirect demands on the peasantry. By this I mean that the temple-state was involved in collecting additional revenue, not in terms of adherence to religious traditions and for their own support, but as political conduits for their imperial superiors. However, because the Seleucid bureaucracy used a tax-farming system, the aristocracy did not function simply as middlemen. They also stood to gain from their role in raising imperial revenue. During the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods it was this avenue that was particularly open to exploitation by those seeking to gain power and wealth. The political struggle for power resulted in exacerbated tensions between those at the top of the socio-economic pyramid and those at or near the bottom. Baesens has estimated that, once one accounts for all of the religious financial obligations and the secular taxes, the average peasant would have retained less than 25% of his actual earnings, but Grabbe is skeptical of how much we can discern about the actual tax burden on Judean peasants.6 In any case, it is probably safe to conclude that those near the bottom of the social pyramid resented a tax-farming system that continued to increase their burden and strain their already tenuous economic existence. It will also be remembered from the discussion in chapter 2 that Ben Sira was part of the “retainer class” of the Jerusalem aristocracy.7 4 5 6 7

See HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 50-51; VAN DER SPEK, The Hellenistic Near East, 418. GRABBE, A History of Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 235-236. BAESENS, Royal Taxation and Religious Tribute, 196; GRABBE, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 193-194. HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple Period, 99-103.

224

Almsgiving and Sacrifice in Sirach

For his livelihood Ben Sira therefore served and depended on the aristocracy, which in the case of Seleucid Judea was centered on the temple. Thus, the economic prosperity of the ruling aristocracy resulted in corresponding benefits to those among the retainer class as well. Yet, it is also apparent that they did not support the aristocracy in a slavish way and held a certain independent cultural and religious authority. Regarding Ben Sira and his fellow scribes, Horsley is worth quoting at length: They view their own authority as grounded in ‘the wisdom of all the ancients’ and their faithful ‘study of the law of the Most High’ (38:3439:1). They thus derive their authority, independent of the priestly aristocracy, from God and the revered cultural tradition. This suggests also that they had their own sense of how the temple-state should operate; that is, it should operate according to the sacred cultural tradition of which they were the professional guardians and interpreters. Despite their dependence on and vulnerability to their patrons among the ruling aristocracy, therefore, scribes such as Ben Sira could both criticize the aristocracy and take measures to mitigate its oppression of the poor (4:8-10; 13:3-4.18-19; 29:8-9; 34:21-27).8

Horsley has placed his finger on an important tension in Ben Sira’s thought since the attempt to appropriate biblical traditions in his contemporary socio-political situations creates difficulties. The tradition that is authoritative for Ben Sira legitimates the temple system and the support of the priests, but is also emphatic in its opposition to the economic exploitation of the poor. Just as we saw in chapter 2 concerning the issue of retributive justice, there is a certain disjunction between the inherited tradition and social realities and Ben Sira’s attempt to do justice to the whole of his theological heritage raises the possibility of a fundamental tension in his thought.9 An exploration of this tension reveals, as in chapter 2, a nuanced role for almsgiving in Ben Sira’s theological view of economics.

8 9

HORSLEY, The Politics of Cultural Production in Second Temple Judea, 127. Also cf. WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 63. This tension is highlighted in HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 144-149. Also see WRIGHT/CAMP, Who Has Been Tested by Gold, 166-168.

Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood and the Cult

225

6.2 Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood and the Cult Given the sociological portrait of Seleucid Judea just sketched, it is not surprising to find that Ben Sira encourages the financial support of the priesthood and the temple system. Because of his strong stance on certain ethical issues, some earlier scholars deduced that the cult occupied a secondary and subordinate status for Ben Sira. For example, von Rad comments that “one can see that Sirach’s approach to cultic institutions is a very limited one. For him it is the moral or spiritual element which is the all-important one.”10 However, more recently the work of Perdue, Stadelmann, Olyan, Hayward, and Wright has conclusively demonstrated that Ben Sira was fundamentally supportive of the Jerusalem cult and the priesthood.11 Ben Sira’s advocacy for the priesthood and the temple system can be seen from several angles. First, and strikingly, he explicitly states that it is a religious obligation to support the priests: 7:29 With all your heart fear God

and revere his priests 7:30 With all your strength love your Maker

and his ministers do not neglect 7:31 Glorify God and honor the priest

and give them their portion as you have been commanded The suet, the guilt-offering, and the contribution of (your) hand righteous sacrifices and the holy contribution12

Di Lella has observed that, in the Hebrew, vv. 29 and 30 are both structured chiastically such that “God” and “priests” are juxtaposed in v. 29 and “your Maker” and “his ministers” are juxtaposed in v. 30.13 The implication of the chiastic structuring is that fearing and loving God cannot be separated from how one treats his servants, the priests. Just as one would glorify God, so one should honor his designated ministers by giving them the portion God has commanded (v. 31). To anticipate our conclusions later, it should be noted that this nexus between God and the priesthood is somewhat analogous to what was seen concerning God and the poor in the previous chapter (cf. Prov 14:31 and 10 11

12 13

VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, 260 n.28. A similar judgment can be found in SNAITH, Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy, 167-174. PERDUE, Wisdom and Cult, 188-211; STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter; OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 261-286; HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 22-34; WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 189-222. For the text criticism of this passage, see the Appendix. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207.

226


17:5). The pious nature of giving the priests their portion is further indicated by the fact that Ben Sira casts this exhortation in the language of the Shema (Deut 6:4-5).14 Wright comments that “Ben Sira’s use of Deuteronomy lends tremendous symbolic and rhetorical weight to how important honoring the priests is. Giving the priests honor is the symbolic equivalent of fearing and loving God.”15 As we noted in the previous chapter, “honoring” God is sometimes expressed in concrete terms (Prov 3:9-10); and here the concrete manner is specified as giving to the priests. That Ben Sira does not see the priesthood just as the necessary conduit to giving gifts to God, but as worthy of honor in a way parallel to honoring God, reveals how substantial his allegiance to the priesthood is. We will have occasion to revisit this passage again, but for now it is sufficient to establish that Ben Sira believes that it is a religious obligation to support the priesthood financially and that this duty is commanded in the Torah because of God’s special relationship to the priests. Second, Ben Sira’s allegiance to the temple system is evident in his praise of Wisdom in chapter 24, the structural center of the book. For our purposes there are two particularly important theological assertions in this chapter. One is that Wisdom is understood as having been given concrete form in the Torah (24:23-33; cf. Deut 4:6-8; Jer 8:8).16 The second important theological idea in this chapter is that, although Wisdom enjoys being enthroned in the heavens (24:4) and holds sway over all creation and all nations (24:5-6), she has taken up residence in Zion and, in particular, in the Jerusalem temple: 7

14

15

16

Among all of them I sought a resting place in whose inheritance should I take up residence?

STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 59. While Stadelmann does not see an explicit allusion to Deuteronomy, Olyan (Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 266), Schreiner (Jesus Sirach, 53), and Skehan & Di Lella (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207) do see one. Di Lella points out that the phrase $dwam lkb occurs only in Deut 6:5 and Sir 7:30, which, when combined with the other language parallels, suggests to me that the allusion was intentional WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 193. Similarly, Olyan remarks that the clear message is that “part of giving God his due is giving the priest his livelihood and appropriate honor” (Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 264). See HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 25. Murphy remarks that “Wisdom dwelling among God’s people is concretized in the Torah. It is not the other way around, as though the eternal pre-existent Torah is now identified with Wisdom” (The Personification of Wisdom, 227). Similarly, Schnabel remarks that “Wisdom, after having found its valid expression, its dwelling place, in Israel (24,8-12), found its fullness in the (Mosaic) law which Israel is to heed, to practise, and to teach” (Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul, 81).


227

Then the Creator of all commanded me and my Creator chose the place for my tabernacle He said, “In Jacob make your dwelling and in Israel your inheritance 9 Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me and throughout the ages I shall not cease to be 10 In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him and thus in Zion I was established 11 In the city he loves, likewise, he caused me to rest and in Jerusalem is my domain 12 And I took root among an exalted people in the portion of the Lord is my inheritance17 8

This localization of Wisdom, concretized in the form of the Torah, in the Jerusalem temple is an important move.18 Not only does it lend support to the priesthood, but it also prevents a dichotomy between issues of wisdom and ethics, on the one hand, and cultic observance, on the other. There is a convergence of theological legitimacy in Wisdom, Torah, and the Jerusalem cult that has profound implications. This is not just a concession to the legitimacy of the priesthood in the biblical traditions; it goes beyond anything in the Torah to bolster the legitimacy of the temple system. Socio-politically, it helps to consolidate authority in the priesthood by integrating religious and ethical authority into a unified locality: the Jerusalem temple. For Ben Sira, there is no alternative piety to that which is in allegiance to the priesthood. Another dimension of this passage that reveals Ben Sira’s support for the priesthood is the portrayal of personified Wisdom in priestly terms. Not only has she taken up residence in the temple; she ministers before God there as well (24:10). In Sir 7:29-31 Ben Sira describes a nexus between God and the priests such that the honoring of one implies the honoring of the other. Here a similar nexus occurs between the actions of Wisdom and the actions of the priests in the temple. By implication, to criticize the cult qua cult would amount to a criticism of Wisdom’s own ministry before God. The analysis of the priestly role of Wisdom in Sir 24 by Hayward sheds considerable light on the question of relating almsgiving and sacrifice. Hayward observes that the description of the High Priest Si17 18

No Hebrew is extant for chapter 24. My translation follows the Greek. That the Jerusalem temple as the residence of Wisdom does not refer just to the establishment of the Solomonic Temple, but should be understood to include the current Second Temple, is confirmed by Sir 49:11-12, which praises Zerubbabel and Joshua for building the temple “destined for everlasting glory.” Cf. WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 195.

228


Simon in chapter 50 employs the same arboreal imagery that Ben Sira used to describe Wisdom in chapter 24.19 They are both like the cedars of Lebanon (24:13; 50:12), an exalted cypress (24:13; 50:10), a palm tree (24:14; 50:12), a rose plant (24:14; 50:8), an olive tree (24:14; 50:10), and incense (24:15; 50:9). Hayward points out that most of these descriptions occur in Sirach only in these two places, while the study of Torah is likened to a rose bush and burning incense in Sir 39:13-14. Thus, there is a triangular symmetry between the study of Torah, the cult service, and the actions of Wisdom herself. The Wisdom-Torah piety of Ben Sira’s theology is thus anchored to the worship in the Jerusalem temple, where the human priests mirror the priestly actions of Wisdom herself. In addition, this observation acquires even deeper significance when it is realized that in Sir 24:25-28 Ben Sira likens this WisdomTorah nexus to the rivers Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon, which are mentioned in Gen 2. Hayward notes that Ben Sira seems to be picking up on the imagery of the rivers flowing out of the temple in Ezek 47 to portray “the temple as an earthly Eden which sends out the paradise waters of Wisdom.”20 Therefore, Ben Sira’s allegiance to the Jerusalem temple and the sacrificial system is not in any sense superficial. Following von Rad’s discussion of Sir 24, Hayward concludes that “sacrifice, duly offered by the legitimate priests in the sanctuary chosen by God, is thus to some extent an earthly reflection of that divine order which permeates the universe and on which creation stands.”21 This understanding of the relationship of Wisdom, Torah, and sacrifice will prove to be a key component in relating sacrifice and almsgiving in Ben Sira’s thought.

19

20

21

HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 22-34. So also Martha Himmelfarb, who concludes that “Simon appears, then, almost as Wisdom’s double” (The Wisdom of the Scribe, 97). Hayward also notes that “Simon’s role in the temple cult is in some ways analogous to the place of the first man in the Garden of Eden” (Sacrifice and World Order, 2628). Notably, in Sir 24:31-33 Ben Sira views himself as a facilitator of this stream of Wisdom, which, as in Ezekiel, begins as a stream before becoming a river and finally a sea. HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 29-30. In his discussion of Sir 24, von Rad had observed that, “This is not simply a legitimatization of Torah. The question is not, ‘Where does Torah come from?’, but ‘To what extent is Torah a source of wisdom?’ The answer is, ‘Because Torah is a self-presentation of primeval order, it is able to help men towards wisdom.’…One cannot marvel enough at how differently Sirach regards the prehistory of the Mosaic Torah. It is the primeval order inherent in the whole world appearing in a new guise. In this provenance lies its worth” (Wisdom in Israel, 246).


229

A third way that Sirach reflects an allegiance to the Jerusalem priesthood is in Ben Sira’s polemical defense of the institution regarding debated issues. Wright has persuasively argued that Ben Sira defends a lunar calendar over against a solar calendar (43:6-8), opposes epistemologies that introduce new revelation that is perceived as extraneous to the received traditions (3:21-24; 34:1-8), and “domesticates” the figure of Enoch.22 All of these positions appear to counter the positions advocated by the marginalized authors of the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers, and Aramaic Levi.23 Since these works use these positions to criticize the priesthood, Wright draws the insightful conclusion that Ben Sira appears to be responding to these specific attacks in order to defend the Jerusalem priesthood and their ideology.24 Another place in which Ben Sira’s allegiance to the Jerusalem priesthood is evident is the “Praise of the Ancestors” in Sir 44-50. It is frequently observed that Ben Sira’s praise of Aaron in Sir 45:6-22 is exceptionally long compared to other heroes of the past and is even three times as long as the praise of Moses. Ben Sira states that Aaron and his family were granted an everlasting covenant (~lw[ tyrb), which is as permanent as the heavens (45:15). The descriptions of this Aaronic priesthood are repeatedly lavished with adjectives such as dignity, splendor, majesty, and glory. For perspective, it is worth noting that in 45:8-13, the priestly vestments, which Ben Sira portrays as being bestowed by God, receive longer reflection than even Abraham (44:19-

22 23

24

WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 202-222. Wright builds on the work of Argall, whose study of the relationship between Sirach and 1 Enoch led him to the conclusion that the similarities regarding some subjects and the ways in which the differences on those subjects are set forth suggests that they represent rival traditions that are aware of each other. See the conclusions in ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 249-255. Written at least half a century after the book of Sirach there is a statement in the Similitudes that Wisdom went out among humanity and did not find a place to dwell. Therefore she returned to heaven and is seated among the angels (1 Enoch 42:1-2). It is hard not to see here a polemic against the view found in Sir 24 (cf. Bar. 3:36-4:1). Similarly, the description of Wisdom taking up residence in the Second Temple may have an apologetic aspect to it in which Ben Sira is countering the viewpoint that the Jerusalem temple was defective. Hayward argues that Ben Sira presents Wisdom in language reminiscent of the Ark of the Covenant and compares her to the anointing oil and incense. Whereas other Jewish authors made accusations that the Second Temple was deficient since it lacked these things, Ben Sira sees the figure of Wisdom residing in the Temple as providing for these entities. See HAYWARD, Sirach and Wisdom’s Dwelling Place, 38-39.

230


21).25 The ministry of Aaron’s family blesses the people, makes atonement for all of Israel, and, notably, teaches the Torah (45:15-17). By rejecting pretenders to the priesthood, God continued to exalt the glory of Aaron (45:18-20). Even more telling is that a reference to the Davidic covenant is introduced into the discussion of the high priesthood in 45:23-25. Given that in Ben Sira’s time the high priest occupied the highest political position in Judea, these verses may imply that Ben Sira views the continuance of the Davidic covenant to be in the office of the high priest and that the familial structure of the priesthood provides an advantage over the inheritance of the royal office. Thus, the priestly and Davidic covenants converge in the office of the high priest.26 This conclusion appears to be confirmed by Himmelfarb’s observation that the description of the priestly vestments includes a crown of gold, zp trj[ (45:12; cf. 45:25), which is an allusion to the kingly coronation language of Ps 21:4.27 Perhaps even more indicative of Ben Sira’s allegiance to the Jerusalem priesthood is that the “Praise of the Ancestors” culminates with an entire chapter devoted to the high priest Simon (Sir 50).28 Ben Sira calls him “the greatest among his kin and the glory of his people” (lwdg wm[ traptw wyxa) and his subsequent description clearly evokes awe and admiration. It is perhaps significant that Simon is identified as “son of Jochanan” and not “son of Zadok.” The Hebrew Bible embodies competing perspectives on the legitimate parameters of the priesthood, depending on where one places the line of demarcation along the lineage of Levi – Aaron – Phinehas – Zadok. In the Deuteronomic tradition all Levites are eligible to be priests (Deut 18:1-14; Jer 33:18), but in P the sphere of legitimacy is narrowed to just Aaron and his descendants. Finally, in Ezek 40-48 it is the Zadokites alone who are eligible to be 25

26 27

28

The number of stichs per subject in the “Praise of the Ancestors” appears to be carefully chosen to provide both structuring and clues to significance. See CORLEY, A Numerical Structure, 43-63. This conclusion was deduced independently by Beentjes (Jesus Sirach en Tenach, 175-199) and Stadelmann (Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 146-176, especially 166-167). HIMMELFARB, The Wisdom of the Scribe, 95. It is also worth observing, though, that a precedent for the use of the word hrj[ in connection with the high priest can be found in Zech 6:11-14. For a comprehensive discussion of this chapter see MULDER, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. The relationship between the praise of Simon in Sir 50 and the “Praise of the Ancestors” in Sir 44-49 is debated. In addition to Mulder’s study (Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 25-59), see the discussions from different points of view in DI LELLA, Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors of Old, 151-170, especially 152-153; and GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors, 235-267.


231

priests (cf. Ezek 40:46). The socio-political antagonism in this struggle for the rights of the priesthood is detectable in the texts themselves. The redactor of Ezek 40-48 attributes the exclusion of the Levites to idolatry and unfaithfulness (Ezek 48:11) and a second P redactor of Num 16 has inserted a polemic against the Korahites into a narrative originally about Dathan and Abiram.29 This debate over the parameters of the priesthood continued until the turn of the Common Era and Olyan has argued persuasively that Ben Sira’s view of the priesthood aligns with that of P. In 45:15 and 25 it is the whole family of Aaron who receives the priesthood, while in 45:23-24 Phinehas’s actions secure the right to the high priesthood for him and his descendants.30 In Sir 50 Simon is not identified as a Zadokite, and in 50:13 he makes a point of saying that “all the sons of Aaron” brought offerings. Therefore, Ben Sira appears to have approved of all Aaronids as priests and ascribed the rights of the high priesthood to the descendants of Phinehas, without limiting it further to the sons of Zadok.31 While Simon was a Zadokite, Ben Sira does not mention it.32 However, even if Olyan is correct that Ben Sira believed all those of the line of Phinehas were eligible for the high priesthood, this still affirms the legitimacy of the high priests of the narrower Zadokite line, such as Simon. The cumulative effect of this evidence is that Ben Sira enthusiastically supported the Jerusalem priesthood and the temple system. This allegiance had very practical social implications. Ben Sira obviously saw the maintenance of the cult as an essential religious duty, stating that the daily dymt should continue to be offered twice per day (45:14).33 Furthermore, while advocating the support of the priesthood surely involved assistance to lower Aaronid priests who were needy, it also clearly extended to the top of the priestly hierarchy to include the high

29 30 31 32

33

See ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Volume II, 480-493; BLENKINSOPP, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 83-98. In Num 25:6-13 the covenant is for “perpetual priesthood.” Regarding Ben Sira’s modification see POMYKALA, The Covenant with Phinehas in Ben Sira, 17-36. OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 275-276. Whoever inserted the poem after 51:12 explicitly narrows the parameters of the priesthood to the Zadokites (in line with Ezek 40-48) by stating, “Give thanks to him who has chosen the sons of Zadok as priests.” Di Lella (The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 101-105) believes this poem was added within a couple of decades after Ben Sira’s death, but Olyan (Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 275 n.41) argues that this is debatable. Noted in PERDUE, Wisdom and Cult, 191-192.

232


priest and the members of the priestly aristocracy.34 Ben Sira’s support does not appear to be qualified in any way. Rather, he actually envisions a nexus between the priests and God such that to honor one is necessarily to honor the other. He clearly has a great affection for the priestly service and even the priestly vestments and rituals. In fact, his allegiance to the priesthood appears so strong that some scholars have argued that Ben Sira was, in fact, a priest himself.35 Others, however, have found the evidence that Ben Sira was a priest inconclusive.36 A supportive attitude of the priesthood and even their ideology does not in itself require that Ben Sira was a priest. In light of the social situation illuminated by Horsley and Tiller, Ben Sira’s position in the retainer class can just as easily explain these affinities.37 Of course, there were likely priests in the retainer class, but whether Ben Sira should be counted among them is difficult to decide. Regardless of whether or not Ben Sira was a priest, his view of the priesthood was both theologically robust and practically supportive. He advocates as a religious duty the financial support of the cult and all Aaronid priests, including the priestly aristocracy. The fact that this aristocracy exploited the poor not infrequently (Sir 13:2-23) seems to imply a practical conflict (to some extent) between socio-political allegiance to the priesthood and the statements in defense of the exploited (e.g. 4:1-10; 34:21-31). This tension might appear to be intensified by statements that generosity to the poor can function sacrificially.

34

35

36

37

Snaith (Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy, 168-169) argued that 7:29-31 was primarily social in orientation such that needy priests could survive, but this view has been rebutted by Stadelmann (Ben Sira als Schrifgelehrter, 62-68). See especially STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter; OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 261-272. Cf. SCHNABEL, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul, 23. See the critique of Stadelmann in BEENTJES, Recent Publications on the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira, 191-194. Among those who remain agnostic are Wischmeyer (Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 62-63) and Wright (Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 196). Gammie also remains agnostic and makes the interesting suggestion that Ben Sira may have come from a priestly family, but was “more likely not an active priest, but rather a lay jurist, one of whose specialities was secular law” (The Sage in Sirach, 365). See HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple, 99-103; HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 62-70. Similarly, PERDUE, Wisdom and Cult, 188-196.

The Sacrificial Functionality of Almsgiving

233

6.3 The Sacrificial Functionality of Almsgiving The two ways that almsgiving can function sacrificially are through possessing atoning efficacy and, more generally, as cultic gifts/offerings. Regarding the first, Ben Sira gives the following instruction: 3:30 As water extinguishes a flaming fire

so almsgiving atones for sins 3:31 The one who does a good deed will encounter it on his path

and when he stumbles he will find a support.

This passage comes near the end of the first major section in Sirach (1:14:10) and is situated between teachings on the value of humility and on social justice. These two verses therefore serve somewhat as a Janusfaced passage.38 In v. 30 Ben Sira claims that almsgiving (hqdc) can atone (rpkt) for sins and he employs a chiasm to illustrate the principle from water’s ability to extinguish a fire. It is important to be clear that the characterization of almsgiving here is not explicitly in sacrificial language. Ben Sira does not describe it as a “purification offering” or in particularly cultic terms. Nevertheless, the fact that almsgiving does have atoning efficacy implies a relationship to the nature of the Jerusalem cult. In his analysis of forgiveness in Sirach, Marböck observes that, according to Ben Sira, forgiveness can be obtained in three ways: through the priesthood’s administration of the cult (45:15-16.23-24), through ethical actions, and by repentance (e.g. 17:15-18:14).39 We will return to the third category in the next chapter, but for now let us focus on the first two options. Even if the atoning function here is not specifically cultic, it is at least clear that almsgiving provides a means for forgiveness in parallel to that of the cult system. According to Lev 4-5 (cf. 7:7), the priest acquires a portion of the tajx (purification) and the ~Xa (guilt) offerings. On the practical level, this means that the positing of alternative means of atonement might prove a detriment, to some degree, of potential means of support for the priesthood. This atoning efficacy of generosity is also reflected earlier in the same chapter when Ben Sira says that:

38 39

BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater, 52-53. MARBÖCK, Sündenvergebung bei Jesus Sirach, 480-486. Also see BÜCHLER, Ben Sira’s Conception of Sin and Atonement, 53-83; KAISER, Kultische und Sittliche Sühne, 151167.

234

Almsgiving and Sacrifice in Sirach 3:14 Kindness (hqdc) to a father will not be forgotten40

in place of a purification offering (tajx) it will be planted.41 3:15 In a day of distress it will be recalled for you like heat upon frost, it will melt your iniquities

In these verses hqdc again has atoning power and, in my reading, is portrayed as standing in for a purification offering.42 Its effect almost reverses the imagery found in 3:30 since now hqdc is pictured as heat which melts sin, whereas in v. 30 it is the heat of sin that is extinguished by the water.43 Although it might sound strange to extend “almsgiving” to one’s parents, it is understandable in light of two facts. First, in the ancient Near East honoring someone generally had a practical dimension and one of the principal ways of honoring one’s parents in antiquity was by assisting them in their old age when they were particularly vulnerable.44 Second, in 3:16 it seems that Ben Sira envisions a nexus between parents and God such that to neglect the former is to despise the latter. This is the same motif that Ben Sira has expressed elsewhere in relation to God’s relationship to both priests and the poor. It is the view that certain persons, whether the poor or one’s own parents, are proxies for one’s actions toward God, together with the aspect of vulnerability, that controls the lexical selection of hqdc. Finally, it will be noticed that in v. 15a Ben Sira claims that this hqdc towards one’s parents will be recalled on the day of distress. This is the same dynamic that was seen to be at work in Sir 29:8-13 regarding almsgiving towards the poor (cf. Tob 4:1-11). Likewise, the dynamic at work in 3:31 seems to presuppose the idea found in Sir 29:8-13 that almsgiving stores up credit in one’s account that can be drawn upon at a later time when one is in trouble.45 This is confirmed by the statement earlier in 3:3-4:

40 41

42 43 44 45

Following manuscript C, Greek, and Syriac. Manuscript A has hxmt (“blotted out”). The translation “planted” reflects the marginal reading of A, [jnt (cf. 3:9). Both the Hebrew tajx rwmt and the Greek avnti. a`martiw/n could be understood as “against (your) sins” or as “in place of a purification offering.” So also SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 153. Griffin observes that elsewhere in Sirach fire is a metaphor for the destructive power of sin (e.g. 8:10; 9:8; 22:24; 23:16; 28:10-11). GRIFFIN, A Study of Eleēmosynē, 69-71. See ANDERSON, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance, 12-14. JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 68; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163. In regard to Sir 3:31, Liebermann has suggested that in light of similar phrases in Yerushalmi the Hebrew phrase bwj l[wp can signify the idea of reward or salary. LIEBERMANN, Ben-Sira à la lumière du Yerouchalmi, 51-52.


235

The one who honors his father makes atonement for sins and the one who reveres his mother is as one who lays up treasure

Here the single command to honor one’s parents is parsed into two stichs and understood both to offset sins and to accrue credit, presumably for the future. As in the discussion of almsgiving in Sir 29:8-13, the idea of retributive justice appears to be at work in 3:15 and 31 (cf. 16:14). For the latter, it is worth noting that the Hebrew version pictures it according to the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model (cf. §2.1.2; §5.3). At first glance, however, this seems like an awkward juxtaposition. In 3:3.14.15b.30, almsgiving/kindness is understood to atone for sins that have been committed, but in 3:4.15a.31, Ben Sira introduces the idea of future benefits based on the credit accrued through almsgiving or other virtuous deeds. Why should forgiveness (offsetting a negative) and merit (accruing the positive) be intertwined in Ben Sira’s thinking about hqdc? The reason for this juxtaposition becomes clear in light of the fact that in the Second Temple period the language used to speak of sin and its amelioration shifted from a “weight” metaphor to a “debt” metaphor.46 Whereas earlier writers frequently spoke of sin as a weight that crushed the transgressor and needed to be “offloaded” (e.g. Lev 16:2122), writers in the Second Temple period and beyond began to speak of sin as a debt that must be paid off (e.g. Matt 6:12). Thus, when many writers in the Second Temple period conceptualize the remedy for sin, it is expressed in the idiom of paying off a debt. Now once this development is taken into account, the explanation for Ben Sira’s juxtaposition begins to come into view. For, if both the amelioration of sin and almsgiving are understood in terms of debits and credits, it is not difficult to see how an author such as Ben Sira could elide the two. Already in Prov 16:6 a precedent can be found for an alternative means of atonement: “By faithfulness and truth iniquity is atoned for” (!w[ rpky tmaw dsxb). Notably, in the LXX of this verse dsxb is translated as evlehmosu,naij, which demonstrates that at least some Jews interpreted this verse in the direction of Sir 3:30. Perhaps even more suggestive is the claim in Ezek 18:22 that “None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness (hqdc) that they have done they shall live.” Interestingly, due to the fact that Ezek 18 contrasts repentance and apostasy, it views the atoning efficacy of righteousness (hqdc) only in regard to previous sins; earlier acts of righteousness will not benefit someone if he turns to wi46

See ANDERSON, From Israel’s Burden to Israel’s Debt, 1-30.

236


wickedness. While Ezekiel promises that “None of the righteous deeds (hqdc) that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die” (18:24), Ben Sira assures his readers that hqdc to a father will not be forgotten and will serve as a future purification offering and aid on the day of distress.47 Thus, Ben Sira views hqdc as not just atoning for previous sins, but as being stored up to offset future sins as well. From this vantage point, there is a theological symmetry between almsgiving as atonement for sin and between almsgiving as merit, which explains the difference between Ben Sira and Ezek 18. The story in Dan 4, which is nearly contemporaneous with Sirach, provides another vivid illustration of this dynamic. There Nebuchadnezzar’s sins have accrued such a “debt” that he is about to be consigned to slavery in order to pay it off. Daniel advises the king to “redeem your sins by almsgiving (hqdcb), and your iniquities by generosity to the poor (!yn[ !xmb)” (Dan 4:24).48 The Aramaic word for redeem is qrp, which is the counterpart to the Hebrew lag. These are the words that are used in debt-slavery situations for the act of paying off the debt to be released from slavery (cf. Lev 25). In other words, Nebuchadnezzar is facing this debt-slavery from sin, but Daniel offers him an alternative way out of the debt. Instead of paying the debt through bodily suffering he can raise the necessary “currency” by giving alms and showing generosity to the poor.49 The same combination of a heavenly treasury and the atoning efficacy of almsgiving that is found in Sirach can also be seen in the passage from Tob 4 cited in the previous chapter. It will be recalled that in his testamentary speech Tobit strongly advocates almsgiving and in vv. 9-11 he aligns the themes of the heavenly treasury which delivers from future necessity (including death) with almsgiving as functioning sacrificially: So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.

The word used for “offering” is dw/ron, which likely presupposes the Aramaic !brwq. The Hebrew !brq is a frequent word in P for sacrificial 47 48

49

BOCCACCINI, Middle Judaism, 117. The NRSV translates hqdcb as “with righteousness,” but in light of the parallelism it must have the sense of “with almsgiving” (so ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 40-55). See the discussion in ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 40-43.


237

offerings and also appears twice in Ezekiel and twice in Nehemiah.50 Anderson notes that here in Tob 4 the “gift” to the poor functions as a “gift” (dw/ron) to God. In other words, the hand of the poor person is like the altar of the temple in that both are conduits to God since he is especially near to both.51 God has a special affinity for the location of the Jerusalem temple and for people who are poor. It will be remembered from the discussion in chapter 5 that when the lexical development of hqdc was combined with the triangular construct between the almsgiver, the poor, and God, the result was that almsgiving was viewed as lending to God such that he would repay the almsgiver at a future time of necessity. In light of our present discussion of Ben Sira and his contemporaries, it can be seen that the atoning efficacy of almsgiving is derived from a parallel theological construct. The lexical shift in the language of sin and forgiveness resulted in a conceptualization of the matter in terms of debt and repayment. Once this development occurred, it was a short jump to viewing hqdc as raising the necessary currency to pay off the debt of sin. The fact that there is a nexus between God and the poor as well as between God and the cult allowed this theological crossover to occur.52 It is this symmetry in the theology of almsgiving that results in Ben Sira’s juxtaposition of almsgiving as atonement and almsgiving as future credit in Sir 3.53 As we will see below, this theological symmetry becomes a key component in addressing the social and theological tension between generosity to the poor and the support of the Jerusalem priesthood. The second way Ben Sira portrays the sacrificial functionality of almsgiving is through its depiction as cultic gifts and offerings. The key passage for this perspective is Sir 35:1-5:54 50 51 52

53

54

Cf. MOORE, Tobit, 168. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 52. Recall Anderson’s remarks on Tob 4: “Tobit is suggesting that placing coins in the hand of a beggar is like putting a sacrifice on the altar – for both the hand and the altar provide direct access to God” (Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 52). Because Griffin does not fully account for all of Sir 3, he explains 3:30-31 only in terms of atonement in relation to the past and credit in relation to the future (A Study of Eleēmosynē, 74-75). While this is certainly true in 3:30-31 the rest of the chapter reveals that a deeper theological dynamic is at work and that the temporal distinction does not fully account for the relationship of v. 30 to v. 31. Within Sir 35:1-13 there is debate over the structure of the material. Büchler, Fritzsche, and Skehan & Di Lella divide the pericope into two subunits, vv. 1-5 and vv. 613, while Segal divides the material into three subunits: vv. 1-5.6-9.10-13. Stadelmann argues that vv. 1-7 constitute the first subunit. Yet, Stadelmann further divides this into three sections: vv. 1-2.3-5.6-7. Therefore, for our purposes vv. 1-5 may be considered together on either division of the material. BÜCHLER, Ben Sira’s Conception of Sin and Atonement, 66-67; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s,

238

Almsgiving and Sacrifice in Sirach 1 2 3 4 5

He who keeps the Law multiplies offerings he who keeps the commandments offers a sacrifice of well-being The one who does an act of charity offers fine flour and the one who gives alms sacrifices an offering of thanksgiving To refrain from evil is pleasing to the Lord and to refrain from injustice is an atonement55

This passage has elicited much discussion over the precise relationship between almsgiving and cultic sacrifices, but the first point to observe is that in the chiasm of vv. 1-2, obedience to Torah in general is likened to “offerings” (v. 1) and the synonymous “keeping the commandments” is likened to a subset of offerings, “sacrifices of well-being” (v. 2; cf. Lev 3:1-17). The portrayal of basically synonymous ethical descriptions with a sacrificial category and one of its subcategories indicates that for Ben Sira there is no strict system of correspondence between ethical prescriptions and the sacrificial language he uses.56 In vv. 3-4, however, it should be noted that fine flour and the offering of thanksgiving are subsets of the well-being offering, just as charity and almsgiving are subsets of adhering to the Torah.57 Yet, there does not seem to be much significance in the actual choice of sacrifices to which charity and almsgiving are likened, though it is interesting that, in terms of practice, these sacrifices were not to be offered only on special occasions. Rather, they can be offered many times and as often as the piety of the worshipper might prompt him.58 As a further confirmation that Ben Sira does not see a correlation between almsgiving and the essence of the sacrifices to which it is likened is that in Leviticus the well-being offerings (including fine flour and the offering of thanksgiving) never serve as expiation, whereas in Sir 3 almsgiving can serve as a tajx. The efficaciousness of almsgiving, therefore, has a general cultic functionality rather than a one-to-one correspondence to a particular type of sacrifice. Ben Sira conceives of its benefits as commensurate with several different types of sacrifices.

55 56 57

58

ception of Sin and Atonement, 66-67; FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 190; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 222-223; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 417-418; STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 83-85. For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 94-95. In Leviticus there is an interpretive problem regarding the relationship of the ~ymlX and the hdwt. In 7:13-15 (P) the latter appears to be a subset of the former, while in 22:21-30 (H) they appear to be treated independently. Some have seen source-critical implications in this, but Milgrom thinks they are compatible. See the discussion in MILGROM, Leviticus 17-22, 1885-1886. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 53.


239

These observations are sufficient to show that here Ben Sira does not conceive of almsgiving and charitable deeds as substituting for particular sacrifices, as though Torah obedience renders the cult superfluous.59 Rather, the fundamental connection between almsgiving and these cultic observances becomes clear when 35:1-5 is read in its larger context. Immediately after these verses Ben Sira explicitly warns his students not to appear before God empty-handed and that offering sacrifices fulfills the commandment (vv. 6-7). In addition, the passages that flank 35:1-7 contrast the sacrifices of the wicked with the sacrifices of the righteous. Sacrifices made from what has been obtained through injustice or oppression will not be accepted by God, and the person who brings them will not receive forgiveness (34:21-27). On the other hand, the offerings of the righteous are pleasing and acceptable to God (35:8-9). It is evident that 35:1-5 fits into this paradigm since it is framed by references to keeping the commandments (v. 1) and abstaining from wickedness and injustice (v.5). Rather than implying a neglect of the cult, Ben Sira instead advises his students to offer sacrifices as generously as they are able, in fact as generously as God has given to them (35:10-12). In light of this context and the previous discussion of 7:29-31, an interpretation of 35:1-5 that results in neglecting the cult in favor of almsgiving must be judged a misreading. The reason why almsgiving and sacrifice cannot be set in opposition to one another is simply that both the altar and the poor serve as conduits to God. Thus, it is a false dichotomy to ask whether Ben Sira’s view of piety is primarily that of ethics or that of cultic worship; rather, both are necessary. It is not a question of “spiritual” worship versus “material” worship since Ben Sira would not have accepted the distinction. Both social ethics and cultic worship are components of the divine Torah and thus they cannot be set in opposition. The Torah-obedient student both supports the cult and lives in accord with the divine commands. As Stadelmann argues, the whole context of 34:21-35:13 suggests that, “Die Kampflinie verläufte nicht zwischen ‘materiellem’ und ‘spirituallem’, sondern zwischen ‘heiligem’ und ‘unheilgem’ Kulthandeln.”60 Later in his analysis of this passage Stadelmann concludes that rather than “spiritualizing” the cult, Ben Sira is actually “cultizing” (“kultisiert”) the ethical demands of the Torah. So exalted is his view of the sacrificial cult that he elevates the ethical demands of the Torah to the same level to show that the importance of the cult system cannot be allowed to 59 60

STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 95. STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 90.

240


eclipse the need for the ethical treatment of the poor. According to Sir 34:21-27, offerings (dwrh,mata) that are made from finances raised at the expense of the poor undercut their own validity. Money gained through depriving the poor of their livelihood is “tainted” and when it is converted into offerings, it will not be accepted by God.61 From this vantage point, it is precisely Ben Sira’s allegiance to the temple system that evokes this sacrificial functionality of Torahobedience, including the practice of almsgiving. In his polemic against those who falsely depend on the cult for forgiveness despite their oppression of the poor, he conceptualizes the latter in terms of the former.62 In other words, contrary to the actions of those portrayed in 34:21-31, treatment of the poor and sacrificial worship cannot be compartmentalized. Since both are grounded in the Torah and both priests and the poor enjoy a special, nexus-like relationship with God, they are two aspects of one Wisdom-Torah piety. As in Sir 24, there is an inseparable relationship between Torah, Wisdom, and the Jerusalem cult system. For Ben Sira, it is a grave mistake to think that one can despise God via the poor while also worshipping him via the cult, or vice versa. This observation, the inseparability of the social and cultic demands of the Torah, is the key to appreciating the theological and practical relationship between almsgiving and sacrifice in Ben Sira’s thought.

6.4 Synthesis: Ben Sira as Mediator of Tradition Having now discussed the nature of Ben Sira’s allegiance to the Jerusalem priesthood and the passages that cast almsgiving in sacrificial language, we are in a position to appreciate the relationship between sacrifice and almsgiving in Ben Sira’s thought. For heuristic purposes, we

61

62

There is an interesting text-critical problem with Sir 34:25, which is relevant to our discussion. The Greek reflects the reading “The bread of the needy (= rsx) is the life of the poor // whoever deprives (them) of it is a murderer.” The Syriac has a similar reading except that it begins with “the bread of charity (= dsx).” On the reading of the Syriac, almsgiving is so crucial to the survival of the poor that neglecting this obligation is tantamount to murder. This verse, then, explicitly ties this discussion of improper cultic gifts to that of proper cultic gifts in 35:6-13. On the reading of the Greek, the verse is similar to vv. 26-27 where the person who denies or postpones wages of the poor worker “sheds his blood.” It is difficult to decide the issue and commentators are divided. For example, Peters (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 283, 286) and Skehan & Di Lella (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 414) follow the Syriac, while Box & Oesterley (Sirach, 436) and Segal (~lXh arys-!b rps, 221) follow the Greek. STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 97.

Synthesis: Ben Sira as Mediator of Tradition

241

will consider the relationship on both the theological and practical levels. On the theological level, sacrifice and almsgiving are compatible insofar as they are both derivative of a Wisdom-Torah piety. For Ben Sira, Wisdom is closely related to the doctrine of creation. She comes from God (1:1; 24:3-4), is manifested in the order of creation (16:2417:14; cf. 39:14-35; 42:15-45:33), and has dominion over every nation (24:6). At the same time, Wisdom has taken up residence in a specific location and among a specific people (24:8-12; cf. 17:11-14) and she is a distinguishing characteristic of Israel’s ancestors who are praised (44:34.15). In other words, Wisdom is both universalistic and particularistic.63 There is a sense in which Wisdom is available to all (1:9-10); but in another sense, she is uniquely present in Israel. In particular, she can be found in concrete form in the teaching of the Torah and in the sacrificial cult.From this perspective, the sapiential canopy of Ben Sira’s theology is the context in which statements about sacrifices and almsgiving must be understood. The Wisdom piety advocated by Ben Sira is fundamentally a matter of Torah-obedience. There can be no doubt that the Torah places a high value on the sacrificial system since P’s redaction of the Pentateuch has placed the institution of the cult at the center of Israel’s foundational narrative and has linked it to the cosmic order of creation in Gen 1.64 On the practical level, the ordering of the community around the cult and the ascription of the regulation of the purity/impurity boundaries consolidated social power in the priestly hierarchy as well as provided a means of financial income.65 Yet, agreeing that the Torah presents a positive view of the sacrificial cult does not necessarily settle the matter. As we noted earlier, there was considerable debate in Ben Sira’s time over the legitimacy of those occupying the Jerusalem priesthood, but Ben Sira was strongly favorable to the current temple-state and, as with the Priestly tradents, this commitment involved a consolidation of social and religious power among the priestly hierarchy, in part. On the other hand, the passage in Sir 13:2-23 makes it clear that Ben Sira is not blind to the sins of the aristocracy (cf. §2.2.1). He is a strong advocate of treating the poor well and does not mince words in condemning those who participate in social injustice (4:1-10; 7:32-36; 29:813; 34:21-35:26). Not surprisingly, his expression of this perspective is grounded in the Torah as well. We have already had occasion to note 63 64 65

SCHNABEL, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul, 16-28, 79-83. See BLENKINSOPP, The Pentateuch, 217-220. PLEINS, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible, 61-65.

242


several Pentateuchal passages (among others in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East in general) which seek to protect the poor from economic exploitation. But it is important for the purposes of the present discussion that this social orientation is not only a constituent part of earlier legislation in the Covenant Code and among the Deuteronomists, but can be found in the Priestly legislation and narrative as well.66 Less expensive sacrifices are permitted for the poor in the case of the purification offering in Lev 5:1-13, for the purification after childbirth (Lev 12:1-8), and for the purification from disease (Lev 14:21-32).67 Similarly, reduced rates are permitted in the case of votive offerings in Lev 27:1-8. A concern for the poor is more pronounced in the Holiness Code. Lev 19 reveals a concern for paying the laborer his wages on time (v. 13) and gives a warning not to show judicial partiality based on economic standing (v. 15). In Lev 25 the Holiness Code advocates the Sabbatical year and the year of Jubilee, including concomitant release from debt-slavery.68 But in distinction to ancient Near Eastern royal decrees, this release is authorized by YHWH and is to be carried out by everyone in the community. Thus, a social concern for the poor is democratized from the domain of a human king to that of the individual Israelite and Israel’s adherence to this mandate is subject to divine sanction. If the Holiness Code is to be dated to the postexilic period then it is clear why this transposition has occurred (cf. §5.2). The importance of enacting socio-economic justice is part of the Holiness Code’s larger vision of communal holiness and the passage looks less like the merely impractical utopian vision it is sometimes charged with being.69 Setting the priestly social vision just sketched within its context during the early Second Temple period is illuminating. It is clear from texts like Haggai and Nehemiah that in the century following the return from exile economic conditions were difficult. While construction 66 67 68 69

See PLEINS, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible, 61-74. On the difficulty of relating the purification offering of Lev 5:1-13 to that of 4:1-35 see the discussion in MILGROM, Leviticus 1-16, 307-318. As mentioned in chapter 4, within Lev 25 there is the prohibition against charging interest and the positive exhortation to help a kinsman in need (25:35-38). HOUSTON, Contending For Justice, 189-202. Houston concludes that “one may now better appreciate why the text has to project a utopia. Its understanding of justice is entirely discordant with society as it currently exists: as it exited then, or as it exists now. Does the Jubilee deserve its status as an icon of justice? Let us be clear that its utopian character is no disqualification, but rather essential to this status. Practical suggestions for the improvement of society are no inspriration to work for justice: it is a vision of justice that is needed; and the Jubilee provides this within a framework that is recognizably the agrarian life of ancient Judah” (201).


243

on the temple lagged due to widespread hardship, Haggai argued that the economic despondency was the result of a failure to build the temple and suggested that once the temple was completed economic conditions would improve. In the fifth century, according to Neh 5, the peasantry was so overtaxed and exploited that their families were being dismantled to be sold into debt-slavery. This exploitation of the poor by the elite depleted the economic base to the point where the Levites were no longer able to be supported from tithes (Neh 13:10-13). In seeking to restore some economic balance, it is notable that, among the wealthy, Nehemiah summons the priests and solicits from them a promise to cease taking interest and to restore basic commodities to the peasantry (Neh 5:7-13). In addition, in the postexilic period Haggai, Zechariah, Isa 56-66, Ezek 40-48, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Malachi all attest to a society deeply divided along various rifts in the social, political, economic, and religious arenas. In the struggle over the community’s identity and structure, those responsible for P sought to consolidate religious and social legitimacy within the temple system. However, this was not simply a mask for a raw seizure of power, but proceeded from an overriding concern for the genuine renewal of a holy community in order to avoid a future catastrophe like the exile.70 It is this vision of social renewal that is the context of social provisions such as those in Lev 25. Thus, P can advocate both a socio-economic structure headed by the priests and a social vision that seeks to protect the poor from being overly exploited, in accordance with ancient Israelite covenantal norms.71 This symbiotic balance between the priestly class and the peasantry is seen as vital to the maintenance of a well-ordered society in which YHWH is pleased to dwell. As Neh 5 attests, social and economic conditions continued to be strained throughout the Persian period, primarily because of the problem of debt.72 However, the book of Nehemiah also suggests that some of those among the upper class felt conflicted over the socio-economic situation and the demands of their religious traditions. As a result, some of the socially elite opted to support the cause of the poor even at their own personal expense (Neh 5:6-13; cf. Job 29:14-17; 31:13-40; Isa 58:6-7). Thus, there were some among the elite who found themselves caught between an allegiance to ancestral covenantal traditions and the

70 71 72

ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II, 489. Cf. PLEINS, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible, 63-65. ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II, 495-497.

244


practical machinations of the economically shrewd. Albertz contends that it was in this atmosphere that the characterization of almsgiving as an exemplary virtue had its genesis.73 Especially important for our purposes is the recognition that the ideology of the P tradents was not generated in a social vacuum. Rather, the postexilic period was an economically turbulent time and their social vision sought to hold together the legitimation of the Jerusalem cult and the preservation of the poor, even while actual social circumstances made it difficult to do so. Heirs to these commitments, including Ben Sira, continued to find it pragmatically difficult to hold to both of these theological ideals. As with the P tradents, Ben Sira lived in social circumstances in which allegiance to the Jerusalem cult could be in tension with a concern for the poor and this problem was given new dimensions by the developments in the Hellenistic period regarding the political role of the high priesthood. Yet, as we saw in his discussion of loans and surety, Ben Sira readily acknowledges the fragmentation of the social structure (13:2-23; 34:21-27), but these practical difficulties are not permitted to eclipse the demands of the Torah.74 He is idealistic without being unrealistic. In fact, it seems that from his point of view he has no other choice. The fact that the Torah both legitimates the priesthood and also calls for justice to the poor requires a commitment to both, despite any perceived complications in the implementation of such a vision. As our discussion has shown, for Ben Sira these two allegiances run much deeper than surface commitments; they are understood to be crucial components of the Torah. Hayward has perceptively pointed out that the only two places in Sirach where the phrase “for the sake of the commandment” (ca,rin evntolh/j) occurs are in the instructions regarding almsgiving (29:9; cf. 29:11) and in the instruction not to neglect the sacrificial cult (35:7; cf. 7:31).75 This observation about Ben Sira’s phrasing reflects his larger belief that the support of the cult and concern for the poor are parallel ideals of a Wisdom-Torah ethic. It cannot be a coincidence that the two places where Ben Sira casts almsgiving in sacrificial language (3:30-31; 35:1-5) are juxtaposed with the passages that are most adamant about the need 73 74 75

ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II, 501-507. Similarly, WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 69. HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 29. Of course, there are other places in Sirach where appeal to the commandments is made in different language, but almost all of these are generic admonitions to keep the commandments. In context, a few of them are linked to particular issues (e.g. 28:6-7; 29:1-7).


245

for social justice (4:1-10; 34:21-27; 35:14-26). Likewise, the two passages that are most insistent on the virtue of supporting the Jerusalem cult (7:29-31; 35:6-13) are juxtaposed with passages about the need to care for the poor (7:32-36; 35:14-26).76 This pattern of juxtaposing the two is understandable since the Torah shows the same tendency. For example, in Deut 14:22-27 the Israelites are instructed regarding the bringing of their tithes to the sanctuary and in Deut 15:1-18, a passage already seen to be highly important for Ben Sira, there is the concern for social justice regarding the poor. In the few verses that bridge these two sections there is an intertwining of priests and the socially vulnerable as the recipients of the tithes:77 Every third year you shall bring out the full tithe of your produce for that year, and store it within your towns; the Levites, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you, as well as the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake. (Deut 14:28-29).

The fact that Ben Sira’s strongest statements concerning either social justice or the sacrificial cult always evoke teaching about the other demonstrates that, for him, they are inseparable dimensions of obedience to the Torah. Yet the inseparable nature of these two aspects of Torah goes even deeper for Ben Sira. For him, both of these have their ultimate theological antecedent in the nature of Wisdom. Wisdom dwells in the Jerusalem temple and, like Simon the high priest, acts as a priest, sending forth her incense (Sir 24:15). Likewise, the layperson attains wisdom through the study of Torah (39:1-11) and his praise is also like incense (39:14), as is the legacy of the righteous (49:1). Thus, the pursuit of Wisdom must necessarily lead to a convergence, not an opposition, of sup-

76

77

It should be remembered that charity and social justice are not the same. Pleins argues that the latter seeks structural, institutional change to bring about an end to poverty while the former, at least in the book of Proverbs, is not so much out of concern for injustice, but in order to receive a reward from God. Pleins has been criticized by Kimilike, who observes that a compartmentalization of charity and social justice does not hold if the former is considered ineffective without the latter. Then charity and social justice are two components of one strategy to address poverty. Perhaps even more than Proverbs, this is the direction both Job and Sirach are moving (cf. Sir 34:21-35:26). See the discussions in KIMILIKE, Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 64-66; MALCHOW, Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature, 120-124; PLEINS, Poverty in the Social World of the Wise, 61-78. Pointed out by Di Lella in connection with 7:29-36 (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207).

246


porting the cult and concern for the poor. Hayward is worth quoting at length. Sacrifice is part of Torah: that is to say, it is part of the divine order of the universe, and it is openly displayed on Mount Zion when the high priest, as political and religious head of the Jewish people, performs his sacrificial functions. But Torah includes also the ethical and moral commands which ben Sira so heavily emphasizes. Right conduct, too, is part of the divine order of the universe. As far as ben Sira is concerned, there can be no question of a dichotomy between ritual and moral commandments. Both kinds of commandment derive from Wisdom-Torah, and the wise man, the righteous, pious and learned man, is the one who, in tune with the divine order of the universe, observes all the commandments – ritual and ethical.78

In other words, even if the priestly aristocracy of Seleucid Judea oppresses the poor, the sage’s allegiance to the Torah does not allow him to choose to support either the priesthood or the poor. He must seek out a way to try to accomplish both because both the priests and the poor function as “theological conduits” to God. One cannot honor God through one and despise him through the other. The way of Wisdom requires the sage to hold the two together and, as such, Ben Sira’s ethic might be characterized as an imitatio sapientiae. However, even if it is acknowledged that Ben Sira wanted to hold together support for the priesthood and advocacy for the poor on the theological level, what would this have meant in terms of practical implementation within a social system such as Seleucid Judea? It still must be decided how to allot one’s financial resources in regards to giving to the poor in the form of almsgiving and to the priesthood in the form of sacrificial gifts. For the latter, it is not simply a question of paying one’s required tithes since in 35:10-12 Ben Sira admonishes his students to be as generous as possible towards God in sacrificial gifts, just as he has been to them. The key to understanding how Ben Sira can take this stance toward giving to the cult is probably to be found in the following verse. Ben Sira grounds this supererogatory disposition towards the cult in the 78

HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 30-31. Earlier Perdue came to the same conclusion: “The most striking element is Sirach’s equating righteous behavior with cultic devotion, since both achieve the same end: forgiveness and acceptance by the deity (33:1-3 [= 35:1-5]). This should not be interpreted to mean that Sirach exalts righteous actions over cultic participation, but rather that he places them both on an equal plane in his depiction of sapiential piety. The true wise man, therefore, is righteous and cultically observant, and to distinguish between the two is a dichotomy completely foreign to Sirach’s understanding” (Wisdom and Cult, 199).

Sacrifice and Almsgiving in Broader Context

247

rationale that Israel’s God is one who repays and he will repay this generosity “sevenfold” (35:13). It will be recalled from the previous chapter that this same theological dynamic characterized almsgiving, which Ben Sira believed would produce returns that surpassed the “investment” of giving to the poor (29:8-13). In fact, 35:12-13 was seen to impinge directly on the textual transmission of chapter 29 in the Syriac version. The Syriac glossator was attuned to the considerable symmetry in Ben Sira’s thought between the way that God rewards almsgiving and the way he rewards gifts offered to him through sacrifice. Because both the poor and the priests are proxies for God, gifts to either operate by similar theological logic; God will repay the giver in ways that surpass the expectations of normal economics. Both operate on the level of a “divine economy” and therefore are not subject to the rules of a zero-sum transaction. Just as it would be a mistake to place the cult and the poor in opposition on an abstract theological level, so the practical question of where to allocate one’s financial resources would likely have been considered by Ben Sira to be a false dichotomy as well, precisely because of the theological structure of his thought on the matter. It is not a question of whether to support the cult or the poor; one should support both and do so as much as possible. The ultimate generosity of God, who is to be offered gifts through these two specific conduits, guarantees that giving to him through one conduit will never create a financial situation that results in a hindrance to the other.

6.5 Sacrifice and Almsgiving in Broader Context This understanding of almsgiving and sacrifice is so heavily dependent on Jewish thought that, as is to be expected, there are no substantial parallels in thought in the Hellenistic world other than in Jewish and Christian sources.79 We have already had occasion to note the similar theological dynamics in Tob 4 and Dan 4, but Ben Sira’s refusal to allow the dichotomization of sacrifice and concern for the poor has a strong precedent in the prophetic literature. Passages such as Amos 6, Hos 6, Mic 6, Isa 1 and 66 protest the view that cultic sacrifices are acceptable apart from the context of a just society.80 79 80

Cf. GARRISON, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity, 38-45. As is well known, there is a long tradition in scholarship of viewing the prophets as fundamentally opposed to the cult, not just a corrupt form of the cult; but given the social contexts of the prophets, it is best to view these attacks as rhetorical strategies

248


In addition, the literary link of supporting the priests and the poor that was seen in Deut 14-15 may have had a social counterpart as well. In the prayer of thanksgiving at the end of Ps 22, the psalmist states that he will pay his vows, which in context must be offerings that are brought to the temple (v. 25). In the next verse he claims that “the poor shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD” (v. 26) The implication of this line of thought is that when the worshipper brought his offerings in fulfillment of his vows, the poor received a share in the resulting meal.81 According to the picture in Ps 22, giving a donation to the cult amounted to a corresponding gift to the poor. One act of piety fulfilled both obligations. Similarly, in Ps 132 YHWH elaborates on his choice of Zion by saying that he will reside there forever (v. 14). Then in vv. 15-16 he says: I will abundantly bless its provisions; I will satisfy its poor with bread. Its priests I will clothe with salvation, and its faithful will shout for joy.

The antecedent of “it” throughout these verses is Zion (v. 13). It is significant that God promises to satisfy Zion’s poor and Zion’s priests in adjacent stichs. In particular, the blessing of Zion’s provisions (in connection with God’s temple dwelling) is followed by the statement that the poor will be sated. In other words, the picture here is simply the divine side of the picture found in Ps 22:25-26. In both cases the prosperity of the temple entails the satisfaction of the material needs of the poor. Ben Sira’s refusal to separate the cultic and ethical demands of the Torah in spite of the challenge of implementing them in his contemporary society is a motif also found in later texts, both Christian and Jewish. Numerous texts portray generosity in sacrificial language. For example, as mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul characterizes the charitable gift from the Philippians as “a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Phil 4:18). Elsewhere Paul uses sacrificial language primarily in regards to Jesus or the Christian life (e.g. Rom 12:1; cf. 1 Pet 2:5). In Acts 10:4 an angel says to Cornelius, a noted

81

intended to dislodge overconfidence on the efficacy of the cultic system. As Bibb concludes, “The same rhetorical fire that leads them to compare God to a ravenous beast, to a consuming fire, to maggots in rotting meat, and to an abusive husband and father, gives rise to the language of cultic repudiation. It is intended to shock and dismay, not to lobby for a world without cultic practice” (The Prophetic Critique of Ritual in Old Testament Theology, 43). See SCHAEFER, Psalms, 56.


249

almsgiver, that, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” Another excellent New Testament example of generosity functioning as a sacrifice can be seen at the end of Hebrews, where the author relocates the significance of the sacrificial altar within the cross (13:10). A few verses later he charges his readers: “Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb 13:15-16). The phrase “fruit of lips” appears to be an allusion to Hos 14:3 (LXX) regarding a thanksgiving offering for a vow. Therefore, praise and generosity are described in sacrificial language and transposed from the Jerusalem cult to the sacrificial death of Jesus.82 Another example can be seen in Mark 12:28-34, where there is a discussion regarding the greatest commandment. When Jesus cites the Shema and the love of neighbor as the greatest commandment, the scribe agrees and adds “this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). Jesus judges the scribe’s answer to be wise and tells him that he is not far from the kingdom of God. The Synoptic Gospels also record a debate over issues of purity and tradition in which Jesus accuses the Pharisees of using an offering (i.e. !brq) as a way to evade the obligation to honor father and mother (Mark 7:913; Matt 15:3-6). Jesus’ fundamental concern in this argument is that cultic offerings made to the detriment of aiding the needy (in this case, one’s parents) undercut their own value. In his argument Jesus demonstrates a similar attitude to that in Sir 3.83 Of course, from the Pharisees’ point of view the issue did not involve a conflict between Torah and tradition; rather, it concerned the

82

83

See LANE, Hebrews 9-13, 548-553. In subsequent Christian writings the use of sacrificial language to portray the efficacy of almsgiving is less prominent than in Jewish writings. Ephrem is an example of a writer who explicitly maintains the link between almsgiving and sacrifice. In Hymns on the Nativity 4:203-205 he compares the theological dynamics between giving to God through sacrifice and through almsgiving. See ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 57-64. The idea that almsgiving is redemptive in the sense of securing forgiveness for sins is widespread (e.g. 2 Clem. 16.4); but with the destruction of the temple and the understanding of Jesus’ death in sacrificial terms, some early Christian authors no longer appealed to the cultic service as the medium for understanding almsgiving. Cf. GARRISON, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity, 76-107. Cf. “The qorbān vow is supposed to be service to God. Such service, however, can never be isolated from service to fellow human beings. If the qorbān vow does nothing save deprive the needy, then it is not in accord with service to God, which demands as its invariable corollary love of neighbor.” DAVIES/ALLISON, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:525.

250


difficulty of negotiating demands of the Torah which could come into conflict pragmatically, honoring one’s parents (Exod 20:12) and the inviolability of vows made to God (Num 30:3; Deut 23:24).84 In fact, some rabbis came to the conclusion that vows whose fulfillment would lead to sin or would result in a dishonoring of God could be annulled (e.g. m. Ned. 9.1; b. Ned. 64b; cf. Philo, Spec. leg. 2.10-23). Ben Sira’s belief that the sacrificial cult and generosity to the poor were inseparable because they were both essential components of Torah-obedience remained a central tenet in Judaism. The Mishnah ascribes to Simon the Just85 the statement: “The world stands on three things: on the Torah, on the cult (hdwb[h), and on works of charity (~ydsx twlymg)” (m. Abot 1.2). In this statement, cult and charity are not just compatible or even inseparable; they are pillars of the world along with Torah. As Hayward remarks, “It would be difficult to find a more appropriate summary of ben Sira’s attitude to sacrifice and non-cultic piety that this.”86 Even more fascinating is Maimonides’ commentary on this statement in the Mishnah, in which he aligns these three with wisdom, virtues, and Torah observance (respectively): He [Simon the Righteous] said that by means of wisdom, represented by the Torah, and by means of the moral virtues, represented by deeds of lovingkindness, and by means of observing the precepts of the Torah, represented by the offerings, shall the perpetual improvement of the world and the order of its existence be in the perfect path.87

It will be noted that while wisdom is represented by Torah, Torah is represented by the sacrificial cult. This creates an internal connection between the three pillars. Maimonides sees the practice of these three pillars as the path to bringing the world into conformity with the cosmic order. Texts like Sirach, Tobit, and Daniel reveal that a theological link between almsgiving and the sacrificial cult developed during the Second Temple period. Yet, the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. must have further facilitated the rising value of almsgiving, especially in terms of its sacrificial efficacy. The fourth chapter of ’Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan begins with the same statement from Simon the Just. On the basis of sev84 85 86 87

LUZ, Matthew 8-20, 331. In all likelihood this is the Simon praised in Sir 50. See HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:131. HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 32. Translation from DAVID, Moses Maimonides, 2.


251

eral passages, including Hos 6:6,88 the conclusion is deduced that “the study of Torah is even more acceptable to the All-present than burntofferings, since if a man studies Torah he knows the will of the Allpresent.” Later Hos 6:6 is cited again, this time in connection with Ps 89:3 to show that loving-kindness was instrumental in the creation of the world. This cosmic significance of generosity is important to establish because it paves the way for this story: It happened once that Rabban Joḥanan b. Zakkai was coming out of Jerusalem, followed by R. Joshua, and he beheld the Temple in ruins. ‘Woe to us,’ cried R. Joshua, ‘for this house that lies in ruins, the place where atonement was made for the sins of Israel!’ Rabban Joḥanan said to him, ‘My son, be not grieved, for we have another means of atonement which is as effective, and that is, the practice of lovingkindness, as it is stated, For I desire lovingkindness and not sacrifice’. (20a)89

Leaving aside the issue of the story’s historical reliability, it is clear that the fundamental link between almsgiving and sacrifice, the grounding of both in the Torah, and their theological value as pillars of the world, provided the key components for the transference in rabbinic Judaism of sacrificial atonement to almsgiving and charitable deeds as well as the study of Torah. This overarching importance of almsgiving eventually led some rabbis to conclude that it was the commandment par excellence. In Tosephta Peah 4:19 all the other commandments are said to be outweighed by almsgiving (hqdc) and charitable deeds (~ydsx twlymg). This statement is followed by an explanation of why charitable deeds are esteemed as superior to almsgiving.90 A very similar discussion reappears in b. Sukkah 49b, except there R. Eleazar specifies that the one who gives alms is greater that the one who brings all the sacrifices of the Torah and he grounds this conclusion in Prov 21:3, “To do righteousness [hqdc] and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice,” a reading which obviously depends on the linguistic shift of hqdc outlined in the previous chapter. It is clear, therefore, that in Judaism the destruction of the temple resulted in a rethinking of the nature of the sacrificial cult. As part of the larger movement to conceive of the study of Torah in sacrificial 88 89 90

Already in the Second Temple period, the use of dsx in Hos 6:6 was understood in connection with generosity. See JOOSTEN, dsx ‘bienveillance’ et e;leoj ‘pitié’, 25-42. Translations are taken from COHEN (ed.), The Minor Tractates of the Talmud, 1:35, 37-38. See BROOKS, Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture, 155.

252


terms, almsgiving as the commandment was understood to function sacrificially. The importance of texts like Sirach and Tobit is that they show that this initial movement was not ad hoc with respect to the destruction of the temple. Rather, this theological move originated centuries earlier and arose from internal linguistic and theological developments based on readings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Already in Ben Sira’s thought one can find all the essential theological structures that would be necessary for the fully developed rabbinic understanding of almsgiving as a pillar of the world, as equivalent to (or greater than) all the other commandments, and as functioning sacrificially. A related point that bears mentioning is that the emphasis on almsgiving and the downplaying of sacrifice in the Syriac version of Sirach does not point specifically and only to a Christian origin, as is sometimes suggested.91 Rather, this phenomenon picks up and develops a motif already present in Ben Sira’s thought and reflects a development that was already underway among some Second Temple Jews. This tendency in the Syriac may very well be due to the Christian commitments of the translator, but our discussion here makes it clear that such a commitment was not unique to Christianity and so does not necessarily point in this direction.92

6.6 Conclusions At the beginning of this chapter we noted that the characterization of almsgiving in sacrificial language could be understood to imply a tension in the pragmatic implementation of Ben Sira’s theology in a society such as Seleucid Judea. Yet, through a closer reading of how Ben Sira speaks about the cult and almsgiving it was discovered that he views them both as integral parts of a Wisdom-Torah ethic. Because both the priests and the poor serve as financial proxies for God, it is a false dichotomy to place loyalty to one in opposition to the other. There is a more fundamental theological coherence between the two than the demands of pragmatic concerns might suggest. Ben Sira’s ethic of imitatio sapientiae is, therefore, idealistic without becoming unrealistic. In addition, the tension between the locus of power in the priesthood and the rights of the poor was not a new problem in Ben Sira’s day. If Olyan is correct that Ben Sira’s theology of the priesthood is heir 91 92

See BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 437; OWENS, The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 63; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 312-313. Cf. WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament, 245.

Conclusions

253

to the P tradents, then it is important to note that P’s literary and redactional work was also done in difficult socio-economic circumstances. Nevertheless, P managed to affirm both the divine legitimacy of the priesthood and a social vision in which the poor were not exploited. The work of the P tradents was therefore a negotiation between present social and theological concerns and their own theological heritage, which involved covenantal traditions wherein the poor were a particular concern for YHWH. By the time of Ben Sira, P’s negotiation of the issue had also become part of the tradition which now needed renegotiation in light of new circumstances. In Seleucid Judea the relationship between those at the top of the socio-economic pyramid and those at the bottom continued to be strained, as they were in the early postexilic period. The change in the role of the priestly aristocracy that came with the transition from Persian to Hellenistic rule presented a challenge in maintaining dual allegiances to the priesthood and the poor. Although he is a member of the retainer class, which was socially and economically dependent on the priestly aristocracy, his theology of the poor does not become subordinated to the need to maintain his social standing. Horsely’s assessment cited at the beginning of this chapter is correct. Ben Sira is able to criticize his patrons who violate the sacred heritage found in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Sir 13:2-23; 34:21-27). In doing this, he is utterly realistic about the brokenness of his own society and casts an alternative vision of priesthood and laity that is characterized by a Wisdom-Torah piety. In such a society there is no conflict between giving to the cult and giving to the poor, for through both God is honored rightly.

Chapter 7 The Extent of Almsgiving in Sirach 7.1 Introduction The previous chapter examined the relationship between generosity and sacrifice in Ben Sira’s theology. In this chapter we will examine another problem related to Ben Sira’s understanding of generosity. The issue involves the extent of almsgiving: is it to be granted to anyone who is in need or only to certain poor people? Most passages dealing with generosity in Sirach give no limits on the extent of the practice and seem to imply that anyone who is in need should be aided (e.g. 4:1-10; 7:32-36; 18:15-18). However, a starkly different approach is found in Sir 12:1-6, where Ben Sira places strict limits on almsgiving based on the moral character of the recipient. In his annotations to this passage Harold Washington comments that, “While the advice given here is positive, it is also self-serving and at odds with the generous spirit found elsewhere in Sirach (e.g., 18.15-18; 29.8-13).”1 This chapter will argue that this tension regarding the recipients of almsgiving is best explained by recognizing that Ben Sira understands the treatment of the poor through the ethical paradigm of imitatio Dei. As such, the tension between 12:1-6 and other passages in Sirach is rooted in the more fundamental tension explored in chapter 2 between affirming the principle of retributive justice and recognizing its breakdown, the latter of which both entails the need for almsgiving and is manifested in the belief that there is a special relationship between God and the poor. A preliminary consideration of the ethical paradigm of imitatio Dei will provide the context for examining the key passages in Sirach.

7.2 Imitatio Dei as an Ethical Norm The idea that the imitation of God was an essential component of the Hebrew Bible’s ethical vision was argued by Eichrodt in his discussion 1

WASHINGTON, Sirach, 116 [Apocrypha].

Imitatio Dei as an Ethical Norm

255

of Lev 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.”2 A more concrete example can be seen in the Exodus version of the Decalogue in which Sabbath observance is grounded in God’s own rest on the seventh day of creation (Exod 20:8-11). The consecration of the firstborn is also associated with divine activity (Exod 13:11-16). In addition, the idea seems to be the presupposition of various complaints made to God. In his dialogue with the deity over the fate of Sodom, Abraham offers the following riposte: “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen 18:25). Similarly, throughout the Hebrew Bible the expression “walking in God’s ways” characterizes the ethical life.3 Significantly, however, the most pronounced instances of the theme of imitating God in ethical demands occur in the context of the treatment of the poor. As background to Sirach, two texts are particularly interesting. First, in Deuteronomy the exodus event serves as the ethical basis for Israel’s disposition towards the socially vulnerable. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Deut 10:1719)

2

3

EICHRODT, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:373. Christian theologians have long conceived of the spiritual life in terms of imitatio Christi and Martin Buber had spoken of the imitation of God as part of Jewish ethics, but Eichrodt is mainly responsible for introducing the idea to Old Testament scholarship. For the status quaestionis on imitatio Dei in Old Testament ethics see BARTON, Imitation of God in the Old Testament, 35; cf. DAVIES, Walking in God’s Ways, 99-115; OTTO, Forschungsgeschichte der Entwürfe einer Ethik im Alten Testament, 3-37. The idea of imitatio Dei in the Old Testament has recently been challenged by Rodd (Glimpses of a Strange Land, 6576), but Barton’s article responds to Rodd’s criticisms and concludes that the notion of imitatio Dei, correctly understood, is legitimately to be found in the Old Testament. But Barton also points out that elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the actions of God are said to be incommensurate with the ethical principles of his people. Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel are important examples. See also DAVIES, Double Standards in Isaiah, and LINDARS, Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility, 452-467. BARTON, Imitation of God in the Old Testament, 37; DAVIES, Walking in God’s Ways, 103-111. Davies further considers how the concept of imitatio Dei may have originated and suggests that two observations constitute the best candidates for the development of the concept: the tendency to describe God in anthropomorphic terms and the conviction that humanity was created in the image of God.

256

The Extent of Almsgiving in Sirach

Here God draws the explicit parallel between his treatment of Israel and their treatment of aliens, and by implication also orphans and widows. Later in Deut 15, a chapter important for Ben Sira, the Israelite is instructed to give a manumitted debt-slave a generous portion since Israel herself was manumitted by God from Egypt (Deut 15:12-15). Later in the book, God’s treatment of Israel in Egypt is again the basis for the ethical treatment of the alien, the orphan and the widow (24:1718), and for leaving gleanings for the needy (24:21-22). The exodus event also serves as the ethical basis for the observance of the Sabbath (5:12-15) and the offering of the first-fruits (26:1-11).4 A second text that is important as background to Ben Sira’s thought is found in Pss 111 and 112. These two psalms are alphabetic acrostics and are generally regarded as belonging together since they share not only the same form but also vocabulary and expressions. For our purposes, it is important to note that the subjects of these parallels are God in Ps111 and the faithful Israelite in Ps 112: Psalm 111 Psalm 112 his righteousness endures forever (3b) their righteousness endures forever (3b.9b) the LORD is gracious and merciful (4b) they are gracious, merciful, and righteous (4b) He provides food for those who fear They have distributed freely, they him (5a) have given to the poor (9) The works of his hands are faithful It is well with those who deal generand just (7a) ously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice (5) He has gained renown by his wonder- they will be remembered forever (6b) ful deeds (4a)

These parallels strongly suggest that “Psalm 112 may be understood as an elaborate way of saying that the characteristics of the pious mirror those of God himself, and that an element of conformity exists between the acts of the faithful and those of the God whom they worship.”5 Furthermore, it will be remembered from chapter 5 that hqdc in Ps 112:3.9 was understood as “almsgiving” by some later authors, including (probably) Ben Sira (cf. §5.2). Now we are in a position to add an additional dimension to the early influence of this psalm. The proper use of

4 5

See BARTON, Imitation of God in the Old Testament, 36-37; DAVIES, Walking in God’s Ways, 102-103. DAVIES, Walking in God’s Ways, 107.

Imitatio Dei and Almsgiving in Sirach

257

wealth (v. 3) and generosity to the poor (v. 9) reflect the disposition of God himself, according to the juxtaposition of Pss 111 and 112. For those who read Ps 112:3.9 as referring to almsgiving, it would be natural to view this generosity to the poor as grounded in the imitation of God, just as was found in Deuteronomy. As might be expected, this perspective is found repeatedly in rabbinic sources (see below), but it is also already found in Ben Sira’s teaching as well.

7.3 Imitatio Dei and Almsgiving in Sirach In several passages in Sirach that deal with generosity to the poor Ben Sira thinks within the framework of the imitation of God. However, this framework actually produces two different approaches to the question of the recipients of almsgiving: the limited giving of alms, based on the moral character of the recipient, and the giving of alms without specified limits, rooted in the character of God.

7.3.1 Limitations on the Giving of Alms One of the most explicit uses of the idea of imitatio Dei in Sirach occurs in 12:1-6, where Ben Sira places firm restrictions on the extent of almsgiving. If you do good, know to whom you do good and there will be hope for your good deeds 2 Do good to the righteous and find reward if not from him, then from YHWH 3 Nothing good (comes) to the one who comforts the wicked nor is it an act of charity (hqdc) that he does 5b Weapons of war do not give to him 5c lest he use them against you 5d You will encounter double the evil 5e for every good deed you do for him 6 For God also hates sinners and to the wicked he will pay back vengeance 4 Give to the good and withhold from the sinner 5a refresh the downtrodden but do not give to the arrogant6 1

Ben Sira begins by making the assessment of the moral quality of the recipient the prerequisite of generosity (hbwj). One has hope for a re6

For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix.

258


ward only for acts of generosity towards the righteous. In that case, the generous person can expect to be rewarded either from the recipient or from God. In the case of the former, it may come in the form of an actual return gift, as was common in the Hellenistic world, or in the form of heartfelt thanks and honor (cf. Sir 29:6).7 In the case of the latter, Ben Sira assumes the dynamic of Prov 19:17 in which giving to the poor is considered a loan to God. Just as in Sir 29:8-13, God ensures the recompense, thus upholding the principle of retributive justice for acts of generosity. Yet, here it is not just the poor person generically speaking, but specifically the “righteous” person. That he is also poor is suggested by the contrast with v. 3, which suggests that v. 2 is an act of charity (hqdc). In addition, even if he is not able to repay, he is not considered to be culpable for “defaulting” on the gift. Thus, the nexus between God and the poor has been narrowed here to the righteous subset of the latter. Ben Sira envisions the righteousness of the poor person as meriting the receipt of generosity and, in this way, the generous person imitates God’s rewarding of the righteous. One might say that only the qydc is worthy of hqdc. In an ideal world a righteous person would not suffer deprivation and so the actions of the generous serve to ameliorate the practical breakdown of the principle of retributive justice. The integration of the concepts of retributive justice and imitatio Dei is even clearer in the discussion of the unworthy recipient of generosity which follows. First, in v. 3 the dynamic of retributive justice is at the fore. The one who “comforts” the wicked can expect no good in return and the reason is made clear in v. 5b-e. Rather than an act of charity (hqdc) that can deliver the giver on the day of necessity (v. 3b; cf. 29:1213), the gift brings a recompense of destruction upon the giver.8 The material means themselves become “weapons of war” (~xl ylk) that are used against the giver. By selecting the rare word ~x,l' (cf. Judg 5:8) instead of the more common hmxlm Ben Sira employs a word play in that it is usually ~x,l, which is given to the poor.9 The theological dynamic at work here is the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang model of retributive justice insofar as the gift itself becomes the weapon, but here the

7 8

9

SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 73. Cf. WISCHMEYER, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, 109-110. Note that the Hebrew and the Syriac have as an additional gloss at the end of v. 5d: $rwc t[b (“at the time of necessity”), which seems to recall and contrast with Sir 29:813. So SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 73-74; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 78; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 247; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 630.


259

automatic recompense is doubled (v. 5d-e).10 Ben Sira does not specify what constitutes the “double evil” that is returned, but Schreiner suggests it is the gift and the subsequent loss incurred from the wicked person’s employment of that gift.11 This is surely the correct explanation since gifts that are reckoned as alms (hqdc) will naturally have a return, whether from the recipient or from God (vv. 2-3). Thus, a gift to the wicked loses the potential reward that would have come had the same gift been given to a righteous recipient and, in addition, is likely to cause further loss to the giver. The instruction in 12:1-6 is the only pericope on giving in Sirach with a strong concern for the vulnerability of the giver. In addition to the theological context just discussed, the literary context also appears to be a factor. In 11:29-34 Ben Sira had just described how indiscriminate hospitality leaves one susceptible to being ambushed by unscrupulous guests. They are tricky, observe the host’s weakness, and turn his goodwill into calamity. They will ruin his reputation and alienate him from his own family. Likewise, in the verses that follow 12:1-6, Ben Sira reflects on the duplicity of wicked people who feign loyalty while secretly planning to usurp the unsuspecting person (12:8-12).12 Just as a snake charmer is not pitied when he is bitten, so those who associate with sinners are to blame for their own destruction (12:13-18). Nowhere is this phenomenon clearer than in the social machinations of the wealthy as they seek to exploit others for their own advancement (13:223). Thus, the larger context of social suspicion helps to illuminate the tone of 12:1-6. Those who aid sinners, whether through hospitality, almsgiving, or friendship, can only expect to be “bitten” by sin (cf. 21:23). However, the idea of retributive justice exists on another level for Ben Sira. Not only is it operative in regards to the financial situation of the giver, Ben Sira bolsters his argument by employing the principle of retributive justice as the ethical basis for denying aid to the wicked. In v. 6 he states that God himself hates sinners and will repay them with vengeance. From this angle, the person who gives to the wicked disrupts the divine economy. More significantly for our purposes, the person who is generous towards sinners instead of the righteous poor 10 11 12

SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 114. SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 73. The connection between 12:1-6 and the pericope that follows was noted in PROCKTER, Alms and the Man, 76. He comments that “the social background to such caution doubtless lies in the fact that a righteous man having a conscience, is all too easily subjected to moral blackmail by the wicked, who are unrestrained by fear of the Lord, or by conscience.”

260


fails to imitate God in his allocation of recompense, whether for good or evil. The pericope concludes with parallel exhortations to be generous to the righteous (v. 4) and to refresh the downtrodden (v. 5a).13 Likewise, one is to withhold from the wicked (v. 4) and the arrogant (v. 5a). In this way, the actions of the giver are to mirror the justice of God. God has promised to reward the righteous and he does this either directly or through the indirect means of the almsgiver’s generosity (vv. 2-3). On the other hand, those who act wickedly should have no expectation of receiving divine benefits, either directly from God or indirectly through the generosity of an almsgiver. In other words, the idea of retributive justice is fundamental to the thought of Sir 12:1-6 and it operates on two related levels. The first level involves the commitment of God to repay the righteous and sinners accordingly. Ben Sira exhorts his students to give in conformity with this. They are to imitate God in their acts of generosity and thus become secondary agents in the enactment of divine justice, whether for the righteous or for the wicked. Their role as secondary agents thus brings their acts of generosity into the realm of the divine economy as well, which is the second level. Those who imitate God with actions that conform to the enactment of retributive justice will receive a reward, either directly from the recipient or indirectly from God. Correlatively, those who do not imitate God in the allocation of their generosity are in conflict with the divine economy and thus, according to the interconnected models of retributive justice (cf. §2.1.2), can expect only a negative return on their investment. It is clear, then, that in 12:1-6 Ben Sira conceives of almsgiving as an act of imitatio Dei and correlates it with the model of retributive justice.

13

The word $wm appears in Ben Sira only in 12:5 ($m). The fact that the context of Sir 12:5 indicates that $m is being used as a substantive participle means that it should be derived from the hollow root $wm rather than the geminate root $km. The latter occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible: Ps 106:32; Job 24:24; and Qoh 10:18. The word $wm occurs only five times in the Hebrew Bible, all in the discussion of the Jubilee in the Holiness Code. It appears four times in Lev 25, where it concerns a kinsman who becomes so destitute that he must be sold into debt-slavery (vv 25.35.39.47), and once in Lev 27:8, where the priest is permitted to lower the vower’s penury if the latter is too poor to pay the standard valuation. In Ben Sira it has the sense of “downtrodden” or “destitute” but there is nothing in the context that ties it to the redemption of a debt-slave or the year of Jubilee; rather, the reader is simply enjoined to be generous towards the $m. The root is an archaic word and the Ugaritic cognate has the same meaning as in Leviticus. See GORDON, Ugaritic Textbook, 433 (#1473); cf. BERGSMA, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, 62.


261

7.3.2 Almsgiving without Limits While Sir 12:1-6 advocates giving only to the righteous, most other passages regarding generosity are more inclusive regarding the recipients. Yet, as with 12:1-6 these other passages also approach the issue of generosity through the theological paradigm of imitatio Dei. In fact, it is a prominent feature in Ben Sira’s first pericope on social justice, 4:1-10: 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:10

My son, do not mock the life of the poor and do not make the eyes of an embittered person weary. Do not deride a needy person and do not hide from one who is crushed. Do not inflict pain on the heart of the poor and do not withhold a gift from the needy. Do not despise the requests of a peasant and do not give him an occasion to curse you. When an embittered person cries out in the anguish of his soul then his Maker will heed the sound of his cry. Endear yourself to the assembly and bow your head to the ruler of the city. Incline your ear to the poor person and return his greeting with humility Save the oppressed from his oppressors and do not let your spirit be repulsed by just judgment. Become as a father to orphans and in the place of a husband to widows Then God will call you a son and he will be gracious to you and deliver you from the pit.14

This pericope closes the first major section of the book (1:1-4:10) and immediately follows the two verses that ascribe atoning efficacy to almsgiving (3:30-31).15 This pericope is easily divisible into two subsections; vv. 1-6 instruct on behaviors to avoid and vv. 7-10 recommend proactive behaviors.16 The first subsection warns against verbal abuse of the needy person, the withholding of aid from them, and the reason behind these admonitions: the poor person’s curse will gain a hearing with God. The whole subsection is a collage of allusions to the Hebrew Bible. The reference to mocking the poor recalls Prov 17:5, “Those who 14 15

16

The text criticism of this passage is problematic. See the Appendix. In addition to the standard commentaries, fuller discussions can be found in BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 95-105; BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater, 51-64; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 64-129; STENDEBACH, Weisheitliche Mahnung, 83-90. BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater, 56.

262


mock the poor insult their Maker” (cf. Prov 14:31).17 Ben Sira places a high value on treating the poor with respect in addition to providing material assistance (cf. 7:11; 11:4; and 18:15-18; see below). As mentioned in chapter 2, this disposition towards the poor presupposes that the current socio-economic conditions are not always consistent with the model of retributive justice. The references to mocking, deriding and “inflicting pain on the heart of the poor” probably refer to the tendency to blame the poor for their own condition. Schreiner perceptively summarizes the implications of 4:1-4. “Wer selbst gut situiert ist und wahrnimmt, mit welch erbärmlichen Lebensverhältnissen ein Armer zurechtkommen muß, soll nicht mit Spott reagieren, ihn verachten und denken, es geschehe ihm, einem unnützen Glied der Gesellschaft, recht…Der Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang ist in der Umkehr keineswegs eine stets gültige Maxime, so daß aus Elend auf Schuld zu schließen wäre.”18 While those who sin should expect to become more impoverished, poverty is not always the result of sin. Those who always assume that the poor are at fault for their condition fail to account for the complexity of social circumstances. Throughout vv. 1-3 the idea of verbal abuse towards the poor is paralleled by actions which both relate to this disposition and stand in opposition to the giving of alms in 3:30-31. Avoiding the poor or delaying generosity incurs guilt and passes up the opportunity to secure atonement through almsgiving.19 In fact, as Horsley points out, the whole pericope is structured in a way very similar to the structure of Sir 29:8-13. Compare these phrases:

17 18 19

This reference is pointed out by most commentators. Di Lella considers the reference “doubtless.” SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 165. SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 31. Similarly, JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 101-103; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 586; cf. CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 664. JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 100.


Sir 3:30-4:10 Almsgiving atones for sins (3:30b)

263

Sir 29:8-13 Store up almsgiving in your treasury and it will deliver you from every calamity (29:12) do not keep him waiting for alms (29:8b)

Do not make the eyes of an embittered person weary… do not hide from one who is crushed… do not withhold a gift from the needy (4:1b.2b.3b) Do not despise the requests of a peas- help the poor and according to his ant (4:4) need do not turn him away emptyhanded (29:9) Incline your ear to the poor person with the poor person be patient… For (4:8) the sake of the commandment help the poor (29:8a.9a)

Horsley concludes that the similarity in rhetorical structuring shows a common rhetorical pattern upon which Ben Sira drew.20 In addition, it reveals that almsgiving was, for Ben Sira, an integral and central action for addressing social injustices. Furthermore, most commentators are agreed that these actions in vv. 1-3 appear to have in mind Prov 3:27-28: Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, "Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it" when you have it with you.

Regarding this allusion, it is important to recognize that, in context, Prov 3:27-28 is not addressing charity, but social obligations. As Fox comments, “Verse 27, like Lecture IV [3:21-35] as a whole, preaches fairness and honesty, not charity or kindness.”21 Yet, Ben Sira has invoked this text in the context of generosity to the poor, which is not overly surprising since elsewhere the idea of doing good [hbwj] refers to generosity (14:3-19). He was not alone in interpreting Prov 3:27 in this way. The LXX renders the verse as: mh. avpo,sch| eu= poiei/n evndeh/ h`ni,ka a'n e;ch| h` cei,r sou bohqei/n (“Do not refrain from doing good to the needy, whenever your hand is able to help”). Thus, instead of “to whom it is due” (literally, “from its owners,” wyl[bm), the translator has rendered it “to the needy.” The implication of the adaptation of this

20 21

HORSLEY, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, 140. FOX, Proverbs 1-9, 165.

264


verse to the topic of charity by the LXX and Ben Sira is that giving to the poor is not optional. Rather, the extra money possessed by the wealthy is understood to be the poor’s by right.22 This is quite consistent with Ben Sira’s teaching elsewhere that almsgiving is a commandment (29:9) and that many of the wealthy in Seleucid Judea had acquired their wealth through the exploitation of the poor (13:2-23; 34:21-27). The use of allusions to the Hebrew Bible continues in vv. 4-6 and behind their employment stands a complex theological relationship between God, the poor, and the sage. Let us begin with the statement in v. 5 that the student should not give the poor person an occasion to curse (llq) him. It is clear from v. 4 that the occasion of the curse is a denial of aid to the poor person, which comports with the view that he has a right to alms. The implication of the phrasing is that the poor person’s complaint is legitimate and well-founded and, therefore, will be heeded by God (v. 6). The poor’s curse for the rectification of injustice is a common motif in the ancient world and can be found from Mesopotamian literature to Homer.23 The motif can be found in the Hebrew Bible as well: You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans. (Exod 22:21-23) You shall give the pledge back by sunset, so that your neighbor may sleep in the cloak and bless you; and it will be to your credit before the LORD your God. You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt. (Deut 24:13-15)

In the first passage, which is from the Covenant Code, the cry of the oppressed person prompts God to seek vengeance against his oppressor in a partially symmetrical fashion. The abuser of orphans and widows will be executed, resulting in his wife and children becoming orphans and widows. In other words, the poor’s curse is understood to provoke the divine execution of retributive justice. In the Deuteronomic passage the cry of the poor person functions similarly in that it brings either credit or guilt. The divine avenger motif is downplayed in Deu-

22 23

JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 106. See BEN-DOV, The Poor’s Curse, 431-451.


265

teronomy, but the link between retributive justice and the cry of the poor is maintained. As Ben-Dov observes, “The success and wellbeing of the rich depend upon the poor’s ‘recommendation’ to higher powers, in blessing or in curse.”24 Returning to Ben Sira, it is evident that the curse by the spurned poor person carries a similarly efficacious power. Consonant with the use of Prov 17:5 (cf. 14:31) in Sir 4:1, the unstated theological premise behind Ben Sira’s argument is that the poor person enjoys a special relationship with God such that treating him poorly will bring divine recompense back on the student (cf. 35:17-21). In v. 6 Ben Sira draws directly on Exod 22:21-23 for the occasion of the curse: “when an embittered person cries out in the anguish of his soul.” As with the Covenant Code, Ben Sira promises that God will heed his cry. He does not explicitly state the result of this heeding, but the attentive student who is aware of the antecedent text can fill in the rhetorical ellipsis with the picture of the divine avenger.25 At this point in the discussion, it is worth pausing to observe that Ben Sira does not place any qualifications on the assistance of the needy. The focus is on the requirement to help and the possible curse incurred for those who refuse. The moral constitution of the poor person does not come into view. The observation of Reiterer is correct: Ben Sira is very sensitive and very radical: everyone who suffers needs help. Whether people should be helped does not depend on the seriousness of their difficulties, nor on the cause of the situation; rather, they should simply be helped because they are suffering. Anyone taking Ben Sira’s word seriously cannot compromise on helping. Any evasion or excuse is excluded. Every time one meets a suffering person, one must help in a fitting way.26

The reason for this, of course, is that from the beginning of this discourse the operative paradigm has been the theological nexus between the poor and God (cf. §5.2; Prov 14:31; 17:5). From this angle, the poor should be helped because of their special relationship to God, who will treat people in accord with the poor’s “recommendation.” Yet, this theological paradigm is interconnected with another dimension, which becomes evident when it is realized that vv. 4-6 place the allusions just discussed within a larger allusion to Ps 22:25.27 In that 24 25 26 27

BEN-DOV, The Poor’s Curse, 439. REITERER, The Influence of the Book of Exodus on Ben Sira, 107. REITERER, The Influence of the Book of Exodus on Ben Sira, 106. The connection to Ps 22:25 is recognized by BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 328; CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 664; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 110-111; SEGAL,

266


verse it is stated that God does not despise the cry of the afflicted; rather he hears and does not hide his face. In his application of this verse to the conduct of the pious, “Ben Sira in effect is urging his readers to imitate Yahweh in his love and care of the poor.”28 This connection is strengthened further by the admonition in v. 8 to incline one’s ear towards the poor person, a frequent psalmic motif regarding God’s dealings with the poor (including Ps 22:25). Therefore, in addition to the connection between God and the poor, there is also a theological connection between God and the sage in how he treats the poor. By caring for the poor, the students enact God’s own special care for the poor through the ethical model of imitatio Dei. This complex theological relationship continues to function in the following verses. After advising his students to endear themselves to the aristocracy (4:7), Ben Sira continues his discussion of the treatment of the poor in vv. 8-10. The poor, oppressed, orphans, and widows were the most vulnerable members of society and frequently appear together in passages concerning social justice in the Hebrew Bible. The command to incline one’s ear to the poor person in v. 8a echoes a frequent idiom by the psalmists in petitioning the help of God (e.g. Ps 31:3). This exhortation for active intervention, coupled with the command to save the oppressed in v. 9a, suggests that a dimension of social justice is involved in the command in v. 8b to return the poor person’s greeting. It is not simply an exchange of pleasantries, but involves an active engagement with the person with the intent to help him.29 Presumably, when a rich person would pass a poor person in need of alms, the latter would greet the former as a preliminary to requesting help. Those who ignore the poor or pretend they do not hear them exempt themselves from having to confront a request for alms or other forms of assistance.30 Thus, there is a progression in vv. 8-9a: actively give attention to the needs of the poor person (v. 8a), engage him (v. 8b), and come to his aid to deliver him from the oppressor (v. 9a). It is also noticeable that these verses continue the motif of calling the student to imitate God’s dealings with the poor, especially as portrayed in the Psalms. God inclines his ear to the needy (e.g. Ps 31:3), responds to their pleas (e.g. Ps 28:6), and seeks justice for the oppressed

28 29 30

~lXh arys-!b rps, 22; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 166; and SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 587. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 166. So also JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 111. Nicely brought out in BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater, 57-59. SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 587.


267

(e.g. Ps 103:6).31 Furthermore, this motif of imitatio Dei comes especially to the fore in the final four stichs of this section. In 4:10a-b Ben Sira instructs his students to become like a father to orphans and a husband to widows. In the ancient Near East the defense of orphans and widows was a stock characteristic of justice because they represented the most vulnerable members of society (cf. Exod 22:21-23; Deut 14:29; 24:17; 27:19; Job 22:9; Isa 1:17, 23; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). In particular, the God of Israel was known as the defender of orphans and widows (Sir 35:17; cf. Ps 146:9). But notably, while the defense of the orphan and the widow is a common motif, the idea of becoming a father to the orphan and husband to the widow is highly unusual. The majority of commentators have identified Ben Sira’s statement in v. 10a-b as an allusion to Ps 68:6. Father of orphans and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation

Here the element of being a father to orphans is present, but becoming a husband to the widow is not. Yet, the similarity in phrasing between Ps 68:6 (~ymwty yba) and Sir 4:10a (~ymwtyl bak) suggests that this is the text in mind. If Ben Sira is making an allusion to Ps 68, then he is applying an appellation of God to the ethical duties of his students through the model of imitatio Dei.32 However, Ben Sira’s use of this motif has a precedent in the wisdom literature which few commentators have noticed.33 In defending himself, at one point Job remarks that, “If I have withheld anything that the poor desired, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or have eaten my morsel alone, and the orphan has not eaten from it - for from my youth I reared the orphan like a father, and from my mother's womb I guided the widow” (Job 31:16-18).34 It is notable that Job conceives of his duties towards orphans and widows in terms of familial 31 32 33

34

See JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 119-120. PROCKTER, Alms and the Man, 70. Exceptions are Crenshaw (Book of Sirach, 665 n.118) and Spicq (L’Ecclésiastique, 588). Penar (Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira, 1415) notes an apt Egyptian parallel in a story from the Middle Kingdom, The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant. In his first petition to the high steward Rensi, the peasant says, “For you are father to the orphan, Husband to the widow, Brother to the rejected woman, Apron to the motherless.” Translation from LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1:172. For the general motif of “orphans and widows” see FENSHAM, Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature, 129-139. In the final sentence “orphan” and “widow” are supplied by the NRSV from the context. The Hebrew text is awkward. See CLINES, Job 21-37, 1022.

268


relations. There is no indication of a relationship between Job 31:18 and Ps 68:6, but the statement in Job does indicate that, among Jewish sages, Ben Sira was not completely innovative in characterizing the duty towards the vulnerable in this way. The presence of the motif of imitatio Dei that was suggested by the allusion to Ps 68 in v. 10a-b is confirmed by Sir 4:10c-d. Here Ben Sira gives the result of such behavior towards the poor, the orphans, and the widows: “Then God will call you a son and he will be gracious to you and deliver you from the pit.” The symmetry is evident in that the one who is a father to orphans will have God as his father. It is well known that in the Hebrew Bible divine sonship is a characteristic of the status of the king (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:27-28), but it is also characteristic of Israel as a corporate people (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1).35 Of course, these two dimensions of divine sonship are connected since the Davidic king is understood to be a covenantal representative of the people and God’s vicegerent to the people. Ben Sira’s statement, however, is unique in that it ascribes divine sonship to an individual member of Israel who is not a king. The profound significance of this was noted by Beentjes, who concluded that, “In Sir 4,1-10 wird die traditionell königliche Aufgabe, die Waisen und Witwen nicht nur zu schützen, sondern ihnen auch sehr nahe zu sein, nachdrücklich wie ein Auftrag an jeden Leser formuliert. Meiner Meinung nach ist in dieser Weise im Buche Ben Sira ein sehr alter Topos der altorientalischen Welt endgültig demokratisiert worden.”36 In other words, the traditional kingly duty to exercise “righteousness and justice” (jpXmw hqdc) towards the poor, the oppressed, the orphans, and the widows has become democratized to the individual Jew. It will be recalled from the discussion in §5.2 that this democratization was a crucial component of the lexical shift whereby hqdc came to mean “almsgiving.” It is no surprise, then, to find that Ben Sira discusses almsgiving (hqdc) in 3:30-31 and then provides a vision of social justice that democratizes the royal duty of jpXmw hqdc to the level of individual piety. Just as the Davidic king’s enactment of jpXmw hqdc was a reflection of the divine character, so in Sirach the individual’s care for the poor is a royal imitatio Dei. The practical result of this divine pronouncement of sonship is explained in the final stich of this passage. Again, there is a symmetrical

35 36

See the discussions in MCCARTER, II Samuel, 207; LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 36-42. BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater, 62 (italics original). Beentjes has been followed on this point by Sauer (Jesus Sirach, 70) and Schreiner (Jesus Sirach, 32).


269

relationship between God and the student and the student and the poor: God will be gracious ($nxyw) to the student, just as he was to the poor. This symmetry is highlighted by Avi Hurvitz’s observation that !nx is frequently used in Psalms and Proverbs in contexts similar to those where hqdc is used in reference to aiding those in need (cf. Prov 14:21.31; 19:17; 28:8; Pss 37:21.26; 109:12; 112:5). Hurvitz concludes that !nx underwent a semantic development parallel to that of hqdc.37 This linguistic background helps to illuminate the theological dynamic in Sir 4:10d. Ben Sira followed his claims about almsgiving (hqdc) in 3:30-31 with a lesson on social justice in which he characterizes the students’ duty towards the poor in terms of the royal enactment of jpXmw hqdc. Those who perform this duty can expect God to be gracious (!nx) to them, especially by delivering them from the pit. It will be recalled from previous discussions that this is one of the specific benefits of almsgiving (29:12-13; cf. 3:14-15; Tob 4:10). Thus, the symmetry stemming from the principle of retributive justice is complete: the student’s performance of hqdc elicits God’s being !nx to the student. The model of imitatio Dei, transposed through the framework of Israelite royal ideology, is couched in the theological understanding of the superior reliability of generosity to the poor vis-à-vis retributive justice. Horsley’s observation above that 3:30-4:10 and 29:8-13 are structured similarly extends well beyond just the language parallels. Both passages operate from within the same theological framework. Let us pause to note the salient features of our discussion of Sir 4:110. This passage employs the idea of imitatio Dei, but does so in a way different from Sir 12:1-6. In the latter Ben Sira correlates the model directly with the basic framework of retributive justice in order to recommend alms only to the righteous. But here in 4:1-10, the idea of imitatio Dei is expressed in connection to the conviction that there is a special relationship between God and the poor (including orphans and widows). The principle of retributive justice is still present, but it is employed in a way similar to that in Sir 29:8-13. Generosity to the poor is expected to be repaid through God’s gracious generosity, including deliverance from death. As a result of this configuration of the idea of imitatio Dei, there is no thought as to the worthiness of a potential recipient. Since the poor in this passage are functioning in the role of their unique relationship with God (4:6), the language of these verses is unequivocal, such that those in need should be helped simply because they are in need. Those who do not help the needy risk being cursed with

37

HURVITZ, ‘hqdc’h gXwm lX wtxymc twdlwtl - ~yydwmlt ~yxnwm lX tyarqmh ~tyXar, 155-160.

270


the vengeance of God (vv. 1-6), while those who do offer help can expect an analogous treatment from God (vv. 8-10). The implication that anyone in need should be helped that is found in 4:1-10 becomes explicit a few chapters later in 7:32-36: 32 33 34 35 36

And also to the needy stretch out your hand in order that your blessing may be complete Give a gift to anyone alive and even from the dead do not withhold kindness Do not withdraw from those who weep rather, mourn with those who mourn Do not neglect to care for the sick, for because of these things you will be loved. In everything you do, keep the end in mind and you will never act corruptly.38

It will be recalled that this section of text follows the instruction about supporting the priesthood (7:29-31; cf. §6.2). As we saw in the previous chapter, the reason for this juxtaposition is that, for Ben Sira, the priests and the poor are both understood to be conduits to God. To honor God one must place a gift in the hands of his proxies. The parallel nature of these two groups is evident in Ben Sira’s use of ~gw to begin v. 32.39 The connection between honoring God through honoring the priests and through giving to the poor suggests that a similar theological function that attended the poor in 4:1-10 also attends 7:32-36. The idea that the needy (!wyba) in this passage are functioning as proxies for God is evident from v. 32b, where Ben Sira claims that generosity to the poor will result in a complete blessing from God. The logic of v. 32 is immediately recognizable from the discussions of Sir 4:1-10 and 29:8-13. Helping the poor is an action that God will repay in kind because of his special relationship with them.40 For our purposes, v. 33 is particularly noteworthy. Through a chiasm Ben Sira recommends generosity to anyone (yx lk) and also even to those who are dead.41 Di Lella comments that, “the point is that one should help all the poor, those who are living and those who have died. By combining the living and the dead, Ben Sira creates a merism to include every poor 38 39 40 41

For the text criticism of this passage see the Appendix. SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 609; Cf. EBERHARTER, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 39; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 94. Accented by SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207. It should be noted that the chiasm places in parallel the gift (!tm) and the act of charity (dsx). This suggests that Ben Sira does not have a strong conceptual distinction between donations (hqdc) and deeds (~ydsx twlymg), as is found in later rabbinic literature.


271

person who is or who was.”42 Unlike in 12:1-6, here Ben Sira attempts to eliminate qualifications for the recipient of charity. It should be done for anyone who is in need, whether alive or dead. Besides creating a merism to accent the inclusive scope of charity, the mention of acting kindly towards the dead is notable since the dead would be unable to repay in any way. The only repayment that could be anticipated would be a blessing from God. The precise nature of showing kindness to the dead is debated. Crenshaw believes that it refers to offerings as part of a funerary cult, but notes that this would be surprising since such a practice had fallen into disfavor long before Ben Sira’s time.43 In Sir 30:18 Ben Sira mentions food offerings placed on a grave, but there the context implies that such acts are worthless.44 Similarly, Tob 4:17 (cf. Words of Ahiqar 2:10) seems to refer to such a practice, but it is debatable whether the author was counseling the practice, a conclusion partly dependent on the interpretation of Deut 26:14 (cf. Ps 106:28).45 Another possibility is that Ben Sira is thinking of burial rites for the poor, whose family may not have had the means or opportunity to give them a proper burial. This is one of the key characteristics of Tobit’s charity (1:16-19) and is a plausible explanation for what Ben Sira means by dsx towards the dead. A related aspect may have been providing the family members of the deceased with food or financial support.46 These dimensions of dsx towards the dead also make good sense of the following verse, which counsels the student not to withdraw from those who weep and to mourn with those who mourn (7:34). Elsewhere Ben Sira instructs his students on mourning for the dead and there the presentation of proper decorum is traditional to Judaism (38:16-23; cf.

42

43 44 45

46

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207. Similarly, Schreiner remarks, “Jedem Armen und Bedürftigen soll geholfen, niemand ausgeschlossen werden, auch nicht einer, der verstorben ist” (Jesus Sirach, 54). CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 696. So Greek and Syriac; manuscript B refers to food sacrificed to an idol. See SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 379. Greenfield believes Tobit viewed the practice positively, but Nickelsburg thinks the point of the verse is that it is better to leave food at a grave of the righteous than give it to (living) sinners, which would seem to suggest that the practice was considered wasteful (as in Sir 30:18). GREENFIELD, Two Proverbs of Ahiqar, 195-201; NICKELSBURG, Tobit, 1445. Cf. MACDONALD, Bread on the Grave of the Righteous, 99-103. So SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 94; SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 54. In Hellenistic culture there was a custom of holding a banquet following burial and this could be part of the reference as well. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207-208.

272


22:11-12).47 By participating in the mourning process with others, one lessened their burden of grief through an act of solidarity. The generosity entailed in his advice here is all the more poignant in light of 38:1623, where he advises limiting grief since it drains one’s strength and may even result in death (v. 18). The final admonition in Ben Sira’s catalogue of generosity is to care for the sick. Although not as common as statements regarding care for the poor, attending to the sick is also attested as a traditional form of piety. In Ps 35:13 the psalmist contrasts how he cared for the sick and mourned for their condition with their gloating over his own current affliction. In Ezek 34:4 the wicked shepherds of Israel are charged with various social injustices, among which the failure to care for the sick is included. It is also an essential aspect of the social vision in the New Testament (cf. Matt 25:31-46) and in rabbinic Judaism (cf. y. Peah 3.9). The following stich promises a reward, “you will be loved,” for engaging in the acts of generosity just listed.48 The reward is, therefore, social rather than financial. But as we saw in chapter 2, love and honor acquired from the pursuit of Wisdom and obedience to Torah are considered by Ben Sira to be more valuable than riches. This promise of reward is followed by a statement that conveys the principle of retributive justice in a more explicit way. There is ambiguity in the language when Ben Sira concludes this discussion by saying, “In everything you do, keep tyrxa in mind and [you] will never txXt.” It is not completely clear whether tyrxa in this context has the sense of the end of one’s own life (i.e. the day of reckoning; cf. 11:26-28) or the natural outworking of one’s actions according to the Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang model of justice. Correlatively, txX could have the sense of acting corruptly (moral) or of destroying one’s own possessions or life-situation (practical). According to the first reading, the sense of v. 36 is that if one keeps in mind the future, especially the day of death, one will be deterred from acting sinfully. According to the second reading, the sense of the verse is that if one contemplates the natural consequences of one’s actions, one will be deterred from acting in ways that will be detrimental to what is considered valuable. However, as Fang Che-Yong has argued, the moral and the practical interpretations of this verse interpenetrate in Ben Sira’s thought. Therefore, it may not be necessary to choose one over the other; rather, the ambiguity could be 47 48

On mourning rites in ancient Israel see ANDERSON, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance (especially 84-87); OLYAN, Biblical Mourning. Note the text-critical discussion in the Appendix. In manuscript A the reward only seems to apply to the care for the sick (“because of this”); but the Greek and the Syriac agree that it is for “these things.”


273

intentional for rhetorical effect. This would provide a fitting conclusion to 7:18-35 in which practical and moral dimensions are not really distinguishable.49 Fang Che-Yong’s suggestion of an intentional ambiguity comports well with Ben Sira’s handling of generosity in relation to retributive justice elsewhere. The abundant generosity reflected in the advice to give to anyone in need could be considered a daunting task. But by considering the larger providential arrangement of the divine economy, one gains the proper perspective. The short-term financial cost of being generous will not dissuade the wise person from acting in such a way. The mechanics of the divine economy assure the sage that generosity will result in appropriate dividends. At this point some summary conclusions can be drawn from the examination of Sir 4:1-10 and 7:32-36 and their relationship to Sir 12:1-6. Sir 4:10 employs the model of imitatio Dei but operates from the standpoint of the poor’s special relationship with God. This results in a conceptualization of generosity that is without limits. The accent is on the nature of the poor and the obligation to help those in need. This theological approach is then related to the principle of retributive justice according to the model of the divine economy discovered in 29:8-13. Giving to the poor results in recompense from God. While in 4:1-10 the nature of the poor is explicit and the unlimited nature of the generosity is implicit, the situation is reversed in 7:32-36. Here the nature of the poor as proxies is implicit insofar as the pericope follows the parallel theological logic concerning the priesthood in 7:29-31, while the unlimited nature of the generosity is made explicit in v. 33. Therefore, 4:1-10 and 7:32-36 are complementary in terms of their theological frameworks. Together, the picture emerges that when the primary context involves the theological status of the poor, the principle of retributive justice is fundamentally coordinated with the divine economy in which God rewards generosity to the poor because of his special relationship with them. In this model the pious person enacts the idea of imitatio Dei through the role of the vindicator of the poor. However, in 12:1-6 the context primarily concerns, not the larger problem of social justice, but the relationship of the student to individual members of society who are either wicked or righteous. In this situation, the sage coordinates the principle of retributive justice with the proper distribution of wealth. Those who are wicked should not be granted more money, while those who are righteous should be recipients of generosity. In

49

FANG CHE-YONG, Sir 7,36* (Vulg 7,40) iuxta hebraicam veritatem, 18-26, especially 24-26.

274


this context, the pious person enacts the idea of imitatio Dei through the role of the restorer of socio-economic conditions to their ideal state. These observations reveal that the apparent contradiction between the attitude towards generosity in 12:1-6 and the rest of the book of Sirach is not the result of a surface inconsistency in Ben Sira’s thought. Rather, because almsgiving is understood through the model of imitatio Dei, it partakes in a tension that is systemic to Ben Sira’s thinking on the theological and social nature of the poor. In other words, this tension in his thinking on almsgiving is rooted in a more fundamental ambivalence towards the socio-economic situation of Seleucid Judea. As we saw in chapter 2, Ben Sira both subscribes to the overarching principle of retributive justice and is utterly realistic about the practical breakdown of the principle among individual members of his society. Therefore, although the nature of the inconsistency can be explained, it remains the case that it is unclear how Ben Sira’s teaching could be put into practice in a consistent manner. While some modern readers are content to leave the problem unresolved, many early Christian writers sought to find a solution. In his work, Pastoral Care, Gregory the Great offers one approach, which incorporates several relevant texts in an illuminating fashion: Lest they give nothing at all to those to whom some small amount should be given, let them hear what is written: Give to everyone that asketh thee [Luke 6:30]; and lest they give something to those to whom they ought not to give anything, let them heed what Scripture says: Give to the good and receive not a sinner. Do good to the humble, and give not to the ungodly [Sir 12:5-6]. And again: Lay out thy bread and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked [Tob 4:17]. For he offers his bread and wine to the wicked, who gives help to the wicked because they are wicked. Some rich men there are of this world who feed stage players with profuse bounty, while the poor in Christ are tortured by hunger. He, however, who gives of his bread to an indigent sinner, not because he is a sinner, but because he is a man, actually nourishes a righteous beggar, not a sinner, for he loves in him not his sin but his nature.50

This passage comes in the middle of Admonition 21 in which Gregory is seeking to establish balance among those who are charitable. He chooses a Scriptural passage recommending liberality for those predisposed to give too little and he cites Sir 12:5-6 and Tob 4:17 against those who would misplace their generosity. He believes that gifts to the wicked only serve to support their wickedness. However, he then of50

DAVIS (transl.), St. Gregory the Great, 155.


275

fers a startling resolution of the two approaches. Gregory believes that if the generous person gives out of a love of the recipient’s nature as a human who is a beggar, then the act is reckoned as one to a righteous beggar, even if the beggar is actually a sinner. This interpretation takes Ben Sira’s advice in Sir 12:1-6, which is centered on the moral nature of the recipient, and reorients it around the perceived nature of the recipient. In other words, the virtue of the act is relocated to the conscience of the giver such that a gift given from the right motive to the wrong person is accepted as meritorious. In this way, Gregory subsumes the exclusive approach to almsgiving under the inclusive approach and makes the issue turn on the discernment of the giver. One might object to Gregory’s reasoning by noting that Sir 12:1a does not seem to allow for this move since the knowledge of the recipient’s moral character is a prerequisite to giving in the first place. There appears to be no room for meritorious ignorance. However, if we recall the context in which 12:1-6 occurs, Gregory’s interpretation may have more to commend it. What is remarkable about the surrounding context is that one of the primary characteristics of the sinners being described is that they are untrustworthy and deceptive. In 11:29-34 Ben Sira advises the student to be on guard against the tricks and plots of the wicked and, in the pericope just following the one on generosity, Ben Sira comments how difficult it is to discern people’s true motives (12:8-12). Thus, while there can be no doubt that some people will be commonly known as righteous or wicked, many people may fall somewhere in the middle. Ben Sira is clearly aware that wicked people can become quite adept at convincing others that they are trustworthy and honorable, as was seen in the discussion of Sir 29:1-7 (cf. §4.3.1). Thus, in some cases it is simply impossible to know for sure the moral quality of a potential recipient, despite due diligence to discover it. I suspect that this is what Gregory has in mind. After prohibiting the support of the wicked, he notes how some wealthy people misplace their alms in the hands of actors, commonly considered immoral, and thus deprive poor Christians. He then contrasts this with the person who gives to the poor qua poor, not intending to support the wicked. The context seems to suggest that, in this case, the giver does not realize that the indigent person is a sinner and Gregory gives a pastoral assurance that such an act is still meritorious. To return to his larger point, he is more concerned that one gives to the needy rather than giving nothing because of too much caution. If the poor person is righteous, by all means give; if the poor person is a sinner, the alms are better placed elsewhere. But if the giver is unsure, perhaps it is best to “err” on the side of mercy. Gregory’s approach has the ring of good

276


pastoral advice and I believe a case can be made that Ben Sira would have counseled the same negotiation between the two approaches. In fact, this seems to be an implication of the final text that conceives of almsgiving through the model of imitatio Dei.

7.3.3 Almsgiving, Imitatio Dei, and the God of Justice and Mercy The discussion to this point has illuminated the way in which almsgiving as imitatio Dei functions in two different relationships to the principle of retributive justice. In one model the almsgiver imitates God by enacting the principle of justice; he gives to the worthy and denies the sinner. In the other model he primarily functions in relation to God’s special relationship to the poor, which traditionally is associated with the breakdown of retributive justice. However, crucial to both is that the current socio-economic situation does not reflect what the principle of retributive justice predicts. Thus, the conflicting approaches to the extent of almsgiving have emerged from a more foundational problem involving the delay of divine justice. This framework was explored indepth in chapter 2 and we are now in a position to return to the topic to address the problem concerning the extent of almsgiving. After Sir 4:1-10; 7:32-36; and 12:1-6, the next significant pericope involving almsgiving occurs in 18:15-18. Yet its placement is crucial to its interpretation because it follows an extensive discussion of the problem of free will, sin, divine justice, and mercy in 15:11-18:14.51 In the first subsection, Sir 15:11-16:14, Ben Sira argues that people have free will and therefore God is not responsible for human sin. God does not encourage what he hates; rather, he is certain to punish sin. In fact, no sinner can escape the judgment of God such that even if there were only one sinner within the whole world, it would be astonishing (hmt) if he were to escape punishment (16:11b). This subsection concludes with a promise that there is symmetry between God’s mercy and his wrath. Just as he is certain to punish sin, so he is “mighty to forgive” (16:11d) and his mercy is great (16:12a). God judges everyone; the sinner will be punished, while the pious will receive a reward.52 It is notable that at the end of this first subsection a note of mercy and forgive-

51 52

On this passage see especially GILBERT, God, Sin, and Mercy, 118-135; and PRATO, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, 209-299. Interestingly, in 16:14a the Hebrew’s “every righteous deed” (hqdc hXw[h lk) has been understood by the Greek translator as referring to almsgiving: pa,sh| evlehmosu,nh|. Thus, the Greek specifies generosity as that for which one can expect to be rewarded.


277

ness has been introduced into the discussion of retributive justice towards the righteous and the wicked. At the beginning of the second subsection, 16:17-18:14,53 Ben Sira reiterates that no actions can evade the judgment of God (16:17-23). The presupposition is that an interlocutor has challenged whether the principle of retributive justice is in fact operative in the world. In this subsection Ben Sira attempts to provide an answer for why many deeds, whether good or evil, seem unrecompensed. After discussing God’s role as creator (16:24-17:14), Ben Sira again emphasizes that no deed escapes the judgment of God (17:15-22) and appeals to a future, coming judgment in which God will repay all people according to their deeds (17:23). Then the argument takes a crucial turn. For Ben Sira, this delay in retribution is divinely ordained in order to provide an opportunity for repentance (17:24-18:14). The final twenty-three verses of this section reflect on God’s mercy, while God’s wrath is not mentioned at all.54 A significant component of this focus on mercy is an exhortation for the anonymous interlocutor to repent and seek God’s forgiveness (17:2526). The second subsection closes with Ben Sira extolling God’s mercy and forgiveness (17:29-18:14). He acknowledges the frailty and evanescence of humanity and then, significantly for our purposes, sees this as a basis for God’s abundant mercy. He concludes this large section on the reason why retribution is delayed with these words: Therefore the Lord is patient with them and pours out his mercy on them He sees and understands that their end is miserable therefore he multiplies his forgiveness The mercy of a person is for his neighbor but the mercy of the Lord is over all flesh Rebuking, disciplining, teaching, and turning (them) back as a shepherd (does) his flock He has mercy on those who accept his discipline and hasten to his precepts. (18:11-14)55

Gilbert has observed that while 15:11-16:14 is largely a theoretical approach to the problem, 16:14-18:14 becomes more pastoral in tone.56 As

53

54 55

Sir 16:15-16 is an expansionary gloss that is present in manuscript A, G II, and the Syriac. G I and the Latin do not have it and the verses interrupt the flow of thought. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 270. Noted in GILBERT, God, Sin, and Mercy, 129. No Hebrew is extant. My translation follows the Greek.

278


the discourse proceeds, Ben Sira increasingly emphasizes God’s mercy in order to encourage his listeners to repent. What is notable about the way this subsection ends is that Ben Sira views God’s mercy as abundant and believes that it is humanity’s frail condition that rouses his compassion. In reading through Sirach, one gets the impression that Ben Sira distinguishes between two kinds of sinners.57 One kind is the obstinate, brazen sinner and the other is the weak, but basically well-intentioned, sinner (cf. 21:6). For the former, Ben Sira offers no hope (12:6); but he reassures the latter with promises of God’s overflowing mercy (17:24; 18:11-14). To this end, Ben Sira also cautions his students not to reproach someone who is repentant over sin because everyone deserves punishment (8:5). Therefore, the delay in retributive justice in this life is divinely ordained to encourage sinners to repent. In this “judicial parentheses” God displays patience and grants mercy in order to allow for conversion, even though eventually retributive justice will be enacted. Along these lines, particularly important for our purposes is the statement in 18:13a-b that contrasts humans’ propensity to show mercy (e;leoj) to their neighbors (or perhaps, kinsmen) with God’s mercy to everyone.58 It is telling that Ben Sira views this as part of the created order. In 39:25 he says: From the beginning he apportioned good things for the good while for the wicked, good and bad things

The basic perspective of this verse comports with the thought of 15:1118:14, but it is interesting that the versions view it as problematic and have adjusted the text. For the end of the verse the Hebrew text in manuscript B has [rw bwj, which is confirmed by the Latin version: bona et mala. The Greek omits “good (and)” in order to avoid the difficulty and to maintain the symmetry of retributive justice. The marginal reading in B has [rl which adjusts the text towards the sense of 39:27 and also circumvents the difficulty by claiming that God gives them good things that turn out to be bad for them. A similar strategy is employed by the Syriac.59 However, while the versions were clearly uncomfortable with the implications of this verse, Ben Sira’s intention is clear and 56 57 58 59

GILBERT, God, Sin, and Mercy, 124. Similarly, MURPHY, Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Sirach, 265-266. MURPHY, Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Sirach, 265-266. The Syriac dampens the implications of this statement by rendering this phrase “to all his ministers.” See LIESEN, Full of Praise, 204.


279

supports the conclusions of 18:11-14. For him, the breakdown of the principle of retributive justice is indisputable and God has his own reasons for allowing it to occur. In the meantime, however, he rewards the good; but he also shows some mercy to the wicked by providing good things. This will not last forever and eventually the wicked will be brought to account. This theological model of God’s mercy is extremely important for our current discussion because immediately following 18:11-14 is another pericope about almsgiving. My son, do not bring a blemish upon your good deeds and with any gift (do not bring about) grief through words 16 Does not rain abate the scorching heat? so a word transforms a gift 17 For there is a good word that is better than a gift and both (are found) in a gracious person 18 A fool insults ungraciously and the gift of a miser dims the eyes60 15

There is surely a structural break between 18:14 and 18:15, as all scholars think. Sir 18:14 brings the discussion over sin, justice, and mercy to a conclusion and 18:15 begins a new pericope. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the two passages seems intentional because of the connections between the two. Smend already noted regarding 18:15 that “Die Gedankenverknüpfung ist wohl in v. 13 zu suchen.”61 Likewise, Crenshaw sees the connection and comments, “The elaborate praise of God for unlimited generosity in the preceding section leads to some observations about acts of kindness among humans. They are to model their giving on that of the Lord.”62 Ben Sira opens the pericope by warning against undercutting one’s generosity through grievous words. The idea is probably similar to that of 4:1-3. A temptation when encountering someone in need of alms is to assume that a person’s poverty is his own fault and to deride him for it.63 An act of generosity can then become a means for feelings of selfsuperiority for the giver and an instrument of shame for the would-be

60 61 62

63

This text is not extant in the Hebrew; for the text criticism see the Appendix. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 166. CRENSHAW, Book of Sirach, 732. Eberharter also accents the idea of imitatio Dei in the placement of this pericope: “Die Barmherzigkeit des Herrn soll für den Menschen vorbildlich sein” (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 69). So also Spicq: “Ces versets sont visiblement inspirés par les réflexions précédentes. La miséricorde divine est le modèle de celle de l’homme” (L’Ecclésiastique, 657). SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 102.

280


recipient. Against this, Ben Sira believes that the generosity of a person should be manifested in both gracious gifts and gracious words. The poor are to be treated with dignity and the principle of retributive justice cannot be employed in reverse to conclude that anyone who is poor is proportionally morally culpable. Ben Sira compares a gracious word with rain which abates the scorching heat. The picture seems to be the east wind, today known as a Hamsin, which brings drought and also carries some desert sand in it. It is often associated with dejection because of the difficulty it imposes on people’s lives.64 This picture does not seem to be associated in Ben Sira’s instruction with the harsh words, but with the situation of receiving generosity itself. Harsh words exacerbate the situation, making explicit the shame that attends such a situation. Those who show generosity in this way reveal their foolishness in that they fail to account for the dignity of the poor person; furthermore, they reveal that their true disposition is one of miserliness.65 But for Ben Sira, the student is called to soothe the situation by providing a kind word. This nonjudgmental patience mirrors that of God in the preceding section. Just as God sees humanity’s miserable state and thus pours out his mercy and compassion on them, so the disposition of the sage is to give generously without accusations. It is notable that the nature of the recipient is not specified, though the possibility of reproach may suggest that Ben Sira would include those whose poverty has resulted from their own mistakes, but who are not the brazen sinners he deplores elsewhere. The connection with the previous section, particularly v. 13, suggests that, in imitating God, the sage prefers to extend compassion to anyone in need. Thus, the teaching on generosity in 18:15-18 provides an additional perspective to the problem of negotiating the perspectives in 12:1-6, on the one hand, and 4:1-10 and 7:32-36 on the other hand. Keeping in mind Murphy’s observation that Ben Sira seems to conceive of two kinds of sinners, it is possible to coordinate the understanding of almsgiving as imitatio Dei with the nature of the recipients. The student should not give naively, but should understand the nature of the person to whom he is giving. If the poor person is righteous, then almsgiving and other charitable deeds are commended as meritorious. On the other hand, a clearly obstinate and brazen sinner should not be supported with alms. However, there are other “sinners” whom God 64 65

SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 149. The Hebrew underlying baska,nou (18:18b) is probably !y[ [r as in 14:3 and 37:11 (see the text-critical discussion in the Appendix).

Imitatio Dei and Almsgiving in Broader Context

281

does not so much hate (12:6) as pity. For them, divine justice regarding their sins is postponed in order to allow them to repent, in which case God’s mercy is abundant and he showers them with forgiveness. Likewise, these people should be shown the same patience and compassion by the generous person. Yet, there is still a fourth kind of person whose moral disposition cannot be conclusively assessed. While Ben Sira does not address this case explicitly, the teaching of Sir 18:13 and 39:25 may suggest how he would approach this person.66 Just as God, in his mysterious providence, shows compassion to all flesh and gives both good and bad things to the wicked, so the understanding of almsgiving as imitatio Dei suggests that the generous person should “err” on the side of mercy. If the person is actually wicked and has deceived the giver, God will be sure to recompense both parties accordingly. It is ultimately a matter of providence. From this angle, I believe Gregory’s negotiation of the two approaches of almsgiving as imitatio Dei is suggested by Sirach itself, or at least is a defensible reading of the book.

7.4 Imitatio Dei and Almsgiving in Broader Context Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving as imitatio Dei and the question of the extent of generosity finds expression in various ways among other texts as well. While Ben Sira’s understanding of almsgiving as imitatio Dei has its closest parallels in Jewish and Christian literature, there are some hints of the motif in Greco-Roman literature as well. On the whole, Greek views on the virtues of almsgiving tended to revolve around the practice insofar as it benefited the civic good. Most Greek thinkers did not think of the poor in a way analogous to Ben Sira’s thought and the most common venue for generosity was the patronclient relationship. Because of the emphasis on obtaining an equitable return, generosity tended to be shown to those from whom the giver could derive some future benefit, whether consisting of an equivalent gift or of honor, notoriety, or friendship.67 If someone from the same social network fell into poverty, he might be aided by friends out of a sense of social duty. For those unable to repay the gift, Seneca acknowledged that gratitude is often a sufficient return (De Beneficiis 4.10.5;

66

67

It should be remembered that while 12:1 seems to exclude the possibility of this fourth case, the surrounding context of 12:1-6 (also cf. 29:1-7) suggests that Ben Sira was quite aware that a person’s moral disposition cannot always be assessed with certainty. HAMEL, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, 219.

282


4.11.1; 5.11.5). However, for most of the elite in Greco-Roman society, giving to those of a lower socio-economic standing was infrequent. Most benefits to the poor came primarily through common benefactions such as festivals and general economic initiatives by the government. There is some indirect evidence that among the non-elite almsgiving was more common.68 However, there are some conceptual connections with Ben Sira’s thinking, at least among some Greek writers. First, there are indications that helping those in financial difficulties was understood to mirror the actions of the gods. In a pseudo-Aristotelian letter to Philip of Macedon the author says: Most philosophers have claimed that doing good deeds is godlike. For, simply put, the giving and interchange of favour (charis) holds together the lives of men, some giving, some receiving, and some giving back in return. That is why it is noble and just to pity all those who are undeservedly unfortunate, <especially good men>…That is why sensible men ought to bestow favour on many, reflecting that, apart from the good repute, there will be a service which can be repaid if fortunes should be reversed.69

Several centuries later, similar ideas recur in Seneca’s essay, De Clementia. He teaches that generosity is godlike and serves the common good (2.6.3). Although the emotion of pity should be avoided, it is nevertheless virtuous to give to beggars. Because the poor share a common humanity with those of means, almsgiving should be done with gentleness and without scorn (2.5.1).70 Those who have fallen into poverty either through misfortune or through physical disability were treated as more deserving of alms than the person who became poor through his own laziness or poor decisions. On the basis of the belief that wealth and poverty mostly corresponded to merit, many elite members of society believed that poverty was deserved and that giving to the poor only enabled them in their moral weakness and served to perpetuate their miserable existence (cf. Cicero, Trinummus 339; Plutarch, Solon 17). Beyond internal motivations for almsgiving, external pressures existed as well. Some people were moved to give alms by the fear of be-

68 69 70

See PARKIN, You do him no service, 68-74. English translation cited in INWOOD, Politics and paradox in Seneca’s De beneficiis, 241-242. This motif is widespread in the ancient world. In addition to Greco-Roman authors it can be found in Demotic (e.g. Inst. Ankh. 19:21) and Syriac (e.g. Pseudo-Menander 46) sources. Cf. LICHTHEIM, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context, 43-45.


283

ing publicly shamed by the poor person.71 In addition, Bolkestein has noted that there were traditional curses, called arai Bouzygeiai, which could be placed on those who refused water to the thirsty, burial to an unburied corpse, or directions to someone who was lost. By the early Roman period these imprecations were also applied to someone who refused to give a beggar some money or withheld a food item from a starving person.72 However, as expected, the closest parallels in thought can be found in Jewish and Christian sources. Similar to Sir 12:1-6, the book of Tobit restricts almsgiving to those who are righteous. In Tob 2:2 Tobit instructs Tobias to bring in the poor, but he adds the qualifications that they must be Jewish and “wholeheartedly mindful of God.” It is also interesting that the important speech on almsgiving in Tob 4, discussed earlier, contains the following instruction from Tobit to his son. To all those who practice righteousness, give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you (4:6b-7).

Here Tobit appears to advise both a restriction on almsgiving to the righteous and giving to anyone who is poor. Part of the problem of this passage is that scholars debate whether the last clause of v. 6, “to all those who practice righteousness,” belongs with what precedes or with v. 7. Most translators and commentators read it with the imperative concerning almsgiving in v. 7, but Fitzmyer argues, “In the Greek forms of the verse, Tobit seems to be advising Tobiah to share his alms with those who practice righteousness. Although that is sage advice, it seems to restrict his son’s almsgiving. When the last phrase is taken, however, with what precedes, then it speaks of respect being had among those who pursue righteousness, which sounds better and is more consonant with the rest of Tobit’s advice. Compare Sir 29:8-13.”73 Even if one follows Fitzmyer here, it is still the case that the limitation of almsgiving to the righteous is found elsewhere in the book, including later in this chapter (4:17). Even when almsgiving is not explicitly limited to the righteous, it is still typically limited to Jews (1:3.17). Yet, here in 4:7, Tobit also seems to advocate giving to anyone in need in language similar to what was seen in Sir 4:4-5 (cf. 7:33). The 71 72

73

PARKIN, You do him no service, 74-75. BOLKESTEIN, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, 471-472. The motif of the poor person’s curse can already be found in Homer’s Odyssey, especially book 17. See BEN-DOV, The Poor’s Curse, 441-444. FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 169.

284


symmetry between Tobiah’s treatment of the poor and God’s treatment of him is clear and the following verses reflect similar theological logic to that of Sir 29:8-13. However, unlike the dynamic at work in Sirach, the restrictions placed on almsgiving appear to be primary to the author of Tobit. In a Diasporan setting such a perspective on almsgiving served as a means of social reinforcement. As deSilva observes, “Charity thus becomes one more instrument for encouraging commitment to Jewish core values (like Torah observance), since these values are what make one fully a part of the group and its mutual assistance.”74 Within this interpretive context, the language of “anyone who is poor” in 4:7 can be understood either as qualified by the previous verse (i.e. “anyone who is poor among the righteous kinsmen”) or as part of the theological tradition that viewed the poor as inherently close to God. In the case of the latter, this element would have been drawn into the discussion by the appeal to the logic of Prov 19:17 in the following verses (vv. 8-11). The idea of generosity as imitatio Dei can also be found in a few places in the New Testament. It appears in the letters of Paul, but there it is usually transposed into the idea of imitatio Christi. In 2 Cor 8 Paul appeals to the generosity of the churches of Macedonia in order to exhort the Corinthian church towards self-sacrificial giving for the Jerusalem church. As part of his appeal he cites the example of Christ: “For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). In addition to the transposition of the idea of imitatio Dei to the imitation of Christ, the motif is also modified in that now poverty and riches function on the level of spirituality so that the model of imitatio Christi is grounded in the Corinthians’ experience of the benefaction of Christ, rather than a general disposition of God towards the poor. The same theological dynamic underlies Paul’s exhortation to hospitality in Rom 15:7 and becomes paradigmatic in the socio-ethical thinking of subsequent Christians. Statements concerning the extent of almsgiving in the New Testament tend towards inclusivity.75 In Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, 74 75

DESILVA, Introducing the Apocrypha, 75. Alonso Schökel cites Matt 7:6, “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine,” as a parallel to Sir 12:2-6 (Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 184). The original meaning of this logion is elusive but in its Matthean context it does not seem to involve almsgiving (or deeds of charity, more generally). He also cites Gal 6:10 where Paul says, “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.” Even though Paul places an emphasis on doing kind deeds to other Christians, it is striking that this


285

Jesus says, “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you” (5:42; cf. Gos. Thom. 95). Commentators have noted that this logion sits awkwardly after instructions to turn the other cheek, to give one’s cloak to a litigant, and to go the extra mile (5:38-41). In this regard, it is notable that following this statement is the exhortation to love one’s enemies, which is based on an ethic of imitatio Dei. Jesus observes that God makes the sun rise on the righteous and the wicked and grants rain to both as well. The pericope closes with the New Testament echo of Lev 19:2: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). If Matthew’s redactional interests are viewed in light of the kind of thinking found in Sir 15:1118:14 // 18:15-18, then perhaps this verse is Janus-faced, providing a transition from the response to an enemy’s demands to the proactive love of an enemy through an ethic of imitatio Dei. This passage from the Sermon on the Mount regarding the love of enemies is cited heavily in the first section of the Didache. After framing the discussion in terms of the traditional motif of the “two ways” there is a description of the way of life in terms of loving God and loving neighbors (1.2). In 2.1 it says, “The second commandment of the teaching is this,” followed by an adaptation of the second half of the Decalogue (i.e. murder, adultery, lying, etc.). However, prior to this, in 1.3b-6, it is not the first half of the Decalogue that is recounted, but an exhortation to generosity.76 After drawing heavily on Matt 5:44-47 the Didachist concludes with this teaching: “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not demand it back,” [Luke 6:30] for the Father wants something from his own gifts to be given to everyone. Blessed is the one who gives according to the command, for such a person is innocent. Woe to the one who receives: if, on the one hand, someone who is in need receives, this person is innocent, but the one who does not have need will have to explain why and for what purpose he received, and upon being imprisoned will be interrogated about what he has done, and will not be released from there until he has repaid every last cent. But it has also been said concern-

76

does not eclipse the tendency towards inclusiveness. Paul still advocates doing good to all, even while prioritizing fellow Christians as recipients. Harnack interpreted 1.3b-6 as an exposition of what the Didachist meant by “loving God” and 2.1ff as what was intended by “loving neighbors.” Niederwimmer believes this is a mistake and argues that while there is the implication that 1.3b-6 is implicitly made constitutive of “the first commandment,” it is “without any thought of such a thing as the double love commandment.” See the discussion in NIEDERWIMMER, The Didache, 86-87.

286


ing this: “Let your gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give it.” (1.5-6)77

There are a few interesting points about this passage. The Didachist begins with a command to give to everyone who asks for something and he supports the teaching by reasoning that these gifts are actually God’s gifts which the giver gives by proxy. Niederwimmer comments that “the gifts given by the rich to the poor are really God’s gifts. Thus the one who gives alms is only a manager, one who distributes the divine gifts.”78 However, the Didachist then proceeds to distinguish between worthy and unworthy recipients on the basis of their real need. He describes those who accept alms without needing them as liable to imprisonment and uses language reminiscent of Matt 5:25-26. The employment of the principle of retributive justice to reassure those who have been duped is clear enough. He then concludes the teaching with an exhortation to know to whom one is giving alms. For centuries Christian writers have cited this text as “from Scripture” even though it does not correspond exactly to anything in our present Bibles. Among the texts most commonly suggested as the referent is Sir 12:1. Niederwimmer believes that the verse is cited to rein in the strong inclination towards unconditional giving in the Christian tradition.79 However, given that the Didachist has just promised future retribution for unworthy recipients, it is interesting that he concludes by placing the onus back on the potential giver. There are two implications of this. First, along with the perspective in Sir 12:1-6, the giver should seek to maximize the good that his alms can do by giving it to those whom he knows are needy and not just giving indiscriminately. Second, following upon the promise of judgment in 1.5 there is a further implication in that by using discernment to avoid giving to those who really do not need it, one circumvents the judgment they would have brought upon themselves. This would be a vivid, though ironic, expression of the command to love those who mean the readers harm. At the risk of over-reading, one wonders if the structure of the Didachist’s argument might suggest that, because of the principle of retributive justice, withholding alms from swindlers is an act of generosity in its own way insofar as it circumvents the judgment they would have brought upon themselves. As such, it is a way of “loving one’s enemies” (1.3-4; cf. Matt 5:43-48).

77 78 79

Translation from HOLMES, The Apostolic Fathers, 251-253. NIEDERWIMMER, The Didache, 82. See the exhaustive discussion in NIEDERWIMMER, The Didache, 83-86.


287

The Didachist’s idea that the generous person gives as a proxy for God occurs within rabbinic literature as well. In an exposition of Lev 25:25, Leviticus Rabbah records the following: It bears on what is written in Scripture: He that is gracious unto the poor lendeth unto the Lord (Prov. XIX, 17). R. Eleazar said: It is written, He giveth food to all flesh (Ps. CXXXVI, 25), and since this man comes and snatches up the good deed, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: ‘I must pay him recompense.’ (XXXIV, 2)80

According to R. Eleazar’s logic, since Scripture declares that God gives food to all flesh, those who enact this by giving to the needy fulfill God’s intentions. They “snatch up the good deed” and thus act in the place of God. For this reason, God becomes indebted to repay the almsgiver since the latter performed God’s self-described duty. R. Eleazar’s interpretation actually takes the model of imitatio Dei one additional step. Here it is not just that the pious individual does the same thing that God does; he actually does God’s deed for him and thus puts God in his debt. The rabbis were aware of the shocking nature of the implications of this theological model. Immediately after R. Eleazar’s statement, Leviticus Rabbah records that several rabbis had observed that “if it had not been for a written text the statement dared not have been uttered: If the expression be permitted, it is usual for a borrower to become the servant of the lender; as it is written, The borrower is servant to the lender (Prov. XXII, 7)!” In other words, almsgiving effectively makes God the servant of the almsgiver since the latter does his job for him. In Judaism the poor were so valued theologically that there was a strong emphasis on graciousness that accompanied generosity. In Sir 18:15-18 the manner of giving is so important that “a good word is better than a gift” and the same perspective can be found later in rabbinic texts. In Baba Bathra 9b, R. Isaac concludes on the basis of Isa 58:7-12 that “He who gives a small coin to a poor man obtains six blessings, and he who addresses to him words of comfort obtains eleven blessings.” The need to avoid shaming the recipient led to the conclusion among some that it was better, when possible, to give anonymously or to extend help through a loan, rather than through charity (cf. Ket. 67b). In the next paragraph of folio 9b, there is a discussion in which charity is not considered meritorious if given to unworthy recipients. R. Naḥman b. Isaac says:

80

Translation from ISRAELSTAM/SLOTKI (trans.), Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus, 427.

288


The Holy One, blessed be He, sends him [one who is anxious to give charity] men who are fitting recipients of charity, so that he may be rewarded for assisting them. Who then are unfit? – Such as those mentioned in the exposition of Rabbah, when he said: What is the meaning of this verse, Let them be made to stumble before thee; in the time of thine anger deal thou with them? [Jer. XVIII, 23] Jeremiah said to the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, even at the time when they conquer their evil inclination and seek to do charity before Thee, cause them to stumble through men who are not fitting recipients, so that they should receive no reward for assisting them.

In this passage it is assumed, as in Sir 12:1-6, that gifts to the unworthy are not reckoned as meritorious alms. Yet interestingly, here the ignorance of the almsgiver about the worthiness of the recipient is not a mitigating factor as it was for Gregory the Great. Elsewhere the ignorance of the potential almsgiver works to his advantage. There is a story that recurs with variations in Lev. Rab. XXXIV.10, Ket. 68a, and y. Peah 8:9, in which two men are caring for a beggar after he has died and they discover that he was an imposter. All versions of the story cite R. Eleazar’s teaching that one should be grateful for imposters because when ungenerous people refuse to give to them they are (unknowingly) spared punishment. In this story the ungenerous disposition of the potential giver is not considered sinful per se. Thus, for R. Eleazar the merit of almsgiving is mainly centered on the status of the recipient, although a statement in Suk. 49b suggests that the inner disposition of the potential giver does play a role. For Gregory the Great, on the other hand, the inner disposition of the potential almsgiver is more determinative for the merit of the act. In their own ways, then, R. Eleazar and Gregory the Great negotiate the problem of the extent of almsgiving in ways that display continuity with Ben Sira while also manifesting different emphases in the relationship between the disposition of the giver and the moral status of the recipient.

7.5 Conclusions In this chapter we have explored the remaining major pericopes on almsgiving in order to assess Ben Sira’s thinking on the extent of charity. While much of the book emphasizes the inclusivity of the practice, Sir 12:1-6 limits charity specifically to those who are righteous. This theological tension is not a surface tension in Ben Sira’s thought, but proceeds from the more fundamental tension regarding retributive justice that was explored in chapter 2. Almsgiving is understood as

Conclusions

289

imitatio Dei and different ways of coordinating this with the interface between the principle of retributive justice and socio-economic realities have produced various approaches to potential recipients. When the idea of imitatio Dei is coordinated with the enactment of retributive justice, the moral quality of the recipient comes to the fore: those who are righteous should be aided and those who are wicked should be denied. However, in other cases in which the special relationship between God and the poor is the principal theological framework, Ben Sira emphasizes giving to all who are in need. Here the principle of retributive justice operates differently since it is focused not on recompensing the recipient, but on recompensing the almsgiver. The poor function as a proxy for God such that giving to them enacts God’s mercy and accrues merit for the giver. Finally, it was argued that the short passage in Sir 18:15-18 suggests a possible solution to the practical ambiguity that results from these conflicting models. At the end of the extensive discussion on the reasons for the breakdown in the principle of retributive justice in Sir 15:11-18:14, Ben Sira suggests that sinners are shown mercy and judgment is delayed in order to allow for the possibility of repentance. The accent is on the overflowing mercy of God which is toward every living creature, in distinction from humans, who tend to limit it to their neighbors. It is the frailty of humanity that prompts God to show more mercy than humans deserve. Following these conclusions, Ben Sira immediately discusses almsgiving again and presents the duties of the almsgiver in ways that parallel God’s mercy to all of humanity. On the basis of Sir 15:11-18:14 and 39:25, as well as a consideration of the context of Sir 12:1-6, it was suggested that Ben Sira might have negotiated the apparent inconsistency in the following way. The righteous should be given alms and the brazenly wicked should not; yet in many cases one can be deceived about the moral nature of a potential recipient or a fair assessment of the person is ambiguous. According to the model of almsgiving as imitatio Dei, it is probably better to “err” on the side of mercy, just as God usually shows more mercy than people deserve. Perhaps the most salient point to emerge from the examination of Ben Sira’s thinking on this topic is the realization that inconsistencies may not be due to a flawed thought process. Rather, they may reveal a complexity of thought that refuses to settle for easy answers. For Ben Sira, the attempt to mediate between his theological heritage and his current socio-political situation results in multiple possibilities for faithfully showing generosity to the poor. As with sages before him, different circumstances require a different appropriation of the tradition, and

290


when a concrete opportunity to show generosity arises, the question of extent ultimately requires wisdom.

Chapter 8 Synthesis & Conclusions He in whose veins there whirls a quiet shudder before God, Let him kiss the nails of a pauper. - Abraham Heschel1 Our human neighbor now becomes a “sacrament” of God’s hidden presence among us, a mediator between God and humanity. Every authentic religious act is directed toward the concreteness of God in our human neighbors and their world. There it finds its living fulfillment and its transcendent point of contact. Could humanity be taken more seriously than that? - Johannes Metz2

Over the centuries the central theological commitments studied here have retained an abiding theological power in both Judaism and Christianity, as can be seen in these quotes from eminent thinkers, one Jewish and the other Christian. One’s use of financial resources and the treatment of the poor frequently have been viewed as exhibiting in a powerful way the fundamental religious disposition of a person. This is so because the poor are understood as proxies for God such that how a person treats the former implies his disposition towards the latter (cf. Prov 14:31). This common Judeo-Christian heritage has deep roots in the ancient Near East and in Israel’s formative traditions, but many of the key concepts that would be foundational for early Jewish and Christian thinkers can be detected first in the thought of Ben Sira and in the nearly contemporary book of Tobit. It has been the aim of this work to delve into the theological and social dimensions of the topic of generosity in Sirach and to contextualize them within Israel’s heritage and in Ben Sira’s subsequent heirs in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. The essential matrix of thought in which Ben Sira develops his understanding of generosity is the principle of retributive justice and the dissonance caused by the disjunction between the principle’s implica1 2

HESCHEL, The Ineffable Name of God: Man, 43. METZ, Poverty of Spirit, 32-33.

292

Synthesis & Conclusions

tions and the social realities of Seleucid Judea. It is on this tension, applied especially to the area of economics, that Ben Sira’s thinking on charity is predicated. The principle of retributive justice predicts that the righteous will enjoy economic success, while the wicked will suffer deprivation, but in reality it is frequently those who are oppressive who, through their wickedness, obtain wealth and power. To a degree, this tension is ameliorated through various strategies. Ben Sira believes in limited deferral of divine justice, but also trades in the alternative currency of honor from God. Ultimately, however, these strategies for resolution are not fully sufficient, which leads to a robust understanding of the role of generosity. One of the key difficulties with the problem of retributive justice is the finality of death, which excludes the possibility of deferring recompense into the afterlife. But the finality of death also plays an important role in Ben Sira’s vision of generosity. Unlike many other Hellenistic works, both Jewish and pagan, Ben Sira integrates the virtue of generosity into his understanding of the motif of carpe diem, such that the use of wealth directly affects one’s quality of life. Ben Sira, thus, relativizes wealth both intrinsically and functionally. While intuition may lead someone to believe that hoarding money is the best way to enjoy the finer things in life, Ben Sira argues that money should be used for the enjoyment of one’s own life and that of one’s friends. Since death approaches relentlessly and the time of death is unknown, one should put money to good effect in the present. This is done in two ways. One should spend money in the present on the finer things in life, but it is also worthwhile to “invest” one’s money through generosity for future benefits. Synthesizing the perspectives explored in chapters 3-5, it appears that Ben Sira has a qualified view of carpe diem: it is not sheer indulgence in the present that is the best course of action, but the aggregate enjoyment averaged over the years that will prove to provide the best quality of life. This counterintuitive economic move is paralleled in Ben Sira’s discussion of loans and surety. Although social conditions cause many to be wary of practicing these kinds of generosity, Ben Sira views them as essentially issues of mercy. The sage who is obedient to a WisdomTorah ethic must trust in the divine economy and assist those in need. This Tendenz towards a mercy ethic is so strong that Ben Sira even incorporates the topic of surety into this ethical vision, despite the fact that the Torah is silent on the matter and sapiential predecessors advised against it. His theological-economic trajectory, therefore, moves him beyond the deductions of his predecessors and into direct conflict with some of his contemporaries (e.g. 4QInstruction). Although social


293

realities may suggest otherwise, Ben Sira is adamant that giving generously will pay dividends, precisely because it adheres to his WisdomTorah ethical vision. However, the concrete ways in which generosity can actually lead to “the good life” become especially clear in the topic of almsgiving. The core of Ben Sira’s theology of almsgiving proceeds on the basis of (a) the belief that there is a special relationship between the poor and God such that the former serve as proxies for the latter (e.g. Prov 19:17), and (b) the (re)reading of earlier biblical texts (e.g. Prov 10:2; 11:4; Ps 112:9) through the lexical shift in the meaning of hqdc. On the basis of these, Ben Sira and others derived the idea of a heavenly treasury. Almsgiving served as a “deposit” into this treasury and God can be trusted to repay in the form of future benefits and deliverance, especially from death. While many might consider generosity to the poor as a “loss,” Ben Sira assures his students that it is actually “more profitable than gold.” Generosity is thereby shown to be superior to the hoarding of money. Because charity brings greater benefits, including a longer life, it is a wise contribution to a life that embodies the principle of carpe diem. Since death is final, money should be used now both for present enjoyment and to secure future benefits from one’s heavenly treasury. Because the divine economy is not subject to a zero-sum dynamic, giving to the poor aids them in the present and the giver in the future. It is a win-win situation. Yet, this heavenly treasury can function in another way. In addition to a deposit to be drawn upon in the future, it can also serve as an atonement for sin. This is because of another linguistic and conceptual shift in the Second Temple period. Sin and forgiveness began to be conceptualized through the metaphor of debt and repayment. With this new paradigm it is possible for thinkers like Ben Sira to view almsgiving as containing sacrificial efficacy in that it can “pay down” a debt. For Ben Sira, this sacrificial functionality of almsgiving is applicable to both past and future sins. This does not render the cult moot; in fact, Ben Sira is a great supporter of the priesthood and the sacrificial cult. Rather, this characterization of almsgiving is frequently connected with the demands of social justice and demonstrates a “cultizing” of the Torah’s ethical demands. Ultimately, the support of the priesthood and the care for the poor cannot be set in opposition because they are viewed as theologically complementary. Both the priests and the poor are viewed as proxies for God and thus to honor God, therefore, requires the honoring of the priests and generosity to the poor. Even more fundamentally, Ben Sira characterizes both of these Torah

294


demands as an ethic of imitatio sapientiae. When one honors God by giving to the cult and to the poor one walks the path of Wisdom. The ethical paradigm of “imitation” also supplies the key to resolving the problem of the recipients of almsgiving. In Sir 12:1-6 Ben Sira admonishes his students to give only to the righteous poor, while in other places he advocates almsgiving without limitations (4:1-10 and 7:32-36). However, this is not simply a surface contradiction, but is derived from two positions that are both based on the view that almsgiving is an act of imitatio Dei. In the model of limited almsgiving, the potential giver imitates God by enacting the principle of retributive justice: he gives to the righteous and withholds from the wicked. In the other model, though, the giver primarily relates to the poor qua poor such that the operative dynamic of imitation is coordinated with the nexus between the poor and God. Both models presuppose that the current socio-economic situation is out of accord with the principle of retributive justice. In other words, it is the more fundamental tension between the principle of retributive justice and its practical breakdown that is the source of this tension in the giving of alms. But just as God shows mercy even to the wicked, Ben Sira hints that, if one is in doubt, it is better to “err” on the side of mercy. Although the trajectory of the ethic of mercy carries Ben Sira beyond the pragmatic problems involved in assessing the moral constitution of the would-be recipient, he does allow the practical tension to stand. In some ways, this synthesis brings us back to the beginning: the problem of retributive justice. Ben Sira affirms the principle but also adapts his social ethic in light of its breakdown. The dynamics and tensions in his understanding of generosity flow directly from this problem and Ben Sira does not appear to have been willing to settle for easy answers. While in some sense the problems involved in the topic of generosity are not resolved by Ben Sira, the sympathetic reader will perhaps recognize that there simply is no forthcoming resolution to the problem. In fact, the theological difficulties that have surfaced in this investigation are characteristic of any endeavor to appropriate a religious heritage for a new day, in order to answer new questions. The inherently accommodated nature of the theological enterprise is inescapable in any negotiation between tradition and one’s contemporary world and a lack of systematic consistency does not always imply a defect or shallowness of a particular thinker; rather, it may reflect a mature awareness that in the task of theology answers are not always straightforward in this complex world, but must be negotiated and discerned through wisdom.

Appendix Text Criticism of Select Passages For each passage discussed below I present the Hebrew text, then a text-critical discussion, followed by a translation. The Hebrew text presented is based on my text-critical decisions and is not a reproduction of the actual manuscripts, which have been published by Beentjes.1 Regarding the passages discussed, manuscript A contains Sir 4:1-10; 7:29-36; 10:19-24; 10:30-11:1; 11:4-6; 11:11-13.20-22.25-28; 12:1-6; and 13:2-23. Manuscript B contains Sir 10:19-24; 10:30-11:1; 11:4-6; and 31:111. Sirach 18:15-18 and 35:1-5 are not extant in the Hebrew and my discussion is prefaced by Ziegler’s critical Greek text.

1. Sirach 4:1-10 Hebrew Text

Xpn rm yny[ byadt law Xpn $dkdmm ~l[tt law !yksmm !tm [nmt law $llql ~wqm wl !tt law wrcwy [mXy wtq[c lwqbw $Xar @akh dy[ !wjlXlw hwn[b ~wlX whbyXhw rXwy jpXmb $xwr #wqt law twnmlal l[b rwmtw txXm $lycyw $nxyw

yn[ yyxl g[lt la ynb xwpt la hrysx Xpn byakt la yn[ brq ld twlyaX hzbt la wXpn bakb xwr rm q[wc hd[l $Xpnl bhah $nza yn[l jh wyqycmm qcwm [Xwh ~ymwtyl bak hyh !b $arqy law

1 2 3 4-5 6 7 8 9 10

Textual Notes [4:1a] In the first stich, the Hebrew and Syriac both have “do not mock” (Syr: qYMt), whereas the Greek and Latin have “do not deprive/defraud.” The latter would require one to take th.n zwh.n tou/ ptwcou as referring to the means or sustenance of life. Skehan and Jen1

BEENJTES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew.

296

Text Criticism of Select Passages

sen think the Hebrew is original and suggest the Greek is a paraphrase. Smend thinks the Hebrew syntax is too awkward and so suggests emending to [rgt, or possibly lzgt, in accordance with the Greek. However, despite the awkward syntax, I prefer to retain the reading of manuscript A, also reflected in the Syriac. The Greek would be a first stage paraphrase and the Latin would be a further gloss to accent the charity dimension of the whole passage (note the Latin’s section title: de elemosyna et de pauperibus).2 [4:1b-2a] These two stichs are quite problematic. Manuscript A has: hrysx Xpn xwwd // Xpn rmw yn[ Xpn byadt law xwpt la. It is clear that manuscript A is corrupt since the Syriac, Greek, and Latin have only one object for 4:1b. Smend argued that originally the stich read simply: xwr rm yny[ byadt law. Since byadt is frequently used with Xpn in the Hebrew Bible, a scribe inserted it after byadt. Likewise, since rm often occurs in conjunction with Xpn, but never with xwr, a scribe altered the final word as well. The phrase rm yny[ was then altered to rmw yn[ for reasons of context and syntax. The reading of xwr is seen to underlie the corruption of the following word, xwwd (v. 2; cf. Syriac). Smend has been followed by Baldauf, Skehan, and Jensen.3 The latter goes further and argues that xwwd is a corruption from hwd and that hrysx Xpn in 4:2a is a retroversion from the Syriac in order to gloss the corrupt form xwwd. But in his reconstructed Hebrew text, he renders the line: xwpt la hwwd Xpn, apparently on the basis of the versions (yuch.n peinw/san || animam esurientem || rYSXd )$PN), which he says presuppose Xpn hwwd. In other words, to get from his reconstructed text to manuscript A requires that hwd was doubly corrupted to xwwd under the influence of the presumed, but unattested, final word of 4:1. Then there must have been either a transposition of the first two words, followed by a Syriac gloss of hrysx, or a Syriac retroversion of hrysx Xpn and, either before or after, the deletion of the first Xpn.

2

3

If the sense of the Greek is followed, it would make more sense to understand the object of “robbing” as not just the sustenance owned by the poor, but the sustenance that they need, i.e. the alms and acts of beneficence just mentioned in 3:30-31. This is how Smend reads it and refers the reader to the Latin: “eleemosinam pauperis ne defraudes [critical edition of Thiele has “fraudes”]” (similarly, Box & Oesterley). BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 96; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 327; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 69; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 38; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 34; THIELE, Vetus Latina: Sirach, 4.246. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 96; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 65-70; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 34-35.

Sirach 4:1-10

297

Box & Oesterley and M. H. Segal, on the other hand, posit an original reading for 4:1b of Xpn rm yny[ byadt law. In this case, the word xwwd at the beginning of v. 2 should simply be deleted and, against Jensen, hrysx Xpn in 4:2a treated as original. In addition to the simplicity of the argument, it has the advantage that hrysx Xpn is a plausible Vorlage for the versions (yuch.n peinw/san || animam esurientem || rYSXd )$PN; cf. Skehan & Di Lella). Beentjes cites the suggestion of Ginzberg that xwwd is a corruption of xwwr (“space”), which was originally an Aramaic marginal note by a scribe who inserted it to alert future copyists to be on guard against homoioteleuton, since Xpn appears at the end of 4:1 and at the beginning of 4:2. Beentjes thinks this has merit, but notes that since the same phenomenon does not appear in other places (e.g. 3:8-9; 6:1-2), it must have arisen in a situation where the copyist saw something very difficult about the syntax of the text before him. Whether or not one follows Ginzberg’s suggestion for the occurrence of xwwr/xwwd at the beginning of 4:2a, the simplest solution seems to be to reconstruct 4:1b as Xpn rm yny[ byadt law and the beginning of 4:2a as hrysx Xpn.4 [4:2b] Virtually all commentators emend ydkdmm to $dkdmm (so Lévi, Schechter & Taylor, Segal, and Smend),5 but Jensen suggests that it should be emended to yakdmm, i.e. the pual participle of akd. He seems to base this mainly on the fact that the pulpal of $wd does not appear elsewhere in the extant Sirach manuscripts or in the Qumran documents. This decision also leads him, in light of the biblical idiom and the evidence of the Syriac for this verse, to emend the following word to xwr.6 However, given the paucity of texts available from this era, an argument from silence must be considered weak, especially given that Ben Sira is recognized to have been linguistically skilled and there are multiple other places in the book where he uses a verb in an otherwise 4

5 6

BEENTJES, Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater, 53-54; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 327; GINZBERG, Randglossen zum hebräischen Ben Sira, 611. SEGAL, The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 94; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 166. LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:12-13; SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 40, 3*; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 22; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 35. JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 71. He goes on to try to account for the reading in manuscript A by arguing that, “If the Vorlage was stichometric with a partially defective left column, as textual problems in 4:1-3 suggest, the scribe, for whom later onomatopoeic forms of $wd were familiar, may have completed the line Xpn $dkdmm. The scribe may have been influenced by y. Hag. 2:1…” This seems overly complicated. In terms of the lexicons, Barthélemy & Rickenbacher list this word under hkd (Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach, 85); Clines lists it under $wd (Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 2:425); and Ben-Ḥayyim lists it under $dkd (The Book of Ben Sira, 122). Koehler & Baumgartner have it listed under both $wd and $d, $kd (HALOT, 1:216, 221).

298


unattested conjugation.7 Therefore, I follow the majority emendation of $dkdmm, followed by manuscript A’s Xpn. [4:3] The first two stichs of manuscript A represent a doublet: ] la byakt la yn[ brqw // $d y[m [ . There is only one stich in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin. The first stich is accepted as the original by Jensen, Peters, Rüger, Sauer, and Skehan & Di Lella. The second stich is taken to be original by Segal (cf. Wagner). Both stichs find their way into Baldauf, Box & Oesterley, and Smend (a decision affected by the issues in vv. 4-5, see below). Jensen suggests that the second stich is a retroversion from the Syriac of 4:3a (b)Kt )L )NKSM )$N)d yhw(M). Yet, it is more likely that the Syriac represents a conflation of the two Hebrew stichs, as is argued by both Rüger and Smend.8 If this is the case, then the primary means for determining which Hebrew stich is original fall on the Greek and on contextual factors. In my opinion, both favor the second stich as original.9 While Rüger claims that the Greek is closer to the first stich, there are two reasons why this should be rejected. First, as Smend and Baldauf point out, in the LXX kardi,a frequently translates brq, but only once does it translate h[m (Lam 2:11). In virtually every other case where there is a corresponding Greek term h[m is translated with koili,a. Second, by invoking the one case where kardi,a translates h[m (Lam 2:11), Rüger draws attention to the fact that there the word wrmrmx is translated by the root tara,ssw, a cognate of the word used in the Greek of Sir 4:3 (prostara,ssw). However, there is no evidence that the root rmx is even in the manuscript of Sirach, and in fact, Schechter & Taylor appear to have reconstructed it on the basis of Lam 1:20; 2:11. Rather, the Greek hapax

7

8

9

See DIHI, Non-Biblical Verbal Usages in the Book of Ben Sira, 56-64; cf. ELWOLDE, Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah, 30-34; KISTER, Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira, 160-187; cf. id., arys-!b rps lX wXwrypl, 303-314. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 97; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 327; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 66, 72; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 38; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 12; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 68; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 22; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163, 166; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 36. Wagner seems to imply that the second is closer to the versions and is to be accepted (Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach, 282283). The reasons why I do not think both should be retained, as do Baldauf, Box & Oesterley, and Smend, will become clearer in the discussion of vv. 4-5 below.

Sirach 4:1-10

299

hapax could fit either rymxt in the first stich or byakt in the second stich. Likewise, the verb parorgizw does not suggest one stich over the other.10 In addition, the secondary nature of the first stich makes better sense contextually as well, though both stichs are similar in meaning. Without speculating what the missing verb might be, it is clear that it must mean something like “agitate” or “provoke.” Since Schechter & Taylor, scholars have frequently reproduced the reading rymxt (unknowingly?), but Box & Oesterley reconstruct s[kt. As Segal notes, the final two words, $d y[m, may have arisen under the influence of the end of the previous verse. Therefore, I suspect that the first stich was originally a superlinear gloss of the second stich, formulated as a conflation of 4:2b and 4:3a, that was then subsequently conflated in the Syriac with the original Hebrew stich. Although certainty is impossible, I am persuaded that Segal is correct in identifying the second stich as the original version. The deletion of the first line requires that the w at the beginning of the second line be deleted and another w be added to the third line. [4:3b] The pronominal suffix at the end of $nyksmm in manuscript A is absent in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin. Segal’s suggestion that it arose as a complement to $llql at the end of verse 5 is plausible (so also Jensen).11 [4:4-5] Manuscript A and the Syriac have only two stichs here, while the Greek and the Latin have four. Because the Greek of 4:4b is very similar to the Hebrew of 4:2b, Smend thought there had been a transposition of some of the stichs (similarly, Baldauf and Box & Oesterley). Therefore, he retained both stichs of 4:3a and rearranged the Hebrew in manuscript A into the following order: 2a, 3a1, 3a2, 3b, 4a, 2b, vacat, 5b. However, 4:4b and 4:5a in the Greek express comparable ideas and are best seen as later glosses, perhaps catalyzed by the corruption of 4:2b in the transmission of the Greek (so Skehan and Jensen). Both stichs bear resemblances to various verses from previous biblical texts (cf. Ps 22:25). Although M. H. Segal believes they were early glosses already in the Vorlage used by the Greek, Di Lella points out that 4:4b in the Greek is virtually identical with the Greek of part of Tob 4:7 (h. avpostre,yh|j to. pro,swpo,n sou avpo. panto.j ptwcou/). Whether or not the stich was present before or after the translation, 4:4b in the Greek is clearly dependent on the Greek of Tob 4:7. Given that Tob 4:7 is a re10

11

BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 97; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 12; SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 40; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 36. JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 72; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 22. Cf. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 36.

300


working of ideas in Prov 19:17 and Deut 15:7-11, two texts especially important in Ben Sira’s thought on poverty and charity, it is not surprising that this verse would intrude into the transmission of Sirach. Thus, against Baldauf, Box & Oesterley, and Smend, I do not retain both stichs in 4:3a or rearrange the order of the stichs in manuscript A. Instead, I preserve the order in manuscript A (and delete 3a1, see above) and treat 4:4a, 5b as intended to be read in parallel, while consigning 4:4b-5a to the status of secondary, though probably early, glosses (so also Jensen). Skehan & Di Lella imply they are secondary as well, but still include them in their translation.12 [4:4a] In manuscript A this line (ld twlwaX hzbt alw) has been corrupted and is in need of slight emendation. It is necessary to delete the w at the beginning of the clause (perhaps it arose from the pattern created by the insertion of the doublet in 4:2; see above) and to change twlwaX to twlyaX.13 With Box & Oesterley, Smend, and Segal, I also emend the first word from al to la in conformity with the rest of the imperatives of this passage. For consistency, I make the same emendation at the beginning of 4:5b, which does not alter the meaning of the stich (Smend does not make this emendation, possibly because his rearrangement of the stichs in vv. 2-5 leaves this stich without its parallel precursor).14 [4:6] The Greek and the Syriac render q[wc with the stronger “curse” (katarwme,nou || =)L), which, along with the conjunction ga,r, connects this stich more closely with 4:5b. In the following stich the Greek interprets wtq[c as “prayer” (th/j deh,sewj auvtou/) but the Syriac agrees with the Hebrew. Although the agreement of the Greek and the Syriac might suggest emending q[wc in 6a, it stills seems easier to imagine the root

12

13

14

BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 95-97; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 327328; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 66, 72-73; SEGAL, The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 101-102; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163, 166; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 36. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 22; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 36. On the confusion of w and y in the manuscripts of Sirach see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 97-101. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 328; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 22; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 2. Jensen retains the reading alw and translates vv 4-5 as future indicatives by arguing that “the context of the present imperatives in the previous three bicola and the warning in the bicolon that follows suggest that they are indicatives…The change at 4:4 marks a transition from the preceding strophe’s injunctions to a statement of the good consequences that come from observing these commands” (Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 67, 72). This suggestion seems awkward given that v. 6 reads more naturally if it is understood as the reasoning behind the imperatives in 4a, 5b. The versions render these as imperatives as well.

Sirach 4:1-10

301

q[c being glossed as llq under the influence of the previous stich, albeit in two different versions, than to suppose that a scribe softened llq to q[c under the influence of the following stich in the transmission of the Hebrew. Whereas the Hebrew has the sobriquet “his Rock” (wrwc) for God, the Greek and the Syriac have “his creator” (o` poih,saj auvto,n || hYrB). Based on the versions, Smend, Box & Oesterley, and Skehan emend to wrcwy, but Jensen retains the reading of manuscript A by arguing that frequently in the MT the sobriquet “Rock” is used in creational contexts and the LXX often glosses it with qeoj (similarly, Peters). However, the discussion in Olofsson’s work (which Jensen cites) shows that across all the translators who contributed to the LXX the only widespread circumlocution is qeoj (or, in the Psalter, bohqoj and antilhmptwr where in proximity to another use of qeoj). The closest parallel to Sir 4:6 would be the rendering of rwc in 2 Sam 22:3 with ktisthj, but the use of creational circumlocutions is not sufficiently attested to suppose that Ben Sira’s grandson reflects this. Although Jensen is correct that many of these circumlocutions occur in creational contexts, it is still striking that in these contexts the LXX does not use a creational equivalent. Therefore, in my judgment more would be needed to establish the case for the Greek’s o` poih,saj auvto,n being a legitimate, intentional derivation from an original wrwc, as Jensen suggests. Rather, the basic agreement between the Greek and the Syriac and the visual similarity of wrwc and wrcwy make it easier to explain an alteration in the transmission of the Hebrew text than the originality of manuscript A and, therefore, the emendation suggested above is accepted here.15 [4:7] In light of the Syriac and the present context, dw[ is to be emended to ry[ (missing in the Greek) and is explainable due to orthographic confusion of w and y (common in the Hebrew manuscripts, see Di Lella) and of d and r. The pronominal suffix is added to the final word in light of its use in the preceding and subsequent lines and its presence in the Syriac, Greek, and Latin (k$PN || sou || tuum).16 [4:9] In the first stich Greek has “hand” (ceiro.j), which is absent from the Hebrew and Syriac. It could be an idiomatic, free translation or it could be, as Lévi, Segal, and Smend suggest, that !m (if it was originally separated from wyqycm) was mistaken for dym. The final word of 15

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 328; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 73; OLOFSGod is My Rock, 35-45; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 38-39; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 36.

SON,

16

DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 97-101; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 37.

302


the verse, rXwy, is present in the Hebrew and Syriac, but missing from the Greek. Jensen deletes it and supposes that the Hebrew has added it under the influence of the Syriac. The simpler explanation is that the Syriac supports the antiquity of the reading in manuscript A and that the Greek’s rendering, “when you judge” (evn tw/| kri,nein se), has either omitted the term or read $jpXmb (cf. Box & Oesterley, Skehan, and Smend).17 [4:10] The final stich is problematic because each version is different. For the first word the Hebrew has $nxyw; the Syriac has kYL( mXrNw, the Greek has kai. avgaph,sei se, and the Latin has et miserebitur tui. Trenchard sees them as “virtually synonymous” but Jensen points out that nowhere else in the entire LXX, Sirach included, does agapaw translate !nx. Segal suggests that $mxryw underlies the Syriac, Greek, and Latin. However, in Sirach the Syriac mXr is used to translate bha thirteen times, including the four occurrences closest to this passage: 3:26; 4:7.12.14 (where the Greek also uses agapaw). Therefore, it is equally possible that the Syriac’s mXr reflects a Hebrew Vorlage that is the same as the Greek’s (mXr ← bha → agapaw), cf. 3:17.26; 4:12.14; 7:35; 13:15; 40:20; 45:1; 47:8.22. Still another possibility is that the Syriac’s mXr is the equivalent of manuscript A’s !nx, as it is in Sir 12:13. If this is the case, then as Smend suggests, the Greek may have originally read evleh,sei, which would better account for the Latin’s miserebitur. Although a case can be made for emendation, the fact that the semantic domains of the Hebrew and Syriac (and to a degree, the Latin) overlap leads me to retain the reading of manuscript A (with Jensen and Smend; cf. Box & Oesterley and Sauer).18 The versions for rest of the final line are even more divergent. Although the Syriac has no text after kYL( mXrNw, the Hebrew continues with txXm $lycyw and the Greek has ma/llon h' mh,thr sou (cf. Latin, magis quam mater). In favor of the Hebrew as original are Andrzej, Box & Oesterley, Duesberg & Fransen, Sauer, Segal, and Smend. In this view, the comparison to a mother is dependent on the non-original reference to a mother in the second stich, and the fourth stich of the Greek is a gloss based on Isa 49:15; 66:13. In favor of the Greek as representing the original are Jensen, Minissale, Peters, and Skehan & Di Lella. Jensen argues that the Syriac may indicate the presence of a broken line during 17

18

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 328; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 75; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 38. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 328; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 66; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 69; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 23; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 38; TRENCHARD, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 227 n.120.

Sirach 4:1-10

303

the transmission process, which was repaired in the Hebrew by drawing on Job 33:24. Of course, one could argue that the broken line in the Syriac could be equally accommodated to the theory of the Hebrew’s authenticity, but Jensen correctly highlights that either version, Hebrew or Greek, can be explained as a secondary gloss from an earlier biblical text. Jensen seeks to buttress his argument in favor of the Greek by noting that a feminine image of God would be problematic for the grandson’s readers and therefore it is unlikely that he would have produced it were it not in the Hebrew Vorlage. But it is doubtful that the Greek even assigns a feminine image to God since it is a comparison, i.e. God will love them more than a mother, and is thus no more theologically “problematic” than the Isaianic texts mentioned above. Therefore, I find that the Hebrew and Greek versions are both plausible and the issue is difficult to decide, but I am inclined to side with the majority in favoring the Hebrew text.19 Translation 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:10

19

My son, do not mock the life of the poor and do not make the eyes of an embittered person weary. Do not deride a needy person and do not hide from one who is crushed. Do not inflict pain on the heart of the poor and do not withhold a gift from the needy. Do not despise the requests of a peasant and do not give him an occasion to curse you. When an embittered person cries out in the anguish of his soul then his Maker will heed the sound of his cry. Endear yourself to the assembly and bow your head to the ruler of the city. Incline your ear to the poor person and return his greeting with humility Save the oppressed from his oppressors and do not let your spirit be repulsed by just judgment. Become as a father to orphans and in the place of a husband to widows Then God will call you a son and he will be gracious to you and deliver you from the pit.

ANDRZEJ, La hqdc che espia I peccati, 100-104 [cited in Jensen]; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 328; DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Ecclesiastico, 106; JENSEN, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice, 75-77; MINISSALE, La versione greca del Siracide, 169; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 40-41; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 69-70; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 23; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 163, 167-168; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 38.

304



Xydqh wynhk taw bz[t al wytrXm taw htwwc rXak ~qlx !tw Xdq tmwrtw qdc yxbz $tkrb ~lXt ![ml dsx [nmt la tmm ~gw lbatt ~ylba ~[w bhat ~hm yk txXt al ~lw[lw

la dxp $bl lkb $Xw[ bwha $dwam lkb !hk rdhw la dbk dy tmwrtw ~Xaw blx dy jyXwh !wybal ~gw yx lk ynpl !tm !t ~ykwbm rxatt la bawk rqbl !amt la tyrxa rwkz $yX[m lkb

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Textual Notes [7:29-30] The prepositional phrases in the Greek of vv. 29-30, along with v. 27, appear to bring the passage into conformity with LXX Deut 6:5: “Love YHWH your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength.”20 [7:31] Whereas manuscript A of v. 31 begins with la dbk, the Greek has fobou/ to.n ku,rion. Since the translator appears to have had the Shema in mind in this passage, the Greek rendering would be explainable by the frequent exhortation to fear (fobe,omai) YHWH in Deuteronomy. Another possibility is that the use of dxp in the original of 7:29 has influenced this verse during the transmission process. The Old Latin (honora deum) supports the Hebrew.21 The third stich is very problematic. While manuscript A begins with ~yryba ~xl, the Greek has avparch.n kai. peri. plhmmelei,aj. The latter seems to reflect an underlying Hebrew of ~Xaw blx. The Syriac version ()NBrwQd )MXL) represents a text that is closer to manuscript A. Segal presents several possibilities for this textual situation. One possibility is that ~yryba may be a ‘nickname’ for twnbrqh yrba (cf. Syriac). Another possibility is that ~yryba has been mistaken in the transmission process for ~yrwma, which is a word used for “sacrifices” in Mishnaic Hebrew. However, if the Hebrew reading is original, then the Greek reading may have arisen from a twofold confusion: ~yryba ~xl → ~(y)Xa ~xl → ~Xaw blx. Skehan’s translation “the flesh of sacrifices” is based on the conclusion that the intermediate step is the original reading and those 20 21

See the discussion in WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 158-159. Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 206. Cf. LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:46; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 72.

Sirach 7:29-36

305

of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are derivatives, but this reading seems awkward.22 Another point bearing on this stich is that ~yryba ~xl is a peculiar phrase that occurs elsewhere only in Ps 78:25 (rendered by the LXX as “bread of angels,” a;rton avgge,lwn). This passage is concerned with the provision of bread during the wilderness journey and so would make little sense as an allusion here by Ben Sira in his discussion of priestly sacrifices. Rather, it may have been an allusion created in the transmission process due to the fact that this verse was a popular one in the history of interpretation.23 Although it would be a puzzling allusion if original, it is easier to imagine a later scribe wanting to add a flourish to his view of priesthood and glossing it under the influence of this popular verse from the Psalms. This phenomenon is attested elsewhere in the Cairo Genizah manuscripts, e.g. in Sir 11:4, which has been altered towards Job 3:5 in a way that renders it incoherent in its present context, which gives credence to the possibility that it has happened here as well. Discerning the original form of the verse is difficult and the various suggestions do not produce significantly different meanings. In my opinion, the reading of the Greek text is to be favored. If the original Hebrew was ~Xaw blx then one can see how the w b could be confused for a ~ in the transmission process. A transposition of l and x would lead to the text ~Xa ~xl. Given the awkwardness of the later, an early copyist may have glossed it as ~yryba ~xl under the influence of the popular phrase found in Ps 78:25. While all explanations of the textual state of this stich require multiple assumptions of textual corruption, the reading of the Greek seems to be the most plausible. In conformity with the Syriac and the Greek (kai. do,sin bracio,nwn) Segal, Smend, and others complete the third stich of the Hebrew with dy.24 Likewise, it is generally accepted that the first word of the fourth stich should be reconstructed as yxbz (Greek: kai. qusi,an; cf. Reiterer, Segal, Smend, etc.).25 The Greek would suggest yxbzw, but in order to maintain the parallelism with 7:31c (both 31c and 31d explicate 31b) the

22 23

24 25

SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 50; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 204. Smend emends to ~ymXa ~xl (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 72). See KUGEL, Traditions of the Bible, 616-617; WINSTON, The Wisdom of Solomon, 298. A sample of ancient reflections on this verse can be found in Wis 16:20; L.A.B., 19:5; 4 Ezra 1:19; cf. John 6:31; b. Yoma 75b. Deut 12:6.11.17 might suggest ~kdy. See REITERER, Gott und Opfer, 146. REITERER, Gott und Opfer, 146, 162-163; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 50; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 72.

306


conjunctive w is omitted. The singular Xdq is in the plural in the Greek: a`gi,wn.26 [7:32] While Adler reconstructs jyXwt, Segal and Smend reconstruct jyXwh on the basis of the Syriac’s =$w) (cf. Greek: e;kteinon). Manuscript A reads dy, while the Syriac and Greek presuppose $dy.27 Wright provides some examples where the Greek makes explicit what is only implicit in the Hebrew, including the addition of the personal pronoun sou in some manuscripts of 7:36 (see below).28 [7:33] For the first word of manuscript A, !t, the Syriac and Greek reflect !x. In favor of emending to !x are Box & Oesterley and Smend. But this creates an awkward parallelism with the following stich, as can be seen in the translation of Box & Oesterley: “A gift is acceptable in the sight of every man living and also from the dead withhold not kindness.”29 The second stich, which begins with ~gw, likely presupposes that the first stich involves a command to give. This is evident in the NRSV’s attempt to render the infelicitous Greek construction of ca,rij do,matoj as “give graciously.” The acceptance of !t not only renders the relationship between the two stichs of v. 33 more intelligible, it also provides a smoother extension of the thought in v. 32, as Di Lella points out. Thus, the reading of manuscript A is accepted as original here (so also Peters, Segal, and Skehan & Di Lella). Although ynpl might be seen to favor the approach of Box & Oesterley and Smend, it can be used to denote the recipients of gifts (so Segal; cf. Deut 1:8; Josh 10:12).30 [7:35] The first stich in manuscript A is corrupt (bhwam bl aXt la). The Syriac ()(rM r(SML kL n)Mt )Lw) and the Greek (mh. o;knei evpiske,ptesqai a;rrwston) agree and are taken as the basis for reconstructing the Hebrew. Box & Oesterley, Lévi, and Smend propose the reconstruction bawk rqbl !amt la. Sauer retains the reading of manuscript A, reading the second word as aXt from the root hXn and translating the stich as “Laß dein Herz nicht den Freund vergessen.” I also emend due to the fact that the reading in manuscript A does not fit the context,

26 27 28 29

30

The similar phrasing in Ezek 45:6-7; 48:10.18.20-21 has Xdqh tmwrt. Cf. REITERER, Gott und Opfer, 151-155. ADLER, Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira, 468; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 50; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 73. WRIGHT, No Small Difference, 72-74; cf. ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 160-161. Cf. the translation of the Syriac by CALDUCH-BENAGES/FERRER/LIESEN, La Sabiduría del Escriba, 92: “For graciousness is a gift for all creatures, also from the dead you should not withhold goodness.” BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 342; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 70; SEGAL, arys-!b rps ~lXh, 50; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 204, 207-208; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 73.

Sirach 7:29-36

307

which is concerned with traditional Jewish practices of philanthropy. Given that the Syriac and Greek are so close and that the reading of manuscript A is a plausible corruption of the reconstruction provided, I am persuaded that Box & Oesterley, Smend, and Lévi are likely correct.31 In the second stich, manuscript A has wnmm, singular; but the Greek and the Syriac have the plural form. I have therefore emended to ~hm. Translation 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36

31

With all your heart fear God and revere his priests With all your strength love your Maker and his ministers do not neglect Glorify God and honor the priest and give them their portion as you have been commanded The suet, the guilt-offering, and the contribution of (your) hand righteous sacrifices and the holy contribution And also to the needy stretch out your hand in order that your blessing may be complete Give a gift to anyone alive and even from the dead do not withhold kindness Do not withdraw from those who weep rather, mourn with those who mourn Do not neglect to care for the sick, for because of these things you will be loved. In everything you do, keep the end in mind and you will never act corruptly.

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 342; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:47; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 93; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 73-74.

308


3. Sirach 10:19-24; 10:30-11:1; 11:4-6.11-13.20-22.25-28 Sirach 10:19-24; 10:30-11:1; and 11:4-6 are extant in manuscripts A and B. Sirach 11:11-13.20-22.25-28 is extant only in manuscript A. Hebrew Text

~yhla ary dbkn [rz hwcm rbw[ hlqn [rz wyny[b ~yhla aryw

Xwnal [rz hm dbkn [rz 10:19 Xwnal [rz hm hlqn [rz dbkn ~Xar ~yxa !yb 20 21 22 23 24

~yhla tary ~trapt smx Xya lk dbkl !yaw ~yhla arym lwdg !yaw

Xrw yrkn rz rg lykXm ld twzbl !ya wdbkn lXwmw jpwX rX

wrX[ llgb dbkn ryX[ Xyw hkkya wynw[b wrX[b hlqnw wnbyXt ~ybydn !ybw

wlkX llgb dbkn ld hkkya wrX[b wynw[b dbknh wXar aXt ld tmkx

30 31 11:1

~wy yryrmb slqt law wl[p ~dam ~l[nw @ync wj[ bl l[ wl[ lbw [~yrz] dyb wntn ~ydbknw

ltht la rwza hjw[b yyy yX[m twalp yk ask l[ wbXy ~yakdn ~ybr dam wlqn ~yaXn ~ybr

4

rxatm awh !k ydkw Xna rtwyw xk rsx hnxc rp[m whyr[nyw ~ybr wyl[ whmtyw

#rw [gyw lm[ Xy $lhm dbaw XXr Xy bwjl whtpc yyy !y[w whmmryw wXarb aXn

11 12

wbw $qwxb [dm][ [yn]b ]b [ ] t l [ ] yyy yny[b xkn yk qydc lrgb la tkrb

20 21

h[r xkXt ~wy tbwj [ yyy yny[b xkn yk] gwn[t xkXt h[r t[ [ ]Xat la ~da rqxt ~rjb rbg rXat la twm ynpl

25 26 27 28

!Xyth $tkalmbw wrwal hwqw yyyl #wr[q ]l ~atp [t[ ]b xrpt wtwqt t[bw hbwj xkXt [ ] t[rw wyl[ dygy ~da @wsw ~da rXway w[ ] Xya rkny wtyrxabw

[ ]

5 6

13

22

Sirach 10:19-24; 10:30-11:1; 11:4-6.11-13.20-22.25-28

309

Textual Notes [10:19] These four stichs are reconstructed from manuscripts A (stichs 1 and 4) and B (stichs 3 and 4). Stichs 2 and 3 have dropped out of manuscript A through parablepsis (skipping on the basis of either [rz or Xwnal). In manuscript B stichs 3 and 4 begin a folio and the preceding page is not extant. The second stich, missing from A and B, can be restored by comparing the versions, though the versions have their own transmissional issues. In the Greek all four stichs are understood as a question with an answer. The Old Latin has only the second and fourth stichs, the other two absent because of parablepsis. The Syriac contains an extra stich after stich 2, which places “he who obeys the commandments” in apposition to “he who fears the Lord” and contrasts with stich 4.32 [10:20b] How to complete this stich is debated. If manuscript B (wnmm dbkn ~yhla aryw), which is the basis of the Syriac, is followed the translation would be: “and the one who fears God is more honorable than he.” Manuscript A reads: ][b ~yhla aryw. While Smend reads wm[b, the Greek has evn ovfqalmoi/j auvtou, which reflects the reading: wyny[b. This is the reading preferred by Skehan & Di Lella, Minissale, Peters, and Rüger. I’m inclined to agree with the latter scholars that wyny[b makes better sense of the context because it accents the difference between honor acquired socially and true honor in light of the divine economy.33 [10:21] This verse is a secondary gloss and is omitted. [10:31b] Manuscript A is deficient and makes little sense. Manuscript B preserves the correct reading, except that at some point during its transmission a w was mistaken for a y in both occurrences of wynw[b, thus resulting in the erroneous reading “in his eyes.” The reading wynw[b is supported by the versions.34 [11:4] The text of v. 4a-b follows the reading present in manuscript A which corresponds to one of the two readings in manuscript B.35 [11:5b] The word wl[ is missing in manuscripts A and B, probably through parablepsis. Based on the biblical idiom (cf. Jer 3:16) and the

32 33

34 35

See the discussions in DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 60-63; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 54-56; and SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 64-65. MINISSALE, La versione greca del Siracide, 58-59; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 91, 93; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 56; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 227230; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 97. See DI LELLA, Sirach 10:19-11:6, 161-162; and RÜGER, Text und Textform, 63. For the text criticism of these two stichs see SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 227-228; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 102.

310


Syriac it is commonly restored as either wl[ (so Peters and Segal) or ~yl[ (so Smend and Di Lella).36 [11:6b] The Greek also has e`te,rwn (≈ ~yrz; cf. ~yry[z in B1) at the end. Manuscript A and the second version in manuscript B omit it. Box & Oesterley and Smend omit it while Di Lella and Rüger accept it.37 [11:12b] Although the Syriac agrees with the Hebrew reading of lk in manuscript A, most commentators emend to xk in light of the Greek (also see 31:4.30). [11:20a] Manuscript A is broken here but the reconstruction of [yn]b [ ] wbw $qwxb [dm][ is likely in light of the Greek. “Engage yourself” translates the Greek o`mi,lei, which appears in Sirach only here.38 [11:21a] This stich is very fragmentary in manuscript A. Some of it may be reconstructed from the Greek and the Syriac.39 [11:21b] At the beginning of the second stich only #wr[ is extant. On the basis of the Greek (pi,steue), Box & Oesterley and Segal emend to !mah/!ymah. However, Smend and Peters account for the reading in manuscript A by positing #wrq, an Aramaic word equivalent to the Hebrew root ~kX (note that the Syriac here is )KS ). I have adopted this reading as well since it preserves what is extant in manuscript A while also providing an appropriate parallel to wrwal hwqw later in the stich. Rather than wrwal hwqw, the Greek has kai. e;mmene tw/| po,nw| sou. While the majority of Latin manuscripts read et mane in loco tuo, there are some that have et mane in lumine eius (see Thiele’s apparatus).40 [11:25-26] Segal and Skehan & Di Lella argue that vv. 25-26 were transposed before the Greek translation was made. Because v. 26 is missing in the Hebrew, arguments for inverting vv. 25 and 26 must be based solely on content. However, a case can be made both ways. In favor of inverting the verses are the following considerations: (1) By placing v. 26 as the conclusion of vv. 22-24 a natural symmetry is created with vv. 20-21, given the similar refrain at the end of v. 21. (2) The

36 37

38 39 40

DI LELLA, Sirach 10:19-11:6, 158, 162; PETERS, Liber Iesu Filii Sirach, 30; SEGAL, rps ~lXh arys-!b, 68; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 12. DI LELLA, Sirach 10:19-11:6, 158, 162; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 67-68; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 103; id., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 12. For possible Hebrew equivalents see PETERS, Liber Iesu Filii Sirach, 34; SEGAL, rps ~lXh arys-!b, 69; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 108. See the discussions in BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 355; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:78; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 467-468. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 355; PETERS, Liber Iesu Filii Sirach, 34; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 69; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 109; THIELE, Vetus Latina: Sirach, 5:392.

Sirach 10:19-24; 10:30-11:1; 11:4-6.11-13.20-22.25-28

311

content of v. 25 goes especially well with 27a. The arguments in favor of the Greek ordering of the verses are as follows: (1) Verse 25 can be understood as an antithetical answer to the presumed interlocutor in verses 23-24 (see Box & Oesterley and Spicq). (2) There is a natural correspondence between 26b, 27b, and 28b that is disrupted if vv. 25 and 26 are inverted. According to this order, then, vv. 26-28 could be understood to belong together and form a concluding summary stanza with vv. 26-27 drawing together the ideas of vv. 20-21 and 22-25 and anchoring them in the perspective gained by considering the final end of a person’s life. Therefore, while the transposition of the verses advocated by Segal and Skehan & Di Lella has certain advantages, I do not think the conceptual arguments in its favor are sufficient to overcome the lack of evidence in the textual witnesses. For this reason, I retain the verse order found in the Greek and followed by the NRSV and most other commentators.41 [11:26] This verse is missing in the Hebrew (all of 11:22-26 has dropped out of the Syriac through homoioarchton) and is translated here from the Greek. In light of the parallel to 11:21c, the phrase evn h`me,ra| teleuth/j is omitted as secondary in the texts of Peters and Segal. The phrase is retained by Box & Oesterley, and Skehan & Di Lella.42 [11:28] Manuscript A contains a duplication of both stichs. The first two are closer to the Syriac and the latter two correspond to the Greek. It is widely agreed that the latter reading is the earlier one.43 In the Hebrew Bible tyrxa is sometimes used to speak of one’s posterity (e.g. Pss 37:37; 109:13; Dan 11:4) and is used this way in Sir 16:3. Thus, the Greek’s kai. evn te,knoij auvtou/ is a plausible way to understand wtyrxabw, though unlikely to represent Ben Sira’s intended sense here.44 Translation Which offspring are honorable? Human offspring. an honorable offspring is the one who fears God. Which offspring are dishonorable? Human offspring. a dishonorable offspring is the one who transgresses the commandment 20 Among brothers their leader is honored, 19

41

42 43 44

See BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 356; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 101-102; SEGAL, rps ~lXh arys-!b, 70, 73; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 237; SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 627-628. Also cf. SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 62; MACKENZIE, Sirach, 62. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 356; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 101; SEGAL, arys-!b rps ~lXh, 70, 73; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 236. So BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 81; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 356; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 101; RÜGER, Text und Textform, 17. Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 241. Also see the discussion of 7:36.

312


but the one who fears God is (honored) in His eyes. Sojourner, foreigner, alien, and pauper: their glory is the fear of God. 23 A peasant who is wise should not be despised, nor should any violent person be honored. 24 Prince, judge, and ruler are honored but no one is greater than the one who fears God… 22

A peasant is honored because of his insight while a rich person is honored because of his wealth. 31 Honored in his poverty, how much more in his wealth! dishonored in his wealth, how much more in his poverty! 11:1 The wisdom of a peasant raises his head and makes him sit among nobles 30

4

5 6

Do not mock someone who is clothed in a loincloth and do not make fun of someone’s bitter day For the works of the LORD are extraordinary and his actions are hidden from humans. Many downtrodden have sat on a throne and those no one expected have worn a crown Many exalted have been greatly disgraced and those who are honored have been delivered up

One can work, toil, and hurry and still fall behind all the same 12 Another walks around crushed and perishing, lacking strength and abounding in weakness But the eye of the LORD looks on him kindly and he shakes him out of the putrid dirt. 13 He raises his head and exalts him such that many are astounded at him 11

My son, stand fast in your duty and engage yourself with it and in your work grow old 21 Do not marvel over the actions of a sinner rise early for the LORD and wait for his light For it is easy in the sight of the LORD to enrich a poor person suddenly, in an instant. 22 The blessing of God is the lot of the righteous and in due time his hope will bear fruit 20

A day’s prosperity makes one forget misfortune and a day’s misfortune makes one forget prosperity. 26 For it is easy in the sight of the LORD on the day of death to repay someone according to his conduct. 27 A time of misfortune makes one forget luxury 25

Sirach 12:1-6

28

313

and the end of a person reveals things about him Before death call no one blessed by his end a person is known


$tbwjl hwqt yhyw yyym wnmm al ~a hX[ al hqdc ~gw $yla lybqy ~b hml wyla [ygt hbwj lkb ~qn byXy ~y[Xrlw dzl !tt law $m ryqh

byjt yml [d byjyt ~a 1 tmwlXt acmw qydcl bjyh 2 [Xr xynml hbwj !ya 3 wl !tt la ~xl ylk 5b-c gyXt h[r ~ynX yp 5d-e ~y[r anwX la ~g yk 6 [rm [nmw bwjl !t 4-5a

Textual Notes [12:1a] Manuscript A is corrupt: byjt yml [ydt bwj ~a (so Beentjes; Segal reads [yrt instead of [ydt, perhaps under the influence of the Syriac’s reading of )$YBL). In light of the Greek’s eva.n eu= poih/|j gnw/qi ti,ni poiei/j, most commentators, with small variations, emend the line to byjt yml [d byjyt ~a.45 [12:3a] Manuscript A has xwnml, which Schechter & Taylor take to be from a lost verb xnm (“to bestow”). The Greek’s evndeleci,zonti and the frequent orthographic confusion of w and y in the Genizah manuscripts suggest emending to xynml (so Smend).46 [12:4-6 (7)] The manuscripts show confusion in the order of these verses. Assuming the Greek numbering, the order in the Hebrew and (apparently) the Syriac is 5d, 5e, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 4/7, 5a. There is a duplication in the Greek such that v. 4 = v. 7 and all are agreed that one of these should be deleted and that 5a should follow the remaining stich. While Sauer and Segal follow the order in manuscript A,47 most other commentators hold that 5b-c conceptually belong before 5d-e, such that the Greek order of these four stichs must be correct. Therefore, if we

45 46

47

Cf. SKEHAN, Didache 1,6 and Sirach 12,1, 533-536; SMEND, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach erklärt, 114. SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 47; SMEND, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach erklärt, 115. On this orthographic confusion in the manuscripts see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 97-101. SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 114; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 74, 78.

314


accept the Greek order of the six stichs in 5b-6b, the only remaining question is whether 4/7 + 5a go before this block (as in the Greek, deleting v. 7) or after this block (as in the Hebrew and Syriac). Peters opts for the former, arguing that vv. 4-5a dropped out because of the similarity between v. 3a and v. 4 and was later reinserted at the end of the pericope (so also Skehan).48 Box & Oesterley, Smend, and Snaith opt for the latter (so also, by implication, Sauer and Segal). Given the confusion in the Greek over vv. 4/7, I am also inclined to place 4/7 + 5a at the end of the pericope. On this approach both the Hebrew and the Greek have suffered from a transposition of one line, assuming a colometric text.49 [12:5b] The phrase ~xl ylk should be read as ~x,l' ylk as reflected in the Syriac’s kNYz yN)M (for the rare word ~x,l', cf. Judg 5:8). This makes better sense of v. 5c than the Greek’s evmpo,dison tou.j a;rtouj auvtou/, which understands ~xl as ~x,l, and probably reflects a substitution of alk (“withhold”) for ylk.50 [12:5d] Hebrew and Syriac have a gloss at the end: $rwc t[b. Translation 1 2 3 5b 5c 5d

5e 6 4 5a

48 49 50

If you do good, know to whom you do good and there will be hope for your good deeds Do good to the righteous and find reward if not from him, then from YHWH Nothing good (comes) to the one who comforts the wicked nor is it an act of charity that he does Weapons of war do not give to him lest he use them against you You will encounter double the evil for every good deed you do for him For God also hates sinners and to the wicked he will pay back vengeance Give to the good and withhold from the sinner refresh the downtrodden but do not give to the arrogant

PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 104-106; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 242, 246. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 359; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 35; SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 64. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 78.

Sirach 13:2-23

315

5. Sirach 13:2-23 Text

rbxtt hm $mm ryX[ law rbXn awhw wb Xqwn awh rXa !nxty awh hw[n ld l[w $yl[ lmxy [rkt ~aw wl baky alw $XXryw $xyjbhw $l qxwXw [

]

$c[ry XlX ~ym[p $yla [yny wXarbw [dm yrysxb hmdt law $Xygy !k ydkw anXt !p qxrtt law wxyX brl !mat law $rqxw $l qxXw rXq rXwq ~ybr Xpn l[ smx yXna ~[ $lht law wl hmwdh ta ~da lkw ~da rbwxy wnym law qydcl [Xr !k Xr la ryX[ ~wlX !yam ~yld ryX[ ty[rm !k !wyba ryX[ tb[wtw [rm hxdn jwmn ldw !ypwhm !yr[wkm wyrbdw ~wqm wl !yaw lykXm rbdw w[ygy b[ d[ wlkX taw whwpdhy ~h ~g lqtn ~aw

aXt hm $mm dbk 2 rys la rwrp rbxty hm hwnty awh hw[y ryX[ 3 $b db[y wl rXkt ~a 4 $m[ hyxy $lX ~a 5 $l [yXhw $m[ wl $rwc 6-7a [ ] $m[ wyrbd byjyy $b lthy ly[wy rXa d[ 7b-e $b rb[thw $ary !kbw dam bhrt la rmXh 8 qwxr hyh bydn brq 9 qxrtt !p brqtt la 10 wm[ Xpxl xjbt la 11 $ysny xyX brb yk lmxy alw lXwm !ty yrzka 12 ryhz hyhw rmXh 13 wnym bhay rXbh lk wlca rXb lk !ym Xbk la baz rbwxy hm blk la [wbc ~wlX Xy hm rbdm yarp yra lkam hwn[ hwag tb[wt [rm $msn jwmn ryX[ ~ybr wyrz[w rbdm ryX[ waXy [g [g rbdm ld wtksn lkh rbwd ryX[ wrmay hz ym rbwd ld

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Textual Notes [13:3a] Manuscript A’s reading of hn[y is commonly emended to hw[y. Although hn[ could fit the context in the sense of “oppress,” Baldauf points out that there are no cases in the rest of the LXX where hn[

316


is rendered by adikew, but that the latter often translates hw[. Confusion between n and w in the transmission process would not be surprising.51 [13:4b] Literally, [rk has the sense of stooping down or bending the knee. Box & Oesterley translate it as “if thou be brought low,” which moves in the direction of the Syriac rendering nKSMtt. However, in the context of the first stich the idea is probably almost literal in the sense of someone who has been working strenuously and becomes so tired that he drops to his knees. Thus, I find the translation “you are exhausted” by Skehan to be a good approximation of the meaning here. The second half of this stich is problematic. Manuscript A reads lmxy $yl[, which does not fit the context if the common meaning of lmx as “have compassion” is in view. The Greek has katalei,yei se (“he will abandon you”) and the Syriac has kQB$N. Segal cites Ginzberg as interpreting lmx as “load a weight” (as in Aramaic and Arabic; similarly, Peters) but finds this possibility too remote. Rather, he suggests that al has dropped out accidentally and should be restored. But another possibility is that lmx is being used in the more prosaic sense of “to spare, leave aside,” as in 2 Sam 12:4.6 and Jer 50:14. Smend captures it well: “$yl[ lmxy kann auch bedeuten: er spart dich, d. h. aber vielleicht: er verzichtet auf dich, lässt dich links liegen, so dass Gr. den Sinn träfe.”52 [13:5-7] The majority of commentators recognize that there is some textual corruption in vv. 5-7 but still retain the basic order found in the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac. However, Skehan & Di Lella argue that, “the various sources here show textual confusion, already present in the Gr; Syr and MS A are weaker witnesses here.” It is the agreement of all the versions that leads them to conclude that the passage has been rearranged prior to the Greek translation. In other words, their conclusion must have been based solely on the content of the verses. They give no argument in favor of their rearrangement, which orders the verses as 5a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 6a, 7b, 5b, 7d, 7e, 7c, nor do they offer an explanation for how the passage could have become so confused so early. Whether the text was colometric or continuous, such textual disorder would require numerous accidents. Rather, Skehan & Di Lella seem to have grouped the stichs such that the first four all concern the false friendship of the rich and the last six concern his betrayal. While the regrouping of the first four stichs follows their relative textual order (5a, 6b, 6c, 7a), the last six do not (6a, 7b, 5b, 7d, 7e, 7c). But given the

51 52

BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 58. See BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 362; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 114; SEGAL, !b rps ~lXh arys, 83, SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 249; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 122.

Sirach 13:2-23

317

textual state of the evidence and the extreme amount of corruption necessary to get from their reconstructed order to the extant state of the textual evidence, this option must be judged unlikely if the extant order of the verses can be understood intelligibly. In fact, it is unnecessary to regroup the verses since the pattern of false friendship followed by betrayal can be understood as an intentional reiteration. It is possible to understand 5a-b as giving the basic principle, which is then followed by a fuller explanation whereby 6a-7c flesh out 5a and 7d-e flesh out 5b (7b-c could be placed with either section, depending if one follows the Hebrew version or the Greek version of these stichs). For this reason, I retain the order of the versions along with most other commentators.53 [13:5a] Manuscript A has $m[ wyrbd byjyy $lX ~a. Based on the Greek, $m[ hyxy $lX ~a is probably original and $m[ wyrbd byjyy seems to have stood originally at v. 6c.54 [13:6c-7a] These stichs are missing in the Hebrew and the translation is based on the Greek. The second part of the first stich is deleted by Box & Oesterley as an explanatory doublet; but it is retained by Skehan & Di Lella and Smend. Based on the similarity to 6a, Segal reconstructs the Greek’s Vorlage of the rest of this stich as $l $rc hm rmayw. I also think the rest of the stich should be retained because of the conjunctive pattern in the previous two stichs.55 [13:7b-c] The Greek and the Hebrew have these stichs in different orders. I have followed the Hebrew order, along with Box & Oesterley, Peters, and Smend (contra Skehan & Di Lella).56 [13:7c] Manuscript A has $cyr[y, but I follow Kister who argues that this is a corruption of $c[ry. He notes that the interchange of gutturals is common in the Cairo Genizah manuscripts and that the semantic range of the root #[r accounts well for the Greek’s avpokenw,sh| se and the Syriac’s kYL( n$(tN. 57 h [13:11c] Manuscript A has !wysn wxyX twbr m yk, but the text found in Sa‘adya suggests emending this stich to $twa hsnm xyX brb yk. Box & Oesterley, however, emend wxyX twbrhm to xyX brb in light of Sa‘adya and judge the w at the end of wxyX to have been accidentally misplaced 53 54 55

56

57

Cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 249, 251. See BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 362; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 83. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 362; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 115; SEGAL, arys-!b rps ~lXh, 84; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 249; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 22. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 362; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 111; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 249, 251; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 123124. KISTER, arys-!b rps lX wXwrypl, 325.

318


from a y at the beginning of the following word, thus $ysny (also correcting !w to $ in conformity with the Greek). Box & Oesterley’s reconstruction is closer to the Greek text and keeps 11c and 11d to a comparable length and is therefore accepted here.58 [13:12a] As Schechter & Taylor and Smend point out, in manuscript A lXwm would be understood as the subject and this is reflected in my translation of the stich.59 [13:12a-b] The witnesses show some confusion between the end of the first stich and the second stich. It seems to me that since the Latin provides an echo of ~ybr Xpn l[, it is likely original. In Ziegler’s edition v. 12b reflects a reading where this phrase is missing, i.e. one roughly equivalent to rXq rXwq + lmxy alw (“he will not spare oppression or chains”). For this reason, I follow the reading found in manuscript A (rXq rXwq ~ybr Xpn l[ // lmxy alw lXwm !ty yrzka). Cf. the translations in Peters: “Der Tyrann erhebt Spottrede und schont nicht, gegen () viele spinnt er Ränke;” and Smend: “Grausamkeit übt der Tyrann und kennt kein Erbarmen, gegen das Leben Vieler frevelt er.” A completely different interpretation of the v. 12b is offered by Mark Smith, who translates it as “on the neck of many he will tie a knot (noose).”60 [13:14] This secondary verse is found in G II. [13:18a] One should read Xy hm instead of manuscript A’s Xyam. [13:21a] At the end of this stich the Hebrew has [r la [rm. The Syriac, although misunderstanding [;re to be [r; throughout the verse, supports the Hebrew’s reading with 4YBL 4YB nM. The Greek, however, has only u`po. fi,lwn here, as at the end of the first stich (both plural). The additional [r la in manuscript A is retained by Baldauf and Corley, but deleted by Box & Oesterley, Skehan, and Smend. I also delete it to preserve the symmetry between 21a and 21b.61 [13:22] The coordination of the initial concepts of the four stichs of v. 22, whether expressed as verbs or nouns, creates a problem. In the Hebrew they involve “speaking,” “speaking,” “stumbling,” and

58 59 60 61

BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 363. Sa‘adya’s text is cited in COWLEY/NEUBAUER, Ecclesiasticus, xxii. SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 49; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 125. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 111; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 22. SMITH, Grammatically Speaking, 313. BALDAUF, Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira, 57; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 365; CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 118-119; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 250-251; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 127; id., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, 16.

Sirach 13:2-23

319

“speaking.” In the Greek they are “stumbling,” “speaking,” “stumbling,” and “speaking.” And in the Syriac they all involve “speaking.” Thus, clearly the idea of “speaking” is original in stichs 2 and 4. Because of the conceptual parallel, the verbs in stichs 1 and 3 must be equivalent and therefore one must choose between the understandings of the Greek (“stumbling”) and the Syriac (“speaking”). There is near universal consensus that the Syriac reading is to be preferred (it makes better sense of the context; stich 3 is particularly awkward in the Hebrew) and that jwmn in the Hebrew is probably an intrusion from v. 21. It is likely that it entered the text before G I and that the Greek translator saw the discrepancy between stichs 1 and 3 and chose to “correct” the first stich. Therefore, in light of the first stich, jwmn in this stich is emended to rbdm. Translation Do not lift what is too heavy for you and do not associate with someone wealthier than you How can a clay pot associate with a kettle since if the latter strikes the former it will be smashed? 3 The rich person does wrong and brags about it but a peasant is wronged and begs for mercy 4 If you are useful to him he will work with you but if you are exhausted he will discard you 5 If you have (anything) he will live with you he will impoverish you and it will not grieve him 6 When he needs something from you he will flatter you he will smile at you and gain your trust He will speak kindly to you and ask, “What do you need?” 7 he will embarrass you with his delicacies As long as he profits he will trifle with you62 two or three times he will grind you down But later he will see you and pass by you and shake his head at you 8 Watch out not to be overly confident and do not be ruined with those who lack insight 9 When an influential person approaches, keep your distance and then he will beckon you even more 10 Do not be too forward lest you be rejected and do not be too removed lest you be detested 11 Do not have confidence that you can interact with him as an equal63 2

62 63

For the durative aspect see VAN PEURSEN, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 111. Literally, “that you can deal freely with him” (wm[ Xpxl). The Greek glosses the Hebrew similarly (ivshgorei/sqai).

320


12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23

and do not trust his lengthy conversation For by his lengthy conversation he is testing you and while smiling at you he is examining you One with power deals cruelly and does not show pity against the life of many he devises schemes Watch out and be careful that you do not walk with violent men Every creature loves its own kind and every person, someone like himself Every living thing is near its own kind and a person will associate with his own kind How can a wolf be associated with a lamb? likewise, the wicked and the righteous What peace does a hyena have with a dog? how can a rich person be at peace with a pauper? Wild asses of the wilderness are food for a lion so also the peasants are the feeding grounds of a rich person Humility is an abomination to pride and a needy person is an abomination to a rich person When the rich person stumbles he is supported by a friend but when a peasant stumbles he is cast out by a friend A rich person speaks and his helpers are numerous and although his words are detestable they are reckoned as lovely. A peasant speaks and they say “Boo! Boo!” and he speaks with insight but there is no place for him When a rich person speaks everyone keeps quiet and his reasoning they exalt up to the clouds When a peasant speaks they say “Who is this?” and if he stumbles they even push him down

6. Sirach 18:15-18 The Critical Greek Text te,knon evn avgaqoi/j mh. dw/|j mw/mon kai. evn pa,sh| do,sei lu,phn lo,gwn 16 ouvci. kau,swna avnapau,sei dro,soj ou[twj krei,sswn lo,goj h' do,sij 17 ouvk ivdou. lo,goj u`pe.r do,ma avgaqo,n kai. avmfo,tera para. avndri. kecaritwme,nw| 18 mwro.j avcari,stwj ovneidiei/ kai. do,sij baska,nou evkth,kei ovfqalmou,j 15

Sirach 18:15-18

321

Textual Notes [18:15] The Syriac has )LKt )L hrBXL b)+Md nML yrB for the first stich, which may reflect the influence of Prov 3:27.64 The Greek appears to be a very literal translation and likely reflects the Hebrew hbwjb ynb ~wm !tt la.65 The similar combination of !tn + ~wm + -b (and Greek equivalencies) in Sir 33:23; 44:19; and 47:20 suggests that the intended sense is that of bringing a blemish upon the object marked with the preposition b, i.e. “do not bring a blemish on your good deeds” (so Box & Oesterley).66 On the other hand, reading the stich as regarding a reproach given along with the good deeds (e.g. NRSV and Skehan)67 seems to be suggested by the elliptical phrasing of the second stich. There, evn pa,sh| do,sei parallels evn avgaqoi/j and lu,phn lo,gwn parallels mw/mon, requiring the transfer of mh. dw/|j as the verbal component. In v. 15b the idea must be the giving of harsh words along with a gift. I am inclined to agree with Box & Oesterley in light of the consistency of the parallel phrasing elsewhere in Sirach. The implied use of mh. dw/|j in the second stich would therefore carry the meaning “bring about, induce.” [18:16a] The Greek renders this stich as a rhetorical question. The Syriac reads it as an indicative comparative )Bw$ l+BMd rYG )r+M kY) (“Just as rain abates the scorching heat”), as in the following verse. Both are understandable if the Hebrew read alh, though this reconstruction would seem slightly to favor the Greek rendering.68 However, both give the same sense. It is worth noting that the rhetorical question in the Greek is similar to the phrasing in 43:22, the only other place where drosoj appears in Sirach. [18:16b-17a] The Greek reads: “so a word is better than a gift // Indeed, is not a word superior to a good gift?” The Syriac has: )tBhwM )KPhM )tLM )NKh yh )B+ )tBhwM nMd )tB+ )tLM rYG tY)

So a word transforms the gift for there is a good word that is better than a gift

For the first stich, it is likely that there has been confusion between byXm and byjym at some point in the transmission of the text, but the direction of confusion could go either way. Peters and Segal follow the Greek,

64 65 66 67 68

SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 111. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 110; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 166. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 379. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 287. Cf. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 111; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 166.

322


while Box & Oesterley and Skehan follow the Syriac.69 Smend points out that, “Uebrigens ist im Gr. der Gleichklang vom b mit 17a verdächtig.”70 The Greek of these two stichs does appear suspiciously repetitive and it is not clear how v. 16b would relate to v. 16a. In contrast, the Syriac makes much better sense of the comparison in v. 16a. Therefore, I follow the Syriac for v. 16b. For v. 17a, the Syriac again makes better sense. There is nothing inherently superior about “a word” to a “good gift,” but the notion that “a good word” is better than a gift follows the logic of the passage. [18:18a] The Syriac has )twBY+ dB( )L d( dSXM rYG )LKS (“a fool insults while not doing a good deed”), which makes little sense in this context. Behind the phrase )twBY+ dB( )l d(is probably the Hebrew hbwj alb (so Smend and Segal), which can be understood as corresponding to avcari,stwj. The Greek is followed by Box & Oesterley, Peters, and Segal, while an emended form of the Syriac (deletion of )L) seems to be reflected in Skehan & Di Lella.71 It appears to me that the Syriac is more understandable as a misreading of a text similar to what is reflected in the Greek. The Syriac’s misreading was probably influenced by the following stich. [18:18b] Where the Greek has baska,nou, the Syriac has )(Y$rd. The only other places in Sirach where ba,skanoj is found are in 14:3 and 37:11. This suggests that the underlying Hebrew was !y[ [r, which the Syriac apparently confused with [Xr.72 Thus, the Greek’s genitive construction, do,sij baska,nou, should probably be taken as a genitive of possession (e.g. Sauer: “die Gabe eines Neidischen”; so also Box & Oesterley and Peters) rather than as an attributive genitive (e.g. Skehan: “a grudging gift”).73 Regarding the verb of this stich, the Syriac’s )KYtM probably represents a confusion of alk for hlk (= evkth,kei).74

69

70 71

72 73 74

PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 151; SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 110-111; BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 380; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 287. Although Skehan labels his translation as from the Greek, he translates the stich as “so does a word transform a gift,” which is closer to the Syriac. SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 166. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 380; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 151; SEGAL, arys-!b rps ~lXh, 110-111; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 287. Again, although Skehan labels his translation as from the Greek, he translates the stich as “Only a fool upbraids before giving,” which appears to be closer to the Syriac. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 111; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 167. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 380; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 151; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 148; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 287. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 111; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 167.

323

Sirach 31:1-11

Translation My son, do not bring a blemish upon your good deeds and with any gift (do not bring about) grief through words 16 Does not rain abate the scorching heat? so a word transforms a gift 17 For there is a good word that is better than a gift and both (are found) in a gracious person 18 A fool insults ungraciously and the gift of a miser dims the eyes 15


hmwn [yrpt hyxm tgad hmwn [yrpt qzx ylxmw Xpnk bhwa dws rytsmw gwn[t lbql xwny ~aw $yrc hyhy xwny ~aw hgXy wb ryxm @dwrw ~ynynp l[ xjwbhw wb Xqwy htwp lkw zwln al !wmm rxaw [ ]m[b twX[l aylph yk hrapt wl hyhw ~wlXwl hyhw

wraX hxmy ryX[ dqX hmwn gyrpt hyxm tgad hprx dynt !man [r !wh lbql ryX[ ylm[ wtyb rsxl yn[ [gy hqny al #wrx bhwa bhz ylwbx wyh ~ybr lywal awh hlqt yk ~ymt acmn ryX[ yrXa wnrXanw hz awh ym wb qbdnX hz awh ym

l[ ]sy wtlhtw

wbwj qzx !k l[

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Textual Notes [31:1-2] The text criticism of 31:1-2 is problematic, especially concerning whether vv. 1b-2a should be considered original. All four stichs are present, in some form, in the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac, but Skehan thinks vv. 1b-2a are not original and must have entered the text very early, before the Greek translation. He seems to base this on the similarity of 31:1b to 42:9b and the tautological nature of 31:2a in the Greek. These two stich are accepted, though, by Box & Oesterley, Peters, Sauer, and others, and I am inclined to accept them as well. Regardless, for our purposes the basic notion being communicated comes through, even if the exact textual state of the verses is confused. The comparative “more than a grave illness” is based on manuscript B’s qzx ylxmw. It is not present in the Greek or the Syriac, but is accepted

324


here in order to make sense of the stich (otherwise 31:2b would seem to have nothing to do with 31:1a-2a.3a; similarly, Skehan and Sauer).75 [31:4] This verse is represented in two forms in manuscript B. The first two stichs appear to be the better text, so also Box & Oesterley and Skehan & Di Lella; contra Smend, who thinks the third stich and the second stich constitute the original form of the verse.76 [31:5b] Comparison with the Greek and the Syriac reveals that in manuscript B the verbs bhwa and @dwr have been transposed. [31:6b] Following this stich there are additional stichs in manuscript B which are based on a retroversion of a gloss in the Syriac. The two stichs in the Syriac read, “and they [= the goods on which they rely, v. 6b] were not able to deliver them from calamity // nor to save them on the day of their death (nwhcQ).” It is notable that the thought of the gloss is somewhat similar to Prov 11:4 and Sir 29:12-13 (cf. 3:31). Given that by this time hqdc had the meaning “almsgiving,” it is likely that Prov 11:4, which places in parallel ‘wealth’ that does not save with hqdc that does, would have been read as a verse about the benefits of almsgiving (cf. Sir 29:12-13; and below, §5.2). This seems to be reflected in the Syriac gloss on Sir 31:6.77 [31:8a] It is best to read ryX[ with the Greek and the Syriac, rather than Xya in manuscript B. As Segal notes, Xya in manuscript B may have arisen under the influence of Ps 1:1 (cf. Ps 112:1).78 [31:10] My translation of this verse derives from the Greek: ti,j evdokima,sqh evn auvtw/| kai. evteleiw,qh kai. e;stai auvtw/| eivj kau,chsin. The Hebrew in manuscript B shows a great deal of confusion:79

traptl $l hyha traptl $l ayh [ ]a alw h[r [rhlw

75

76 77

78 79

wyyx ~wlXtwbrb yk wyyx ~lXyw wkrb ym rs alw rwsl lkwy ym

PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 246, 251-252; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 219; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 378-380; For other text-critical issues in vv. 1-2 which do not greatly affect our purpose here, see BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 417; and SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 272-274. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 417; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 380; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 274. See KEARNS, The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus, 59-60; HURVITZ, tyarqmh ~tyXar ‘hqdc’h gXwm lX wtxymc twdlwtl - ~yydwmlt ~yxnwm lX, 158-159; cf. ANDERSON, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms, 48-49. SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 191. See the helpful discussion in VAN PEURSEN, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 139-141; cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 418-419; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 276.

Sirach 31:1-11

325

[31:11b] Manuscript B has wtlhtw. Notably, the Greek has ta.j evlehmosu,naj auvtou/, “his acts of charity.” Even if this is a gloss (and wtqdc was not in the Greek’s Vorlage), the notion that the “righteous rich” would have been renowned for his almsgiving is completely consistent with Ben Sira’s thought elsewhere. For example, in 40:17 he declares that “almsgiving (hqdc || evlehmosu,nh) endures forever.” That hqdc in 40:17 (cf. 17:22) should be understood specifically as “almsgiving,” as in the Greek translation, rather than the more general “righteousness,” is likely given the context in 40:11-17 and that this stich shows a remarkable correlation to Ps 112:3.9, a psalm in which the use of hqdc was evidently understood to be ‘almsgiving’ at a very early time (see the discussion in §5.2). Indeed, for Ben Sira, those who are rich and ungenerous are ipso facto culpable (cf. Sir 7:10; 12:3; 29:8; 34:25). Translation Sleeplessness over wealth degenerates the flesh and worrying about it drives away sleep 2 Anxiety over sustenance prevents slumber more than a grave illness reduces sleep 3 The rich person labors to collect wealth and if he rests it is to indulge in pleasure 4 The poor person works for the necessities of his household and if he rests he becomes needy 5 The one who loves gold will not be innocent and the one who pursues profit will be led astray by it 6 There are many who have bound themselves over to gold and placed their trust in rubies 7 For it is a stumbling-block for the foolish and whoever is simple-minded will be ensnared by it 8 Blessed is the rich person who is found blameless who does not go astray in seeking mammon 9 Who is he that we may praise him? for he has acted marvelously among his people 10 Who has been tested by it and proven perfect? let it be a source of glory for him 11 Therefore his property is secure and the assembly will declare his praises 1

326


8. Sirach 35:1-5 The Critical Greek Text 1 2 3 4 5

o` sunthrw/n no,mon pleona,zei prosfora,j qusia,zwn swthri,ou o` prose,cwn evntolai/j avntapodidou.j ca,rin prosfe,rwn semi,dalin kai. o` poiw/n evlehmosu,nhn qusia,zwn aivne,sewj euvdoki,a kuri,ou avposth/nai avpo. ponhri,aj kai. evxilasmo.j avposth/nai avpo. avdiki,aj

Textual Notes As previous scholars have frequently observed, the Syriac of Sir 35:1-13 shows signs of substantial reworking in light of theological concerns, including the introduction of references to the Syriac New Testament. As Skehan observes, “Syr redirects the language centered on temple sacrifices and tithes in such a way as to make almsgiving (with prayer and observance of divine Law, vv 1-7) the avenue for offerings to God.”80 Furthermore, while the Hebrew is absent for 35:1-10, the basic agreement between the Hebrew and the Greek for vv. 11-13 suggests that the Greek more closely reflects the original text.81 [35:1] Where the Greek has pleona,zei prosfora,j (“multiplies offerings”), the Syriac has )NXLwP tYGS) (“increased [religious] service”). Most commentators opt for the Greek reading (e.g. Box & Oesterley, Peters, and Sauer), but Skehan argues in favor of the singular reading in the Syriac.82 He notes that the Latin tradition gives evidence of both and he concludes that vv. 2-4 require the singular, though it is not clear to me why Ben Sira could not have shifted from a plural to a singular. I do not think it is possible to draw a firm conclusion on the original Hebrew form of the end of v. 1. [35:2] The Syriac has hXwrL hYBw+ )NdQwP r+Ndw (“he who keeps the commandment – blessed is his spirit”). [35:3] The Syriac has )NBrwQ brQMd nM )B+ )LBwX )Mr (“he who makes an offering amasses a good reward” [or even, “earns good interest”]).The Greek’s avntapodidou.j ca,rin (literally, “he who repays kindness”) is very close to the phrasing of Sir 3:31 where the underlying 80 81 82

SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 414; cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 436-437. See WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 238-240; cf. VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 79-81, 87. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 437; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 284; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 244; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 414. Segal reconstructs !brq hbrm, but comments, “~ymlX yxbzw twnbrq hbrh dgnk hlwqX twwcmhw hrwth trymX” (~lXh arys-!b rps, 219, 222).

Sirach 35:1-5

327

Hebrew is bwj l[wp.83 In 3:31; 17:22; and in 35:3, ca,rij is in parallel to evlehmosu,nh, suggesting that it has the sense of charity. Thus, in light of 3:31 I have glossed avntapodidou.j ca,rin as “the one who does an act of charity.”84 [35:4] The Syriac has )SwMN r+N )twQdz dB(d (“he who gives alms keeps the Law”). Segal and Winter think it is an intentional alteration, but van Peursen points out that the Syriac version could have arisen as a scribal error since hdwt could be misread as hrwt.85 In the case of the latter, one would have to suppose that xbwz was subsequently altered to rmwX (or equivalent) as an intentional attempt to “correct” the incoherent idea of “sacrificing the law.” Regardless, the Greek is doubtless the correct reading. [35:5b] The Syriac has )NSd dB(t )Ld kLYX yLKw (“and restrain your strength from doing what is abhorrent”). Translation 1 2 3 4 5

83 84 85

He who keeps the Law multiplies offerings. he who keeps the commandments offers a sacrifice of well-being The one who does an act of charity offers fine flour and the one who gives alms sacrifices an offering of thanksgiving To refrain from evil is pleasing to the Lord and to refrain from injustice is an atonement

Stadelmann reconstructs dsx lmwg (Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 96). Cf. BOX/OESTERLEY, Sirach, 437. Similarly, Box & Oesterley (Sirach, 437) translate it as “he that practiseth kindness” and Skehan (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 411) translates it as “In works of charity.” SEGAL, ~lXh arys-!b rps, 219; WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 494; VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 87.

Bibliography ADAMS, Samuel L., Wisdom in Transition. Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions (JSJSup 125), Leiden 2008. ADLER, Elkan Nathan, “Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira,” in: JQR 12 (1900) 466-480. AITKEN, James K, “Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto. Ben Sira in his Seleucid Setting,” in JJS 51 (2000) 191-208. AITKEN, James K, “The God of the pre-Maccabees. Designations of the Divine in the early Hellenistic period,” in: GORDON, Robert P. (ed.), The God of Israel (UCOP 64), Cambridge 2007, 246-266. AITKEN, James K. “Hebrew Study in Ben Sira’s Beth Midrash,” in: Horbury, William (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999, 27-37. ALBERTZ, Rainer, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II. From the Exile to the Maccabees (OTL), Louisville 1994 (transl. of id., Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, Göttingen 1992). ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Luis, Proverbios y Eclesiastico (Los libros sagrados), Madrid 1968. ANDERSON, Gary A., Sin. A History, New Haven 2009. ANDERSON, Gary A., “From Israel’s Burden to Israel’s Debt. Towards a Theology of Sin in Biblical and Early Second Temple Sources,” in: CHAZON, Esther G./DIMANT, Devorah/CLEMENTS, Ruth A. (eds.), Reworking the Bible. Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15-17 January, 2002 (STDJ 58) Leiden 2005, 1-30. ANDERSON, Gary A., “Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms. Sin, Debt, and the ‘Treasury of Merit’ in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition,” in: Letter & Spirit 3 (2007) 37-67. ANDERSON, Gary A., A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance. The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion, University Park, Penn. 1991. ANDRZEJ, K. “La hqdc che espia I peccati. Studio esegetico di Sir 3,1-4,10.“ Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996. APERGHIS, Makis, “Population – Production – Taxation – Coinage. A Model for the Seleukid Economy,” in: ARCHIBALD, Zofia H., et al., Hellenistic Economies, London 2001, 69-102. APERGHIS, Makis, The Seleukid Royal Economy. The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge 2004.

Bibliography

329

ARGALL, Randal A., 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment (SBLEJL 8), Atlanta 1995. BACKHAUS, F. J., “Qohelet und Sirach,” in: BN 69 (1993) 32-55. BAESENS, Viviane, “Royal Taxation and Religious Tribute in Hellenistic Palestine,” in: BANG, Peter F./IKEGUCHI, Mamoru/ZICHE, Hartmut G., Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies. Archaeology, comparative history, models and institutions, Bari 2006, 179-199. BAILLET, M./MILIK, J. T./DE VAUX, R., Les “petites grottes” de Qumran (DJD 3), Oxford 1962. BAKER, David W., “Ophir (place),” in: ABD 5, New York 1992, 26-27. BALDAUF, Borghild, “Arme und Armut im Buch Ben Sira. Eine philologischexegetische Untersuchung,” M.Th. diss., University of Salzburg, 1983. BARTHÉLEMY, D./ RICKENBACHER, O., Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach, mit syrisch-hebräischem Index, Göttingen 1973. BARTON, John, “Imitation of God in the Old Testament,” in: GORDON, Robert P. (ed.), The God of Israel (UCOP 64), Cambridge 2007, 35-46. BASNOR, Assnat, “The Representation of Speech in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch. The Phenomenon of Combined Discourse,” in: JBL 126 (2007) 231-249. BAUMGARTNER, W., “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach,” in: ZAW 34 (1914) 161-198. 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 78), Leiden 1997. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira. A Semantical and Exegetical Investigation,” in: CALDUCH-BENAGES, N./VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and The Book of Wisdom, Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL 143), Leuven 1999, 75-89. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “‘Ein Mensch ohne Freund ist wie eine linke Hand ohne die Recht’. Prolegomena zur Kommenteirung der Freundschaftsperikope Sir 6,5-17,” in: REITERER, Friedrich V. (ed.), Freundschaft bei Ben Sira. Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira Salzburg 1995 (BZAW 244), Berlin 1996, 1-18. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “Errata et Corrigenda,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College, 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 375-377. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “‘How Can a Jug Be Friends with a Kettle?’ A Note on the Structure of Ben Sira Chapter 13,” in: BZ 36 (1992) 87-93. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar en een classifcatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6-26, Nieuwegein 1981. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “Recent Publications on the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus),” in: Bijdr 43 (1982) 188-198.

330

Bibliography

BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “‘Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater und den Witwen wie ein Gatte’. Ein kleiner Kommentar zu Ben Sira 4,1-10,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate/KRAMMER, Ingrid (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 51-64. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research,” in: id., “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43), Leuven 2006, 3-16. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in: LAATO, Antti/DE MOOR, Johannes C. (eds.), Theodicy in the World of the Bible, Leiden 2003, 509-524. BEN-DOV, Jonathan, “The Poor’s Curse. Exodus XXII 20-26 and Curse Literature in the Ancient World,” in: VT 56 (2006) 431-451. BEN-ḤAYYIM, Z. (ed.) The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973. BENOIT, P., et al, Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât (DJD 2), Oxford 1961. BERGSMA, John Sietze, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran. A History of Interpretation (VTSup 115), Leiden 2007. BERLIN, Adele, Lamentations. A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 2002. BIBB, Bryan D, “The Prophetic Critique of Ritual in Old Testament Theology,” in: GRABBE, Lester L./BELLIS, Alice Ogden (eds.), The Priests in the Prophets. The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (JSOTSup 408), London 2004, 31-43. BICKERMAN, Elias J., The Jews in the Greek Age, Cambridge 1988. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Isaiah 40-55. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19A), New York 2002. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL), New York 1992. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Sage, Priest, Prophet. Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel), Louisville 1995. BOCCACCINI, Gabriele, Middle Judaism. Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E., Minneapolis 1991. BOLKESTEIN, Hendrik, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum. Ein Beitrag zum Problem “Moral und Gesellschaft,” Utrecht 1939. BONSIRVEN, Joseph, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ, New York 1964 (transl. of id., Le judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ, Paris 1934). BOX, G. H./OESTERLEY, W. O. E., “The Book of Sirach,” in: CHARLES, R. H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, Vol. 1, Oxford 1913, 268-517. BRAUDE, William G., The Midrash on Psalms. 2 volumes (Yale Judaica Series), New Haven 1959. BRIGHT, John, A History of Israel, Louisville 42000 (1959). BROOKS, Roger, Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture. Tractate Peah (BJS 43), Chico 1983.

Bibliography

331

BÜCHLER, A., “Ben Sira’s Conception of Sin and Atonement,” in: JQR 14 (1923) 53-83. BULTMANN, Rudolph, “evlehmosu,nh,” in: TDNT 2, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1964, 485487. BURKE, Kenneth, A Grammar of Motives, New York 1945. BURKES, Shannon, God, Self, and Death. The Shape of Religious Transformation in the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 79), Leiden 2003. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria, “Fear for the Powerful or Respect for Authority?” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate/KRAMMER, Ingrid (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 87-102. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria, “Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira with Special Reference to Sir 2,1-6,” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 135-51. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria/FERRER, Joan/LIESEN, Jan, La Sabiduría del Escriba. Edición diplomática de la version siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa // 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, Estella 2003. CAMP, Claudia V., “Honor and Shame in Ben Sira: Anthropological and Theological Reflections,” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 2831 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 171-187. CHANEY, Marvin L., “Debt Easement in Israelite History and Tradition,” in: JOBLING, David/DAY, Peggy L./SHEPPARD, Gerald T. (eds.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Cleveland 1991, 127-139. CHAPMAN, Stephen B., “Reading the Bible as Witness: Divine Retribution in the Old Testament,” in: PRSt 31 (2004) 171-190. CHARLESWORTH, James H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 volumes (ABRL), New York 1983-1985. CHILDS, Brevard, Memory and Tradition in Israel (SBT 37) Naperville 1962. CHILTON, Bruce D., “Debts,” in: ABD 2, New York 1992, 114-116. CHILTON, Bruce D., The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Aramaic Bible 11), Wilmington 1987. CLIFFORD, Richard J., Proverbs. A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 1999. CLINES, David J. A., Job 21-37 (WBC 18A), Nashville 2006. COHEN, A. (ed.), The Minor Tractates of the Talmud. 2 volumes, London 1965. COHEN, Edward E., “The Elasticity of the Money-Supply at Athens,” in: HARRIS, W. V. (ed.), The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans, Oxford 2008, 6683. COLLINS, John J., “Before the Fall. The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in: NAJMAN, Hindy/NEWMAN, Judith H. (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJS 83), Leiden 2004, 293-308.

332

Bibliography

COLLINS, John J.,“Cult and Culture. The Limits of Hellenization in Judea,” in: COLLINS, John J./STERLING, Gregory E. (eds.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel (CJAS 13), Notre Dame 2001, 38-61. COLLINS, John J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL), Louisville 1997. COLLINS, John J.,“The Root of Immortality. Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom,” in: HTR 71 (1978) 177-192. COLSON, F. H. (transl.), Philo, Volume VIII (LCL) Cambridge 1939. CORLEY, Jeremy, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (BJS 316) Providence 2002. CORLEY, Jeremy, “A Numerical Structure in Sirach 44:1-50:24,” in: CBQ 69 (2007) 43-63. CORLEY, Jeremy, “Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira. An investigation of beginnings and endings,” in Passaro, Angelo/Bellia, Giuseppe (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLSt 1), Berlin 2008, 21-47. CORLEY, Jeremy, “Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach,” in: KNIBB, Michael A. (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195), Leuven 2006, 301-312. CORLEY, Jeremy, “Social Responsibility in Proverbs and Ben Sira,” in: ScrB 30 (2000) 2-14. COWLEY, A./NEUBAUER, A. (eds.), The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford 1897. CRENSHAW, James L., “The Book of Sirach. Introduction, Commentary and Reflections,” in: KECK, Leander E. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume V. Introduction to Wisdom Literature, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Sirach, Nashville 1997, 601-867. CRENSHAW, James L., Ecclesiastes. A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia 1987. CRENSHAW, James L., Old Testament Wisdom. An Introduction, Atlanta 21998 (1981). CRENSHAW, James L., “Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel,” in: ZAW 82 (1970) 380-395. CRENSHAW, James L., “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach. On Human Bondage,” in: JBL 94 (1975) 47-64. CROSSAN, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, San Francisco 1991. DAVID, Arthur, Moses Maimonides. The Commentary to Mishnah Aboth, New York 1968. DAVIES, Andrew, Double Standards in Isaiah. Re-evaluating Prophetic Ethics and Divine Justice (BINS 46), Leiden 2000. DAVIES, Eryl. W., “Walking in God’s Ways. The Concept of Imitatio Dei in the Old Testament,” in: BALL, Edward (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom. Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements (JSOTSup 300), Sheffield 1999, 99-115.

Bibliography

333

DAVIES, W. D./ALLISON, Dale C., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 volumes (ICC), Edinburgh 1988-1997. DAVIS, Henry (transl.), St. Gregory the Great: Pastoral Care (ACW 11), Westminster 1950. DELCOR, M., “Le texte hébreu du cantique de Siracide 51,13 et ss. et les anciennes versions,” in: Textus 6 (1968) 27-47. DELL, Katharine J., The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context, Cambridge 2006. DEN BOER, W., Private Morality in Greece and Rome. Some Historical Aspects, Leiden 1979. DESILVA, David A., Introducing the Apocrypha. Message, Context, and Significance, Grand Rapids, Mich. 2002. DESILVA, David A., “The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Honor, Shame, and the Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture,” in: CBQ 58 (1996) 433-455. DESMOND, William D., The Greek Praise of Poverty. Origins of Ancient Cynicism, Notre Dame 2006. DEUTSCH, Celia, “The Sirach 51 Acrostic. Confession and Exhortation,” in: ZAW 94 (1982) 400-409. DI LELLA, Alexander A., “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44-49). The History of Israel as Parenetic Apologetics,” in: CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria/LIESSEN, Jan (eds.), History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History (DCLY), Berlin 2006, 151-170. DI LELLA, Alexander A., “Conservative and Progressive Theology. Sirach and Wisdom,” in: CBQ 28 (1966) 139-154. DI LELLA, Alexander A., “Fear of the Lord as Wisdom. Ben Sira 1,11-30,” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 113-133. DI LELLA, Alexander A., The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-Critical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1), Hague 1966. DI LELLA, Alexander A., “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo-Geniza,” in: Bib 69 (1988) 226-238. DI LELLA, Alexander A., “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew,” in: Bib 45 (1964) 153-167. DI LELLA, Alexander A., “Sirach 10:19-11:6. Textual Criticism, Poetic Analysis, and Exegesis,” in: MEYERS, Carol L./O’CONNOR, M. (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind. 1983, 157-164. DI VITO, Robert A., “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,” CBQ 61 (1999) 217-238. DIBELIUS, Martin, James. A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1976 (transl. of id., Der Brief des Jakobus, Göttingen 1957). DIHI, Haim, “Amoraic Hebrew in the Light of Ben Sira’s Linguistic Innovations,” in: JOOSTEN, Jan/REY, Jean-Sébastien (eds.), Conservatism and Innova-

334

Bibliography

tion in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (STDJ 73) Leiden 2008, 15-27. DIHI, Haim, “Non-Biblical Verbal Usages in the Book of Ben Sira,” in: MURAOKA, T./ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 36), Leiden 2000, 56-64. DILLARD, Raymond B., “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles. The Theology of Immediate Retribution,” in: WTJ 46 (1984) 164-172. DOHMEN, C./STENMANS, P., “dbeK', kābēd,” in: TDOT 7, Stuttgart 1974, 13-22. DOMERIS, William Robert, Touching the Heart of God. The Social Construction of Poverty Among Biblical Peasants (LHBOTS 466), London 2007. DORAN, Robert, “The High Cost of a Good Education,” in: COLLINS, John J./STERLING, Gregory E. (eds.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel (CJAS 13), Notre Dame 2001, 94-115. DORAN, Robert, “Jewish Education in the Seleucid Period,” in: DAVIES, Philip R./HALLIGAN, John M. (eds.), Second Temple Studies III. Studies in Politics, Class, and Material Culture (JSOTSup 340), London 2002, 116-132. DUESBERG, Hilaire/FRANSEN, Irénée, Ecclesiastico (La Sacra Bible), Rome 1966. EBERHARTER, Andreas, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus übersetzt und erklärt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes übersetzt und erklärt in Verbindung mit Fachgelehrten, VI/5), Bonn 1925. EGGER-WENZEL, Renate, “‘Faith in God’ rather than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job. A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding,” in: CORLEY, Jeremy/SKEMP, Vincent (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS 38), Washington, D.C. 2005, 211-226. EICHHORN, Johann G., Einleitung in die Apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1795. EICHRODT, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 volumes (OTL), Philadelphia 1961-1967 (transl. of id., Theologie des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 19351939). ELIZUR, Shulamit, “arys !b rps lX yrb[h xswnhm Xdx [jq,” in: Tarbiz 76 (2007) 17-28. ELWOLDE, John, “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah,” in: MURAOKA, T./ELWOLDE, J. F. (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 1997, 17-55. EPSTEIN, I. (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud. 34 volumes, London 1935. EWALD, Heinrich, The History of Israel, Vol. 5. The History of Ezra and of the Hagiocracy in Israel to the time of Christ, London 1874 (transl. of id., Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus, Göttingen 1851-1855). FABRY, H.-J., “lD; dal,” in: TDOT 3, Stuttgart 1974: 208-230.

Bibliography

335

Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, London 1901. FALK, Ze’ev W., Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth. 2 volumes (AGJU 11), Leiden 1978. FANG CHE-YONG, M., “Sir 7,36* (Vulg 7,40) iuxta hebraicam veritatem,” in: VD 40 (1962) 18-26. FENSHAM, F. Charles, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” in: JNES 21 (1962) 129-139. FITZMYER, Joseph A., The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 28A), Garden City, N.Y. 1985. FITZMYER, Joseph A., Tobit (CEJL) Berlin 2003. FITZMYER, Joseph A.,“Tobit,” in: BROSHI, M., et al (eds.), Qumran Cave 4: XIV. Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 10), Oxford 1995, 1-76. FOX, Michael V., A Time to Tear Down & A Time to Build Up. A Rereading of Ecclesiastes, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999. FOX, Michael V., Proverbs 1-9. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18A), New York 2000. FREEDMAN, Leslie R., “Biblical Hebrew ‘rb, ‘to go surety,’ and Its Nominal Forms,” in: JANES 19 (1989) 25-29. FRITZSCHE, Otto F., Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes 5. Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s erklärt und übersetzt. Leipzig 1859. FUCHS, Aloys, Textkritische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Ekklesiastikus. Das plus des hebräischen Textes des Ekklesiastikus gegnüber der griechischen Übersetzung (BS 12/5), Freiburg 1907. GABRIELSEN, Vincent, “Banking and credit operations in Hellenistic times,” in: ARCHIBALD, Zofia, et al (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing: The New World of Ancient Economies, 323-31 BC., Oxford 2005, 136-164. GAMMIE, John G., “The Sage in Sirach,” in: GAMMIE, John G./PERDUE, Leo G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, Ind. 1990, 355-372. GAMMIE, John G.,“The Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy,” in: CBQ 32 (1970) 1-12. GAMORAN, Hillel, “The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest,” in: JNES 30 (1971) 127-34. GARNER, Richard, From Homer to Tragedy. The Art of Allusion in Greek Poetry, London 1990. GARRISON, Roman, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity (JSNTSup 77), Sheffield 1993. GARVIE, A. F., Homer. The Odyssey, Books VI-VIII (CGLC) Cambridge 1994. GASTER, M., “A New Fragment of Ben Sira,” in: JQR 12 (1899-1900) 688-702. GERA, Dov, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B.C.E. (BSJS 8) Leiden 1998.

336

Bibliography

GERSTENBERGER, E., “hn"[' II `änâ,” in: TDOT 11, Stuttgart 1974, 230-252. GILBERT, Maurice, “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1-11,” in: CORLEY, Jeremy/SKEMP, Vincent (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS 38), Washington, D.C. 2005, 88-99. GILBERT, Maurice, “God, Sin, and Mercy. Sirach 15:11-18:14,” in: EGGERWENZEL, Renate (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 118-135. GILBERT, Maurice, “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira. Function and Relevance,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate/CORLEY, Jeremy (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003 (DCLY), Berlin 2004, 117-135. GILBERT, Maurice, “Prêt, aumône et caution,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate/KRAMMER, Ingrid (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 179-189. GILBERT, Maurice, “Qohelet et Ben Sira,” in: SCHOORS, A. (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven 1998, 161-179. GILBERT, Maurice, “Wisdom Literature,” in: STONE, Michael E. (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, Assen/Philadelphia 1984, 283-324. GILBERT, Maurice, “Wisdom of the Poor: Ben Sira 10,19-11,6,” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255) Berlin 1997, 153-169. GILMORE, David D. (ed.), Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (SPAAA 22), Washington, D.C. 1987. GINZBERG, Louis, “Randglossen zum hebräischen Ben Sira,” in: BEZOLD, C. (ed.), Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Giessen 1906, 609-625. GOFF, Matthew J., Discerning Wisdom. The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls (VTSup 116) Leiden 2007. GOFF, Matthew J., The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50), Leiden 2003. GOLDINGAY, John, “The Arrangement of Sayings in Proverbs 10-15,” in: JSOT 61 (1994) 75-83. GOODBLATT, David, The Monarchic Principle. Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (TSAJ 38), Tübingen 1994. GORDON, Cyrus H., “‘In’ of Predication or Equivalence,” in: JBL 100 (1981) 612613. GORDON, Cyrus H., Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr 38), Rome 1965. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Alon, “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors. A CanonConscious Reading,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321) Berlin 2002, 235-267.

Bibliography

337

GOWAN, Donald E., “Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament. The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner,” in: Int 41 (1987) 341-353. GRABBE, Lester L., A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Volume 1, Yehud. A History of the Persian Province of Judah (LSTS 47), London 2004. GRABBE, Lester L., Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period. Belief and practice from the Exile to Yavneh, London 2000. GRANT, Michael, A Social History of Greece and Rome, New York 1992. GRAY, Sherman W., The Least of My Brothers. Matthew 25:31-46. A History of Interpretation (SBLDS 114) Atlanta 1989. GREENFIELD, Jonas, “Two Proverbs of Ahiqar,” in: ABUSCH, T./HUEHNERGARD, J./STEINKELLER, P. (eds.), Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (HSS 37), Atlanta 1990, 195-201. GREGORY, Bradley C., “Abraham as the Jewish Ideal. Exegetical Traditions in Sirach 44:19-21,” in: CBQ 70 (2008) 66-81. GREGORY, Bradley C.,“The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah. Isaiah 61:1-3 in Light of Second Temple Hermeneutics,” in: JBL 126 (2007) 475-496. GREGORY, Bradley C.,“Wealth and Poverty,” in: COLLINS, John J./HARLOW, Daniel C. (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, Mich. forthcoming 2010. GRIFFIN, Patrick J., “A Study of Eleēmosynē in the Bible with Emphasis upon its Meaning and Usage in the Theology of Tobit and Ben Sira,” M.A. thesis, The Catholic University of America, 1982. GUTIÉRREZ, Gustavo, On Job. God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, Maryknoll, N.Y. 1987 (transl. of id., Hablar de Dios desde el sufrimiento del inocente, Lima 1986). HADOT, Jean, Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la sagesse de Ben Sira (L’Ecclésiastique), Bruxelles 1970. HAMEL, Gildas, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries C.E. (NES 23), Berkeley 1990. HAMILTON, Jeffries M., Social Justice and Deuteronomy. The Case of Deuteronomy 15 (SBLDS 136) Atlanta 1992. HAMP, Vinzenz, Sirach (Die Heilige Schrift in Deutscher Übersetzung EchterBibel: Das Alte Testament 13/2), Würzburg 1952. HANDS, A. R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (AGRL), Ithaca, N.Y. 1968. HARRINGTON, Daniel J., Invitation to the Apocrypha, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999. HARRINGTON, Daniel J., “The Wisdom of the Scribe According to Ben Sira,” in: NICKELSBURG, George W. E./COLLINS, John J. (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12), Chico 1980, 181-188. HARRINGTON, Daniel J., “Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom. Sirach and Qumran Sapiential Work A,” in: JSP 16 (1997) 25-38.

338

Bibliography

HARVEY, John D., “Toward a Degree of Order in Ben Sira’s Book,” in: ZAW 105 (1993) 52-62. HASPECKER, Josef, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rome 1967. HAYWARD, C. T. R., “El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira,” in: EGGERWENZEL, Renate (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 180-198. HAYWARD, C. T. R., “Sacrifice and World Order. Some Observations on Ben Sira’s Attitude to the Temple Service,” in: SYKES, S. W. (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption. Durham Essays in Theology, Cambridge 1991, 22-34. HAYWARD, C. T. R., “Sirach and Wisdom’s Dwelling Place,” in: BARTON, Stephen C. (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, Edinburgh 1999, 31-46. HEIDEL, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and OT Parallels, Chicago 1949. HEJCL, Johann, Das Alttestamentliche Zinsverbot im Lichte der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz sowie des altorientalischen Zinswesens (Biblische Studien 12/4), Freiburg 1907. HENGEL, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their encounter in Palestine during the early Hellenistic period. 2 volumes, Philadelphia 1974 (transl. of id., Judentum und Hellenismus, Tübingen 1969). HESCHEL, Abraham, The Ineffable Name of God: Man. Poems in Yiddish and English, London 2004. HIMMELFARB, Martha, “The Wisdom of the Scribe, the Wisdom of the Priest, and the Wisdom of the King according to Ben Sira,” in: ARGALL, Randal A./BOW, Beverly A./WERLINE, Rodney A. (eds.), For A Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, Harrisburg 2000, 89-99. HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans and Early Judaism. A Literary Analysis (JSOTSup 303), Sheffield 2000. HO, Ahuva, Ṣedeq and Ṣedaqah in the Hebrew Bible (AUS VII/78), New York 1991. HOLLOWAY, Paul A., “‘Beguile your soul’ (Sir xiv 16; xxx 23). An Epicurean Theme in Ben Sira,” in: VT 58 (2008) 219-234. HOLMES, Michael W., The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992. HOPPE, Leslie J., There Shall Be No Poor Among You. Poverty in the Bible, Nashville 2004. HORBURY, William, “Deity in Ecclesiasticus,” in: GORDON, Robert P. (ed.), The God of Israel (UCOP 64), Cambridge 2007, 267-292. HORSLEY, Richard A., “The Politics of Cultural Production in Second Temple Judea. Historical Context and Political-Religious Relations of the Scribes Who Produced 1 Enoch, Sirach, and Daniel,” in: WRIGHT, Benjamin G./WILLS, Lawrence M. (eds.), Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism (SBLSS 35), Atlanta 2005, 123-145.

Bibliography

339

HORSLEY, Richard A., Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea, Louisville 2007. HORSLEY, Richard A./TILLER, Patrick, “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple,” in: DAVIES, Philip R./HALLIGAN, John M. (eds.), Second Temple Studies III. Studies in Politics, Class, and Material Culture (JSOTSup 340), London 2002, 74-107. HOUSTON, Walter J., Contending For Justice. Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the Old Testament (LHBOTS 428), London 2006. HURVITZ, Avi, “gXwm lX wtxymc twdlwtl - ~yydwmlt ~yxnwm lX tyarqmh ~tyXar ‘hqdc’h,” Language Studies (1987) 155-160. INWOOD, Brad, “Politics and paradox in Seneca’s De beneficiis,” in: LAKS, André/SCHOFIELD, Malcolm (eds.), Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum, Cambridge 1995, 241-265. ISRAELSTAM, J./SLOTKI, Judah J. (transl.), Midrash Rabbah. Leviticus, London 1939. JASTROW, Marcus, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature. 2 volumes, New York 1971. JENSEN, Joseph E., “Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice,” Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 2005. JOBES, Karen H./SILVA, Moisés, Invitation to the Septuagint, Grand Rapids, Mich. 2000. JOHNSTON, Philip S., Shades of Sheol. Death and the Afterlife in the Old Testament, Downers Grove, Ill. 2002. JOOSTEN, Jan, “dsx ‘bienveillance’ et e;leoj ‘pitié’. Réflexions sur une équivalence lexicale dans la Septante,” in: BONS, Eberhard (ed.), «Car c’est l’amour qui me plaît, non le sacrifice…» Recherches sur Osée 6:6 et son interprétation juive et chrétienne (JSJSup 88), Leiden 2004, 25-42. JOOSTEN, Jan, “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in: MURAOKA, T./ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), 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 1999, 146-159. JÜNGLING, Hans-Winfried, “Der Bauplan des Buches Jesus Sirach,” in: HANIZ, Josef/JÜNGLING, Hans-Winfried/SEBOTT, Reinhold (eds.), “Den Armen eine frohe Botschaft”. Festscrift für Bischof Franz Kamphaus zum 65. Geburtstag, Frankfurt 1997, 89-105. KAISER, Otto, “Carpe diem und Memento mori bei Ben Sira,” in: DIETRICH, Manfried/LORETZ, Oswald (eds.), dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik, Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 253), Münster 1998, 185-203.

340

Bibliography

KAISER, Otto, “Das Verständnis des Todes bei Ben Sira,” in: NZSTh 43 (2001) 175-192. KAISER, Otto, “Der Tod als Schicksal und Aufgabe bei Ben Sira,” in: AHN, Gregor/DIETRICH, Manfried (eds.), Engel und Dämonen. Theologische, Anthropologische und Religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte des Guten und Bösen. Akten des gemeinsamen Symposiums der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Tartu und der Deutschen Religionsgeschichtlichen Studiengesellschaft am 7. und 8. April 1995 zu Tartu (FARG 29), Münster 1997, 75-89. KAISER, Otto, “Kultische und Sittliche Sühne bei Jesus Sirach,” in: DIEHL, Johannes F./ HEITZENRÖDER, Reinhard/WITTE, Markus (eds.), “Einen Altar von Erde mache mir…” Festschrift für Diethelm Conrad zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (KAANT 4/5), Waltrup 2003, 151-167. KEARNS, Conleth, “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,” in: FULLER, Reginald C./JOHNSTON, Leonard/KEARNS, Conleth (eds.), A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London 1969, 541-562. KEARNS, Conleth,“The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus. Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin,” Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1951. KEENER, Craig S., “Kissing,” in: EVANS, Craig A./PORTER, Stanley E. (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, Ill. 2000, 628-629. KIEWELER, Volker, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp (BEATAJ 30), Frankfurt 1992. KIMILIKE, Lechion Peter, Poverty in the Book of Proverbs. An African Transformational Hermeneutic of Proverbs on Poverty (BTA 7) New York 2008. KISTER, Menahem, “arys-!b rps lX wXwrypl,” in: Tarbiz 59 (1990) 303-378. KISTER, Menahem, “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira,” in: MURAOKA, T./ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), 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 1999, 160-187. KOCH, Klaus, “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” in: ZTK 52 (1955) 1-42. KRAŠOVEC, Jože, “Is there a Doctrine of ‘Collective Retribution’ in the Hebrew Bible?” in: HUCA 65 (1994) 35-89. KUGEL, James L., Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era, Cambridge 1998. KUGEL, James L., “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper,” in: Prooftexts 17 (1997) 9-32. KUGLER, Robert A., From Patriarch to Priest. The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9), Atlanta 1996. LANE, William L., Hebrews 9-13 (WBC 47B), Dallas 1991. LAPIDE, Cornelius à, “Commentaria in Ecclesiasticum,” in Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam, Editio Xysto Riario Sfortiae. Tomus V. Neapoli 1855. LEE, Thomas R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50 (SBLDS 75), Atlanta 1986.

Bibliography

341

LENSKI, Gerhard E., Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification, New York 1966. LEVENSON, Jon D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil. The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, Princeton 1988. LEVENSON, Jon D., The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven 1993. LEVENSON, Jon D., Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel. The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, New Haven 2006. LÉVI, Israel, “Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscripts hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique,” in: REJ 40 (1900) 1-30. LÉVI, Israel, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, edited with brief notes and a selected glossary (SSS 3), Leiden 1969. LÉVI, Israel, L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. 2 volumes, Paris 1898 & 1901. LEVIN, Christoph, “The Poor in the Old Testament. Some Observations,” in: R & T 8 (2001) 253-272. LEWIS, Theodore J.,“Dead, Abode of,” in: ABD 2, New York 1992, 101-105. LICHTHEIM, Miriam, Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 volumes, Berkeley 1973-1980. LICHTHEIM, Miriam, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52), Göttingen 1983. LIEBERMANN, Saul. “Ben-Sira à la lumière du Yerouchalmi,” in: REJ 97 (1934) 5057. LIESEN, Jan, Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39, 12-35 (JSJSup 64), Leiden 2000. LIM, Timothy H., “‘Nevertheless These Were Men of Piety’ (Ben Sira XLIV 10),” in: VT 38 (1988) 338-341. LINDARS, Barnabas. “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility,” in: VT 15 (1965) 452-467. LIPIŃSKI, E. “hn"q' qānâ,” in: TDOT 13, Stuttgart 1974, 58-65. LOADER, J. A. “Different Reactions of Job and Qoheleth to the Doctrine of Retribution,” in: VAN WYK, W. C. (ed.), Studies in Wisdom Literature (OTWSA 15 & 16), Pretoria 1976, 43-48. LUNDBOM, Jack R., Jeremiah 1-20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21A), New York 1999. LUZ, Ulrich, Matthew 1-7. A Commentary, Minneapolis 1989 (transl. of id., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Neukirchener-Vluyn 1985-2002). LUZ, Ulrich, Matthew 8-20. A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2001(transl. of id., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Neukirchener-Vluyn 1985-2002). LUZ, Ulrich, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary (Heremenia), Minneapolis 2005 (transl. of id., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Neukirchener-Vluyn 19852002).

342

Bibliography

MACDONALD, Nathan. “‘Bread on the Grave of the Righteous’ (Tob. 4.17),” in: BREDIN, Mark (ed.), Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (LSTS 55), London 2006, 99-103. MACK, Burton L., “Sirach. Introduction and Notes,” in: MEEKS, Wayne (ed.), The HarperCollins Study Bible, San Francisco 1993, 1530-1616. MACK, Burton L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism), Chicago 1985. MACKENZIE, R. A. F., Sirach (Old Testament Message 19) Wilmington 1983. MALCHOW, Bruce V., “Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature,” in: BTB 12 (1982) 120-124. MALINA, Bruce J./NEYREY, Jerome H., “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts. Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World,” in: NEYREY, Jerome H. (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation, Peabody, Mass. 1991, 25-65. MALONEY, Robert P., “Usury and Restrictions on Interest-Taking in the Ancient Near East,” in: CBQ 36 (1974) 1-20. MALONEY, Robert P., “Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought,” in: Traditio 27 (1971) 79-109. MARBÖCK, Johannes, “Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions in Sir 36,1-22 (G: 33,113a; 36:16b-22) im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras,” in id., Gottes Weisheit unter Uns. zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (Herders biblische Studien 6), Freiburg 1995, 149-166. MARBÖCK, Johannes, “Kohelet und Sirach,” in: Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger (ed.), Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie (BZAW 254), Berlin 1997, 275-297. MARBÖCK, Johannes, “Structure and Redaction History in the Book of Ben Sira. Review and Prospects,” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255) Berlin 1997, 61-79. MARBÖCK, Johannes, “Sündenvergebung bei Jesus Sirach,” in: ZAH 116 (1994) 480-486. MARBÖCK, Johannes, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn 1971. MARCUS, J., “The Newly Discovered Original Hebrew of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxxii,16-xxxiv,1). The Fifth Manuscript and a Prosodic Version of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxii,22-xxiii,9),” in: JQR 21 (1930-1931) 223-240. MARGOLIOUTH, G., “The Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus XXXI.12-31, and XXXVI.22-XXXVII.26,” in: JQR 12 (1899-1900) 1-33. MARMORSTEIN, A., The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature, London 1920. MARMORSTEIN, A., “The Treasures in Heaven and Upon Earth,” in: London Quarterly Review (1919) 216-228. MAY, Herbert G., “Individual Responsibility and Retribution,” in: HUCA 32 (1961) 107-20.

Bibliography

343

MCCARTER, P. Kyle, Jr., II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 9), Garden City, N.Y. 1984. MCKANE, William, Proverbs. A New Approach (OTL), Philadelphia 1970. MCKECHNIE, Paul, “The Career of Joshua Ben Sira,” in: JTS 51 (2000) 3-26. METZ, Johannes. Poverty of Spirit, New York 1998 (transl. of id., Armut im Geiste, Munich 1968). MIDDENDORP, Theophil, Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973. MILGROM, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3), New York 1991. MILGROM, Jacob, Leviticus 17-22. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A), New York 2000. MILLER, Patrick D., “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” in: UF 2 (1970) 177-186. MILLETT, Paul, Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens, Cambridge 1991. MINKNER, Konrad, “Die Einwirkung des Bürgerschaftsrechts auf Leben und Religion Altisraels,” in: ROGGE, Joachim/SCHILLE, Gottfried (eds.), Theologische Versuche 11, Berlin 1979, 21-32. MINISSALE, Antonino, “The metaphor of ‘falling’. hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach,” in: PASSARO, Angelo/BELLIA, Giuseppe (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLSt 1), Berlin 2008, 253275. MINISSALE, Antonino, La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Rome 1995. MODRZEJEWSKI, Joseph Mélèze, The Jews of Egypt. From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian, Philadelphia 1995 (transl. of id., Les Juifs d’Egypte: de Ramsès II á Hadrien, Paris 1991). MOORE, Carey A., Tobit. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A), New York 1996. MOORE, G. F., “Simon the Righteous,” in: Kohut, G. A. (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York 1927, 348-364. MORLA ASENSIO, Víctor, “Poverty and Wealth. Ben Sira’s View of Possessions,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate/KRAMMER, Ingrid (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 151-178. MOXNES, Halvor, “Honor and Shame,” in: Rohrbaugh, Richard L. (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, Peabody, Mass. 1996, 19-40. MULDER, Otto, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Ancestors in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel (JSJSup 78), Leiden 2003. MURPHY, Catherine M., Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ 40), Leiden 2002.

344

Bibliography

MURPHY, Roland E., “The Personification of Wisdom,” in: DAY, John/GORDON, Robert P./WILLIAMSON, H. G. M. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, Cambridge 1995, 222-233. MURPHY, Roland E., “Proverbial Sayings/ ‘Better’-Sayings in Sirach,” in: CALDUCH-BENAGES, N./VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL 143), Leuven 1999, 31-40. MURPHY, Roland E., “Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Sirach,” in: EGGERWENZEL, Renate/KRAMMER, Ingrid (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 261-270. MURPHY, Roland E., The Tree of Life. An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, Grand Rapids, Mich. 32002 (New York 1990). MURRAY, A. T. (transl.), Homer. The Odyssey. 2 volumes (LCL), Cambridge 1953, 1984. NELSON, Milward Douglas, The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials (SBLDS 107), Atlanta 1988. NEUFELD, Edward, “The Prohibitions against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws,” in: HUCA 26 (1955) 355-412. NEWSOM, Carol A., The Book of Job. A Contest of Moral Imaginations, Oxford 2003. NEWSOM, Carol A., “The Book of Job. Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in: KECK, Leander E. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 4. 1 & 2 Maccabees; Introduction to Hebrew Poetry; Job; Psalms, Nashville 1996, 317637. NEYREY, Jerome H, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts. The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship,” in: id. (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation, Peabody, Mass. 1991, 361-387. NICKELSBURG, George W. E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, Philadelphia 1981. NICKELSBURG, George W. E., “Revisiting the Rich and the Poor in 1 Enoch 92105 and the Gospel According to Luke,” SBLSP 37 (1998) 579-605. NICKELSBURG, George W. E., “Tobit,” in: MEEKS, Wayne (ed.), The HarperCollins Study Bible, San Francisco 1993, 1437-1458. NIEDERWIMMER, Kurt, The Didache. A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1998 (transl. of id., Die Didache erklärt, Göttingen 1989). OAKMAN, Douglas E., “The Countryside in Luke-Acts,” in: NEYREY, Jerome H. (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation, Peabody, Mass. 1991, 151-179. OGDEN, G. S., “The ‘Better’-Proverb (Tôb-Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism, and Qoheleth,” in: JBL 96 (1977) 489-505. OLOFSSON, Staffan, God is My Rock. A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint (CBOT 31), Stockholm 1990. OLYAN, Saul M., “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” in: HTR 80 (1987) 261-286.

Bibliography

345

OLYAN, Saul M., Biblical Mourning. Ritual and Social Dimensions, Oxford 2004. OTTO, Eckhart, “Forschungsgeschichte der Entwürfe einer Ethik im Alten Testament,” in: VF 36 (1991) 3-37. OWENS, Robert J. “The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat,” in: JSS 34 (1989) 39-75. PALMISANO, Maria Carmela,“Salvaci, Dio dell’Universo!” Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H, 1-17 (AnBib 163), Rome 2006. PARKIN, Anneliese, “‘You do him no service’: an exploration of pagan almsgiving,” in: ATKINS, Margaret/OSBORNE, Robin (eds.), Poverty in the Roman World, Cambridge 2006, 60-82. PEACOCK, Mark S., “The Origins of money in Ancient Greece: the political economy of coinage and exchange,” in: Cambridge Journal of Economics 30 (2006) 637-650. PENAR, Tadeusz, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (BibOr 28), Rome 1975. PERDUE, Leo, Wisdom and Creation. The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville 1994. PERDUE, Leo, Wisdom and Cult. A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS 30), Missoula, Mont. 1977. PERDUE, Leo, Wisdom Literature. A Theological History. Louisville 2007. PETERS, Norbert, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus übersetzt und erklärt (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. PETERS, Norbert, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus untersucht, herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit kritischen Noten versehen, Freibur 1902. PETERS, Norbert, Liber Iesu Filii Sirach sive Ecclesiasticus hebraice secundum codices nuper repertos vocalibus adornatus addita versione latina cum glossaria hebraicolatino, Freiburg 1905. VAN PEURSEN, Wido Th., Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study (MPIL 16), Leiden 2007. VAN PEURSEN, Wido Th., “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” in: MURAOKA, T./ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), 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 1999, 223-243. VAN PEURSEN, Wido Th., The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSLL 41), Leiden 2004. PHILLIPS, Thomas E., “Revisiting Philo. Discussions of Wealth and Poverty in Philo’s Ethical Discourse,” in: JSNT 83 (2001) 111-121. PITT-RIVERS, Julian, “Honour and Social Status,” in: PERISTIANY, J. G. (ed.), Honour and Shame. The Values of a Mediterranean Society (NHS), Chicago 1966, 19-77. PLEINS, J. David, “Poor, Poverty,” in: ABD 5, New York 1992, 402-414.

346

Bibliography

PLEINS, J. David, “Poverty in the Social World of the Wise,” in: JSOT 37 (1987) 61-78. PLEINS, J. David, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible. A Theological Introduction, Louisville 2001. POMEROY, Sarah B., Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece. Representations and Realities, Oxford 1997. POMYKALA, Kenneth E., “The Covenant with Phinehas in Ben Sira (Sirach 45:2326; 50:22-24),” in id. (ed.), Israel in the Wilderness. Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (TBN 10), Leiden 2008, 17-36. POPE, Alexander (trans.), The Odyssey of Homer, New York 1942. PORTIER-YOUNG, Anathea. “‘Eyes to the Blind’. A Dialogue between Tobit and Job,” in: CORLEY, Jeremy/SKEMP, Vincent (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS 38), Washington, D.C. 2005, 14-27. PRATO, Gian Luigi, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrary e richiamo alle origini (AnaBib 65), Rome 1975. PROCKTER, L. J. “Alms and the Man. The Merits of Charity,” in: JNSL 18 (1991) 69-80. PROPP, William H. C., Exodus 19-40. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A), New York 2006. PUECH, Émile, “Ben Sira 48:11 et la Résurrection,” in: ATTRIDGE, Harold W./COLLINS, John J./TOBIN, Thomas H. (eds.), Of Scribes and Scrolls. Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins. Lanham 1990, 81-90. RABINOWITZ, Isaac, “The Qumran Hebrew Original of Ben Sira’s Concluding Acrostic on Wisdom,” in: HUCA 42 (1971) 173-184. VON RAD, Gerhard, Wisdom in Israel, Nashville 1972 (transl. of id., Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970). RANKIN, O. S., Israel’s Wisdom Literature. Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion, Edinburgh 1936. REITERER, Friedrich V., “Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira,” in: ZMIJEWSKI, Josef (ed.), Die alttestamentliche Botschaft als Wegweisung. Festschrift für Heinz Reinelt, Stuttgart 1990, 203-233. REITERER, Friedrich V., “Gott und Opfer,” in: EGGER-WENZEL, Renate (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 136-179. REITERER, Friedrich V., “The Influence of the Book of Exodus on Ben Sira,” in: CORLEY, Jeremy/SKEMP, Vincent (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS 38), Washington, D.C. 2005, 100-117. REITERER, Friedrich V., “Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira (1980-1996),” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255) Berlin 1997, 23-60.

Bibliography

347

REITERER, Friedrich V., “Die Stellung Ben Siras zu ‘Arbeit’. Notizen zu einem kaum berücksichtigten Thema sirazidischer Lehre,” in: id., (ed.), Ein Gott – Eine Offenbarung. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualität. Festschrift für Notker Füglister, Würzburg 1991, 257-289. REITERER, Friedrich V., “Das Verhältnis Ijobs und Ben Siras,” in: BEUKEN, W. A. M. (ed.), The Book of Job (BETL 114), Leuven 1994, 405-429. REVENTLOW, H. G., “Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt,” in: VT 10 (1960) 311327. RICKENBACHER, Otto, Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1) Göttingen 1973. RODD, Cyril S., Glimpses of a Strange Land. Studies in Old Testament Ethics, Edinburgh 2001. ROHRBAUGH, Richard L., “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts,” in: NEYREY, Jerome H. (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation, Peabody, Mass. 1991, 125-149. ROSENTHAL, Franz, “Sedaka, Charity,” in: HUCA 23 (1950/51) 411-430. ROSTOVTZEFF, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 volumes, Oxford 1941. ROTH, Wolfgang, “On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach,” in: Semeia 17 (1980) 59-79. ROTH, Wolfgang, “Sirach. The First Graded Curriculum,” in: TBT 29 (1991) 298302. RÜGER, Hans Peter, Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchung zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970. RYBOLT, John E., Sirach (CBC 21), Collegeville, Minn. 1986. SANDERS, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Minneapolis 1977. SANDERS, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4), Oxford 1965. SANDERS, Jack T., Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (SBLMS 28), Chico 1983. SANDERS, Jack T., “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” in: HUCA 50 (1979) 73-106. SANDOVAL, Timothy J., The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (BINS 77), Leiden 2007. SARACINO, Francesco, “Risurrezione in Ben Sira?” in: Henoch 4 (1982) 185-203. SAUER, Georg, Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira. Übersetzt und erklärt (ATD 1), Göttingen 2000. SCHAEFER, Konrad, Psalms (Berit Olam), Collegeville, Minn. 2001. SCHAPER, Joachim, “The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration,” in: VT 45 (1995) 528-539. SCHAPS, David M., The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece, Ann Arbor, Mich. 2007. SCHECHTER, Solomon, “A Further Fragment of Ben Sira,” in: JQR 12 (1899-1900) 456-465.

348

Bibliography

SCHECHTER, Solomon/TAYLOR, Charles, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, with addition of Talmudic fragments in the Bodleian library, Amsterdam 1979 (repr. Cambridge 1899) SCHERER, Andreas, “Is the Selfish Man Wise? Considerations of Context in Proverbs 10.1-22.16 with Special Regard to Surety, Bribery and Friendship,” in: JSOT 76 (1997) 59-70. SCHMIDT, W. H., “hnq qnh,” in: TLOT 3, Peabody, Mass. 1997, 1149. SCHNABEL, Eckhard J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (WUNT 2/16), Tübingen 1985. SCHRADER, Lutz, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit. Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches (BBET 27), Frankfurt 1994. SCHRADER, Lutz, “Unzuverlässige Freundschaft und verläßliche Feindschaft. Überlegungen zu Sir 12,8-12,” in: REITERER, Friedrich V. (ed.), Freundschaft bei Ben Sira. Beiträge des Symposiums zu Ben Sira, Salzburg 1995 (BZAW 244), Berlin 1996, 19-59. SCHREINER, Josef, Jesus Sirach 1-24 (NEchtB 38), Würzburg 2002. SEAFORD, Richard, Money and the Greek Mind. Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy, Cambridge 2004. SEELIGMANN, Isac, “Darlehen, Bürgschaft und Zins in Recht und Gedankenwelt der hebräischen Bibel,” in: BLUM, Erhard (ed.), Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (FAT 41), Tübingen 2004, 319-348. SEGAL, M. H., “The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira,” in: JQR 25 (1934) 91-149. SEGAL, Mosheh Z., ~lXh arys-!b rps, Jerusalem 41997 (1958). SEGAL, Mosheh Z., “arys-!b rps $wtm ~ypswn ~ypd,” in: Tarbiz 29 (1959-60) 313323. SHEPPARD, Gerald T., “Wisdom and Torah. The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underlying Sirach 24:23,” in: TUTTLE, G. A. (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1978, 166-176. SKEHAN, Patrick W., “The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13-30,” in: HTR 64 (1971) 387-400. SKEHAN, Patrick W., “Didache 1,6 and Sirach 12,1,” in: Bib 44 (1963) 533-536. SKEHAN, Patrick W./DI LELLA, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary (AB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, Rudolph, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. SMEND, Rudolph, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch, Berlin 1906. SMITH, Dennis E., “Meal Customs (Greco-Roman),” in: ABD 4, New York 1992, 650-653. SMITH, Mark S., “Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses (Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in PreMishnaic Hebrew,” in: MURAOKA, T./ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the

Bibliography

349

Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (STDJ 33), Leiden 1999, 278-332. SNAITH, John, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy,” in: VT 25 (1975) 167-174. SNAITH, John, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, Cambridge 1974. VAN DER SPEK, Robartus J., “The Hellenistic Near East,” in: SCHEIDEL, Walter/MORRIS, Ian/SALLER, Richard P. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, Cambridge 2008, 409-433. SPICQ, C., “L’Ecclésiastique. traduit et commenté,” in: PIROT, Louis/CLAMER, Albert (eds.), La Sainte Bible. Volume 6. Texte Latin et traduction Française d’après les texts originaux avec un commentaire exégétique et théolgique, Paris 1946, 529-841. STADELMANN, Helge, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild dees vor-makkabäischen Sōfēr unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Preister-, Propheten-, und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT 2/6), Tübingen 1980. STARK, Rodney, The Rise of Christianity. How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries, San Francisco 1997. STEIN, Sigfried, “The Development of the Jewish Law on Interest from the Biblical Period to the Expulsion of the Jews from England,” in: Historia Judaica 17 (1955) 3-40. STENDEBACH, Franz Josef, “Weisheitliche Mahnung zu mitmenschlichem Verhalten. Eine Auslegung zu Sir 4,1-10,” in: BAIL, Ulrike/JOST, Renate (eds.), Gott an den Rändern. Sozialgeschichtliche Perspektiven auf die Bibel. Für Willy Schottroff zum 65. Geburtstag, Gütersloh 1996, 83-90. STRACK, Herman L./BILLERBECK, Paul, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 1. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, München 1922. STRUGNELL, John/HARRINGTON, Daniel J., Qumran Cave 4 XXIV. Sapiential Texts, Part 2, 4QInstruction (Mûsār lĕ Mēvîn): 4Q415ff. (DJD 34), Oxford 1999. SWETE, Henry Barclay, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 21914 (1900). TCHERIKOVER, Victor, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959 (transl. of id., tyrwjsyh hryqx .tyjsynlhh hpwqtb ~ynwyhw ~ydwhyh, Tel Aviv 1930). THIELE, Walter, Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 11/2: Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Fascicles 1-9, Freiburg 1967-2005. THEISSEN, Gerd, “Social Integration and Sacramental Activity. An Analysis of 1 Cor. 11:17-34,” in: SCHÜTZ, John H. (ed.), The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth, Philadelphia 1982 (trans. of id., Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums [WUNT 19], Tübingen 1979), 145-174. TRENCHARD, Warren C., Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis (BJS 38), Chico 1982. TROMP, Nicholas J., Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (BibOr 21), Rome 1969.

350

Bibliography

ULMER, Rivka, The Evil Eye in the Bible and in Rabbinic Literature, Hoboken, N.J. 1994. URBACH, Ephraim, “l"zx lX hqdch trwtb twytrbxw twytd twmgm,” in: Zion 16 (1951) 1-27. VAN LEEUWEN, Raymond C., “The Book of Proverbs. Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in: KECK, Leander E. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 5. Introduction to Wisdom Literature, the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Ecclesiastes, the Songs of Songs, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Sirach, Nashville 1997, 17-264. VAN LEEUWEN, Raymond C., “Wealth and Poverty. System and Contradiction in Proverbs,” in: HS 33 (1992) 25-36. VAN SETERS, John, A Law Book for the Diaspora. Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford 2003. VAN SETERS, John, “Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code and a Response to my Critics,” in: SJOT 21 (2007) 5-28. VANDERKAM, James C., From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis 2004. VANDERKAM, James C., “Simon the Just. Simon I or Simon II?” in: WRIGHT, D./FREEDMAN, D. N./HURVITZ, A. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, Ind. 1995, 303-318. VATTIONI, F., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Testi 1), Naples 1968. DE VAUX, Roland, Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions, New York 1961 (transl. of id., Les Institutions de L’Ancien Testament, Paris 1958). VISOTZKY, Burton L., The Midrash on Proverbs. Translated from the Hebrew with an introduction and annotations (The Judaica Series 27), New Haven 1992. WAGNER, Christian, Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach. Untersuchungen zu Wortwahl und Wortbildung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des textkritischen und übersetzungstechnischen Aspekts (BZAW 282), Berlin 1999. WALTKE, Bruce K., The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 1-15 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, Mich. 2004. WALTKE, Bruce K., The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 15-31 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, Mich. 2005. WASHINGTON, Harold C., “Sirach,” in: COOGAN, Michael D. (ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Oxford 32001 (1973), 100-175 [Apocrypha]. WEIL, H. M., “Gage et cautionnement dans le Bible,” in: AHDO 2 (1938) 171241. WEINFELD, Moshe, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Minneapolis 1995. WEITZMAN, Michael P., From Judaism to Christianity. Studies in the Hebrew and Syriac Bibles (JSSSup 8), Oxford 1999.

Bibliography

351

WEITZMAN, Michael P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction (UCOP 56), Cambridge 1999. WENDER, Dorothea (transl.), Hesiod and Theognis, Middlesex 1973. WEST, David, Horace Odes I. Carpe Diem, Oxford 1995. WHYBRAY, R. N., “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” in: JSOT 23 (1982) 87-98. WHYBRAY, R. N., Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup 99), Sheffield 1990. WICKE-REUTER, Ursel, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa (BZAW 298), Berlin 2000. WIKENHAUSER, Alfred, “Die Liebeswerke in dem Gerichtgemälde Mt 25,31-46,” in: BZ 20 (1932) 366-377. WILCOX, Max, “Mammon,” in: ABD 4, New York 1992, 490. WILLIAMS, David G., Those Who Ponder Proverbs. Aphoristic Thinking and Biblical Literature (BLS 2), Sheffield 1981. WINSTON, David, “Theodicy in Ben Sira and Stoic Philosophy,” in: LINKSALINGER, Ruth (ed.), Of Scholars, Savants, and their Texts. Studies in Philosophy and Religious Thought. Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, New York 1989, 239-249. WINSTON, David, The Wisdom of Solomon. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 43), New York 1979. WINTER, M. M., “The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac,” in: VT 27 (1977) 237-253 (part I), 494-507 (part II). WINTER, M. M., “Theological Alterations in the Syriac Translation of Ben Sira,” in: CBQ 70 (2008) 300-312. WISCHMEYER, Oda, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach (BZNW 77), Berlin 1995. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship,” in: RAJAK, Tessa, et al (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley 2007, 76-91. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature,” in: COLLINS, John J./STERLING, Gregory E./CLEMENTS, Ruth A. (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20-22 May, 2001 (STDJ 51), Leiden 2004, 101-123. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “The Discourse of Riches and Poverty in the Book of Ben Sira,” in: SBLSP 37 (1998) 559-578. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “Eschatology without a Messiah in Ben Sira,” in: KNIBB, Michael A. (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195), Leuven 2006, 313-323. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’. Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in: BEENTJES, Pancratius C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 189-222.

352

Bibliography

WRIGHT, Benjamin G., No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26), Atlanta 1989. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., “‘Put the Nations in Fear of You’. Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” in: SBLSP 38 (1999) 77-93. WRIGHT, Benjamin G./CAMP, Claudia V., “‘Who has been Tested by Gold and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty,” in: Henoch 23 (2001) 153-173. WRIGHT, Wilmer Cave (trans.), The Works of the Emperor Julian. 3 volumes, London 1913. YADIN, Yigael, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, with Introduction, Emendations and Commentary, Jerusalem 1965. ZIEGLER, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. XII,2), Göttingen 1965. ZIEGLER, Joseph, “Zwei Beiträge zu Sirach,” in: BZ 8 (1964) 277-284.

Encyclopaedia and Lexica BAUER, Walter, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, Chicago 1958. BOTTERWECK, G. J./RINGGREN, H. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 volumes, Stuttgart 1974. CLINES, David J. A. (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 5 volumes, Sheffield 1993-2001. FREEDMAN, David Noel (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 volumes, New York 1992. JENNI, E. (ed.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 volumes, Pebody, Mass. 1997. KITTEL, G./FRIEDRICH, G. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,

10 volumes, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1964-1976. KOEHLER, Ludwig/BAUMGARTNER, Walter, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon

of the Old Testament, 5 volumes, Leiden 1994- Present. VANGEMEREN, Willem A. (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testa-

ment Theology & Exegesis, 5 volumes, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1997.

Index of Modern Authors Adams, S. …..40, 82, 84 Adler, E. ……13, 120, 306 Aitken, J. ……..6, 11, 183 Albertz, R. ……….231, 243, 244 Allison, D. …..189, 209, 212, 249 Alonso Schöckel, L. ……20, 65, 92, 113, 134, 141, 284 Anderson, G. ….3, 73, 151, 171, 176, 178, 192-193, 194, 196-197, 200, 210, 212, 213, 218, 220, 234, 236, 237, 238, 249, 272, 324 Andrzej, K. …….302-303 Aperghis, M. ……..10, 191 Argall, R. ….47, 52, 229 Backhaus, F. J. ….99, 121-122 Baesens, V. …..10, 223 Baillet, M. ……13 Baker, D. ………..28 Baldauf, B. ….2, 18, 47, 54, 63, 67, 81, 172, 209, 261, 296, 298, 299, 300, 311, 315, 316, 318 Barhélemy, D. …297 Barton, J. ……255, 256 Basnor, A. ……..174-175 Baumgartner, W. …..118, 297 Beentjes, P.……2, 14, 17, 27, 41, 61, 63, 65, 75, 76, 105, 117, 142, 184, 188, 189, 230, 232, 233, 261, 266, 268, 295, 297, 313 Ben-Dov, J. ……264, 265, 283 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. …….13, 297 Benoit, P. ……….144 Bergsma, J. …….260 Berlin, A. ….. 47 Bibb, B. ……..248 Bickerman, E. ………9, 10, 58 Billerbeck, P. …….204 Blenkinsopp, J. …….35, 36, 174, 231, 241

Boccaccini, G. ……..83, 236 Bolkestein, H. ………201, 202, 283 Bonsirven, J. ……….179, 211 Box, G. H. …..13, 27, 28, 29, 33, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 85, 92, 96, 97, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 113, 117, 120, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137, 152, 157, 172-173, 180, 182, 183, 185, 240, 252, 265, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302-303, 306, 307, 310, 311, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327 Braude, W. …..212 Bright, J. ……..8, 9, 10, 11 Brooks, R. ……218, 251 Buber, M. …..255 Büchler, A. …..233, 237 Bultmann, R. …….179 Burdell, G. P. …1 Burke, K. …….31 Burkes, S. ……..84, 121 Calduch-Benages, N. …..11, 16, 17, 42, 53, 76, 77, 306 Camp, C. V. ……2-3, 25, 48, 65, 84, 87, 200, 201, 224 Chaney, M. …….175 Chapman, S. …….39-40 Charlesworth, J. …..205 Childs, B. …….84 Chilton, B. …….35, 144 Clifford, R. ……35, 160 Clines, D. ……..27, 267, 297 Cohen, E. ……164, 193, 251 Collins, J. J. …6, 8, 9, 13, 24, 29, 58, 75, 82, 84, 89, 110, 116, 118, 121, 122 Colson, F. H. ....205 Corley, J. ……..3, 6, 9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 100, 111, 169, 188, 189, 230, 318

354

Index of Modern Authors

Cowley, A. …..13, 318 Crenshaw, J. …..7, 8, 12, 13, 31, 36, 51, 54, 68, 73, 75, 76, 77, 82, 88, 92, 98, 117, 134, 146, 262, 265, 267, 271, 279 Crossan, J. D. ….59 Daley, B. …….41 David, A. ……250 Davies, A. …..255 Davies, E. ……255, 256 Davies, W. D. ….189, 209, 212, 249 Davis, H. ……274 Delcor, M. ……..34 Dell, K. ……89 Den Boer, W. ….201, 202, 203 deSilva, D. ……87, 88, 197, 284 Desmond, W. ….203 Deutsch, C. …..34 Di Lella, A. ….5, 6, 7, 8, 9-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 85, 87, 92, 95, 97, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 113, 118, 120, 121, 129, 130, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156-157, 173, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185-186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 215, 217, 225, 226, 230, 231, 234, 237-238, 240, 245, 258, 262, 266, 270, 271, 277, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302-303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 324, 326 Di Vito, R. ……84 Dibelius, M. ….155 Dihi, H. …..112, 298 Dillard, R. ….38 Dohmen, C. ….192 Domeris, W. …..61 Doran, R. …..6 Duesberg, H. ….46, 113, 134, 136, 137, 141, 155, 162, 182, 183, 302-303 Eberharter, A. …..92, 98, 100, 134, 139, 155, 270, 279 Egger-Wenzel, R. …..31 Eichhorn, J. ….23 Eichrodt, W. ….38, 40, 254-255 Elizur, S. …..14, 27

Elwolde, J. …..70, 298 Epstein, I. ....206 Ewald, H. …23, 24 Fabry, H.-J. ….61 Falk, Z. ……143, 144, 153 Fang Che-Yong, M. …..41, 82, 272-273 Fensham, F. C. ....267 Ferrer, J. ……16, 17, 42, 306 Fitzmyer, J. …..126, 178, 189, 196, 197, 210, 283 Fox. M. V. …….33, 72, 73, 74, 90, 157, 159-160, 192, 263 Fransen, I. …..46, 113, 134, 136, 137, 141, 155, 162, 182, 183, 302-303 Freedman, L. ……161 Fritzsche, O. ……20, 134, 136, 139, 157, 183, 189, 237 Fuchs, A. ………95, 105, 214 Gabrielsen, V. …….164, 193 Gammie, J. ……39, 40, 77, 232 Gamoran, H. …..143 Garner, R. …….118 Garrison, R. …..213, 247, 249 Garvie, A. F. ……202 Gaster, M. …14 Gera, D. …11, 56 Gerstenberger, E. ……61 Gilbert, M. …..2, 3, 7, 16, 24, 42, 75, 77, 85, 92, 96, 105, 106, 108, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 183, 185, 188, 189, 194, 276, 277, 278 Gilmore, D. ….86 Ginzberg, L. ….297, 316 Goff, M. …..166, 167, 168 Goldingay, J. …..40 Goodblatt, D. ….57 Gordon, C. …..42, 260 Goshen-Gottstein, A. ....230 Gowan, D. …..74 Grabbe, L. ……7, 58, 222, 223 Grant, M. …..202 Gray, S. ……..212 Greenfield, J. ……114, 271 Gregory, B. ……88, 177, 190, 191, 192


Griffen, P. …….2, 3, 175, 185, 186, 188, 199, 201, 234, 237 Gutiérrez, G. ………..90 Hadot, J. …….151 Hamel, G. …….201, 281 Hamilton, J. ….142 Hamp, V. ……….92, 94, 106, 113, 117, 123, 127, 141 Hands, A. R. …202 von Harnack, A. …285 Harrington, D. …..6, 7, 155, 166 Harvey, J. …..20-22, 149 Haspecker, J. ……….30, 31, 61, 77, 84, 92 Hayward, C. T. R. …….183, 190, 191, 225, 226, 227-228, 229, 244, 246, 250 Heidel, A. …….116 Hejcl, J. …..163 Hengel, M. …..11, 12, 56, 71, 123, 125, 250 Heschel, A. …..291 Himmelfarb, M. …….228 Hjelm, I. ……..7 Ho, A. ……178 Holloway, P. ….105, 106, 122 Holmes, M. …..286 Hoppe, L. …..2 Horbury, W. ……..183 Horsley, R. ……5, 6, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 149, 222, 223, 224, 232, 253, 262, 263, 269 Houston, W. ……242 Hurvitz, A. ………178, 181, 194, 269, 324 Inwood, B. …..282 Israelstam, J. …….287 Jastrow, M. ……….35 Jensen, J. E. ……3, 46, 173, 201, 234, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 295-296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303 Jobes, K. ……….9 Johnston, P. ……115 Joosten, J. ……44, 136, 179, 251 Jüngling, H.-W. …….20 Kaiser, O. …..3, 82, 110, 112, 123, 125, 233 Kearns, C. ……….14, 15, 36, 215, 324

355

Keener, C. ………..138 Kieweler, V. ……….12 Kimilike, L. P. ….245 Kister, M. ………105, 298, 317 Koch, K. …….38-39, 40 Koehler, L. …….297 Krašovec, J. ………..38 Kugel, J. ……….84, 117, 216, 305 Kugler, R. ……..205 Lane, W. …249 Lapide, C. …….19, 22 Lee, T. ………22, 85 Lenski, G. …….6, 58-59 Levenson, J. ……83, 115, 116, 176, 189, 268 Lévi, I. ……14, 29, 36, 45, 54, 120, 172173, 297, 301, 304, 306, 307, 310 Levin, C. ……..74 Lewis, T. ……115 Lichtheim, M. ……..39, 125, 165, 267, 282 Lieberman, S. …….234 Liesen, J. ……16, 17, 42, 43, 278, 306 Lim, T. ……..85 Lindars, B. …..255 Lipiński, E. ……..35 Loader, J. A. …..73, 74 Lundbom, J. ……….68 Luz, U. …96, 190, 210, 212, 250 MacDonald, N. ……271 Mack, B. ……22, 85, 109 MacKenzie, R. A. F. ……..67, 69, 92, 108, 311 Malchow, B. ……46, 48, 80, 245 Malina, B. ……..86 Maloney, R. ……..163, 164 Marböck, J. …….19, 21, 23, 24, 31, 34, 122, 233 Marcus, J. ……..14 Margoliouth, G. ….14 Marmorstein, A. ……204, 208, 213 May, H. ……..38 McCarter, P. K. …268 McKane, W. …….46 McKechnie, P. …..8 Metz, J. ……291

356


Middendorp, T. ….12, 24, 29, 67, 118, 125 Milgrom, J. …..238, 242 Milik, J. T. …….13 Miller, P. ……68 Millett, P. ………164 Minissale, A. ……14, 85, 158, 302-303, 309 Minkner, K. ……..164 Modrzejewski, J. ……147 Moore, C. ……178, 196, 197, 237 Moore, G. F. ……7 Morla Asensio, V. ……2, 18, 25, 37, 45, 46, 50, 61, 133 Moxnes, H. …….86, 87 Mulder, O. ……20-21, 230 Murphy, C. ……..52, 161, 165, 167, 168 Murphy, R. ……….7, 30, 39, 42, 53, 226, 278, 280 Murray, A. T. …..202 Nelson, M. …….16, 215, 217 Neubauer, A. ……13, 318 Neufeld, E. ……143 Newsom, C. …….69, 73, 74 Neyrey, J. ………86, 102 Nickelsburg, G. ……52, 197, 271 Niederwimmer, K. …….285-286 Oakman, D. …….60 Oesterley, W. O. E. …13, 27, 28, 29, 33, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 85, 92, 96, 97, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 113, 117, 120, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137, 152, 157, 172-173, 180, 182, 183, 185, 240, 252, 265, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302-303, 306, 307, 310, 311, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327 Ogden, G. S. ……29 Olofsson, S. ….301 Olyan, S. …..67, 225, 226, 231, 232, 252, 272 Otto, E. ….255 Owens, R. …..16, 214, 215, 252 Palmisano, M. ….24 Parkin, A. …282, 283 Peacock, M. ……193

Penar, T. ….97, 105, 267 Perdue, L. ….6, 85, 225, 231, 232, 246 Peters, N. …..14, 20, 23, 29, 33, 36, 43, 45, 46, 52, 54, 70, 84, 92, 94, 97, 101, 106, 114, 117, 119, 120, 121, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137, 141, 150, 152, 155, 173, 181, 182, 183, 186, 215, 219, 240, 296, 298, 301, 302-303, 306, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326 van Peursen, W. ……16, 30, 33, 51, 63, 64, 133, 135, 152, 183, 215, 217, 218, 319, 324, 326, 327 Phillips, T. ………205 Pitt-Rivers, J. ……..86 Pleins, J. D. …….46, 61, 142, 163, 241, 242, 243, 245 Pomeroy, S. …….142 Pomykala, K. …..231 Pope, A. …202 Portier-Young, A. ….199 Prato, G. ……72, 75, 76, 83, 179, 276 Prockter, L. J. ……3, 178, 259, 267 Propp, W. …..174 Puech, É. …..82 Rabinowitz, I. ……..34 von Rad, G. ……31, 46, 48, 225, 228 Rankin, O. S. …..38 Reiterer, F. V. ….2, 51, 69, 71, 83, 110, 121, 265, 305, 306 Reventlow, H. G. ……..40 Rickenbacher, O. ….33, 34, 297 Rodd, C. …255 Rohrbaugh, R. …..60, 61 Rosenthal, F. ……178 Rostovtzeff, M. …….56, 191 Roth, W. …….6, 23, 169 Rüger, H. P. …….15, 16, 46, 104, 105, 107, 298, 299, 309, 310, 311 Rybolt, J. ……..95, 160-161, 186 Sanders, E. P. ……150, 206, 208 Sanders, J. A. …14 Sanders, J. T. ….12-13, 28, 65, 84, 85, 118, 125 Sandoval, T. ….26, 31, 32, 37, 74, 157, 160, 163 Saracino, F. …….82


Sauer, G. ……45, 51, 52, 53, 61, 67, 68, 93, 94, 97, 100, 101, 106, 113, 114, 115, 118, 132, 134, 140, 141, 153, 155, 156, 163, 186, 188, 259, 268, 270, 271, 280, 298, 302-303, 306, 307, 313, 314, 322, 323, 324, 326 Schaefer, K. ….248 Schaper, J. ……56, 222 Schaps, D. …..193 Schechter, S. ….14, 54, 69, 70, 297, 298, 299, 313, 318 Scherer, A. …….161-162 Schmidt, W. H. …..35 Schnabel, E. ..149, 150, 226, 232, 241 Schrader, L. ….20, 24, 65, 77, 84, 92, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 117, 118, 119, 121-122, 123 Schreiner, J. ….5, 71, 72, 82, 92, 94, 123, 130, 133, 226, 258, 259, 262, 268, 271, 279 Seaford, R. ….193 Seeligmann, I. …..73, 143, 145-146, 149, 159, 162, 164, 187 Segal, M. H. ……..297, 299, 300 Segal, M. Z. …….6, 14, 20, 22, 92, 93, 94, 95, 101, 104, 105, 119, 120, 121, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 151, 152, 155, 157, 160-161, 173, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 215, 237-238, 240, 258, 265, 297, 298, 299, 301, 302-303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 316, 317, 321, 322, 324, 326, 327 Sheppard, G. …..149 Silva, M. ……9 Skehan, P. …5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 61, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 78, 80, 82, 85, 87, 92, 94, 95, 97, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 113, 118, 120, 121, 129, 130, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 149, 152, 154, 155, 157, 173, 180, 182, 183, 185-186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 215, 217, 225, 226, 234, 237-238, 240, 245, 258, 262, 266, 270, 271, 277, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302-303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311,

357

313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327 Slotki, J. …287 Smend, R. …14, 19, 27, 28, 31, 33, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 61, 70, 85, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 117, 120, 121, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137, 146, 149, 151, 152, 157, 160-161, 173, 182, 183, 184, 213-214, 215, 252, 279, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302-303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 324 Smith, D. …102 Smith, M. ….318 Snaith, J. ….67, 98, 99, 160-161, 225, 232, 311, 314 van der Spek, R. …..58, 223 Spicq, C. …20, 46, 51, 54, 65, 85, 92, 98, 100, 102, 109, 113, 134, 139, 155, 258, 262, 266, 267, 270, 279, 311 Stadelmann, H. …6, 67, 179, 225, 226, 230, 232, 237-238, 239, 240, 327 Stark, R. ….204, 207 Stein, S. ….147 Stendebach, F. J. ….2, 261 Stenmans, P. ….192 Strack, H. ……204 Strugnell, J. ….166 Swete, H. …9 Taylor, C. ….14, 54, 69, 70, 297, 298, 299, 313, 318 Tcherikover, V. ….8, 9, 11, 12, 57, 67, 71 Theissen, G. ….102 Thiele, W. ….16, 106, 296, 310 Tiller, P. ….5, 6, 58, 62, 223, 232 Trenchard, W. …..302 Tromp, N. ……115, 116 Ulmer, R. ………96 Urbach, E. ….212, 216 Van Leeuwen, R. …46, 72 Van Seters, J. …174 VanderKam, J. ….7 Vattioni, F. …14 de Vaux, R. …13, 143, 159, 164 Visotzky, B. ……..206

358


Wagner, C. ….71, 94, 298 Waltke, B. ….35, 40, 46, 70, 75, 96, 160, 161, 162 Washington, H. …..254 Weil, H. M. …155, 156, 157 Weinfeld, M. …..73, 176, 177, 179 Weitzman, M. ….16, 252 Wender, D. ……125 West, D. ………126 Whybray, N. ………61, 123 Wicke-Reuter, U. …….75, 123 Wikenhauser, A. …..216 Wilcox, M. ……52 Williams, D. ……72, 74

Winston, D. …..75, 108, 305 Winter, M. M. ……16, 214, 215, 217, 218, 326, 327 Wischmeyer, O. …..2, 60, 61, 89, 112, 115, 131, 133, 224, 232, 244, 258 Wright, B. G. …2-3, 6, 11-12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 37, 48, 58-59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 78, 79, 82, 87, 89, 97, 109, 116, 117, 129, 166, 167, 168, 190, 200, 201, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 232, 304, 306 Wright, W. C. …204 Yadin, Y. …14 Ziegler, J. ….5, 14, 15, 32, 46, 306, 318

Index of References I. Hebrew Bible Genesis Gen 1…..241 Gen 1-11….117 Gen 1:24-26…..67 Gen 2…228 Gen 2-3…….117 Gen 2:17…..117 Gen 3……110 Gen 3:1-5……41 Gen 3:3-4…….117 Gen 4:7……….41 Gen 4:15…….216 Gen 4:24……216 Gen 6:17…117 Gen 7:13-16…..67 Gen 7:21….117 Gen 15:11………102 Gen 18:25…255 Gen 25:30…….102 Gen 31:29………108 Gen 38:17-18……..159 Gen 43:9…….159, 162 Gen 43:33-34…….102 Gen 44:32….159

Exodus Exod 3:21…….188 Exod 4:22…..268 Exod 13……223 Exod 13:11-16….255 Exod 20:5………83 Exod 20:8-11….255 Exod 20:12…..250 Exod 22……72, 174 Exod 22:20…..174 Exod 22:20-23…..175

Exod 22:21-23…..264, 265, 267 Exod 22:24……..143, 146 Exod 22:24-26…..146, 159, 174 Exod 22:25…….51, 156

Leviticus Lev 2……….223 Lev 3:1-17……..238 Lev 4-5………233 Lev 4:1-35……..242 Lev 5:1-13……242 Lev 7……….223 Lev 7:7………233 Lev 7:13-15….238 Lev 12:1-8….242 Lev 14:21-32………242 Lev 16:21-22….235 Lev 18:17………41 Lev 19:2……….255, 285 Lev 19:9-10……..186 Lev 19:13………….242 Lev 19:15………..242 Lev 19:18-19………….67 Lev 19:29………41 Lev 20:14………41 Lev 22:21-30…….238 Lev 25……..175, 236, 242, 243, 260 Lev 25:25…….260, 287 Lev 25:35…….260 Lev 25:35-37……..146 Lev 25:35-38…….143, 242 Lev 25:39………..260 Lev 25:47………260 Lev 26:18……216 Lev 26:21……..216 Lev 26:24……216 Lev 26:28……..216 Lev 27…….223

360

Index of References

Lev 27:1-8…242 Lev 27:8…….260

Numbers Num 11:6…….103 Num 16……..231 Num 17:5…….96 Num 18……223 Num 22:37…….192 Num 24:11….192 Num 25:6-13….231 Num 30:3……250

Deuteronomy Deut 1:8……306 Deut 4:6-8…….226 Deut 5:12-15…..256 Deut 6:4-5…….226 Deut 6:5………226, 304 Deut 8:1-9:6…..40 Deut 10:17-19….255 Deut 12:6…….305 Deut 12:11……..305 Deut 12:17……..305 Deut 14-15……248 Deut 14:22-27….245 Deut 14:28-29…59, 245 Deut 14:29……..267 Deut 15…….72, 134, 143, 144, 147, 171, 174, 175, 186, 187, 188, 190, 256 Deut 15:1-6…141 Deut 15:1-18……245 Deut 15:4……188 Deut 15:7-8……73 Deut 15:7-11…141-142, 143, 186, 300 Deut 15:8……142, 187 Deut 15:9…..142 Deut 15:9-10….176 Deut 15:10-11….187 Deut 15:12-15……..256 Deut 15:13………187 Deut 15:15……..188 Deut 16:16……187 Deut 18:1-14….230 Deut 21:17……..44 Deut 23:20-21……143, 146

Deut 23:24…….250 Deut 24:6…….51 Deut 24:10…….143 Deut 24:10-13….141, 143, 145, 159 Deut 24:12……..143 Deut 24:12-13….156, 159 Deut 24:13…….143 Deut 24:13-15…264 Deut 24:17…….51, 267 Deut 24:17-18……256 Deut 24:21-22……256 Deut 26:1-11….256 Deut 26:14…….271 Deut 27:19…….267 Deut 28………38 Deut 28:32……108

Joshua Josh 10:12…….306

Judges Judg 5:8……..258, 314 Judg 9:9……192

1 Samuel 1 Sam 2:6……115 1 Sam 2:7-8…78 1 Sam 2:8…….174 1 Sam 14:32…..102 1 Sam 15:9……102 1 Sam 22:2….133 1 Sam 25:14…102

2 Samuel 2 Sam 7:14…….268 2 Sam 12:4……316 2 Sam 12:6…..316 2 Sam 22:3……..301

1 Kings 1 Kgs 10……28

2 Kings 2 Kgs 2:9……..44 2 Kgs 4:1……159

Index of References

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Isa 1………247 Isa 1:17……..267 Isa 1:23……267 Isa 3………174 Isa 9:6…..180 Isa 11:1-6…177 Isa 11:4…….174 Isa 11:6…….68 Isa 13:12…….28 Isa 14:9-11…..115 Isa 16:5………177 Isa 16:14……..78 Isa 18:2………70 Isa 18:6…….102 Isa 18:7………70 Isa 28:10……70 Isa 28:13……70 Isa 32:1……176 Isa 32:17…….180 Isa 34:4……..118 Isa 38:14…..162 Isa 38:18…..115 Isa 40:6-8…..118 Isa 45:7…….47 Isa 49:15….302 Isa 50:9…..116 Isa 51:5…..116 Isa 54:8……101 Isa 55:1-3…..35, 36 Isa 56-66….243 Isa 56:1……207 Isa 57:1……..177 Isa 58….216 Isa 58:1-10…..189 Isa 58:2……..177 Isa 58:6-7…..212, 243 Isa 58:7….214, 215 Isa 58:7-12….287 Isa 61:1-3…..177 Isa 61:3……139 Isa 64:5……118 Isa 65:25……68 Isa 66…….247 Isa 66:13…..302

Jer 2:24……..69 Jer 3:16…….309 Jer 5:6……..68 Jer 8:8……226 Jer 9:23…..177 Jer 12:9…..68, 102 Jer 17:8….118 Jer 17:11…..82 Jer 18:23…288 Jer 31:9…….268 Jer 33:18…….230 Jer 34:8-11…177 Jer 50:14……316 Jer 51:39……..115

Ezekiel Ezek 18………147, 177 Exod 18:7……..177, 215 Ezek 18:7-13…….145 Ezek 18:12……..51 Ezek 18:16……51, 177, 215 Ezek 18:22…..235 Ezek 18:24……236 Ezek 22:12……147 Ezek 32:21…….115 Ezek 34:4……….272 Ezek 37:1-14……103 Ezek 39:4……..102 Ezek 40-48…..230, 231, 243 Ezek 40:46………231 Ezek 45:6-7…..306 Ezek 47………..228 Ezek 48:10…..306 Ezek 48:11…….231 Ezek 48:18……306 Ezek 48:20-21….306

Hosea Hos 6……….247 Hos 6:6…….251 Hos 11:1……268 Hos 14:3………249

Amos Amos 3:6…….47

361

362

Index of References

Amos 6………247 Amos 8…….174 Amos 9:2….115

Micah Mic 2:1………108 Mic 3:4……….101 Mic 3:9-12….176 Mic 6……….247

Haggai Hag 1-2….242-243

Zechariah Zech 6:11-14……..230 Zech 7:9-10……….177 Zech 7:10……..267 Zech 13:8……44

Malachi Mal 3:5…….267

Psalms Ps 1:1……324 Ps 1:3……..118 Ps 2:7……..268 Ps 6:6……..115 Ps 15:5…….147, 180 Ps 16:10……116 Ps 21:4…230 Ps 22:19…….113 Ps 22:25……248, 265-266, 299 Ps 22:26….248 Ps 28:6….266 Ps 30:4…..116 Ps 31:3….266 Ps 33:4-7……..176 Ps 33:5…….177 Ps 35:13….272 Ps 35:17……..68 Ps 36:11…177 Ps 37………148-149 Ps 37:21…..129, 133, 148-149, 269 Ps 37:26…..269 Ps 37:37……84, 311 Ps 39:7…..123

Ps 49:11…….113 Ps 49:16….116 Ps 49:17…..115 Ps 49:19……..108 Ps 50:3…..192 Ps 58:7…….68 Ps 68:6…..267, 258 Ps 73…….81 Ps 78:25….305 Ps 78:44-71……216 Ps 78:56……190 Ps 79:12….216 Ps 86:13…..116 Ps 88:5……..115 Ps 88:13…..115 Ps 89:3…….251 Ps 89:10-15….176 Ps 89:27-28….268 Ps 89:49…….116 Ps 90:3-10…..118 Ps 92:7-8………81 Ps 102:27….116 Ps 103:6……..267 Ps 105:27-36……216 Ps 106:28…….271 Ps 106:32…….260 Ps 107:11….190 Ps 109:12…..269 Ps 109:13……..84, 311 Ps 111…….256, 257 Ps 111:3…..180, 256 Ps 111:4…….256 Ps 111:5….256 Ps 111:7…….256 Ps 112……..180-181, 256, 257 Ps 112:1….324 Ps 112:3…….180-181, 194, 256, 257, 325 Ps 112:4….256 Ps 112:5……256, 269 Ps 112:6…..84, 256 Ps 112:9….180-181, 194, 256, 257, 293, 325 Ps 113:7-8………78 Ps 118:28…….139 Ps 132:13….248

Index of References

Ps 132:14…248 Ps 132:15-16….248 Ps 136:25……287 Ps 139:8…….115 Ps 146:9…….267

Job Job 2:10……47 Job 3:5…….305 Job 3:11-16……..115 Job 4:12………..44 Job 10:21…..115 Job 13:28…..116 Job 14:1-2…118 Job 14:12…….115 Job 14:19-20……69 Job 14:21…….115, 120 Job 15:29…115 Job 17:2…..115 Job 18:17…..84 Job 20:6……..69 Job 22:6-7…..215 Job 22:9…….267 Job 22:24……..28 Job 23:13…….42 Job 24:1…….69 Job 24:4-5……69 Job 24:24……..260 Job 26:14………44 Job 27:13-19…….123 Job 28:16………28 Job 28:16-18……27 Job 29-31……….199 Job 29:9……71 Job 29:14-17….243 Job 29:23-25…..177 Job 30:1…….68 Job 31:13-40……243 Job 31:16-18…267 Job 31:17-32….215 Job 31:18……268 Job 31:27…….138 Job 33:24……..303 Job 34:15……..117

363

Proverbs Prov 1-9……..20, 22, 33 Prov 1:17………32 Prov 3:9……192 Prov 3:9-10….226 Prov 3:14……….33 Prov 3:21-35….263 Prov 3:26……..42 Prov 3:27……108, 263, 321 Prov 3:27-28…….263 Prov 4:5……35 Prov 4:6……34, 35 Prov 4:7…..34, 35 Prov 5………45 Prov 6:1….159, 160 Prov 6:1-5….133, 155, 159-160, 167, 168 Prov 6:3……..160 Prov 6:3-5….160 Prov 6:31……129, 216 Prov 8……..32, 34 Prov 8-9……..32, 33, 36 Prov 8:10-11….33 Prov 8:14-21……..36 Prov 8:18…..194 Prov 8:18-19…….34 Prov 8:18-21……33, 34, 193 Prov 8:19……33 Prov 8:21……32, 33 Prov 9………32 Prov 9:1-6……32, 33, 35 Prov 9:10……..32 Prov 10-31…..22 Prov 10:2…..194, 196, 207, 293 Prov 10:7……..84 Prov 10:30…180 Prov 11:4……..46, 194, 196, 207, 293, 324 Prov 11:15…….133, 159, 161 Prov 11:16-17…..161 Prov 11:28…..46 Prov 12:7…..287 Prov 12:9…….45 Prov 13:22…….123 Prov 14:21….269

364

Index of References

Prov 14:31…..174, 175, 192, 207, 212, 225, 262, 265, 269, 291 Prov 14:34…..206 Prov 16:6……..235 Prov 17:5…..174, 175, 192, 207, 212, 226, 261-262, 265 Prov 17:17…161 Prov 17:18…133, 159, 161 Prov 19:4-7……70 Prov 19:17….100, 192, 193, 194, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 258, 269, 284, 287, 293, 300 Prov 20:16……51, 159, 161 Prov 21:3…..251 Prov 21:13-14…..209 Prov 21:21……177 Prov 22:1……..29 Prov 22:7……167 Prov 22:9…….95 Prov 22:26…….159 Prov 22:26-27…..133, 159, 161, 162 Prov 22:27…….129 Prov 23:6………95 Prov 23:21…….45 Prov 23:22…..41 Prov 26:27…….39 Prov 27:6….138 Prov 27:13….51, 159, 161 Prov 28:8…….123, 269 Prov 28:22…….95 Prov 28:28…147 Prov 29:21…114 Prov 29:26…..70 Prov 29:27……70 Prov 30:9……50 Prov 31:10-31….20

Qoheleth Qoh 1:4………118 Qoh 1:11….85 Qoh 2:18-21…….123 Qoh 2:24-25……121 Qoh 2:25……122 Qoh 3:13….121, 122 Qoh 4:8……..123

Qoh 5:9-6:10………123 Qoh 5:11……….51 Qoh 5:17-20…121 Qoh 5:18-19….122 Qoh 5:20………106 Qoh 6:1-2…….123 Qoh 6:12………121 Qoh 7:1……..29 Qoh 7:14…….121 Qoh 8:14……48 Qoh 9:6-10….121 Qoh 9:7-10…122 Qoh 9:9-10…..106 Qoh 9:10……115 Qoh 9:12……109 Qoh 9:16……71 Qoh 10:18……260 Qoh 11:1…219 Qoh 11:8….121

Lamentations Lam 1:20…..298 Lam 2:11……298 Lam 3:38……47 Lam 4:7……27

Esther Esth 2:18…..172

Daniel Dan 4………236, 247 Dan 4:24………178, 236 Dan 11:4……84, 311

Nehemiah Neh 5……159, 243 Neh 5:5………108 Neh 5:6-13….243 Neh 5:7-13……..243 Neh 10………..223 Neh 13:10-13…..243

2 Chronicles 2 Chron 9:10……28 2 Chron 30:9…..101

Index of References

II. Deuterocanonical Books Tobit Tob 1-5…….198 Tob 1:3…….197, 283 Tob 1:8………197 Tob 1:16-17….215-216 Tob 1:16-19……271 Tob 1:17……283 Tob 2………197 Tob 2:2…….283 Tob 3……197 Tob 4……199, 207, 237, 247 Tob 4:1-11…..234 Tob 4:5-11…196 Tob 4:6…….283 Tob 4:6-7…283 Tob 4:7……101, 199, 283, 284, 299 Tob 4:8-11…284 Tob 4:9-11….236-237 Tob 4:10……197, 269 Tob 4:11……..206 Tob 4:17……271, 274, 283 Tob 5:10……..197 Tob 12:8-9…..196 Tob 12:8-10…198 Tob 12:9…….196 Tob 12:13-14…199 Tob 14:2……….198 Tob 14:10….196 Tob 14:10-11…..198

Additions to Esther Esth 13:13……138

Wisdom of Solomon Wis 1:16-2:24………108 Wis 2:21-24……….108 Wis 7:8-13………37 Wis 11:1-19:9……216 Wis 16:20……..305

Sirach Sir prologue……5, 6 Sir 1……..20, 33, 76 Sir 1:1…..20, 241

365

Sir 1:1-10…..32 Sir 1:1-30……….21, 32 Sir 1:1-4:10…….20, 21, 233, 261 Sir 1:1-16:21……23 Sir 1:1-16:23……..20 Sir 1:1-23:28….19 Sir 1:9-10…..241 Sir 1:11-30…….32, 37 Sir 1:13…..82 Sir 1:14……..32, 33 Sir 1:14-20……..32, 33, 34 Sir 1:15……32 Sir 1:16…….33 Sir 1:16-17……..32, 34, 193 Sir 1:17…….33 Sir 1:25……..32 Sir 1:30……87, 88 Sir 2:1…….76 Sir 2:1-11…..199 Sir 2:4-5……77 Sir 2:4-6……..77 Sir 2:5…….77 Sir 2:6-10……..52 Sir 2:7-8………..43 Sir 2:10-11…….77 Sir 2:18…….158 Sir 3…….237, 238, 249 Sir 3:3……..235 Sir 3:3-4…..234-235 Sir 3:4……..37, 235 Sir 3:8-9……297 Sir 3:9…….234 Sir 3:14……..179, 186, 235 Sir 3:14-15……234, 269 Sir 3:15……235 Sir 3:16…….234 Sir 3:17….302 Sir 3:21-24……..229 Sir 3:26………98, 302 Sir 3:30……..179, 186, 197, 233, 234, 235, 263 Sir 3:30-31..…2, 17, 124, 206, 233, 237, 244, 261, 262, 268, 269, 296 Sir 3:30-4:10…….111, 188, 200, 263, 269

366

Index of References

Sir 3:31……194-195, 234, 235, 324, 326, 327 Sir 4:1……….263, 265, 295-297 Sir 4:1-3…….262, 263, 279, 297 Sir 4:1-4……..262 Sir 4:1-6………261, 270 Sir 4:1-10…….2, 3, 17, 53, 61, 72, 73, 89, 201, 232, 241, 245, 254, 261-270, 273, 276, 280, 294, 295-303 Sir 4:2…….263, 296-298, 299 Sir 4:3………..19, 263, 298-299, 300 Sir 4:4…….199, 263, 264, 299-300 Sir 4:4-5…….101, 140, 283, 298, 299300 Sir 4:4-6……..172, 264, 265 Sir 4:5…..264, 299 Sir 4:6……264, 265, 269, 300-301 Sir 4:7……..266, 301, 302 Sir 4:7-10……261 Sir 4:8…..263, 266 Sir 4:8-9…….266 Sir 4:8-10……224, 266, 270 Sir 4:9…….266, 301-302 Sir 4:10……..194, 267-270, 273, 302303 Sir 4:11-12……..52 Sir 4:11-19……21 Sir 4:11-6:17….20, 21 Sir 4:12……302 Sir 4:14……..302 Sir 4:15……..12 Sir 5:1….104, 108 Sir 5:7……….77 Sir 6:1-2…….297 Sir 6:5-17……..23 Sir 6:14…….27 Sir 6:14-15……..27, 112 Sir 6:14-16…….100 Sir 6:15…..27, 28 Sir 6:15-17…….149 Sir 6:18-19………34 Sir 6:18-37…….21, 23 Sir 6:18-14:19…..20, 21 Sir 6:27……52 Sir 6:32-37……..62 Sir 6:34……..60

Sir 7………130 Sir 7:3…….214, 216 Sir 7:4-6….53 Sir 7:8……….42 Sir 7:10…….2, 179, 325 Sir 7:11…….172, 262 Sir 7:12…….188 Sir 7:14……….60 Sir 7:16………42, 77 Sir 7:17…….29 Sir 7:18………112 Sir 7:18-19……27, 28, 29 Sir 7:18-28…….41 Sir 7:18-35………273 Sir 7:20-21………61 Sir 7:23-25……..149 Sir 7:27……..304 Sir 7:29……225 Sir 7:29-30….304 Sir 7:29-31……..104, 225-226, 227, 232, 239, 245, 270 Sir 7:29-35…….41 Sir 7:29-36….17, 218, 245, 295, 304-307 Sir 7:30…..225, 226 Sir 7:31…….225, 244, 304-306 Sir 7:32…….270, 306 Sir 7:32-36…..111, 133, 241, 245, 254, 270-273, 276, 280, 294 Sir 7:33…..270, 273, 283, 306 Sir 7:34….271 Sir 7:35….272, 302, 306-307 Sir 7:36…..41, 82, 272-273, 306, 311 Sir 8:1…….158 Sir 8:1-2…….64, 65 Sir 8:1-3…….130-131 Sir 8:1-7……130 Sir 8:1-19…129, 130 Sir 8:4……131 Sir 8:5…….42, 77, 131, 278 Sir 8:5-8….117 Sir 8:6……..131 Sir 8:7…….130 Sir 8:8……..130, 132 Sir 8:8-9…….130, 131 Sir 8:8-19……..130 Sir 8:9……131, 132

Index of References

Sir 8:10…….131, 132, 234 Sir 8:10-11…….130 Sir 8:10-14………130 Sir 8:10-19…..130, 131 Sir 8:11………131, 132 Sir 8:12…….137, 141, 143, 150 Sir 8:12-13……17, 24, 128, 129-133, 135, 145, 169, 171, 184, 220 Sir 8:13……….18, 145, 152, 158, 161, 163 Sir 8:14……130, 131, 132 Sir 8:15……131, 132 Sir 8:15-17……130 Sir 8:16……..131, 132 Sir 8:17…….131, 132 Sir 8:18…….132 Sir 8:18-19….131 Sir 9…….130 Sir 9:1-9…….149 Sir 9:3…….158 Sir 9:6…….76 Sir 9:8……234 Sir 9:10-16…149 Sir 9:11-12……42, 81 Sir 9:13……..132 Sir 9:15……..183 Sir 9:17-10:18……60, 78 Sir 10:1-3…….60 Sir 10:1-5…..11 Sir 10:8………..49 Sir 10:9……63 Sir 10:10…….44 Sir 10:13…….41 Sir 10:14-17….11, 78-79 Sir 10:19……85, 87, 309 Sir 10:19-24………85, 295, 308 Sir 10:19-11:1…….86 Sir 10:19-11:6…..45, 79, 85 Sir 10:20……87, 309 Sir 10:21…….309 Sir 10:22…….87 Sir 10:23……..88 Sir 10:24……53, 87 Sir 10:27……29, 41, 45-46 Sir 10:29……..130 Sir 10:30-11:1…..85, 295, 308

367

Sir 10:31….309 Sir 11……126 Sir 11:1-6…..202 Sir 11:4……..81, 262, 305, 309 Sir 11:4-6……..78, 79, 88, 295, 308 Sir 11:5…….309-310 Sir 11:5-6…..11, 78 Sir 11:6……78, 310 Sir 11:10………79 Sir 11:10-11……….80 Sir 11:10-28…….2, 47 Sir 11:11-13……79, 295, 308 Sir 11:12……310 Sir 11:12-13…..172 Sir 11:14…..46-47, 48, 76, 80, 110, 217 Sir 11:15-16…..46 Sir 11:17……46-47, 48 Sir 11:18…….41, 217 Sir 11:18-19…….80, 120-121 Sir 11:20………310 Sir 11:20-21…….310 Sir 11:20-22……80, 295, 308 Sir 11:21……..52, 80, 310, 311 Sir 11:22……..42 Sir 11:22-24…….310 Sir 11:22-26……42, 311 Sir 11:23-24……..81, 311 Sir 11:25-26……..310-311 Sir 11:25-28……..81, 295, 308 Sir 11:26…..43, 311 Sir 11:26-28……272 Sir 11:27……..311 Sir 11:28………..84, 98, 311 Sir 11:29-34………259, 275 Sir 11:29-12:18……65, 67 Sir 11:34……..96 Sir 12:1……….275, 281, 286, 313 Sir 12:1-6……..17-18, 140, 168, 217, 254, 257-260, 261, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 280, 281, 283, 286, 288, 289, 294, 295, 313-314 Sir 12:2……..191, 219, 258 Sir 12:2-3……259, 260 Sir 12:2-6…….284 Sir 12:3…179, 258, 313, 314, 325 Sir 12:4…….260

368

Index of References

Sir 12:4-6…..313-314 Sir 12:5……..44, 258-259, 260, 314 Sir 12:5-6…..274 Sir 12:6…..42, 259-260, 278, 281 Sir 12:8-12…259, 275 Sir 12:12…………49 Sir 12:13…..302 Sir 12:13-18….259 Sir 12:14……..54 Sir 12:18…..16 Sir 13……..89, 93 Sir 13:1…….49, 61 Sir 13:2………68 Sir 13:2-3…….63, 66, 71 Sir 13:2-7……..65 Sir 13:2-8……..65 Sir 13:2-13……62, 63, 65, 79 Sir 13:2-23……61, 232, 241, 244, 253, 259, 264, 295, 315-320 Sir 13:2-24……2 Sir 13:3…….61, 62, 63, 66, 315-316 Sir 13:3-4……..16, 224 Sir 13:4………65, 316 Sir 13:4-8……..64 Sir 13:4-13……..63 Sir 13:5…….317 Sir 13:5-7…….316-317 Sir 13:6………317 Sir 13:7…….16, 69, 317 Sir 13:8………65 Sir 13:9-13……64-65 Sir 13:11……..317-318 Sir 13:12………65, 318 Sir 13:13……..61, 65 Sir 13:14…….62, 318 Sir 13:15……..302 Sir 13:15-16……67 Sir 13:15-19……66 Sir 13:15-20…..66, 71 Sir 13:15-23…..62, 63, 66, 67, 71, 149 Sir 13:16…….67 Sir 13:16-17…..68 Sir 13:17…….63, 68, 69 Sir 13:17-19………..68 Sir 13:18………63, 68, 69, 318 Sir 13:18-19………..224

Sir 13:19…………68, 69, 70 Sir 13:20………66, 69, 217 Sir 13:20-23…….88 Sir 13:21…..318, 319 Sir 13:21-23………66, 70 Sir 13:22…….318-319 Sir 13:22-23……….71 Sir 13:23………69 Sir 13:24…….54, 61, 69, 92, 96 Sir 13:24-14:2………92 Sir 13:25……….69, 92 Sir 13:25-26……..92 Sir 13:25-14:2………92-93, 95, 96, 98 Sir 13:25-14:19………61 Sir 14:1……..20, 49 Sir 14:1-10………92 Sir 14:3………92, 95-96, 99, 280, 322 Sir 14:3-10………92, 93-103, 107, 108, 111, 121, 220 Sir 14:3-19…….4, 17, 80, 90, 91-127, 208, 209, 220, 263 Sir 14:4…….96-97, 99, 100, 112, 113, 114, 124 Sir 14:4-6……..101 Sir 14:5…..97-99, 103, 108, 111, 126 Sir 14:6…….99-100 Sir 14:7……….98-99, 101, 126 Sir 14:7-10……….101 Sir 14:8……100-101, 140 Sir 14:8-10……102 Sir 14:9……101, 102-103 Sir 14:9-10…….101-102, 111 Sir 14:10……95, 102 Sir 14:11…..92, 103, 104, 108-109, 110, 111, 112 Sir 14:11-14…….113 Sir 14:11-15….114 Sir 14:11-16…..220 Sir 14:11-19………92, 96, 99, 103, 104120, 121-126 Sir 14:12……….104-105, 109-110, 111, 112, 114, 118, 120 Sir 14:13……….97, 100, 101, 105, 110112, 126, 127 Sir 14:14……..103, 105, 112 Sir 14:15…………97, 112-114

Index of References

Sir 14:16………99, 103, 104, 105-106, 109, 110, 114-116, 118, 125 Sir 14:16-17………..29 Sir 14:16-18……..119 Sir 14:17………109, 116-118 Sir 14:17-19……….106 Sir 14:18…….107, 118-119 Sir 14:19………..61, 118-120 Sir 14:20……..33, 91 Sir 14:20-15:10……..21 Sir 14:20-20:26………..20 Sir 14:20-23:27……..20, 21 Sir 15:5…….142 Sir 15:5-6………83 Sir 15:11-16:14….276, 277 Sir 15:11-18:14….276, 278, 285, 289 Sir 16:1-4……..83, 149 Sir 16:3…….84, 311 Sir 16:6-13………81 Sir 16:9………..42 Sir 16:11………276 Sir 16:12……..276 Sir 16:14……..179, 186, 191, 235, 276 Sir 16:14-18:14…….277 Sir 16:15-16……..277 Sir 16:17-23…………277 Sir 16:17-18:14……..277 Sir 16:22-36:22…….23 Sir 16:24-17:14……..241, 277 Sir 16:24-23:27…….20 Sir 16:24-24:20……….20 Sir 17:1-2……110, 117 Sir 17:11-14……241 Sir 17:15-22…..277 Sir 17:15-18:14……..233 Sir 17:17…….11 Sir 17:20……42 Sir 17:22……2, 186, 325, 327 Sir 17:23…..277 Sir 17:23-26……77 Sir 17:24…..278 Sir 17:24-18:14…..277 Sir 17:25-26……277 Sir 17:27……..115 Sir 17:27-28……..29 Sir 17:29…….186

369

Sir 17:29-18:14….277 Sir 17:31……..118 Sir 18:11-12…….77 Sir 18:11-14…..277, 278, 279 Sir 18:13..…278, 280, 281 Sir 18:14……….279 Sir 18:15……….279, 321 Sir 18:15-18……..18, 254, 262, 276, 279-281, 285, 287, 289, 295, 320-323 Sir 18:16…..321-322 Sir 18:17…..321-322 Sir 18:18…….280, 322 Sir 18:20-21………..77 Sir 18:24-26…….81, 82 Sir 18:25-26….79 Sir 18:30-33……..108 Sir 18:30-19:1……44 Sir 18:32……..44 Sir 18:33……140, 144, 165, 201 Sir 19:2-4…….45 Sir 19:3-4……41 Sir 19:13-17…..149 Sir 19:17…….190 Sir 19:20……..31, 183 Sir 19:24…….29 Sir 19:28…….49, 50 Sir 20:10……191 Sir 20:14…191, 214, 216 Sir 20:21……..49 Sir 20:27-23:27……..20 Sir 20:30……31 Sir 20:30-31…….31 Sir 20:31……..29 Sir 21:2-3……..40, 259 Sir 21:4…….45, 76 Sir 21:5….172 Sir 21:6……278 Sir 21:8…….49, 50, 52, 53 Sir 21:9-10…116 Sir 22:3-4……..149 Sir 22:9…….115 Sir 22:11………115 Sir 22:11-12……..272 Sir 22:19-26………..149 Sir 22:23-26……111, 142, 190 Sir 22:24……234

370

Index of References

Sir 23……23 Sir 23:6…….108 Sir 23:7-11…..41 Sir 23:16…234 Sir 23:23……190 Sir 24……21, 23, 31, 34, 36, 226, 229, 240 Sir 24:1………20 Sir 24:1-34…….21, 149 Sir 24:1-32:13……..20, 21, 149 Sir 24:1-42:14…..19 Sir 24:3-4…….241 Sir 24:4……..226 Sir 24:5-6……..226 Sir 24:6……241 Sir 24:7-12…….226-227 Sir 24:8-11……..149 Sir 24:8-12……226, 241 Sir 24:10…..227 Sir 24:11…..7 Sir 24:13……..228 Sir 24:13-22…….34 Sir 24:14……..228 Sir 24:15……228, 245 Sir 24:17…….37 Sir 24:19……34 Sir 24:23……149, 150 Sir 24:23-33…….226 Sir 24:25-28……228 Sir 24:30-34………23 Sir 24:30-33:15…….20 Sir 24:31-33…..228 Sir 24:33………..48 Sir 24:34……….52 Sir 25:10…………30 Sir 25:13-26:18……..149 Sir 25:24…….117 Sir 26:3-4……….27, 28 Sir 26:15……..28 Sir 26:28……..42, 150 Sir 26:29-27:3…..45 Sir 27:4………….149 Sir 27:10……40 Sir 27:16-21……..149 Sir 27:26……39, 158 Sir 28:1…….42

Sir 28:6……..82 Sir 28:6-7……244 Sir 28:10……..48-49 Sir 28:10-11…….234 Sir 28:23……158 Sir 28:26……….133 Sir 29………24, 131, 167, 169, 171 Sir 29:1…..133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 143, 146, 148, 149, 153, 159, 179, 183, 185, 186, 187 Sir 29:1-2……141, 142, 144 Sir 29:1-3…..134, 138, 140-141 Sir 29:1-7…3, 4, 128, 133, 134, 135-151, 153, 154, 158, 171, 219, 244, 275, 281 Sir 29:1-13…….134, 187 Sir 29:1-20…..3, 18, 128, 133, 134, 135, 149, 150, 163, 171, 220, 221 Sir 29:2…….135, 141, 143, 144, 153 Sir 29:2-3…137, 140-141, 144, 153, 154, 156, 167 Sir 29:2-7……134, 187 Sir 29:3…..141, 144 Sir 29:3-7…….168 Sir 29:4……135, 136, 138, 139 Sir 29:4-5……134 Sir 29:4-6…..140 Sir 29:4-7……137, 138, 141, 144, 145 Sir 29:5…..135, 136-137, 138-139, 144 Sir 29:5-7…….138 Sir 29:6……136, 139-140, 258 Sir 29:6-7…….134 Sir 29:7……135, 140, 148, 187 Sir 29:8……….18, 134, 135, 143, 179, 181, 184, 185-186, 187, 263, 325 Sir 29:8-9……..2, 188, 224 Sir 29:8-10…….134 Sir 29:8-13…..3, 4, 100, 124, 134, 135, 136, 171-221, 234, 235, 241, 247, 254, 258, 263, 269, 270, 273, 283, 284 Sir 29:9……….135, 140, 150, 159, 181182, 184, 185, 186-188, 190, 244, 263, 264 Sir 29:9-10………127 Sir 29:10….111, 142, 182, 184, 187, 188190, 191, 210, 220 Sir 29:10-11………112, 191 Sir 29:10-12…..193

Index of References

Sir 29:10-13…..208 Sir 29:11……135, 159, 183, 184, 186, 190-191, 194, 195, 214, 216, 244 Sir 29:11-13…….134, 188, 220 Sir 29:12……179, 183, 192, 195, 219, 263 Sir 29:12-13…..184, 191-200, 216, 258, 269, 324 Sir 29:13……..184 Sir 29:14……..134, 142, 153-154, 158, 161, 163, 169 Sir 29:14-17……..134, 153 Sir 29:14-20…3, 4, 18, 128, 129, 133, 134, 135, 145, 151-163, 167, 171, 219 Sir 29:15…..151, 153, 154-155, 156, 167 Sir 29:15-17………155 Sir 29:15-18…..153 Sir 29:16…….155 Sir 29:16-17……151-152, 155-156 Sir 29:16-18…153, 157 Sir 29:16-19……158 Sir 29:17…….154 Sir 29:18….152, 153, 155, 156, 167 Sir 29:18-20….134, 153, 167 Sir 29:19….145, 152, 153, 156-158, 159, 183 Sir 29:19-20….153, 158 Sir 29:20…..129, 133, 135, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 161 Sir 29:21…133, 135 Sir 29:21-28……109, 133, 134, 140, 155, 218 Sir 29:21-30:13……149 Sir 29:22…..29, 61, 109 Sir 29:22-23…108 Sir 29:22-24….155 Sir 29:24..…155 Sir 29:24-28….109 Sir 29:26-27…….109 Sir 29:28……109, 136, 149, 150, 155 Sir 29:28c-h (Syriac)……213-219 Sir 30:1-13…….149 Sir 30:4……..83 Sir 30:14…..29 Sir 30:14-16……28, 45, 194 Sir 30:15…….27 Sir 30:18……271

Sir 30:23….105, 106 Sir 30:24……..42 Sir 30:25-33:13a……5, 15 Sir 31:1-2……75, 323-324 Sir 31:1-7……50-51, 52 Sir 31:1-11…..50, 295, 323-325 Sir 31:3……324 Sir 31:3-4…….53 Sir 31:3-7……..52 Sir 31:4………61, 172, 310, 324 Sir 31:5……..324 Sir 31:6……..324 Sir 31:8…….324 Sir 31:8-11…….52-53, 69, 96 Sir 31:10…..324 Sir 31:11…..87, 100, 186, 325 Sir 31:12-15…..102 Sir 31:12-22……108 Sir 31:12-32:13……102 Sir 31:14-16……102 Sir 31:23-24…….100 Sir 31:27-28……108 Sir 31:30……172, 310 Sir 32………13 Sir 32:13………108 Sir 32:14-33:18……21 Sir 32:14-38:23…..20, 21 Sir 32:14-42:14….20 Sir 32:17….183 Sir 32:24…….52, 183 Sir 33:1…….77 Sir 33:1-2……..77 Sir 33:2………155 Sir 33:7-15……67, 76 Sir 33:13-36:16…….5, 15 Sir 33:14-15…….47, 117 Sir 33:16-19…….23 Sir 33:16-39:11…….20 Sir 33:18……..52 Sir 33:19……..20, 60 Sir 33:20…….188 Sir 33:20-22…….109 Sir 33:23..…321 Sir 33:24……113 Sir 33:25-33….61 Sir 34:1-8…..229

371

372

Index of References

Sir 34:9-13……6 Sir 34:21……..49 Sir 34:21-24…..50 Sir 34:21-27……53, 185, 224, 239, 240, 244, 245, 253, 264 Sir 34:21-31…….3, 232, 240 Sir 34:21-35:13…..239 Sir 34:21-35:26…..200, 241, 245 Sir 34:24……..49, 61 Sir 34:25…….185, 240, 325 Sir 34:26-27…..240 Sir 35……173 Sir 35:1….238, 239, 326 Sir 35:1-2….237, 238 Sir 35:1-4…….197 Sir 35:1-5….18, 124, 211, 217, 237-240, 244, 246, 295, 326-327 Sir 35:1-7…..237, 239, 326 Sir 35:1-10….326 Sir 35:1-13……217, 218, 219, 237, 326 Sir 35:2….238, 326 Sir 35:2-4…..326 Sir 35:3…326-327 Sir 35:3-4…..238 Sir 35:3-5……237 Sir 35:4….327 Sir 35:5….239, 327 Sir 35:6-7……237, 239 Sir 35:6-9…….237 Sir 35:6-13…..237, 240, 245 Sir 35:7…….244 Sir 35:8-9……239 Sir 35:10-12……239, 246 Sir 35:10-13…….237 Sir 35:11……..215 Sir 35:11-13……326 Sir 35:12……..112, 214, 215 Sir 35:12-13….217, 247 Sir 35:13…….214, 216, 217, 247 Sir 35:14-22….3 Sir 35:14-26….245 Sir 35:17……..267 Sir 35:17-21…..265 Sir 35:18-19………173 Sir 35:19……..172 Sir 35:20-22………172-173

Sir 35:22-25…..12 Sir 35:23……54 Sir 35:23-25……..173 Sir 36……..173 Sir 36:1-17……24 Sir 36:1-31……..11 Sir 36:17-19……7 Sir 36:21…….43 Sir 36:23-51:30…….23 Sir 37:6…..112 Sir 37:11……98, 179, 280, 322 Sir 37:14…..217 Sir 37:22-26…..41 Sir 37:23-26……..83 Sir 37:25…….84 Sir 37:30-31……108 Sir 38:1-3…….60 Sir 38:15……..158 Sir 38:16-23…….271, 272 Sir 38:18…….272 Sir 38:21….217 Sir 38:22……120 Sir 38:24…….71 Sir 38:24-25……5 Sir 38:24-39:11….21, 23, 59 Sir 38:24-41:13…..20 Sir 38:24-43:33…..20, 21 Sir 38:29…….9 Sir 38:31-34….53, 60 Sir 38:33…..6 Sir 38:34-39:1……149, 224 Sir 38:34-39:11……..6 Sir 39:1-11……..245 Sir 39:4………..6, 60 Sir 39:9-11…..83 Sir 39:12…….23 Sir 39:12-35….23, 43 Sir 39:12-43:33…..20 Sir 39:13…..20 Sir 39:13-14…..228 Sir 39:14…..245 Sir 39:14-35……241 Sir 39:22…….43 Sir 39:23…….12, 43 Sir 39:24…….43 Sir 39:25……..43, 44, 108, 278, 281, 289

Index of References

Sir 39:27……43, 278 Sir 39:28-31…..43 Sir 39:31…….120 Sir 39:32……..23 Sir 40:1-2……118 Sir 40:1-10….75 Sir 40:8…..75 Sir 40:8-9…..217 Sir 40:11-17…..180, 325 Sir 40:12…….180 Sir 40:12-14…..83-84 Sir 40:13-14……76, 180 Sir 40:17……178, 180, 181, 186, 325 Sir 40:18……..30 Sir 40:18-26…..30 Sir 40:18-27……29, 31, 37 Sir 40:19……30 Sir 40:20…..112, 302 Sir 40:23…….29 Sir 40:24…….179, 180, 186 Sir 40:25-27…..30 Sir 40:26…….30 Sir 40:26-27…..30, 31 Sir 40:28………217 Sir 40:28-29….155 Sir 40:28-30….61, 201 Sir 40:29……96 Sir 41:1-4…..110 Sir 41:2…….50, 96 Sir 41:2-4…….120 Sir 41:3……110 Sir 41:3-4……118 Sir 41:4…..110, 115, 116, 117, 120 Sir 41:6…..85, 113, 124 Sir 41:6-8……88 Sir 41:6-13……84 Sir 41:8…….190 Sir 41:12-13…..29, 84 Sir 41:14……31 Sir 41:14-15……31 Sir 41:14-42:8….84 Sir 41:14-42:14….20 Sir 41:15…….29 Sir 41:18……..88 Sir 42:1-2……87 Sir 42:2….190

Sir 42:7…..105, 144 Sir 42:9…..323 Sir 42:14….29 Sir 42:15…..20 Sir 42:15-43:33……22, 23, 241 Sir 42:15-50:29….20 Sir 42:15-51:30….19 Sir 42:24…..47 Sir 43:6-8…..229 Sir 43:22……321 Sir 44-49……230 Sir 44-50……229 Sir 44:1-49:50….23 Sir 44:1-50:24…..22 Sir 44:1-50:26….20 Sir 44:1-50:29….20, 21 Sir 44:3…..85 Sir 44:3-4….241 Sir 44:8……85 Sir 44:9…..85 Sir 44:9-11…..85 Sir 44:10-11……85, 113 Sir 44:11…..85, 124 Sir 44:12-15……85 Sir 44:15……241 Sir 44:19….321 Sir 44:19-21……88, 191, 229-230 Sir 44:20…..183, 190 Sir 45:1…..302 Sir 45:6-22……229 Sir 45:8-13……229 Sir 45:12…..230 Sir 45:13…….96 Sir 45:14…..231 Sir 45:15…..229, 231 Sir 45:15-16…..233 Sir 45:15-17……230 Sir 45:18…..96 Sir 45:18-20…..230 Sir 45:23-24…..231, 233 Sir 45:23-25…….230 Sir 45:25….230, 231 Sir 45:25-46:8….16 Sir 46:7…..136 Sir 46:19……42 Sir 47:8……302

373

374

Index of References

Sir 47:20…..49, 321 Sir 47:22…….302 Sir 48:5……115 Sir 48:11…….29, 82 Sir 48:24……..98 Sir 49:1…….245 Sir 49:3…….136 Sir 49:4……190 Sir 49:11-12…..227 Sir 49:12……217 Sir 50…….230, 231, 250 Sir 50:1-4….8, 57 Sir 50:1-24…..7 Sir 50:8…..228 Sir 50:9……228 Sir 50:10……228 Sir 50:12…..228 Sir 50:13….231 Sir 50:24…..5 Sir 50:27…..5, 7 Sir 50:27-29…….20 Sir 51……20, 21, 24 Sir 51:1……8 Sir 51:1-8……11 Sir 51:1-12…..8 Sir 51:2-12…..8 Sir 51:5….115 Sir 51:6…8, 115 Sir 51:9….115 Sir 51:12……..231 Sir 51:13-30…..20, 34, 37 Sir 51:20…….35 Sir 51:21…….34, 37, 52 Sir 51:21-28…….37 Sir 51:22……43 Sir 51:23……6, 36 Sir 51:25…..35, 36, 37 Sir 51:28……36, 44 Sir 51:30…..5, 42, 76, 78

Baruch Bar 3:1……139 Bar 3:36-4:1…..229

1 Maccabees 1 Macc 6:53…………………143

1 Macc 12:6………………..60

2 Maccabees 2 Macc 3:4-40……..11 2 Macc 4:7-10………..57

III. New Testament Matthew Matt 5:25-26……..286 Matt 5:38-41……285 Matt 5:42…….285 Matt 5:43-48……286 Matt 5:44-47……285 Matt 5:48……..285 Matt 6:1……..209, 210 Matt 6:1-4….209 Matt 6:1-18…….209 Matt 6:2-4………209 Matt 6:4……..210 Matt 6:6…….209, 210 Matt 6:12…….235 Matt 6:18……209, 210 Matt 6:19…….182 Matt 6:19-21….209 Matt 6:21….1 Matt 6:22-23…..96 Matt 6:23…….88 Matt 6:24……52, 88 Matt 7:6…..284 Matt 15:3-6…..249 Matt 16:17……118 Matt 19:16-22…..210 Matt 25…..216 Matt 25:14-30…….96, 189-190 Matt 25:27….193 Matt 25:29….44, 190 Matt 25:31-46…..190, 211, 212, 215, 272 Matt 25:34-40…..211 Matt 25:35-36…..212 Matt 25:36……215 Matt 25:38……215 Matt 25:41-46…..211

Index of References

Mark

Ephesians

Mark 7:9-13……249 Mark 10:17-22….210 Mark 12:28-34…..249 Mark 12:33……249

Eph 6:12….118

Luke Luke 6:30……274 Luke 6:34……..215 Luke 7:38…….138 Luke 7:45…….138 Luke 12…….209 Luke 12:16-20….52 Luke 12:16-21……126, 208 Luke 12:21….209 Luke 12:33…….209, 210 Luke 16:1-13……52 Luke 16:9-13……52 Luke 16:13……52 Luke 18:18-23….210 Luke 18:22….218

Philippians Phil 4:16-19….210-211 Phil 4:18……248

1 Timothy 1 Tim 5:8……218 1 Tim 6:17-19….210 1 Tim 6:18-19……218

Hebrews Heb 2:14……118 Heb 13:10….249 Heb 13:15-16…….249

James Jas 1:6……155 Jas 5:3……182, 210

1 Peter John John 6:31…..305 John 9:2…..200 John 14:10……42 John 17:20-21….42

Acts

1 Pet 2:5…….248

Revelation Rev 6:1-8:1……216 Rev 8:2-9:21……216 Rev 14:13……..119 Rev 15:1-16:21….216

Acts 10:4…….248-249

IV. Pseudepigrapha Romans Rom 12:1……248 Rom 15:7…….284

1 Corinthians 1 Cor 15:50……118

2 Corinthians 2 Cor 8…….284 2 Cor 8:9……284 2 Cor 9……211

Galatians Gal 1:6……..118 Gal 6:10…….284

1 Enoch 1 Enoch 22……..116 1 Enoch 42:1-2….229 1 Enoch 92-105……52 1 Enoch 94:6………52 1 Enoch 94:7…….52 1 Enoch 99:13…..52

2 Baruch 2 Bar. 14:12-13…206 2 Bar. 17:2-3…..117 2 Bar. 23:4…..117 2 Bar. 24:1…..206 2 Bar. 44:13-14…….206

375

376

Index of References

2 Enoch 2 Enoch 9:1…….216 2 Enoch 42:8……216 2 Enoch [J] 51:1-2….189 2 Enoch 63:1……216

CD……167 CD 14:20…….52 4QDb (=4Q267) 4 8-11…….165 Mur……143-144 Mur 30:23……35

4 Ezra 4 Ezra 1:19…..305 4 Ezra 3:7……..117 4 Ezra 7:77…..206

1QHa XIX, 18…..177 1QS 6:2……..52 1QS X, 26…..178

Ahiqar Ahiqar 2:10……271

Apocalypse of Moses Apoc. Mos. 14:2…..117

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) L.A.B. 13:10……117 L.A.B. 19:5……305 Pseudo-Menander 46…..282

Testament of Abraham T. Abr. 20:8-9…..138

Testament of Job T. Job 9-15…….204 T. Job 45:1…….204

4Q185…….37 4Q298 3-4 ii 7…….178 4Q381 33+35, 6….177 4Q424 2 3……168 4Q427 7 i 22……..178 4Q437 3+4, 4-5….177 4Q525………37 4Q525 2-3 ii 4…….190 4QInstruction…….78, 79, 165-169 4QInstructiona 8 2………167 4QInstructionb 2 ii 4-6……166 4QInstructionb 2 iii 3-8……166 4QInstructionc 2 i 21-24…166-167 4QInstructionc 2 ii 23…167 4QInstructiond 88 3……167 4QInstructiond 88 7……167 11QMelchizedek ll.6-7…..151

Testament of Issachar T. Iss. 7:5…….204

11QPsa……..34

Testament of Levi

VI. Hellenistic Jewish Literature

T. Levi 13…..205 T. Levi 13:5…….205

Josephus

Testament of Zebulun T. Zeb. 6:4-7…..204-205, 216

Ant. XII, 3, 3…..10 Ant. XII, 138-144…..10, 57 Ant. XII, 154-236…..56 Ant. XX, 2-4…….208

V. Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts

Philo

Aramaic Levi 82-101……..205 Aramaic Levi 87…….205

On Rewards and Punishments, XVII, 104…..205 Spec. leg. 2.10-23……250

Index of References

VII. Rabbinic Texts

377

Lev. Rab. XXXIV…..206 Lev. Rab. XXXIV, 2…..287 Lev. Rab. XXXIV, 10…..288

m. Avot 1:2……..250 m. Avot 5:13……..206 m. Ber. 9:5…….52 m. Giṭ. 36a…….143 m. Giṭ. 43b-44a……143 m. Mo’ed Qat. 2b….143 m. Mo’ed Qat. 9b….143 m. Ned. 9.1…..250 m. Peah 1:1….206, 218 m. Šeb. 10.3-4…..144 m. Šeb. 10.3-6…..143

VIII. Early Christian Texts

t. Peah 4:19…..1, 206, 251

2 Clement

Midrash Ps 118:19….211-212 Midrash Prov 19:17…..206 Pesikta Rabbati 25.2…..208 Pirqe Aboth V 29……96

2 Clem. 16.4……249 b. B. Bat. 9a…….206, 210 b. B. Bat. 9b…….287-288 b. B. Bat. 10a…….206-207, 209 b. B. Bat. 10b…181, 200, 206, 209 b. B. Bat. 11a…..208 b. B. Meṣ. 42a…….189 b. B. Meṣ. 71a……165 b. ‘Erub. 54a…..104, 106 b. Git. 7a-b….206 b. Ket. 67b……..287 b. Ket. 68a…….288 b. Ned. 64b…….250 b. Qiddushin 38b…..143 b. Rosh. Hash. 16b….206 b. Šabb 102b…….189 b. Šabb. 148b……143 b. Šabb. 156b…….206 b. Soṭah 9a……206 b. Sukkah 49b……251, 288 b. Ta’an. 21a……206 b. Yoma 75b……305 y. Hag. 2:1….297 y. Peah 3.9…….272 y. Peah 10.9…288 y. Peah 15b…..208 Avot deR. Nat. 4…..250-251 Avot deR. Nat. 7……216

Aphrahat Dem. 20:4……33

Didache Didache 1.2…..285 Didache 1.3-4……286 Didache 1.3-6….285 Didache 1.5….286 Didache 1.5-6…..285-286 Didache 2.1…..285

Ephrem Hymns on the Nativity 4:203205……249

Gospel of Thomas Gos. Thom. 95…….285

Gregory the Great Pastoral Care, Admonition 21…..274276

Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.18.6…..212

Justin Martyr Apol. 1.28……212 Apol. 1.51…..212 Apol. 2.8….212

378

Index of References

Sulpicius Severus

Euripides…..28

Chron. 2.17.5….10 Hesiod…..28

IX. Egyptian Texts Homer Instruction of Anksheshonqy……39 Inst. Ankh. 8:7-8……125 Inst. Ankh. 12:5…..125 Inst. Ankh. 12:18……125 Inst. Ankh. 15:7…..125 Inst. Ankh. 16:12….165 Inst. Ankh. 16:21-22……165 Inst. Ankh. 17:18-20…..190 Inst. Ankh. 18:16-17…..125 Inst. Ankh. 19:21…..282 Inst. Ankh. 20:12……125 Inst. Ankh. 21:16….125

Instruction of Any

The Illiad vi 146-149….118 The Illiad xxi 463-464….118 The Odyssey 6.207-210……201-202 The Odyssey 14.57…….202 The Odyssey 17…..283

Horace Odes I.11…125-126

Julian Letter 22…..204

Plato Laws 2.11.936….201

Inst. of Any 5……165

Plutarch Instruction of Ptahhotep 3435……124-125 Papyrus Insinger……..65 P. Insinger 6:12-15…….125 P. Insinger 6:24……165 P. Insinger 18:5-6…..125 P. Insinger 16:22…..125 P. Insinger 17:8…..125 P. Insinger 18:13-19:5……125 P. Insinger 25:15……125 P. Insinger 26:16……165

X. Other Ancient Sources Aristotle Politics 6.3.4……201

Cicero Trinummus 339….282

Solon 17…….282

Seneca De Beneficiis 4.10.5…..281 De Beneficiis 4.11.1…282 De Beneficiis 5.11.5…282 De Clementia 2.5.1……282 De Clementia 2.6.3…..282

Theognis Elegies 77-78…….28 Elegies 155-158….203 Elegies 1070-1071……125 Virgil…….126 Xenophon….28, 202

Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach

Generosity: an Enhancement

Like Unto a Ring

An Everlasting Love

On Generosity

An American Tragedy (Signet Classics)

Everlasting

Everlasting

The Ring and the Book

Book 03 - Ring of Fire

Darkness Everlasting (Guardians of Eternity, Book 3)

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Shadow Box: An Amateur in the Ring

The Inner Sanctum [Signet]

The Everlasting Story of Nory

The Everlasting Story of Nory

Signet Eclipse

Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach

Generosity: an Enhancement

Like Unto a Ring

An Everlasting Love

On Generosity

An American Tragedy (Signet Classics)

Everlasting

Everlasting

The Ring and the Book

Book 03 - Ring of Fire

Darkness Everlasting (Guardians of Eternity, Book 3)

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Everlasting

Shadow Box: An Amateur in the Ring

The Inner Sanctum [Signet]

The Everlasting Story of Nory

The Everlasting Story of Nory

Signet Eclipse

Recommend Documents