Wisdom's Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel

Wisdom’s Root Revealed Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor Hindy Najman Department and Centr...

Author: Greg Schmidt Goering

69 downloads 1077 Views 10MB 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

Wisdom’s Root Revealed

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

Hindy Najman Department and Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto Associate Editors

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen

Benjamin G. Wright, III Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University Advisory Board

j.j. collins – j. duhaime – p.w. van der horst – a. klostergaard petersen – j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j. sievers – g. stemberger e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. tromp VOLUME 139

Wisdom’s Root Revealed Ben Sira and the Election of Israel

By

Greg Schmidt Goering

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s root revealed : Ben Sira and the election of Israel / by Greg Schmidt Goering. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v. 139) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16579-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Jews—Election, Doctrine of. 2. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Ecclesiasticus—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BM613.G64 2009 296.3’1172—dc22 2009022348

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 978 90 04 165793 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

‫בכל לבך כבד אביך‬ ‫ואם תחוללך אל תשכח‬ ‫זכר כי מהם היית‬ ‫ומה תגמל להם כגמולם לך‬ ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ σου δόξασον τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ μητρὸς ὠδῖνας μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ μνήσθητι ὅτι δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἐγεννήθης καὶ τί ἀνταποδώσεις αὐτοῖς καθὼς αὐτοὶ σοί With all your heart honor your father, And the mother who bore you do not forget. Remember that from them you came into being; How can you repay them according to what they have done for you? —Sir 7.27–8 To my parents, Judith and Lowell Goering, with all my heart. How can I repay you for what you have done for me?

CONTENTS Preface ........................................................................ x Acknowledgments .........................................................xiii List of Abbreviations .......................................................xv Chapter One Wisdom, Torah, and Election: An Introduction to the Study ....................................... 1 Wisdom and Torah in Sirach ......................................... 3 Election in Sirach ....................................................... 9 Plan of the Present Study .............................................15 Chapter Two Election and Creation: The Sun, the Moon, and Israel’s Chosenness ..................21 Two Apportionments of Wisdom ................................... 21 Ben Sira’s Theology of Creation ....................................25 The Sovereignty of YHWH.......................................27 A Doctrine of Opposites? ........................................31 YHWH as Divine Warrior and Storm God ....................35 Divine Mastery Over Primordial Chaos .......................40 Observation of Nature: Universal Knowledge of YHWH ...45 The Sun, the Moon, and the Election of Israel ...................49 Conclusion: Election and Creation ..................................61 Chapter Three Election and Revelation: General and Special Wisdom .....................................69 Wisdom as Divine Revelation ....................................... 69 The Twofold Nature of Wisdom’s Revelation ....................78 General Wisdom ..................................................79 Special Wisdom ................................................... 89 Special Wisdom as Israel’s Inheritance ............................96 Conclusion: Election and Revelation ............................. 102 Chapter Four Election and Tradition: The Preservation and Transmission of Wisdom .............. 103 A “Principle of Succession” in Sirach? .......................... 104

viii

CONTENTS

The Family ............................................................ 108 The King............................................................... 112 The Scribe ............................................................. 116 The Priest .............................................................. 121 A Sociology of Ben Sira’s Jerusalem ............................. 122 The High Priest .................................................. 123 The Ruling Priestly Aristocracy............................... 123 The Scribal Retainers ........................................... 125 Conclusion: Election and Tradition ............................... 127 Chapter Five Election and Piety: The “Fear of YHWH” ............................................. 129 Wisdom and Fear of YHWH ........................................ 130 The Asyndetic Correlation of Wisdom and Fear of YHWH ......................................... 131 Fear of YHWH and Universal Piety ........................... 134 Fear of YHWH and Special Wisdom............................... 138 Piety and the Pursuit of Wisdom ............................. 140 Fear of YHWH and Jewish Piety .............................. 143 Ethical Piety: torah and “The Torah” ............................. 153 Motivations for Ethical Piety .................................. 155 Guarding Oneself and Guarding the Torah.................. 160 Cultic Piety: The Actualization of Wisdom ...................... 167 Participation in the Cult of YHWH ............................ 167 Wisdom and the Jerusalem Temple .......................... 173 Cultic Piety and Creation ...................................... 177 Conclusion: Election and Piety .................................... 185 Chapter Six Election and Eschatology: Israel among the Nations ......................................... 187 Ben Sira and the Nations ............................................ 188 The Wisdom of the Nations and the Fear of YHWH ....... 194 The Propaedeutic Quality of General Wisdom ............. 197 The Nations and Knowledge of YHWH ........................... 198 Proper and Improper Piety and YHWH’s Response ........ 201 YHWH’s Judgment of the Nations ............................ 203 A Prayer for Deliverance ...................................... 204 The Origin of the Prayer for Deliverance ................... 212 The Prayer for Deliverance in the Context of Sirach ...... 224

CONTENTS

ix

The Divine Warrior and the Nations ......................... 228 YHWH as Universal King or Universal God? ............... 230 Conclusion: Election and Eschatology ........................... 235 Chapter Seven Conclusion: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel ............................. 237 Election in Other Second Temple Jewish Works ............... 241 Election in Jubilees ............................................. 241 Election in Philo ................................................ 243 Implications of the Study ........................................... 247 Appendixes ................................................................ 251 Appendix A Opening Poem on Creation (Sir 1.1–10) ....... 254 Appendix B A Poem on Election (Sir 33.7–15) .............. 256 Appendix C A Prayer for Deliverance (Sir 36.1–22) ....... 258 Appendix D A Hymn on Creation (Sir 42.15–43.33) ........ 261 Bibliography ............................................................... 270 Index of Authors .......................................................... 285 Index of Citations ......................................................... 289 Index of Subjects ......................................................... 305

PREFACE This study interprets the theme of election in the book of Sirach. When I first undertook this project, I never imagined that the end product would focus entirely upon Sirach, nor that it would treat the theme of election. Perhaps as long as humans have existed, so has their cultural tendency to organize themselves into groups. As cultural anthropologists have shown, group identities are often formed by drawing boundaries between insiders and outsiders. I have long been intrigued by the formation of communal identities, especially as persons create these identities in order to traverse the ever-present terrain of exclusiveness and openness. I am particularly drawn to the ways in which members of a community ask and answer questions about their relationship to those outside their community. My interest in these questions originates, in part, because I was raised in the United States in a small religious and ethnic minority group where discussions frequently focused on who was a Mennonite and who was not. Only later did I learn that this discourse on inclusivism and exclusivism resonated with the perennial question posed within Judaism, “Who is a Jew?” Thus, when I first began to study Wisdom literature from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Israel, I was struck by the largely non-theistic and non-national idiom in which the sages communicated a wisdom ethos. I was also fascinated by the focus in this literature upon the individual, rather than the nation. Moreover, the exchange across national boundaries of wisdom ideas and genres—even literal borrowing in some cases—suggested a cosmopolitan outlook seemingly unconcerned with religious and ethnic boundary marking. Yet, despite this apparent internationalism, a nagging question persisted. If much of the ANE Wisdom tradition could be characterized as cosmopolitan, what made a certain wisdom work distinctly Egyptian or Israelite? I began to research older Israelite Wisdom texts—such as Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes—for indications that, despite their apparent disinterest in the national traditions of ancient

PREFACE

xi

Israel, they nonetheless were products of Israelite sages who attempted to inculcate a specifically Israelite identity. I intended to conclude my study with Sirach, given the author’s obvious concern to combine the cosmopolitan wisdom tradition with Israel’s national heritage. Thinking that Sirach would be the easiest case of all to examine, I began my research with Ben Sira’s book. It soon became apparent that the question of how Ben Sira relates Israel’s national heritage to universal wisdom would fill a monograph in and of itself. Even once I had focused my exploration on the interplay of universalism and particularism in Sirach, the theme of election did not immediately present itself. A central problem in the interpretation of Sirach concerns the relation of Wisdom and Torah. Many scholars have interpreted Ben Sira’s juxtaposition of the universal Wisdom tradition with Israel’s particular traditions of Torah as “identification.” Scholars have understood this identification as either a nationalizing of Wisdom or a universalizing of Torah. Initially, I was inclined to choose between the nationalizing and the universalizing interpretations of Sirach. But as I inquired into the details of Ben Sira’s wisdom teaching, both interpretations seemed to tell only half of the story. In particular, it was my discovery of the election motif in Sir 33.7–15 that proved to be the “aha!” moment. For there I found a reading of that poem that not only persuaded me of the incorrectness of the widely held dualistic interpretation of Sirach but also provided an interpretative key, which could make sense of other puzzling features of the book. The purpose of my study, then, became to show that the concept of election enables a profitable discussion of the relation of Wisdom and Torah in the book of Sirach. This book is a revised and expanded version of a doctoral dissertation submitted to Harvard Divinity School. In the two intervening years since the completion of the thesis, I have presented papers on parts of various chapters at scholarly conferences, benefited enormously from feedback provided by several insightful readers, and reflected upon numerous issues that remained less carefully considered in the dissertation. The addition of chapter 4 in the middle of the study represents the single most extensive expansion. Earlier, I had noted Ben Sira’s use of inheritance as a metaphor to describe Israel’s possession of wisdom. The inheritance metaphor suggested that Ben Sira views wisdom as a tradition to be preserved and transmitted within a lineage, but I was unable at that point to de-

xii

PREFACE

velop the implications of this observation. The completely new chapter 4 on Election and Tradition investigates this subject. In addition to the new chapter 4, I have taken the opportunity afforded by publication of the manuscript in this series to revise and expand upon numerous other matters, large and small. Throughout the study, all English translations are my own, unless otherwise noted. Charlottesville, Virginia 31 July 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Through the research for and writing of this book, I have become all the more certain of the inherently collaborative character of scholarship. Many individuals and institutions have contributed to the development of this study, and I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to them. Since this study began as a dissertation project, I would like to thank, first and foremost, my advisor Dr. Jon D. Levenson, as well as my committee members Drs. Peter Machinist and Richard J. Clifford, S.J. Their influence can be discerned on practically every page. I am grateful to Dr. John J. Collins for accepting my manuscript for publication in this series. His probing criticism of my work proved valuable during the revision process. I would also like to thank Dr. Hindy Najman, who assumed editorship of the series while my manuscript was under revision, and especially the associate editor of the series Dr. Benjamin G. Wright III, who read the entire manuscript twice and made many suggestions that greatly improved the project. Thanks, too, is owed to the editors and staff at Brill, especially Ms. Mattie Kuiper, Mr. Machiel Kleemans, and Ms. Camila Werner, who saw this project through to publication. Numerous other individuals read all or parts of the manuscript and generously offered their feedback. Those who read the entire manuscript include Drs. Liz Alexander and Matthew Goff, and Ms. Blaire French. I particularly thank Dr. Eugene McGarry, who contributed countless helpful suggestions about content, organization, and style. Among those who read parts of the manuscript are Dr. Rocco Gangle, Mr. Patrick Hatcher, Mr. Geoff Chaplin, Drs. Caren Calendine, Vivian Johnson, Martien Halvorson-Taylor, and Cynthia Chapman. I am especially grateful to Dr. Joel Kaminsky, who offered valuable insights on several chapters, and to Dr. Harry Gamble for his helpful suggestions regarding chapter 7. Many other persons contributed in various ways, large and small: Drs. Alexander Di Lella, Nuria Calduch-Benages, Pancratius Beentjes, Renate Egger-Wenzel, Jeremy Corley, and Matthias

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Henze, Ms. Laura and Dr. Bill Whitney, Dr. Lesleigh Cushing, Ms. Cathy Beckerleg, Drs. Kathryn Schifferdecker, Ellen Birnbaum, James L. Kugel, Patrick Tiller, and Paula Richman, Mr. Ben White, Ms. Hope Toscher, Ms. Myra Quick, Ms. Cathy Ashworth, Ms. Jill Peterfeso, and Dr. Jodi Magness. All of the aforementioned individuals shaped and improved the project in immeasurable ways, and without their efforts the study would have been greatly impoverished. Indeed, any shortcomings that remain are due in part to my failure to heed their wise counsel. This project was also made possible by several forms of institutional support. The project began in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the Harvard Divinity School awarded me a Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship (2002–2003). The bulk of the dissertation was written in Oberlin, Ohio, where the Oberlin College Department of Religion granted me a year-long Research Associate position (2003– 2004) and a year-long lectureship (2004–2005). I completed the dissertation in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where two McLestor Faculty Development Grants from the Department of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill covered the cost of travel to present my work at several venues (2005–2006 and 2006–2007). Finally, chapter 4 and most of the revisions for the book were completed in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a grant from the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies at the University of Virginia helped prepare the manuscript for publication (2007–2008). The greatest debt of gratitude—because of the time I stole from them in order to complete the manuscript—is owed to my family. During the completion of this project, my wife Dr. Jalane Schmidt and I experienced the birth of our two children, Ana Mercedes and Aurora Inéz. Our lives have been immeasurably enriched by their arrival. Jalane proved to be a constant source of support, both tangible and intangible. She read and critiqued the entire manuscript, and during several periods of writing and revision she admirably assumed more than her fair share of childcare and household duties. These three constantly remind me of what is meaningful in my life. Finally, my parents Judith and Lowell Goering first instilled in me a love for the Hebrew Bible. In addition, they have supported me in countless ways through the process of completing this project. It is to them that I dedicate this book “with all my heart.”

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS This book follows the abbreviation system for secondary sources in Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). In addition, the following abbreviations, which do not appear in the handbook, are used: BM JSJSup LiSa NBE OB OOM SAHL

Bet Mikra Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Los libros sagrados Nueva Biblia española Oxford Bible Oxford Oriental Monographs Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant

CHAPTER ONE

WISDOM, TORAH, AND ELECTION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ῥίζα σοφίας τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη To whom has wisdom’s root been revealed? —Sirach 1.6

The three principal Wisdom1 books of the Jewish Bible never once mention the cardinal events of ancient Israel’s historical tradition. Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet betray no interest in, for example, the promises to the ancestors, the exodus from Egypt, the theophany on Mount Sinai, or the conquest of the land of Canaan.2 Rather than drawing theological conclusions from traditions about Israel’s historical encounter with YHWH, the biblical sages (the producers and transmitters of the Wisdom writings) developed their understanding of the universe and its creator through the observation of human interactions and natural phenomena. These observations were summarized by learned scholars in pithy sayings, which were written down, collected, and made available for others to study. Since anyone, at least in theory, could engage in the observation of nature and study

————

1 In the field of biblical studies, “wisdom” refers to (1) a corpus of certain books, (2) the teaching contained in those books, or (3) the human faculty of reason. Following the convention of Michael V. Fox, I use “Wisdom” (upper case) when referring to the literary corpus and “wisdom” (lower case) when referring to the teaching or the faculty of reason. But as Fox notes, “The distinctions cannot always be maintained” (Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18A [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 3 n 3). In addition, I capitalize the term when it refers to the personification of wisdom. 2 Many scholars have observed the distinctively non-national character of Israelite Wisdom literature. See, e.g., Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 1; and Jon D. Levenson, “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 149–50.

2

CHAPTER ONE

the recorded wisdom of previous generations, modern scholars generally view wisdom as having been a universal enterprise.3 The universal character of wisdom was not solely an Israelite phenomenon. Works that share the characteristics of Israelite Wisdom literature are extant from other places in Syria-Palestine, as well as from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Similarities among Wisdom writings from various parts of the ancient Near East (ANE) suggest that sages shared their wisdom across national boundaries. This cosmopolitan tenor of the wisdom tradition would seem to indicate that wisdom was an international enterprise with a universal appeal. The international character of the ancient Near Eastern Wisdom tradition was likely made possible because the ancient sages treated topics of general interest. Sages counseled readers on such matters as choosing a suitable marriage partner, behaving properly in the presence of superiors, and exercising care in one’s speech. Anyone who applied the sages’ teaching to his or her life could reap the benefits of wisdom. This was thought to be true regardless of the person’s nationality or religion. Some topics in Wisdom literature—such as warnings against seductive women or guidance on how to serve high political officials—disclose a narrower sociohistorical setting and implicit audience.4 Nonetheless, the broad appeal of the topics addressed and the non-theistic and non-nationalistic idiom of much ancient Near Eastern Wisdom literature suggests that the intended audience of the Wisdom authors was the universal human being.5 Regarding the biblical Wisdom tradition, for example, James H.

————

3 Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, trans. James D. Martin (London: SCM Press, 1972), 4; and James L. Kugel, “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper,” Proof 17 (1997): 9. 4 As feminist biblical scholars have pointed out in recent decades, much of Israel’s wisdom tradition, for example, conveys the perspective of predominantly male sages addressing their primarily young male audience. See, e.g., Claudia V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield: Almond, 1985); idem, “Woman Wisdom and the Strange Woman: Where is Power to Be Found?,” in Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies: Identity and the Book, ed. Timothy K. Beal and David M. Gunn (London: Routledge, 1997), 85–112; Carol A. Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” in Reading Bibles, 116–31; and Christine Roy Yoder, Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31, ed. Otto Kaiser, BZAW 304 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). 5 Although a term such as “universal” does not occur in the ancient record, one can infer that wisdom teachers considered their teachings to have universal applicability given the style and language they used to transmit their teaching.

WISDOM, TORAH, AND ELECTION

3

Breasted notes that the sages viewed their audience not as fellow Israelites, bound by covenant to the personal God of Israel, but simply as human beings.6 WISDOM AND TORAH IN SIRACH In the early decades of the second century B.C.E.,7 however, the Jewish scribe Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira (hereafter Ben Sira)8 juxtaposed the universal wisdom tradition and Israel’s historical traditions. The most famous example appears in chapter 24 of his

————

6 James Henry Breasted, The Dawn of Conscience (New York: Scribner, 1933). In like fashion, William McKane observes that the problems that the book of Proverbs addresses are those that everyone faces (Proverbs: A New Approach [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970], 1–33). This interest in the person qua person, rather than in the person as a member of the ethnos, is related to the Wisdom tradition’s apparent lack of interest in the historical traditions of Israel. Similarly, Wilfred G. Lambert remarks that in Sumerian and Babylonian Wisdom literature, the primary distinction between beings in the universe was not based on ethnic or national identities, but was instead the distinction between human and divine beings (Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960], 3). 7 The dating of the book of Sirach is not much in dispute. Based on the statement of the grandson in the prologue that he translated the book from the original Hebrew into Greek some time after he arrived in Egypt in “the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes” (132 B.C.E.), most scholars date the translation to just before (so G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley) or just after (so Rudolf Smend) the death of Euergetes in 117 B.C.E. See G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, “Sirach,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 1:293, 317; and Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906), 3. Allowing for two generations, the grandfather’s original text, then, was likely the product of the first quarter of the second century B.C.E. Such a calculation fits with the internal evidence from the book of Sirach. Sir 50.1– 21 hymns a priest, thought to be Simon II, who served as high priest from 219 to 196 B.C.E. From his description, it seems as though the author was personally familiar with Simon II. Additionally, the book never refers to the turbulence that accompanied the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 B.C.E.). Thus, it seems that the original book was composed somewhere in the period 196–175 B.C.E. For a good overview of the evidence for dating the book of Sirach, see Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 8–10. 8 The author’s name is given in MS B Sir 50.27 and in a subscription following Sir 51.30 as Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira ( yšwʿ bn ʾlʿzr bn syrʾ). On the text-critical problems in these verses, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 557, 579– 80. Throughout the study, I refer to the author as Ben Sira and his book as Sirach. I have not altered quotations of other scholars, however, even when they use Sirach to refer to the author.

4

CHAPTER ONE

book.9 After relating personified Wisdom’s first-person account of her origins, her pursuits in the celestial and terrestrial realms, and the tale of how she came to dwell in the Jerusalem temple, Ben Sira makes what many scholars refer to as the “identification” of Wisdom and Torah: Sir 24.23a b c

ταῦτα πάντα βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς κληρονομίαν συναγωγαῖς Ιακωβ

Sir 24.23a

All this [Wisdom] is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the Torah that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob.

b c

The interpretive problem lies in understanding precisely how Ben Sira intends to relate Wisdom, that primordial entity which “held sway over every people and nation” (Sir 24.6), and Torah, which he defines as Israel’s “book of the covenant.” The Greek text simply juxtaposes Wisdom and Torah without any verbal clues as to the nature of the relation. In other words, the entire meaning of the relation of Wisdom and Torah hinges on the copula “is” in my English translation or, worse, on the absence of a verb in the Greek text that might clarify the nature of the relation. Beyond the syntactical problem lies the question of what Ben Sira means by “Wisdom” and “Torah.” If Wisdom represents the teachings of the ancient Near Eastern sages, which were considered universally applicable to all human beings, and if Torah denotes the particular teachings of Israel’s God, which were intended for Jews alone, in what sense could Ben Sira possibly relate these two seemingly disparate entities? To state the problem abstractly, how does the sage correlate the universal and the particular? By universal I mean something that is thought to apply to all humanity. In contrast, something is particular if it is considered applicable only to a subset

————

9 Ben Sira’s juxtaposition of Wisdom and Torah is just one of many such juxtapositions in his book that require careful interpretation. Others include “fear of YHWH” and “wisdom” (Sir 1.27a), “to fear YHWH” and “to love YHWH” (2.16), “kindness to a father” and “a sin-offering” (3.14), “the commandments” and “the covenant” (28.7), “to guard oneself” and “to guard the commandment” (32.23), “to keep the Torah” and “to make many offerings” (35.1), and “the shining sun” and “the glory of YHWH” (42.16).


5

of humanity.10 More concretely, the problem involves the relation of two authoritative bodies of literature, which Ben Sira inherited: the corpus of international wisdom literature, on the one hand, and the national literature of ancient Israel, on the other. The problem of the relation between the universal and the particular is a problem inherent not only to Ben Sira but also to Judaism more generally. Indeed, the matter is especially problematic for Judaism because of its notion of special revelation. The problem of the relation of the universal and particular, as I have defined these terms, has a counterpart in the relation of general and special revelation.11 A general revelation, such as one might find in a natural religion, applies to all human beings. Anyone may have access to the revelation, irrespective of her or his nationality, race, or religious identity. A special revelation, in contrast, applies only to the particular group of persons to whom the revelation is given. Only a person belonging to the group can have access to the content of the special revelation.12 As with other religious traditions that make such a distinction between general and special revelation, Ben Sira’s Judaism must wrestle with a central theological problem: the relation between the general revelation given to all human beings through creation and the special revelation given to Israel through its historical experience.13

————

10 Although I have defined the terms “universal” and “particular” somewhat differently from her, my thinking on the matter is indebted to the discussion of Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes, BJS 290 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 1–14. Her study explores two types of divine-human relationships in Philo: the quest to see God and the covenant between God and Israel. Birnbaum (p 5) defines universalism as “the position that anyone can participate in these relationships” and particularism as “the position that only Jews can participate in these relationships.” 11 See David Novak, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 8. 12 The transposition of the problem from the relation of the universal and particular to the relation of general and special revelation is especially appropriate in the case of Ben Sira, because, as I shall show in chapter 3, he views wisdom as a kind of revelation to human beings. I shall demonstrate that Ben Sira distinguishes a general wisdom revealed to all human beings and a special wisdom revealed only to Israel. 13 Jon D. Levenson, “Response to the Papers of Stephen Geller, Neil Gillman, and David Novak” (paper presented at the Conference on Judaism and the Natural World, Harvard Divinity School, 1998), 2.

6

CHAPTER ONE

The problem occurs, to cite just one example, at the beginning of Judaism’s scriptures, in Genesis and Exodus, which suggest that the same God who created the universe, including all humanity, is also the particular God of Israel.14 To put it another way, the same God who revealed himself through his creation of the world also revealed himself to Israel by means of the Torah. The problem arises in relating the two resultant sources for knowledge of this one God: nature or creation, on the one hand, and the Torah of Israel, on the other.15 Thus, as a Jewish devotee of ancient Israel’s sacred writings, Ben Sira inherited the problem of the universal and particular. Ben Sira’s correlation of universal Wisdom with Israel’s Torah signals a significant development in Israel’s older wisdom tradition, which, as I noted, paid scant attention to the particularities of Israel’s historical or religious traditions. The mere juxtaposition of the two notions, however, does not solve the problem of the universal and particular; the juxtaposition only raises the question of the relation between the two. The difficulty lies in the interpretation of Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah, and on this point two divergent avenues of scholarly interpretation are evident. According to the first avenue of interpretation, Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah nationalizes Wisdom and essentially restricts it to the province of God’s chosen people, Israel. Martin Hengel argues, for example, that Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah destroys the universality of the influence of wisdom . . . The originally universal wisdom becomes the possession of a limited number of elect, the people of Israel or the pious devoted to the law.16

E. P. Sanders states the matter more moderately: in the worldview of Ben Sira, “that wisdom which is universally sought is in fact truly represented by and particularized in the Torah given by God through Moses.”17 Otto Kaiser interprets the relation in terms of the Torah’s preeminence:

————

See Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 1. See Novak, Election of Israel, 6. 16 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1:160–1. 17 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 331. 14 15


7

The Torah, as the “law of life” (Sir 17:11; 45:5), has in [Ben Sira’s] eyes a superiority both theoretical and practical over every other source of wisdom, since it is the epitome of divine wisdom and thereby the source of all true wisdom.18

In the view of these scholars, Ben Sira either subsumes Wisdom into Israel’s Torah, or he has such regard for the Torah as a document without compare that the sage becomes a Jewish particularist with little concern for universal wisdom. According to the second avenue of interpretation, Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah universalizes the Torah and defines the Mosaic covenant in terms of the older wisdom tradition.19 Gerhard von Rad, for example, contends, It is not that wisdom is overshadowed by the superior power of the Torah, but, vice versa, that we see Sirach endeavouring to legitimatize and to interpret the Torah from the realm of understanding characteristic of wisdom.20

Later von Rad continues: The Torah is not a subject of particular interest to Sirach . . . For Sirach [the Torah] is of relevance only in so far as it is to be understood on the basis of, or as it is otherwise connected with, the great complex of wisdom teachings.21

Put another way, Robert Pfeiffer suggests that “wisdom . . . looms much more prominently in Sirach’s book than the Law with which

————

Otto Kaiser, “Covenant and Law in Ben Sira,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 237. Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 18

76; and Ernst Gunter Bauckmann, “Die Proverbien und die Sprüche des Jesus Sirach,” ZAW 72 (1960): 33–63. 19 See, e.g., Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment, SBLEJL 8 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 56 with n 144. 20 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 245. Italics in original. Cf. Gerald T. Sheppard,

Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament, BZAW 151 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 61; and Johannes Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira

(Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1971), 85–96. The latter has been reprinted in Johannes Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. Mit Nachwort und Bibliographie zur Neuauflage, BZAW 272 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), which includes a comprehensive bibliography on Sirach, as well as a brief review of unresolved research issues. 21 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 247.

8

CHAPTER ONE

he identified it.”22 John Collins, in comparing Ben Sira’s views on Wisdom and Torah to that of Bar 3.9–4.4, argues: In the case of Sirach, however, it would be more accurate to say that the sage was defining the Mosaic covenant in terms of the well-established wisdom tradition. He does not cite biblical laws directly; he draws on other sources of wisdom besides the Torah, and he grounds all wisdom, including the law, in the order of creation.23

These scholars see Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah as an expansive move which equates Israel’s special revelation par excellence with the wisdom accessible to all human beings. In this view, Ben Sira subsumes Israel’s Torah into the category of Wisdom and thereby takes a universalist stance. Both of these avenues of interpretation prove unsatisfactory in that they define one idea—Wisdom or Torah—in terms of the other. One category subsumes the other, with the result that the subsumed category wanes in importance. On the one hand, if all Wisdom is submerged into Torah, no role remains for the former. All wisdom derives from the specific revelation of the Torah.24 On the other hand, if the Torah is defined in terms of Wisdom, no separate purpose endures for the former. The special revelation of the Torah is generalized to such an extent that Wisdom alone suffices as a guide for life.25 Given the reductionist nature of both avenues of interpretation, a fresh approach to interpreting Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah is required. In order to avoid the reductionism evident in the scholarly interpretations cited above, I suggest that Ben Sira views Wisdom and Torah not as identical but rather as correlated. In his frequent asyndetic juxtaposition of the terms, as in Sir 24.23 cited above, the sage intends to signal the congruity of Wisdom and Torah, not the reduc-

————

Robert Henry Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, with an Introduction to the Apocrypha, 1st ed. (New York: Harper, 1949), 370. 23 John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, OTL (Louisville: 22

Westminster John Knox, 1997), 55. 24 See Novak, Election of Israel, 7. 25 Some scholars who hold the universalist reading of Sirach still maintain a distinctive role for the Torah. Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 56–61), for example, suggests that, for Ben Sira, Torah study offers one avenue for the pursuit of wisdom, and that “the point of the identification [of Torah with Wisdom] is to accredit the Torah as a valid concretization . . . of universal wisdom.”


9

tion of one to the other. It is this complexity of the correlation between Wisdom and Torah that the two dominant avenues of interpretation fail to appreciate.26 Additionally, I suggest that Ben Sira distinguishes two kinds of wisdom. In his view, all wisdom originates with YHWH. As the creator of the universe and as the particular God of Israel, YHWH has revealed wisdom to human beings in two apportionments. In one apportionment, YHWH gives a general wisdom to all human beings, and in another apportionment he gives a special wisdom to his chosen people, Israel. The notion of “wisdom’s root” (Sir 1.6) provides a fitting metaphor for this core of wisdom reserved for Israel. The two apportionments of wisdom are in essence two revelations of wisdom: a general wisdom which is available to all human beings through creation, and a special wisdom which is available to Israel through YHWH’s commandments. To stretch the metaphor a bit further, special wisdom corresponds to the root which generally lies hidden and must be especially revealed, whereas the general wisdom seen by all in creation corresponds to the portion of the plant visible above ground. Thus, pursuing the title of the present book, one might answer the sage’s rhetorical question, “To whom has wisdom’s root been revealed?” thus: It has been revealed to God’s elect, Israel. Understanding Ben Sira’s view of wisdom in this way complicates any simple “identification” of wisdom with Torah. Ben Sira does not construe wisdom as completely universal, since in his view Israel alone received a special measure of wisdom. Nor does he view wisdom in wholly particular terms, because all human beings partake in a general outpouring of wisdom upon the created world. Neither completely universal, nor wholly particular—that is the conundrum of wisdom; it is also the leitmotif of the present study. ELECTION IN SIRACH The preceding discussion of a general wisdom given to the nations and a special wisdom granted to Israel will no doubt call to mind the doctrine of Israel’s election by YHWH. The doctrine of election

———— 26

Clearly, Hengel’s statement that “in practice, wisdom and the law become one” is too simple (Judaism and Hellenism, 1:139).

10

CHAPTER ONE

draws a similar distinction between YHWH’s relationship to humanity in general and the particular relationship that YHWH enters into with Israel. Thus, it is reasonable to inquire after Ben Sira’s ideas about election, to see whether they can inform the present discussion of his ideas about wisdom and revelation. As I will show, Ben Sira incorporates these apportionments of general and special wisdom into an integrated worldview by means of the idea of election. By appropriating the doctrine of Israel’s election, the sage correlates the universal wisdom bestowed upon humanity generally and the particular wisdom bequeathed to Israel especially.27 Election tends to be thought of in terms of particularism. That is, for many people, the idea that God chooses to enter into a special relationship with some persons and not others connotes exclusivism.28 And thus one may wonder how election can relate a universal entity such as Wisdom to a particular entity such as Torah. But my understanding of election is not identified solely with particularism. Rather, I interpret election as a way to understand a specific relationship between part and whole. In the situation of election, one part of a whole is set apart for a special (in this case) divine purpose. I contend that Ben Sira draws on the concept of Israel’s election to mediate the tension between the wisdom tradition’s interest in universally available knowledge of God and Israel’s own particular traditions of special revelation. Surprisingly, few studies on the book of Sirach treat the topic of election. Some commentaries do not mention the theme at all.29 Of those that do, most note allusions to the election of Israel in this

———— 27

The doctrine of election is a natural tool for Ben Sira to use, since he views wisdom as a kind of revelation, and the doctrine of revelation is a correlate to the doctrine of election. See Novak, Election of Israel, 8. 28 See, e.g., Jeremy Cott, “The Biblical Problem of Election,” JES 21 (1984): 199–228; Regina M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 17–21; and R. Christopher Heard, Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah, SemeiaSt 39 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 2– 4, 182–4. What all these interpretations share in common is the notion that the doctrine of election results in particularism and exclusivism. 29 James L. Crenshaw, for example, does not mention election in his treatment of Sirach (Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, rev. ed. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998], 140–64). Only when discussing the topic in Wis 3.9; 4.15; and 15.1–2 does he suggest that Ben Sira’s hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old “paved the way for the adoption of particularistic thinking,” by which he means the idea of election (Old Testament Wisdom, 166–7).


11

passage or that, or mention the theme almost in passing without developing the larger implications of election for interpreting Ben Sira’s work. Certainly, no monograph-length—or even article-length— treatment of the subject exists. Von Rad, for example, treats the topic of election in his discussion of Sir 33.7–15. He proposes that, for Ben Sira, Israel’s election results from “a primeval decision on God’s part.”30 Nevertheless, von Rad never develops the implications of this observation for understanding the book of Sirach. He even dismisses the allusion to Israel’s election as “only an example” of divine determination. Moreover, von Rad interprets Ben Sira’s “limited” interest in Israel’s election in terms of a dualism between good and evil.31 While his observations about primordial determinism prove to be useful for understanding the connection between Ben Sira’s doctrine of election and his creation theology, von Rad’s interpretation of Ben Sira’s notion of election in dualistic terms distorts the subtle relationship between Jews and non-Jews envisioned by the sage. Dualists view the world through a stark “us versus them” lens, in which “us” connotes good and “them” signifies evil. While Ben Sira perceives the world in terms of Jew and non-Jew, he does not associate good with the Jew and evil with the non-Jew. Instead, as I will demonstrate later on, he sees good and evil, wisdom and foolishness, both within non-Jews and in his own Jewish people (see, for example, Sir 16.5–14; 39.4). Moreover, whereas the dualist concerns himself only with his own particular people—everyone else be damned—Ben Sira seeks the well-being of all humanity, especially their acquisition of wisdom, which aids them in living a good life. In this respect, Luis Alonso Schökel’s brief discussion of election in Sirach should be seen as an improvement on the work of von Rad. In his study of Sir 16.24–17.14, Alonso Schökel notes both the purposeful nature and the universal and particular dimensions in Ben Sira’s understanding of election. He observes that, for the sage, Israel’s “election” responds to an “exigency of mankind.” Moreover, he notes that Israel’s election is given “not as a monopoly, but in order that Israel may share it with others.”32 My study develops

————

von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 270; cf. 267. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 267. 32 Luis Alonso Schökel, “The Vision of Man in Sirach 16:24–17:14,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. John G. 30 31

12

CHAPTER ONE

Alonso Schökel’s characterization of election in Sirach both as purposeful and as a device by which Ben Sira correlates the universal and particular. Collins treats the topic of election primarily with respect to Wisdom’s settlement in Israel (Sir 24). Like von Rad, Collins interprets this passage as suggesting “that the association of wisdom with Israel is primordial.”33 Importantly, Collins notes the influence of Deut 32.8–9 on Sirach 24. As I will show, this Deuteronomic passage had an enormous influence on the significance and character of election for Ben Sira. Like von Rad, however, Collins also interprets Ben Sira’s doctrine of election in terms of dualism.34 Leo Perdue treats the theme of election in Sirach more fully than, perhaps, any other scholar.35 He identifies allusions to Israel’s chosenness in Sir 16.24–18.14; 24; 33.7–15; and 44–50. Perdue observes that Ben Sira ties his doctrine of election to his creation theology36 and associates Israel’s election with divine sovereignty and determination.37 Like Collins, Perdue notes the significance of election for interpreting Wisdom’s residence in Israel, especially in the metaphor of “inheritance.”38 Perdue, however, suggests that Israel’s election reveals that “God predestines some humans to be righteous and others to be evil.”39 Thus, like von Rad and Collins, Perdue interprets Ben Sira’s understanding of election in dualistic terms. Johannes Marböck’s literary and structural analysis of Ben Sira’s wisdom poems locates the sage’s notion of election within a com-

———— Gammie, et al. (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Union Theological Seminary, 1978), 243. Alonso Schökel concludes, “Thus, the elect people becomes a model for understanding man, and as [sic] a model from which man may learn.” 33 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. 34 Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 84–5) comments on Ben Sira’s views of election in his discussion of Sir 33.7–15, a passage he interprets dualistically: “v. 12 contrasts the election of Israel with the dispossession of the Canaanites . . . Finally, in 33:14–15, Sirach argues that divine election is not random, but is part of a coherent system: ‘Good is the opposite of evil, and life is the opposite of death; so the sinner is the opposite of the godly.’” In chapter 2, I argue that Sir 33.7–15 should not be understood dualistically. 35 Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 243–90. 36 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 269–70. 37 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 274. 38 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 269–70. 39 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 290. Cf. 273–4.


13

prehensive worldview.40 In the structure of Ben Sira’s wisdom thinking, the idea of election is connected to wisdom and law. Specifically, the concrete manifestation of wisdom in Israel by means of the Torah constitutes a reappropriation of election. Marböck rightly suggests that Ben Sira is concerned to hold Israel’s national traditions, which were based on election and history, in creative tension with the universal wisdom tradition, which is based on the human capacity to reason. In Marböck’s interpretation, Wisdom serves as the device by which Ben Sira holds these traditions in tension, because for the sage, wisdom relates both to creation (universal) and to fear of YHWH (particular). Thus, for Marböck, election stands for the particular historical traditions of Israel, while “profane” wisdom represents the universal.41 My interpretation of wisdom in Sirach resembles that of Marböck, in that I also envision both a universal and a particular dimension to wisdom. Nevertheless, I maintain, the idea of election stands behind Ben Sira’s two-tiered construction of wisdom and, thus, serves to bridge the universal and particular in Ben Sira’s thought. Moreover, like most commentators, Marböck also interprets election in dualistic terms.42 Another drawback of his study is its overemphasis on the wisdom poems in Sirach. As a result of this focus, it fails to take into account the wisdom sayings and instructions which take up an equally large portion of the book.43 My study demonstrates that Ben Sira derives the doctrine of Israel’s election from an observation he makes about the natural world

————

40 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel. Cf. Johannes Marböck, “Gesetz und Weisheit: zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Jesus ben Sira,” BZ 20 (1976): 1–21; and, more recently, his collection of essays in idem, Gottes Weisheit unter Uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (Freiburg: Herder, 1995). 41 See Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 125. 42 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 152–4. 43 While most of the book of Sirach can be classified as poetry, the wisdom poems make up only a part (a significant part, to be sure) of the various genres employed by the author. Marböck relies on a group of wisdom poems (Sir 1.1–10; 14.20–15.10; 24; etc.), especially wisdom hymns, to interpret Ben Sira’s theology, at the expense of other literary forms, which are no less important for reconstructing the sage’s ideas. Beyond the wisdom poems and hymns, Sirach includes many extended rhetorical constructions, what some term instructions or lectures, as well as individual sayings, prayers, and the like. On the literary genres employed by Ben Sira in general, see Walter Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach,” ZAW 34 (1914): 161–98; and Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 21–30.

14

CHAPTER ONE

and from sources in the Hebrew Bible. In various biblical texts, God inexplicably chooses certain figures over others for special roles in the divine economy. Sometimes this choosing of a particular person (or in the case of Israel, a nation or people) is considered to have universal implications. In Gen 12.1–3, for example, YHWH chooses Abram to father a great people and to inherit a particular land. But the effect of choosing the particular person of Abram has universal implications: all the nations of the earth will experience blessing through Abram.44 Similarly, Ben Sira’s notion of Israel’s election has a universal purpose: like rivers which channel water to the ocean, the elect play a role in the distribution of wisdom to the larger world (Sir 24.10–22; cf. Deut 4.6–7).45 By appropriating Israel’s election tradition, Ben Sira maintains a focus upon the universal concern of the wisdom tradition for the well-being of all humanity and also upon the particular traditions of Israel’s own national heritage contained within its ancient literature. Moreover, the tradition of election offers Ben Sira a means for bridging these two concerns. For Ben Sira, the election of Israel suggests not only that the universal and the particular—the distinct phenomena of Wisdom and Torah—are correlated, but that there is a purposefulness to the relation. Whereas the correlation of general and special revelation simply suggests the whole and the part, election maintains that the special revelation is given with the intent of providing universal benefits.

————

On the long-standing debate over the proper translation of the Niphal of brk in Gen 12.3b, see Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 151–2, and the literature cited there. Whether the passive meaning (“be blessed”) or the reflexive meaning (“bless themselves”) of the Niphal should be read is, in one sense, a moot point. On either interpretation, the nations partake in the blessing accorded Abram. Ben Sira, along with LXX, Vulg., and Tg., understands the verb in a passive sense. Sir 44.21 suggests that YHWH elected Abram “in order to bless the nations by his offspring (lbrk bzrʿw g w y m).” In Ben Sira’s case, this is all the more interesting, since his allusion to the blessing has more affinities with Gen 22.18 and 26.4, where MT uses the Hitpael, which does not have a passive sense. 45 Ben Sira’s view of Israel as a dispenser of wisdom to the nations corresponds to his portrayal of Solomon in Sir 47.14–15. According to the tradition of 1 Kings, the nations come to Solomon to experience his wisdom (1 Kgs 5.14 [Eng. 4.34]; 10.1–13, 24–25). In Ben Sira’s depiction, however, the king’s wisdom radiates outward to the nations. I am indebted to Eugene McGarry for pointing out this parallel. 44


15

PLAN OF THE PRESENT STUDY The famous complexity of the textual history of the book of Sirach presents numerous challenges to the textual critic. Although Ben Sira composed his work in Hebrew, only some 68 percent of the Hebrew text is extant. In addition to the Hebrew text, various Greek, Syriac, and Latin manuscripts provide important witnesses to the text of Sirach. Hence, my attempt to grapple with Ben Sira’s arguments and reasoning has required frequent attention to the multifarious manuscript evidence for his book, as the footnotes will indicate. In addition, textual reconstructions of four principal passages treated in the study, accompanied by my translations, appear in a set of appendixes at the end of the book. The appendixes are intended to serve as a convenient reference for the reader who wishes to see how I handle each of the four passages as a whole. Footnotes to the text-critical appendixes are duplicated in the footnotes to the chapters, where relevant to my argument; thus, it is possible to read the chapters without consulting the appendixes. Finally, a brief introduction to the witnesses and modern editions and reference tools precedes the appendixes. In my attempt to recover Ben Sira’s arguments and to reconstruct his conceptual framework, I have naturally had to pay close attention to philological matters. I construe philology not simply in the narrow, lexicographic sense, but more broadly to include the task of studying lexical items and their textual context with the goal of interpreting literature.46 Since words take on meaning within larger literary contexts, I also have had to ascertain carefully the literary features of his text. The analysis of literary structures and styles is essential for understanding the sense of larger units in Ben Sira’s discourse. In addition to the analysis of genre, I pay attention to literary figures, such as metaphor and chiasmus; to poetic features, such as parallelism; and also to rhetorical techniques, such as analogy and amplification. I aim to interpret Sirach in a holistic manner, taking into account his wisdom poems as well as his sapiential discourses. For example, in my discussion of a chiastic structure in

————

See Jan Ziolkowski, “‘What is Philology’: Introduction,” in On Philology, ed. idem (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990), 5–7, and the other essays contained in the same volume, especially those of W. Clausen and C. Watkins. 46

16

CHAPTER ONE

Sirach 32 (see chapter 5), I show that Ben Sira sometimes argues in a formally complex way. Frequently, the literary and stylistic features of Ben Sira’s work provide clues to or confirmations of his argumentative content. At the same time, because Ben Sira writes in the parallelistic Hebrew “poetic” tradition, he sometimes uses constructions whose precise meaning is difficult to elucidate. Such are the asyndetic expressions juxtaposing Wisdom and Torah in Sir 24.23 that I mentioned at the beginning of this introduction. Such asyndetic juxtapositions and Ben Sira’s uses of poetic parallelism provide certain challenges in the interpretation of the book. The sage juxtaposes or parallels many of the terms that prove most significant for understanding the book: Wisdom and Torah, Wisdom and the fear of YHWH, fear of YHWH and observance of the commandments, fear of YHWH and love of YHWH. One shortcoming in the history of interpreting the book, I believe, is the frequent failure of scholars to consider the precise relationship intended by the sage through juxtaposition and parallelism. A literal interpretation of a statement such as “Wisdom is Torah” results in a tautology, and, were this all that Ben Sira intended to communicate by the juxtaposition, his book would turn out to be quite dull. One could simply summarize his message using a mathematical equation in which all the important terms were linked with a series of equals signs. Based on my appreciation for Ben Sira’s complex arguments elsewhere in his book, I operate on the assumption that his uses of juxtaposition and parallelism can express something other than mere equality or identity.47 I therefore look for contextual clues that might help me understand the precise relation intended between two asyndetically related objects or two terms appearing in poetic parallelism. It must be admitted that a precise understanding of the intended relation cannot always be securely deduced. Nevertheless, I have tried to extract as much meaning from the text and context without injecting meanings of my own. As a scribe versed in the national traditions of Israel, Ben Sira frequently refers to texts from the Israelite literary heritage. For this reason, I examine similarities and differences between Sirach and other cognate texts and explore his citations of, allusions to, and re-

————

47 In this respect, James L. Kugel’s critique of the interpretation of biblical parallelism as indicative of synonymity is instructive (The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1981], 1–58).


17

workings of texts which were, or later became, biblical.48 In this way, I can observe the distinctive ways in which Ben Sira develops antecedent traditions. In the end, Ben Sira was a Jewish scribe who flourished in the first quarter of the second century B.C.E. in Jerusalem. Therefore, I also attempt to locate Ben Sira in his sociohistorical context. As a scribe, he likely served high officials, and he seems to have had close associations with Jewish priests. He lived during a relatively stable period between the Seleucid conquest of Palestine (200 B.C.E.) and the turbulence associated with Antiochus IV (175–164 B.C.E.). Nonetheless, Ben Sira resided under foreign occupation in the city considered by many of his fellow Jews to be their God’s holy dwelling place. All of these factors contribute to Ben Sira’s worldview and, therefore, must be taken into account in any interpretation of the book of Sirach. I present my exposition of Ben Sira’s doctrine of election and its implications for interpreting his book in chapters 2 through 7. In the overall design of the book, I have arranged the chapters with a certain symmetry in mind. Chapter 7—where I synthesize my findings— corresponds to the present chapter, in which I have established the initial problem. Chapter 2 on Ben Sira’s creation theology finds its counterpart in chapter 6, where I explicate the sage’s eschatology. Chapter 3’s distinction between general wisdom and special wisdom mirrors chapter 5’s discussion of non-Jewish piety and Jewish piety. At the center of the book stands chapter 4, where I analyze the tradition of transmitting wisdom from generation to generation. Thus,

————

48 Describing the status of texts alluded to by Ben Sira is problematic. Clearly some of the sage’s allusions are to traditions that eventually became part of the biblical tradition. Whether those traditions were regarded by Ben Sira as biblical is another matter. Some scholars are more willing to conclude that Ben Sira was citing texts that he regarded as canonical; see, e.g., Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 109–16; and Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira,” in “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira, CBET 43 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 169–86. Other scholars are more guarded on the question; see, e.g., Robert A. Kraft, “Scripture and Canon in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Sæbø, Christian Brekelmans, and Menahem Haran (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 1:199–216; and Benjamin G. Wright III, “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira,” in Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming).

18

CHAPTER ONE

chapter 4 forms a bridge from the idea of special wisdom developed in chapter 3 to the discussion of Israel’s special piety in chapter 5. In addition to this overall chiastic structure, several of the chapters form natural pairs. Together, chapters 2 and 3 explain how general and special wisdom are revealed to their respective recipients. And chapters 5 and 6 elucidate how Ben Sira thinks Israel and the nations should act, each on the basis of its respective apportionment of wisdom. Before moving on, let me briefly summarize the contents of each chapter. In chapter 2, I demonstrate that Ben Sira distinguishes human beings on the basis of two unequal apportionments of divine wisdom. The first apportionment involves a general outpouring of wisdom upon all creation, including all humanity. The second consists in a special distribution of an extra measure of wisdom to a select group of humanity. While most scholars interpret this classification dualistically, I argue that Ben Sira bases the distinction on the idea of election with no implication of dualism. That is, Israel’s election does not include a rejection of the non-elect. The sage derives his notion of Israel’s election from older biblical traditions, as well as from his theology of creation. For Ben Sira, the wise creator YHWH established his mastery through the confinement of chaos in the primordium. As a result of his sovereignty, YHWH dispenses wisdom to whomever he chooses and in whatever amount he chooses. According to Ben Sira, YHWH made a primordial decision to elect Israel to receive a special dispensation of wisdom. In chapter 3, I show that Ben Sira views the two apportionments of wisdom discussed in chapter 2 as forms of divine revelation. The outpouring of wisdom upon all creation constitutes a “general wisdom” that is available to all humanity through the natural world. Analogously, the lavish distribution of wisdom upon the elect constitutes a “special wisdom” to which Israel alone is privy. Recognizing that the sage distinguishes between general wisdom and special wisdom complicates most scholars’ facile description that Ben Sira characterizes wisdom as either universal or particular. The sage develops his understanding of the relationship between the elect and special wisdom through the metaphor of inheritance. As it is used by Ben Sira, the metaphor suggests the relation of part to whole: YHWH set apart the land of Canaan (part) from all the earth (whole) as a place for Israel to dwell in. In the same way, the deity separated


19

special wisdom from universal wisdom and bestowed it upon the Jewish people as a special inheritance. Ben Sira’s description of Israel’s special wisdom as an inheritance suggests a portion to be preserved and transmitted within a lineage from generation to generation. Chapter 4 seeks to identify the mechanisms that the sage envisioned as the proper means of safeguarding special wisdom and handing it on from generation to generation among the elect. I compare the various institutions for guarding and transmitting wisdom evident in the book of Proverbs to those alluded to in the book of Sirach. Such a comparison allows me to measure the significance Ben Sira attaches to each institution relative to the significance placed on the same institutions by the compilers of the book of Proverbs. I argue that Ben Sira marginalizes the role of the king and, to a certain extent, the family, while he elevates the importance of the scribe and introduces the role of the priests as preservers and transmitters of wisdom. These sociological changes manifested in the book of Sirach reflect the new political configuration of early-second-century B.C.E. Jerusalem. Chapter 5 probes the content and purposes of the special wisdom that the elect receive and transmit to future generations. I show that Ben Sira uses “fear of YHWH” primarily to refer to a piety that I characterize as Jewish. According to the sage, this Jewish piety has primordial roots, along with wisdom, and was associated from the beginning with the pious elect, that is, with those who fear YHWH. Fear of YHWH implies loyalty to the covenant relationship between Israel and God. A Jew demonstrates loyalty to YHWH’s covenant through observance of the covenantal stipulations, which for Ben Sira are the pentateuchal commandments. These commandments include ethical and cultic requirements, both of which are important for the sage. By enacting the ethical and ritual commandments of the Torah, the elect bring their lives into harmony with the primeval order. Such harmony with the primeval order bestows benefits upon the elect and leads to yet greater wisdom. The benefits are not restricted, however, to the elect. Observance of the Torah’s covenantal commandments renews and sustains the primeval order upon which the world is built. In this way, the elect play an active role that benefits the whole of humankind, indeed the whole world. While in one sense fear of YHWH designates a Jewish piety and, thus, applies to Jews, in a general way it may refer also to literal fright or awe, and

20

CHAPTER ONE

in this sense connotes a universal kind of piety applicable to nonJews. Chapter 6 explores the implications of Ben Sira’s understanding of Israel’s election for his eschatology. Ben Sira’s generally positive attitude toward non-Jews derives from his view that they are the recipients of general wisdom. As such, the nations have the capacity to fear YHWH in the general sense of experiencing awe at creation and, as a result, recognizing his sovereignty as creator of the world. If, however, the awesomeness of creation does not move the Gentiles to fear YHWH, then God’s miraculous rescue of his oppressed people becomes necessary. In this way, the elect, as recipients of divine deliverance, play a passive role in bringing about the eschatological reality in which all nations recognize YHWH as sole deity. Ben Sira does not, however, expect the nations to practice a Jewish piety. The sage views YHWH as a supergod or emperor who rules directly over Israel alone. Since he appoints intermediaries to rule over other nations, non-Jews are required to practice only a universal piety. Chapter 7 synthesizes the findings of my study. I compare Ben Sira’s view of Israel’s election to that of the book of Jubilees, on the one hand, and to that of Philo, on the other. In general, I show that Philo tended toward a universal view, in which anyone could develop an intimate relationship with the Jewish God through the philosophical quest of seeing God. Nonetheless, Philo, like Ben Sira, inherited the biblical tradition of Israel’s covenant with YHWH and also had particularistic understandings. Jubilees, in contrast, has a radically particularistic understanding of Israel as the elect people of YHWH. Like Ben Sira, Jubilees attributes Israel’s election to a primordial decision on God’s part to charge one people with the task of practicing a particular piety. From such comparisons, one can see that other Jewish authors of the Second Temple period also struggled with the problem of universalism and particularism and offered a range of solutions.

CHAPTER TWO

ELECTION AND CREATION: THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ISRAEL’S CHOSENNESS Israelite sages classified human beings into two groups. According to the sapiential tradition, a person was either wise or foolish. The wise person possessed wisdom, that is, had mastered the accumulated insights of previous generations on how best to live one’s life. The fool, in contrast, lacked such knowledge. In this way, the wisdom tradition generated an anthropology that contained a rather simple typology. The second-century B.C.E. Jewish sage Ben Sira also categorizes human beings into two groups. As I shall relate, many scholars describe the nature of the distinction between the sage’s two groups as “opposition.” In this chapter, however, I argue that Ben Sira distinguishes human beings based on a nonoppositional understanding of election, a notion he derives from older biblical traditions and from a cosmological observation. His doctrine of election emerges from his theology of creation, in which YHWH as wise and sovereign creator dispenses wisdom to whomever he chooses, in whatever amount he chooses. Moreover, in contrast to most biblical authors, who portray Israel’s election as a historical event, Ben Sira grounds his election doctrine in the creation of the world. TWO APPORTIONMENTS OF WISDOM In the poem that opens his book (Sir 1.1–10; see appendix A), Ben Sira distinguishes two apportionments of divine wisdom: Sir 1.9b 10a b

————

καὶ ἐξέχεεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ μετὰ πάσης σαρκὸς κατὰ τὴν δόσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐχορήγησεν αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν1

1 In place of “those who love him,” a few Gk. MSS (and Syr.) read φοβουμένοις αὐτόν (those who fear him). For my purposes the question is moot, since, as I shall show in chapter 5, for Ben Sira, those who love God are those who fear him.

22

CHAPTER TWO

Sir 1.9b 10a b

He poured out [wisdom] upon all his works, among all flesh according to his largess, and he lavished her upon those who love him.

According to Ben Sira, YHWH “poured out” a first allocation of wisdom upon all of his creations, including all human beings (vv 9b, 10a). The deity then “lavished” a second allotment upon a particular subset of humanity, referred to here by Ben Sira as “those who love him” (v 10b; see my discussion in n 1, above). As I will discuss in chapter 3, the sage uses this same verb (χορηγέω) in Sir 1.26 to describe the extra wisdom that YHWH lavishes on those who keep the divine commandments. Ben Sira’s mention of these two apportionments of divine wisdom—which in the next chapter I will call general wisdom and special wisdom, respectively—occurs at the very end of this opening poem, in which the sage recounts wisdom’s origin. In the poem as a whole, he affirms that all wisdom originates with God (v 1). Ben Sira considers Wisdom herself to be a creation of God and, furthermore, the first of all divine creations (v 4; cf. v 9a). In order to emphasize the exceeding wisdom of God, Ben Sira uses a series of rhetorical questions (vv 2, 3, 6), asking, for example, who can fathom “the height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the abyss, and wisdom” (v 3).2 The presumed answer to all these rhetorical questions is, of course, no one—except for God. If, as Ben Sira suggests, God is the original possessor of wisdom, it follows, then, that God can dispense wisdom to whomever he chooses, and in whatever amount he chooses. In the final three cola of the poem, quoted above, Ben Sira narrates that YHWH chose to dispense wisdom in two apportionments (Sir 1.9b–10b). Moreover, Ben Sira’s language suggests that he viewed these two divine apportionments of wisdom to be uneven. The unevenness results not from a qualitative difference in the wisdom of the two allotments, but rather from a quantitative disparity. Upon all his creations and upon all humanity, Ben Sira relates, YHWH dispensed (ἐκχέω, literally “to pour out [like water]”) wisdom in a calculated amount. Thus, according to Ben Sira, all human beings receive a certain measure of wisdom by virtue of their created status. In the

————

2 In place of most Gk. witnesses, which read “abyss, and wisdom,” Lat., Copt., and Eth. read “depths of the abyss,” while Syr. reads “the great ocean.” Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 137.

ELECTION AND CREATION

23

next colon, however, he indicates that God has granted wisdom more generously to a select group. Upon those who love him, YHWH bequeathed wisdom profusely (χορηγέω, literally “to furnish abundantly”).3 While the former verb suggests a simple, deliberate pouring of wisdom on all creation equally, the latter indicates that Ben Sira had in view a more bountiful outpouring of wisdom upon a select group of persons.4 One could argue that the verbs “poured out” (v 9b) and “lavished” (v 10b) stand in poetic parallelism, and that the second verb is simply restating the first. Indeed, in the poetic structure of vv 9b– 10b, the two verbs do correspond to one another. In this view, Ben Sira intends no distinction in the quantity of wisdom bestowed in the two dispensations. As scholars of biblical Hebrew5 poetry have pointed out, however, poetic parallelism does not necessarily imply equality.6 In fact, the presence of poetic parallelism suggests simply a juxtaposition between two corresponding elements, and the reader must ponder the connection.7 Ben Sira’s choice of verbs, I propose, communicates a progression from “all his works” (9b) and “all flesh” (10a) to “those who love him” (10b), the result of which is to distinguish one group of humans from all others by the extra meas-

————

3 If the correct textual reading in Sir 1.10b is “those who love him,” it may be the case that the tradition concerning King Solomon has influenced Ben Sira here. According to the Deuteronomistic Historians, Solomon “loved YHWH” (1 Kgs 3.3). The bestowal of lavish wisdom upon Israel’s wise king follows shortly upon this notice. 4 See Sir 44.6 where χορηγέω is used (as a perfect passive participle) for rich men who are “endowed” with strength. See also 2 Macc 4.49; 9.16; 3 Macc 6.30, 40; 7.18; and Dan 4.9. 5 There is little doubt that Hebrew is the original language of the book. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 51. 6 Kugel generalizes the relationship between two poetic lines as “‘A is so, and what’s more, B is so.’ That is, B was connected to A, had something in common with it, but was not expected to be (nor regarded as) mere restatement” (italics in original). See Idea of Biblical Poetry, 1–58; quotation on p 8. 7 In her sophisticated study of poetic parallelism, Adele Berlin suggests that “parallel elements . . . are linguistically equivalent in some way” (The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], 140). By “equivalent,” however, Berlin does not mean “identical.” Indeed, she notes, “there is often a contrast. For after all, equivalent elements are not identical, and their lack of identity—i.e., their difference—shows up all the more clearly when they are placed in contiguity.”

24

CHAPTER TWO

ure of wisdom they have received from God.8 This group he calls “those who love God.” It is important to note here that these two sets of human beings— “all flesh” and “those who love him”—are not portrayed as opposites, along the lines of the traditional wisdom dichotomy between the foolish and the wise or the wicked and the righteous. Indeed, the second group is clearly a subset of the first, a select group of human beings who also partake in the general outpouring of divine wisdom mentioned in Sir 1.9b–10a. For whatever reason, this second group receives an extra measure of divine wisdom. Sirach 1.1–10 belongs to the set of poems or hymns in the book that have creation as a central theme.9 As I noted above, the opening poem addresses the origin of wisdom as a divine creation; it also mentions “all [YHWH’s] works,” a phrase that connotes the entire created world. Ben Sira’s reference to these two apportionments of wisdom in a creation poem at the very beginning of his book suggests a possible connection between the uneven allocation of wisdom and Ben Sira’s theology of creation. I shall explore this potential connection later in this chapter, arguing that indeed Ben Sira draws a close connection between creation and the divine prerogative for a subset of humanity. But in order to make this connection, I must first describe Ben Sira’s understanding of creation, a matter I take up in the next section. Having gained a sense for Ben Sira’s creation theology, I will then pursue further the precise nature of the distinction that, according to Ben Sira, YHWH draws in the human realm. Once I have described Ben Sira’s thinking both about creation and about the human distinction, then I will at last proceed to an exploration of the connection between the two.

———— 8

Cf. Richard J. Clifford’s discussion of “two-stage creation” texts in ancient Sumer (Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, CBQMS 26 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994], 42–9). 9 Keith W. Burton lists Sir 1.1–10 among the principal texts that treat the topic of creation in Ben Sira (“Ben Sira and the Judaic Doctrine of Creation” [Ph.D. diss., University of Glasgow, 1987], 1). In addition, Burton cites 15.14–20; 16.24–17.14; 18.1–14; 24; 33.7–18; and 42.15–43.33. Cited in Núria Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All (Sir 43:27–33),” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 80 n 7.


25

BEN SIRA’S THEOLOGY OF CREATION Only a few studies offer a systematic treatment of the theme of creation in the book of Sirach.10 Leo Perdue focuses his study of Ben Sira on the twin themes of creation and history, and describes the purpose of Ben Sira’s creation theology as the establishment of God’s “providence,”11 which Perdue defines as “the continuing governance of reality.”12 For example, Perdue sees “the providence of God” as the main theme of Sir 33.7–15.13 Indeed, he suggests that God’s providence is the central theme of what he designates the book’s second section (25.1–43.33), the section that treats the topic of creation most fully.14 But as Perdue himself notes, Ben Sira sees providence as God’s “determination and oversight of both the components and actions of reality.”15 The term “providence” connotes a divine engagement in history, and describes less well the assumption of divine mastery in the primordium. Thus, I will suggest that the royal term “sovereignty” better describes the core of Ben Sira’s creation theology, both in its historical and primordial dimensions. Johannes Marböck and Randal Argall describe the central feature of Ben Sira’s creation theology as a “double aspect of reality”16 or “doctrine of opposites.”17 Both Marböck and Argall ground their interpretation of Ben Sira’s creation theology in Sir 33.7–15—a passage about which I will say more below—and suggest that Ben Sira

———— 10

Apparently the most extensive treatment of the theme of creation in Ben Sira is the unpublished dissertation by Burton (“Ben Sira and the Judaic Doctrine of Creation”). Unfortunately, I was unable to attain a copy of this thesis. Burton’s argument is summarized briefly in Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 80–1, and only slightly more amply in Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira (1980–1996),” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Pro-

ceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 51–

2.

11 Perdue occasionally uses the term “sovereignty,” but “providence” is the most frequent term he uses to describe God’s “mastery” over creation (Wisdom and Creation, 243–90). 12 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 279. 13 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 272. 14 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 248, 288. 15 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 255. 16 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 152–4. 17 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 135–6.

26

CHAPTER TWO

observes in creation a system of polarities.18 According to Marböck, these polarities “form a structure of the whole creation.” Moreover, this dual aspect observable in all God’s works “is for Ben Sira a means for the discovery and explanation of the world order.”19 Like Marböck, Argall considers the “built-in polarity” something that is observable in the natural world. Argall defines the “doctrine of opposites”—a phrase he borrows from Roland Murphy—as the notion that “every element in creation obeys God and carries out its purpose for which it was designed, either good or bad.”20 While I agree with Marböck and Argall on the important role that observation of the natural world plays in Ben Sira’s creation theology, I reject the notion that a doctrine of opposites lies at the heart of Ben Sira’s view of the world. Below I will show, instead, that the central idea communicated through Ben Sira’s hymns on creation is the overarching sovereignty of YHWH.21 The doctrine of opposites plays only a minimal role within Ben Sira’s overall creation theology, specifically in his rather feeble attempt to defend YHWH’s justice in the presence of evil. The extended poem in Sir 42.15–43.33 is, arguably, the most important passage for understanding Ben Sira’s creation theology,22 and thus I will focus my analysis on this passage. The poem takes

————

18 Similarly, James L. Crenshaw argues for a “concept of opposites or complementary pairs” (“The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage,” JBL 94 [1975]: 53). See further below. 19 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 152–3. 20 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 135–6. 21 Ben Sira’s notion of YHWH’s sovereignty is tied to the sage’s image of God as king of the cosmos. On Ben Sira’s views on kings and kingship, see Martha Himmelfarb, “The Wisdom of the Scribe, the Wisdom of the Priest, and the Wisdom of the King according to Ben Sira,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and Rodney A. Werline (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2000), 89–99; and Benjamin G. Wright III, “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship,” in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, ed. Tess Rajak, et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 76–91. 22 Thus Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 83. For analysis of the hymn, in addition to the standard commentaries see Gian Luigi Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini, AnBib 65 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975), 116–208; and Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 220–30. My text-critical reconstruction of this poem, along with my translation, may be found in appendix D.


27

the literary form of a hymn of praise.23 As Argall notes, “The introduction lacks the element of a call to praise, but such a call appears in the conclusion (43.28).”24 The first colon expresses the subject of the hymn as “the works of God” (42.15a), Ben Sira’s way of referring to the created world. Ben Sira frequently employs the hymnic genre for didactic ends,25 and Argall argues that Ben Sira’s didactic purpose in the present hymn is to promote the so-called doctrine of opposites.26 My analysis, however, will demonstrate that the doctrine of opposites is not, in fact, the main didactic point for the sage. Rather, Ben Sira’s chief goal is communicating the overarching sovereignty of YHWH.

The Sovereignty of YHWH Ben Sira’s phrasing of the hymn’s subject as “the works of God” indicates his premise that YHWH is the creator of all.27 As I noted earlier, Ben Sira considers wisdom to be the first of YHWH’s creations (Sir 1.4a, 9a). In the second stanza (43.1–12), Ben Sira specifically attributes the sun and rainbow to God’s creative activity. Ben Sira also includes human beings (ʾdm) among YHWH’s many creations (15.14). Indeed, the final verse of the entire hymn affirms that “YHWH made all things” (43.33a).

————

23 Harald-Martin Wahl implies that Sir 42.15–43.33 is comparable to Elihu’s hymn in Job 36.24–37.13, which he identifies as a “sapiential didactic hymn” (weisheitlicher Lehrhymnus). See idem, Der gerechte Schöpfer: Eine redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung der Elihureden-Hiob 32–37 [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993], 113). 24 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 142. 25 All of the hymns that I treat in this chapter serve didactic purposes. See Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen,” 169–77; and Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 135 n 334. 26 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 143. 27 Friedrich Reiterer collates seventeen instances in Sirach in which divine titles attribute creational activity to God: bôrēʾ (MS A 3.16b; MS C reads simply ʾl), ʿôśeh/ʿōśeh (7.30a; 10.12b; 32.13a; 33.13c; 38.15a; 43.5a, 11a; 46.13a; 47.8c), yôṣēr (51.12d), ὁ κτίστης (24.8a), ὁ κτίσας (24.8b), and ὁ ποιήσας (4.6b; 39.5b, 28d; 47.8d). See idem, “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, ed. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen, BETL 143 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 122. Reiterer mistakenly reads bwrʾ in 39.29b (Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 79 n 3). Calduch-Benages (“God, Creator of All,” 79) observes that “these titles make up only a very small part of the vast number of references to the creational activity of God (nearly one hundred instances).”

28

CHAPTER TWO

Perdue observes that the primary metaphor used by Ben Sira for YHWH’s creation of the world is that of the word.28 Indeed, immediately after stating the subject of his poem (“the works of God,” 42.15a), Ben Sira relates that these works of creation came about “by the Lord’s word” (bʾmr ʾdny, 42.15c). Ben Sira also associates the creation of wisdom, YHWH’s first work, as it were, with the divine word—she emanated “from the mouth of the Most High” (24.3a). The metaphor of the divine word, however, extends beyond YHWH’s initial creative activity. For example, “through his command” (bdbr) the moon “maintains its prescribed place” in the heavens (43.10a) and the waters stand “as in a heap” (39.17a; cf. Exod 15.8; Ps 33.6–9). “His word” (ʾmrtw) controls the various winds (43.16b–17b). “His rebuke” (gʿrtw), perhaps also an instance of divine orality, guides the lightning as well as meteors (43.13). In Sir 43.26b, Ben Sira portrays individual elements of nature as messengers that fulfill YHWH’s will “at his commands” (bdbryw). Once arranged in creation, YHWH’s works do not disobey “his word” (τοῦ ῥήματος αὐτοῦ, 16.28; cf. 39.31). In Ben Sira’s view, YHWH also governs the functioning of nature by means of his word. Wisdom’s origin in the mouth of YHWH, mentioned above, indicates the close connection, in Ben Sira’s mind, between wisdom and word. In connecting word and wisdom, Ben Sira combines two distinct creation traditions, both known from the Hebrew Bible. First, his notion of creation through the divine word parallels the Priestly account in Gen 1.1–2.4a. Second, his idea that YHWH created the world “in wisdom” corresponds to Prov 3.19 (cf. Prov 8.30; Ps 104.24). Ben Sira does not cite the biblical texts directly, but his references to creation through divine word and wisdom suggest that he is familiar with traditions similiar to, if not identical with, the biblical ones. Moreover, his creation theology brings together these two traditions of creation through divine word and divine wisdom. A verse in GII specifically locates wisdom’s source in the divine word: Sir 1.5a

πηγὴ σοφίας λόγος θεοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις

Sir 1.5a

Wisdom’s fount is the word of God in the heights.

———— 28

Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 289.


29

In presenting the word of God as a fountain that gushes wisdom, this verse parallels the emanation of personified wisdom from the mouth of the deity in Sir 24.3a. Together, the images of creation through divine word and divine wisdom serve Ben Sira’s larger didactic purpose in his hymns on creation: the establishment of YHWH’s overarching sovereignty. Let me return to the lengthy poem in Sir 42.15–43.33 in order to show how Ben Sira’s rhetoric functions to demonstrate the extent of YHWH’s sovereignty. As I will show, in this poem the sage employs a two-part rhetorical strategy of “amplification.”29 First, he attempts to instill marvel in his reader at the splendor of creation. Then, he shifts the focus from the works of creation to the creator himself, in order to suggest how much more awe-inspiring YHWH must be.30 I divide the poem into four stanzas. The first stanza introduces the entire hymn (42.15–25). The second stanza surveys the heavenly bodies (43.1–12), and the third stanza reviews various phenomena that occur beneath the celestial realm (43.13–26). The fourth stanza concludes the hymn on a note of praise (43.27–33). As I noted above, the subject of this poem is “the works of God” (42.15a). The rhetorical questions contained in the conclusion (42.22–5) to stanza 1 point to the beauty and awe-inspiring quality of God’s works: Sir 42.22a b 25b Sir 42.22a b 25b

[‫הלוא כל מעשיו נחמד]ים‬ 31 ‫עדני ציץ וחזות מראה‬ ‫ ומי ישבע להביט הודם‬. . . Are not all his works desirable, delightful to gaze upon, and a sight to see? . . . who can be sated by gazing at their splendor?

These cola set the stage for the particular way in which Ben Sira develops this theme of nature’s splendor.

———— 29

Thomas R. Lee applies the term “amplification” to a similar technique used by Ben Sira in the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, SBLDS 75 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 116). 30 Cf. Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 89. 31 I follow the reconstruction of John Strugnell, “Notes and Queries on ‘The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,’” in W. F. Albright Volume, ed. Abraham Malamat, ErIsr 9 (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Exploration Society, 1969), 116–7, as do Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488.

30

CHAPTER TWO

As a poetic commentary on Gen 1.14–19,32 the second stanza (43.1–12) surveys the heavenly bodies: the sun, moon, and rainbow.33 Ben Sira describes the sun as an “awesome instrument” (kly nwrʾ, v 2b) that “scorches the surface of the earth,” like a “blazing furnace” with its “fiery tongue.” The effect on humans is severe: they can scarcely tolerate its intense heat and their “eyes are burned by its fire” (vv 3–4). Ben Sira affirms that it is God who has made such a marvelous body: Sir 43.5a b Sir 43.5a b

34

‫כי גדול ייי עשהו‬ ‫ובדבריו ינצח אביריו‬

Great indeed is YHWH who made it, at whose orders it urges on its steeds.

This last bicolon supplies the point of Ben Sira’s portrayal of the sun. While the sun is awesome (nôrāʾ) in its display of power, it remains merely a creation of YHWH, who must be more awesome still. For Ben Sira, the moon’s magnificence derives from its role in regulating the religious calendar.35 The moon “makes the seasons

————

Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 282. It is possible, as Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 145) maintains, that Ben Sira intends the firmament as a fourth celestial entity to admire: 32 33

Sir 43.1a b Sir 43.1a b

‫תאר מרום ורקיע לטהר‬ ‫עצם שמים מ]ראה הד[רו‬ The form of the heights, the clarity of the sky, heaven itself manifests his splendor.

The physicality of the “sky” (rāqî aʿ ) in passages such as Gen 1.1–2.4a, for example, lends this possibility some credence. Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 145) also includes the stars (v 9), at least parenthetically, among those heavenly bodies treated in this stanza. More likely, however, v 1 serves as a general introduction to the splendid celestial environment of the bodies upon which Ben Sira focuses his attention. In this introductory statement, the “sky” is treated in a cursory fashion. It parallels “the heights” and “heaven,” all of which reveal YHWH’s “splendor.” I will demonstrate that the sun, moon, and rainbow, in contrast, are treated more extensively and in a manner similar to one another. For the text above, I follow MS M in v 1b, as do Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488. (Note the similarity between Sir 43.1 and Exod 24.10.) I understand the referent of the 3ms pronominal suffix of hdr w to be God, not the plural šmy m (heavens), as some commentators do. 34 The text of v 5b is uncertain. MS M is illegible, and MS B makes little sense. Following Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488), I read with G ûbidbārâw (ἐν λόγοις αὐτοῦ, at his orders). Skehan and Di Lella interpret ʾabbîrâw (literally “his mighty ones”) as horses, based on this meaning in Jer 8.16; 47.3; and 50.11. 35 Benjamin Wright notes the sage’s contrasting interests in the sun and moon (“‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem


31

(ʿtwt) travel”36 and determines the “sacred times” (mwʿd) and the “pilgrimage feasts” (ḥg,37 43.6–7). Like the sun, the moon is described as “awesome” (nôrāʾ); the awesomeness of the moon stems from the manner in which it changes throughout the month (43.8ab). Like the sun, the moon acts not by its own impulses, but by the command (literally “word,” 43.10a) of the Lord. In the closing cola of the stanza, Ben Sira turns to consider the splendor of the rainbow, which “the hand of God has stretched out” across the celestial vault. The “glory” (kābôd) of the rainbow, Ben Sira suggests, like the awesomeness of the sun and the moon before it, should lead the observer to “bless the one who made it” (43.11–12). These three heavenly phenomenon—the sun, moon, and rainbow— are treated similarly by Ben Sira. Observation of them leads to a recognition of their awesomeness or splendor.38 Since YHWH created them, and still controls them by his word, Ben Sira can reach only one conclusion: the creator is greater still than his works.

A Doctrine of Opposites? My reading of Sir 43.1–12 thus identifies its central theme as YHWH’s sovereignty. Argall, however, reads the portrayal of the sun and the moon in 43.1–12 as a statement on the doctrine of opposites. For Argall, the doctrine of opposites suggests “a built-in polarity” in the divine works and “the duality of creation.”39 Ben Sira calls the sun a kəlî nôrāʾ (MS M Sir 43.2b) which Argall translates as “fearful instrument.”40 Argall interprets the scorching, blazing, fiery-tongued sun as “an instrument of wrath” that “has a punishing capacity as it

————

Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997], 206–7). Ben Sira’s observations about the sun center on its intense heat. In contrast, the moon’s most notable feature is its calendrical function. In this distinction, Wright observes “a polemic against the solar year found in 1 Enoch and Aramaic Levi.” 36 Note the word play between “moon” ( yārē aḥ) and “makes travel” ( yaʾă r î aḥ) in MS M 43.6 (reconstructed from MS B). 37 MS M. In place of ḥg, MS B reads zmny ḥwq (prescribed times). 38 This similar treatment of the sun, moon, and rainbow lends credence to my suggestion that the sky is not meant as an additional celestial being. See n 33, above. 39 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. The quotations appear on pp 135 and 145, respectively. 40 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 145–7.

32

CHAPTER TWO

carries out the word of the Lord.”41 Argall does not offer any positive role for the sun to complement its negative role. In Argall’s doctrine of opposites, the moon plays both a positive and a negative role. Positively, at least for the pious, the moon determines the religious festivals and sacred pilgrimages. Argall considers another of the moon’s functions to be both positive and negative. Following G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley,42 Argall bases an argument for the meteorological function of the moon on 43.8c, which describes the moon as Sir 43.8c Sir 43.8c

‫כלי צבא נבלי מרום‬ an army signal for the waterskins of the heights.

Here Ben Sira portrays the moon as a military fire signal that controls the movements of an army, in this case the water-laden clouds. According to Argall, the resultant “rains can be either severe or gentle, they can curse or bless.” He points to the fierce storms in the next stanza (43.13–26) to bolster his argument. There is little doubt that 43.8c portrays the moon as guiding the activities of the clouds. But in this stanza there is no hint that the rains resulting from the moon’s direction are negative—or positive, for that matter. Moreover, most of the meteorological phenomena in the following stanza are directed by YHWH, not the moon. Only 43.22 (see below) does not mention the deity explicitly as the agent who rouses nature to act. In these verses “dripping clouds” and “scattered dew” (not the moon) bring refreshment to a sun-scorched land.43 Moreover, Argall’s translation of nôrāʾ as “fearful” is misguided.44 Of the several meanings for this word in the Hebrew Bible, “fearful” occurs the least frequently.45 More often, the Niphal of yrʾ communicates the instillment of awe or reverence. Rather than portraying the sun, and to a certain extent the moon, as potential

————

Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 145–7. Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1:475. 43 See my alternative interpretation of Sir 43.13–26, below. 44 In his translation of Sir 43.2b, 8b, Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 145–6) uses the more neutral word “awesome.” Yet in his commentary on these verses, he renders the term “fearful.” 45 According to my count, the Niphal of y rʾ occurs approximately 45 times in the Hebrew Bible. Of these occurrences, only 7 times does it mean “be fearful, dreadful.” 41 42


33

instruments of God’s wrath, Ben Sira aims to demonstrate the aweinspiring character of these heavenly creations. Additionally, Argall’s recourse to the doctrine of opposites as an interpretive key for this passage fails to explain the role of the rainbow. Two alternative readings of Sir 42.24a in the hymn’s introduction go to the heart of my argument that the distinction should be interpreted in terms of election rather than opposition. In one particular reading of this colon, Argall finds justification for interpreting Ben Sira’s presentation of the sun and moon through the doctrine of opposites. Following Yigal Yadin, and Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella,46 Argall reconstructs this verse of MS M on the basis of the Syriac and Greek manuscripts: MS

M Sir 42.24a

‫כלם ]שנים שנים זה[ לעמת זה‬

MS

M Sir 42.24a All of them are in pairs, this corresponding to that.47

He sees this bicolon as the thematic statement of the entire stanza, namely, the doctrine of opposites.48 The strength of the Greek and Syriac textual witnesses lends credibility to this reconstruction, though it is risky to burden a reconstructed verse with so weighty a portion of one’s argument. Even if one grants the validity of this reconstruction, the text on its face does not necessarily imply that the members of each pair are opposites. First, the term ləʿummat can connote a simple correspondence rather than a polar “opposition.” This preposition derives from the noun ʿummâ, which means “juxtaposition.” As a preposition, ləʿummat has the sense of “side by side with,” “parallel to,” or “corresponding to.”49 Second, binary systems can be of various types, not just polar opposites. As I will show below, Ben Sira does not consider the pair sun-moon to be oppositional. A stronger case can be made for an alternative reading which follows MS B.

————

46 Yigal Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965), 28; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488; and Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 143. 47 The translation given is that of Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 143. 48 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 145. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 492) interpret the colon as an expression of “harmonious equilibrium.” 49 See, e.g., Exod 25.27; 28.27; 1 Kgs 7.20; Eccl 7.14; Ezek 40.18; 42.7.

34

CHAPTER TWO

MS

B Sir 42.24a

MS

B Sir 42.24a All of them are different, the one from the other.

‫כלם שונים זה מזה‬

This reading requires no textual reconstruction and should be preferred for three reasons. First, text-critically, MS B represents the shorter reading (lectio brevior) in comparison to MS M. Moreover, MS M, as reconstructed from G and Syriac, represents a harmonization of MS B 42.24a to a similar passage, Sir 33.15b (see the following section).50 Second, poetically, the line as reconstructed by Yadin, Skehan and Di Lella, and Argall is too long. Third, MS B’s reading also suits the context better from a thematic standpoint. Calduch-Benages suggests that, rather than emphasizing some presumed polarity in creation, “what Ben Sira wants to underline in 42:24a with ‫שׁוֹנים‬ ִ ‫[ ֻכּ ָלּם‬all of them are different] is the variation and diversity of creation.”51 This reading coheres better with the overall tenor of Sir 42.22–5, which emphasizes the variety, beauty, delightfulness, and splendor of creation, not its duality. These themes set the tone for the rest of the poem. By showing the tremendous power and beauty of these celestial bodies, Ben Sira attempts to inculcate in his reader an even greater appreciation for the majesty of YHWH who created and controls the sun, the moon, and the rainbow. The real point is not how fierce the sun is, and how the wise person can avoid its intense heat, as Argall suggests;52 rather, Ben Sira is making a statement about God’s status as creator and his sovereignty over nature. I am not denying that something like a doctrine of opposites plays a role in Ben Sira’s creation theology. But rather than playing a central role, as it does in the interpretations of Argall and Marböck, the doctrine is operative only in a minor way in Ben Sira’s attempt to defend YHWH’s justice in the face of apparent evil. For Ben Sira, the natural world is unitary; all of it is created by God. This unitary view of creation, however, creates a problem for Ben Sira—how can he explain the existence of evil? It is in this narrow context that Ben Sira articulates a dual nature of YHWH’s works.

———— 50

For a discussion of these text-critical principles, see Emanuel Tov, Textual

Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 305–7. 51 52

Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 89. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 146.


35

This duality in the created realm comes through most clearly in the hymn in praise of the creator found in Sir 39.12–35. In this passage, Ben Sira affirms that God controls nature (divine mastery) and that God’s created world is all good (Sir 39.16, 33). That is to say, YHWH orders the natural world for the benefit of human beings. But if everything is good, how can evil exist? Ben Sira answers that God’s creation is good for the righteous, but bad for the wicked (Sir 39.25, 27). Some things in the world appear to be bad, but they are only bad for evil people. That is, seemingly bad things are used by God to punish evil people (Sir 39.28–31). Punishment of the wicked is, of course, ultimately a good thing in terms of God’s justice.53 So in one sense nothing is truly bad, since even bad things have a good purpose in the divine economy. A duality such as the one represented in this passage embodies at best a weak attempt at a solution to the problem of theodicy. Ben Sira’s formulation cannot account for the situation in which evil befalls the righteous person, a scenario that the book of Job wrestles with more profoundly. Nevertheless, my main point remains that the duality evident in Sir 39.12–35 represents not a systematic statement of Ben Sira’s creation theology, but rather an attempt to wrestle, however inadequately, with the theodical problem inherent in Ben Sira’s unitary view of the natural world.

YHWH as Divine Warrior and Storm God I showed above how, in stanza 2, Ben Sira portrays YHWH’s mastery over the heavenly bodies. In stanza 3 (Sir 43.13–26), Ben Sira evokes the biblical motifs of the Divine Warrior and the storm god in order to emphasize YHWH’s sovereignty over various natural phe-

———— 53

In Ben Sira’s worldview, there is a certain efficaciousness to these weapons of nature, in that they cannot disobey the divine command. Thus, a parallel exists between these divine weapons of nature in Ben Sira and the notion of a natural deedconsequence nexus in older Israelite wisdom. The difference lies in Ben Sira’s phrasing of the principle in theistic terms, whereas much of Israel’s wisdom literature seemed more comfortable with a non-theistic presentation. See Levenson, “Response to the Papers of Stephen Geller, Neil Gillman, and David Novak.” For a recent assessment of Ben Sira’s adaptation of the deed-consequence nexus, see Samuel L. Adams, Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions, JSJSup 125 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 153–213.

36

CHAPTER TWO

nomena that occur beneath the celestial realm.54 Sirach 43.13a–17b calls to mind the theophany of the Divine Warrior: 55

Sir 43.13a b 14a b 15a b 17a 16a 16b 17b

‫גערתו תתוה ברק‬ ‫ותנצח זיקות משפט‬ ‫למענו פרע אוצר‬ ‫ויעף עבים כעיט‬ ‫ ענן‬56‫גבורתו תחזק‬ ‫ותגדע ]אב[ני ברד‬ 57 ‫קול רעמו יחיל ארצו‬ ‫ובכחו יניף הרים‬ ‫אמ]רתו[ תחריף תימן‬ ‫עלעול סופה וסערה‬

Sir 43.13a b 14a b 15a b 17a 16a 16b 17b

His rebuke marks a path for the lightning and directs meteors of judgment.58 For his own purpose he looses the storehouse and makes the clouds fly like birds of prey. His might strengthens the cloud-mass and chips off stones of hail. The sound of his thunder makes his earth writhe, and by his strength he shakes the mountains. His word causes reproach by means of the south wind, hurricane,59 whirlwind, and squall.

————

54 On the topic of the Divine Warrior in Israel, see Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, HSM 5 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); and Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 91–111. On the topic of the storm theophany, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 156–77.

Reading brq with MS B, instead of brd with MS M. “Hail” receives its own mention below in v 15b. 56 Emending MS M ḥzq with Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 489. 57 The order of the cola in vv 16–17 derives from MS M, MS Bmg, and numerous G MSS. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490. The versification follows G. 58 For t əna ṣē aḥ Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 485) translate “make brilliant.” My translation (“to direct”) is the more common definition and fits better with the context of the stanza in which YHWH instructs or commands elements of nature to accomplish his purpose. For zîqôt, Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 485) translate “flashes.” The term indicates some kind of fiery projectile (see Prov 26.18; Isa 50.11). G reads ἀστραπὰς (lightnings), which parallels brq (MS B) in the previous colon. 59 The term ʿilʿôl does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. This late Hebrew word, derived from reduplication of the root ʿll (to drive about), occurs in Cant. Rab. to 3.4 (referring to sûpôt [storm-winds] in Isa 21.1) as well as in Qoh. Rab. to 7.1. 55


37

In archaic biblical poetry, the most frequently used image in theophanies of the Divine Warrior is the thunderstorm.60 Thus, the older biblical materials already combine the Divine Warrior and storm god motifs to a certain extent. In this mythical motif that Israel adopted from the theophany of the storm god Baal,61 YHWH marches out to battle against an enemy (Hab 3.13–14). The clouds serve as YHWH’s battle chariot (Deut 33.26; Ps 18.10–13 = 2 Sam 22.10–13; Ps 68.5 [Eng. 4]). At YHWH’s presence, nature reacts—the earth trembles, the mountains quake, and the heavens pour down rain (Judg 5.4–5; cf. Hab 3.6; Ps 18.8 = 2 Sam 22.8; Ps 68.9 [Eng. 8]). Natural phenomena are portrayed as attributes of the deity; a blast of wind, for instance, emanates from the deity’s nostrils (Exod 15.8). The vocabulary in the present passage from Ben Sira overlaps significantly with that of these Divine Warrior theophanies. YHWH’s “rebuke” (gaʿărâ, Sir 43.13a; cf. Ps 18.16 = 2 Sam 22.16) affects natural events. Storm-related phenomena serve as YHWH’s weapons—“hail” (bārād, Sir 43.15b; cf. Ps 18.13),62 “to thunder” (rʿm, Sir 43.17a; cf. Ps 18.14 = 2 Sam 22.14), and “lightning” (bārāq, Sir 43.13a; cf. Ps 18.15 = 2 Sam 22.15). And YHWH enters battle with an army that acts at his “command” (ʾimrâ, Sir 43.16b; cf. dabbərōt, Deut 33.3).63 Ben Sira’s appropriation of the Divine Warrior theophany, however, exhibits some important differences from the biblical examples I have surveyed. For one, Ben Sira does not explicitly portray YHWH as a warrior in the creation poem. There is no identifiable enemy against whom he fights.64 Second, in Sirach the frightful reaction of nature at the presence of the deity-warrior is downplayed. In Sir 43.17a, 16a, the earth writhes (yḥyl) and the moun-

————

60 See, e.g., Exod 15.7–10; Deut 33.2–3, 26–9; Judg 5.4–5; Hab 3.3–15; Ps 68.7–8, 31–4 [Eng. 8–9, 32–5], and 2 Sam 22.8–16 = Ps 18.8–16. 61 Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 147) points out that descriptions of YHWH as Divine Warrior depend heavily on the image of Baal as storm god. 62 On “stones of hail” (ʾabnê bārād) as an instrument of divine war, see Josh 10.11. 63 The thunderstorm motif also dominates the imagery of divine theophany in the Priestly source and the Deuteronomistic History (DH). For P, see Exod 24.15–18; 40.34–8; and Num 9.15–23. Cf. Ezek 1. For the DH, see Deut 1.33; 4.9–40; and 1 Kgs 8.10–13. The notion of the deity as warrior is missing from many of these texts, but the storm god motif is evident. Cf. Sir 16.18–19 and see further my discussion on p 47. 64 See, however, my analysis of Sir 36.1–22 in chapter 6.

38

CHAPTER TWO

tains shake (ynyp), but in these cola, YHWH is the subject of the causative form of these verbs. In Hab 3.10, by contrast, the mountains, as the subject of the normal Qal form of the verb ḥûl, do the writhing.65 Rather than reading these two lines in Sir 43.17a, 16a as indicative of nature’s fearful response to the appearance of the deity, one can interpret them in a manner consistent with the other cola in the passage, in which the deity exercises his control over the elements of nature. Traditions regarding the Sinai theophany that have been associated with the Elohist offer a useful point of comparison. Exodus 19 and 20 do not depict nature’s dramatic response to the appearance of the deity. The description of natural phenomena includes lightning, thunder, fire, and a smoking mountain, but there is no indication that these phenomena are nature’s reaction to YHWH.66 The similar lack of a description of nature’s frightful response to the theophany in Sir 43.13a–17b suggests that Ben Sira’s emphasis lies elsewhere. In the poem as a whole, God causes nature to act in order to accomplish his purposes. In the next section of stanza 3, Argall perceives again a duality of punishment and blessing. Sir 43.17c 17d 18a

‫ שלגו‬67‫כרשף יפרח‬ ‫וכארבה ישכן רדתו‬ ‫ עינים‬68‫תואר לבנו יהג‬

————

But note the Hiphil of ḥûl, with YHWH or his voice as subject, in the context of a theophany in Ps 29.8 (2x). 66 See in particular Exod 19.9, 16; and 20.18, 21. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 165) describes the absence of nature’s reaction to the Divine Warrior theophany in Exod 19 and 20 as “lost” and attributes its loss to “demythologization.” 67 Pancratius C. Beentjes (The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of 65

All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 119) reads wprḥ, which he amends to yprh in his corrections (idem, “Errata et Corrigenda,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002], 377). yprḥ is Yadin’s (Ben Sira Scroll, 32) reading, which appears correct to me from the image of Plate 7 printed in his text. See further the suggestions of Strugnell, “Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” 117. 68 Most commentators agree that the verbs in MSS B and M for this verse make no sense. MS Btxt reads yghh; MS Bmg reads yhgh; and MS M reads yhg. The easiest solution, taken by Strugnell (“Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” 118), Yadin (Ben Sira Scroll, 32), and Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 148), is to read with G ἐκθαυμάσει (admire; be amazed; cf. Sir 27.23; Mark 12.17). Yadin suggests the translation “puzzle,” a meaning that corresponds to the apparently parallel verb t mh in the fol-


b 19a b 20a b c d 21a b 22a b Sir 43.17c 17d 18a b 19a b 20a b c d 21a b 22a b

39

‫ לבב‬69‫וממטרו יתמה‬ ‫וגם כפור כמלח ישפך‬ ‫ויצמח כסנה צצים‬ ‫צינת רוח צפון ישיב‬ ‫וכרגב יקפיא מקור‬ ‫על כל מעמד מים יקרים‬ ‫וכשרין ילבש מקוה‬ ‫יבול הרים כחרב ישיק‬ ‫ונוה צמחים כלהבה‬ ‫מרפא כל מערף ענן‬ 71 ‫וטל פרוע ידשן שרב‬ 70

He causes his snow to fly like birds,72 and like a locust swarm it settles in its descent. Its white form puzzles the eyes, and the mind is astonished at its falling. Even frost he pours out like salt; it shines like blackberry blossoms. The cold north wind he brings back, and he solidifies the water-spring like a clod. Over every pool of standing water he spreads a crust, and the reservoir clothes itself as though with breast armor. When he burns the mountain growth with drought and the flowering pasture as though with flame, a dripping cloud heals everything, and loosed dew fattens the parched land.

Within the doctrine of opposites, according to Argall, Ben Sira portrays “the meteorology of the south wind as a ‘bad thing’” and the “fearful capacity” of the snow and north wind “as a tool of judgment.”73 In the last two verses of the stanza, Argall counterposes “the sun as an instrument of wrath” with “the clouds and dew as instruments of blessing” (43.21–2).

————

lowing colon. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) read y iqqâ (dazzles) without offering any explanation. 69 Reading yt mh (so Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) for MS M yt myh. 70 MSS M and Bmg and G. MS Btxt reads yš kwn. 71 Emending v 22 of MS B. Following Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490), I read wṭl as the first word of 22b (in place of ṭl as the last word of 22a) and the imperfect yd šn (which equals G ἱλαρώσει) instead of the infinitive ld šn. I also emend pwrʿ from the active to the passive participle. For the passive participle of this verb, see Exod 32.25. 72 For this meaning of rešep, see Exod. Rab. sec. 12. 73 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 148–50.

40

CHAPTER TWO

It is true that theophany can be a source of both fright and beneficence.74 But here, in a demythologized appropriation of the Divine Warrior theophany, Ben Sira’s intent is not to frighten. The wintry images in vv 17c–20d and the refreshing waters of vv 21–2 are not generally associated with the motif of the Divine Warrior in its standard form.75 These lines, in which Ben Sira further discusses YHWH’s direction of additional elements from the natural world, contextualize the appropriated Divine Warrior theophany in a larger passage about YHWH’s sovereign control over nature, thus indicating how far Ben Sira has strayed from the original motif. Rather than frighten, the sage aims to instill in his reader awe at the great power of nature. Moreover, through his technique of amplification, Ben Sira suggests that, because YHWH created and controls nature, he deserves even greater awe and respect than that elicited by powerful nature.

Divine Mastery Over Primordial Chaos In Sir 43.23a–26b, which concludes stanza 3, Ben Sira evokes one other biblical motif—YHWH’s primordial battle against chaos (Chaoskampf ).76 While this motif in Ben Sira’s didactic hymn stresses YHWH’s overarching sovereignty, the particular way in which he appropriates the Chaoskampf motif indicates that, at least in theory, YHWH’s mastery falls short of being absolute. As I will show below, Ben Sira views creation not as the complete elimination of chaos, but rather as its containment. Sir 43.23a

————

77

‫מחשבתו משקיט רהב‬

74 Cf. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, trans. John W. Harvey (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), 5–40; and Ninian Smart, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World's Beliefs (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 166–95. 75 Note, however, the detail that “snow fell on Zalmon” when YHWH scattered his enemies in Ps 68.15 [Eng. 14]. Also, the verb for “solidify” in Sir 43.20b occurs in the Divine Warrior theophany of Exod 15.8. There the deeps (t əhōmōt) are said to “congeal.” For the heavens dropping dew, see Deut 33.28 (ʾap šāmâw yaʿar pû ṭāl). The context is the victory of the storm god YHWH, and dew dropping from heaven signals Israel’s fruitful existence at peace from its enemies (cf. Ps 133.3). 76 For examples in which the Chaoskampf motif intrudes upon the Divine Warrior motif, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 93–4 and 107–8, on Ps 24.1–5 and Isa 51.9–11, respectively. 77 MS B reads ma ššîq rabbâ (he kisses the great thing). Above I follow the emendation of Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490), which is based on


b 24a b 25a b 26a b Sir 43.23a b 24a b 25a b 26a b

41

‫ בתהום איים‬78‫ויטע‬ ‫יורדי הים יספרו קצהו‬ ‫לשמע אזנינו נשתומם‬ ‫שם פלאות תמהי מעשהו‬ ‫מין כל חי וגבורות רהב‬ ‫למענו יצלח מלאך‬ 79 ‫ובדבריו יפעל רצון‬ He quiets Rahab by means of his plan,80 and he plants islands in the deep. Those who go down to the sea recount its extent; when our ears hear, we are astounded. Within are wonders, marvels of his handiwork, living things of every kind, and Rahab’s mighty ones. On his account the messenger succeeds, and at his commands it accomplishes [his] will.

Three terms in succeeding cola—Rahab (23a; cf. 25b), the deep (t əhôm, 23b; cf. 42.18a), and the sea (yām, 24a)—all bring to mind biblical texts that intimate some sort of battle between YHWH and the chaotic primordial waters. In Job 26.12; 38.8–11; Pss 65.7–8 [Eng. 6–7]; 74.12–17; 89.10–15 [Eng. 9–14]; 93.1–4; and Prov 8.29, yām refers to the primordial sea, which YHWH brought under control in the creation of the world. In Ps 104.6–9, t əhôm designates the primordial ocean, whose boundaries YHWH circumscribes at the creation of the world. In Ps 89.11 [Eng. 10] and Job 26.12 (cf.

————

G. Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 148 n 371) translates rbh in MS B as “great [waters],” noting that G reads ἄβυσσον. In the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, ἄβυσσον most often translates t əhôm, as it does in Sir 42.18a. And nowhere does rabbâ by itself signify “waters.” In Argall’s favor, perhaps, are Ps 78.15, where ἀβύσσῳ πολλῇ translates t əhōmôt rabbâ, and Isa 51.10, where ἀβύσσου πλῆθος renders təhôm rabbâ. But Argall’s interpretation requires understanding rabbâ as shorthand for the phrase təhôm rabbâ, an unlikely possibility. It seems more plausible to postulate metathesis of the h and b, especially given the mention of rāhāb in 43.25b (MS M). 78 For MS B w yṭ. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490. 79 Perdue (Wisdom and Creation, 283) places v 26 at the beginning of the final stanza (43.27–33). I believe, however, that this verse makes more sense as a concluding statement to stanza 3. Moreover, v 27 appears to signal the beginning of a conclusion, in which Ben Sira suggests he has finished his litany of natural phenomena. 80 Taking mḥšbtw (his plan) as adverbial accusative. Cf. G, which uses a dative: λογισμῷ αὐτοῦ (by his plan).

42

CHAPTER TWO

9.13), Rahab appears as a sea monster defeated by YHWH at the time of creation.81 Biblical texts that portray YHWH’s primordial battle against chaos as a conflict with the sea or a sea monster vary in their adaptation of the combat myth. Jon Levenson’s continuum offers a helpful heuristic tool for locating a given text in relation to others. At one end of the continuum lies Ps 74.12–17, in which the eradication of chaos results in the creation of the world.82 Levenson refers to this pole as the “full-fledged combat myth of creation.”83 At the other end of the continuum lies P’s creation story in Gen 1.1–2.4a. There the primordial sea (t əhôm) is also connected to creation (Gen 1.2), but, as John Day notes, in this passage “all thought of conflict has disappeared” and “a process of demythologization has taken place.”84 Levenson calls this pole “creation through the unchallenged magisterial word of God.”85 Ben Sira’s appropriation of the combat myth lies at some intermediate point between these two ends of the continuum. As in Gen 1.1–2.4a, Ben Sira’s poem evidences a certain amount of demythologization. The primordial waters t əhôm and yām have no personality in Ben Sira’s hymn. Nonetheless, the sea monster Rahab and her minions (Sir 43.25b) remain animated living things. Unlike Gen 1.1–2.4a, however, more than a hint of the original conflict remains.

————

81 The somewhat enigmatic phrase “monsters of Rahab” (Sir 43.25b; MS M = gbwrt rhb; cf. MS B = wgbwr wt rbh; see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) probably refers to sea monsters who are in league with Rahab. Perhaps these belong to the same ilk as “the helpers of Rahab” (ʿōzərê rāhab) in Job 9.13, whom John Day suggests “are other sea monsters” (God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985], 41). The three terms yām, t əhôm, and rahab appear together in Isa 51.9–11, a passage which combines creation, the exodus, and the future rescue of the Babylonian exiles. See Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 91–3. 82 See Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 7–8. While Ps 74 has as its background the myth of Baal’s contest against Yamm, Marduk’s victory over Tiamat (cognate to Hebrew t əhôm) in the Enuma elish also offers an instructive parallel. 83 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 15. 84 Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 49. Where God is seen controlling the waters, rather than in conflict with them, perhaps the conflict with the sea motif has been demythologized. For biblical examples other than Gen 1.2, 6–10, see Ps 33.7–8; Prov 8.24, 27–9; and Jer 5.22, 31.35. 85 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 15.


43

YHWH is said to “quiet”86 (m šqyṭ) Rahab by means of “his plan” (mḥ š bt w, 43.23a), which Perdue connects to YHWH’s wisdom.87 The sea monster Rahab as an agent of chaos is tamed but not, as in Psalm 74, destroyed. In Sirach, Rahab exists as one of the marvelous animals in the sea. In this sense, Ben Sira’s position lies close to that found in Job 40.25–32 [Eng. 41.1–8], where God contains the sea monster (in this case Leviathan) for his own pleasure.88 As Levenson notes, in texts such as Job 40.25–32 [Eng. 41.1–8]—and I would add Sir 43.23–26—the basis of creation lies not in the eradication of chaos but in its “confinement.”89 In other words, Ben Sira’s creation theology highlights YHWH’s mastery over creation, but stops short of describing YHWH’s sovereignty as absolute. Ben Sira’s evocation of the Chaoskampf motif suggests YHWH’s sovereignty in another way. Several psalms (29; 74; 93) associate YHWH’s victory over the primordial waters of chaos with his kingship. The connection between royal rule and victory over the chaotic waters also emerges in the Ugaritic Baal myth, where Baal’s kingship is connected to his defeat of Yam. Similarly, Marduk’s ascension to the throne is linked to his victory over Tiamat.90 Such an association has led scholars to suggest that these biblical psalms were used in the autumn festival that celebrated the enthronement of YHWH.91 In these texts (cf. Nah 1.4), YHWH’s mastery over the sea provides evidence for his ongoing control over the natural world.92 This notion of YHWH’s ongoing sovereignty is important for understanding the prayer for deliverance in Sir 36.1–22, in which Ben Sira petitions YHWH to act against foreign oppressors in his own day. This plea to take vengeance on the nations indicates that, in the present moment, not all is in control. The passage reveals that chaos has not been eliminated once and for all. In chapter 6, I attempt to

————

Similarly, Ea “stilled” Apsu in the Enuma elish (Tablet I, line 63). Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 283. This is, perhaps, as close as Ben Sira comes to suggesting that YHWH created the world “through wisdom” (cf. Prov 3.19). 88 See Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 16–7. 89 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 17. Perhaps one could say that Ben Sira has gone one step further on this continuum toward the “unchallenged creation” pole. The sea monster Rahab is not merely contained; she has become a messenger (malʾāk) of YHWH (43.26a), as have all the elements of creation. 90 Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 19. 91 Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 18–21. 92 Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 1, 57–61. 86 87

44

CHAPTER TWO

make sense of this vengeful petition by means of Ben Sira’s intermediate position on the continuum I have sketched above. Such an intermediate position points to the deity’s mastery over creation, but also leaves open the possibility that chaos may erupt at some future point.93 The summary statement that closes stanza 3 (Sir 43.26) reiterates the theme of divine sovereignty. Ben Sira portrays each element of nature as a messenger that carries out YHWH’s wishes. YHWH controls their movements, again, by means of his words. Ben Sira’s purpose is to portray YHWH as the one who controls natural events, exercising his sovereignty through his word or his wisdom. Stanza 4 serves as a conclusion to the entire hymn and states Ben Sira’s main didactic point: the unsurpassing awesomeness of YHWH. Sir 43.28b 29a Sir 43.28b 29a

‫והוא גדול מכל מעשיו‬ ‫נו]רא ייי מ[אד מאד‬ He is greater than all his works. Very awesome indeed is YHWH.

Recall that Ben Sira described the sun and moon as “awesome” (nôrāʾ, Sir 43.2b, 8b). Here Ben Sira uses the same adjective to describe YHWH, but for added emphasis he follows it with “very, very” (məʾōd məʾōd, v 29a). In order to underscore YHWH’s awesomeness, Ben Sira declares that more marvels exist beyond those he has described (27a, 30b, 32a). Moreover, some wonders remain unknown to human beings (28a, 30d, 31ab). As a conclusion to the hymn on creation, this stanza summarizes Ben Sira’s purpose in describing the awesomeness of nature in great detail in the preceding two stanzas. As Luis Alonso Schökel says, Ben Sira “ascends from the works to the Creator who made them and surpasses all.”94 That is to say, by shifting from the works to the creator, Ben Sira amplifies the creator’s greatness (28b). The creator’s surpassing greatness indicates his sovereignty, even if it is not absolute. And YHWH exercises his sovereignty by means of word and wisdom. This sovereignty permits YHWH to dispense wisdom as he sees fit, and to choose whom he pleases for special

————

See Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 15, 27. Luis Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, LiSa 8.1 (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1968), 304: “sube de las obras al Creador que las sintetiza y supera todas.” 93 94


45

roles in the divine economy. As I observed about Sir 1.1–10, YHWH possesses all wisdom and thus dispenses it as he chooses. The distribution of wisdom to all human beings suggests that humans, too, have obtained a certain measure of mastery over creation. In this way, human mastery is derivative of divine mastery.95 Just as YHWH rules the natural world by wisdom, so also human beings have received divine wisdom that enables them to rule over nature.

Observation of Nature: Universal Knowledge of YHWH One aspect of Ben Sira’s creation theology that is implicit in all that I have noted above, but which I have not yet dealt with explicitly, is human observation of nature. As scholars have noted, verbs of ocular perception appear prominently in Sir 42.15–43.33. In 42.15b, Ben Sira suggests that he will recount what he has seen (ḥā zît î ). This verb forms an inclusio with rāʾît î in 43.32b,96 where Ben Sira notes that he has observed only a few of YHWH’s numerous creations. Other references to human observation of divine works appear in Sir 42.22b, 25b. The older Israelite Wisdom tradition implied that humans have the ability to obtain knowledge of the divine and the divinely created order through observation of the natural world (see, for example, Prov 3.19; 8.22–31; Job 28; 38–41). This feature of Israelite wisdom (and of ancient Near Eastern wisdom in general) is one reason for the supposed universalism of the wisdom tradition. In theory, any human being could look at nature and discern something of the creator and the creator’s order.97 In continuity with this older wisdom tradition, Ben Sira emphasizes observation of nature as a universal mode for the acquisition of wisdom. Ben Sira uses an analogy involving the sun to emphasize the universal availability of divine wisdom: Sir 42.16a

————

‫שמש זהרת על כל נגלתה‬

95 This is one way to understand the meaning of the statement that human beings are created in the divine image (Gen 1.26–7). See the creation hymn in Sir 16.24– 17.14, where Ben Sira specifically connects creation in the divine image with human dominion over the natural world (esp. 17.1–4). 96 Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 87. 97 John J. Collins points out that wisdom “is known to humanity through creation” (“The Biblical Precedent for Natural Theology,” JAAR 45 [1977]: 51).

46

CHAPTER TWO

b Sir 42.16a b

98

‫וכבוד ייי מלא מעשיו‬

As the shining sun reveals itself to all, so the glory of YHWH fills his works.

In the same way that the sun’s light manifests itself to all human beings, YHWH’s glory is also visible to all, because it permeates his observable works of nature.99 The analogy of the sun indicates, in Ben Sira’s thought, the universal availability of knowledge concerning the divine.100 While the notion that knowledge of the divine is universally available through the natural world coheres with the worldview of the older wisdom tradition, as I noted, the language that Ben Sira uses to talk about the visibility of the divine in nature represents a significant development. Ben Sira suggests that YHWH’s “glory” (kābôd) manifests itself in “his works” (mʿśy w, 42.16b).101 In the biblical tradition, God’s kābôd indicates God’s immanence to the world. Or to put it another way, the divine kābôd is the manifestation of the Israelite deity that is perceptible to human beings. For the Yahwist (J), God’s glory manifested itself during the exodus in the pillars of cloud and fire (Exod 13.21). For the Priestly writer (P), God’s presence appeared to the Israelites from the top of Mount Sinai as a consuming fire (Exod 24.17).102 In older wisdom literature, however,

————

98 For textual variants in v 16 which are unimportant for my purposes, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 487. 99 Perdue (Wisdom and Creation, 279–80) reads the analogy of the sun somewhat differently: “Thus God’s glory, like the rays of the sun, is present in all of his works, and they in turn reveal his greatness.” In Perdue’s interpretation of the analogy, Ben Sira suggests that YHWH’s glory penetrates all his creations in the same way that the sun sends its rays upon everything (kol). While Ben Sira would agree that YHWH’s glory is manifest in all his works (42.16b), I understand the analogy of the sun to suggest the visibility of the divine kābôd through the natural world, just as the light of the sun is visible to human beings. 100 Cf. the universal effect of the sun implied in Ps 19.7 [Eng. 6]. See the comments of James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 87–8. 101 MS B reads, “The glory of YHWH is upon (ʿl) all his works,” while MS M suggests that “The [gl]ory of the Lord (ʾdny) fills (mlʾ) his works.” In either case, the implication is that God’s glory is visible to human beings in the natural world. In this stanza, the term “glory” (kbwd) also appears in v 17d, and references to God’s works (maʿăśîm) occur also in vv 15a and 22a. 102 God’s presence through his glory contrasts with his holiness, which signals his transcendence. See Isa 6.3, where God’s holiness is juxtaposed with his glory, which is said to fill all the earth.


47

the term kābôd appears only in the ordinary sense of “honor.”103 In these texts, kābôd never refers to God’s glory, that is, to his perceptible manifestation in the world. Thus, Ben Sira appropriates the meaning of the term kābôd from non-wisdom biblical traditions in order to express the specific manner in which God’s earthly manifestation can be seen through examination of the natural world. Moreover, the notion of the divine kābôd as the visible manifestation of the deity is connected in the biblical tradition to the motif of the storm god. In P’s theophany at Sinai, YHWH’s presence (kābôd) descends on the mountain enshrouded within a cloud (ʿānān, Exod 24.15–16).104 Psalm 29 also associates the term kābôd—indicative of the deity’s manifestation—with the storm god (see vv 3, 9). The close connection between the imagery of Psalm 29 and the imagery of the storm god Baal is well known.105 Frank Moore Cross suggests that the use of kābôd as a reference to divine manifestation may derive from either “the refulgent and radiant aureole which surrounds the deity in his manifestations or theophanies” or “the dark but fiery storm cloud especially associated with the theophany of the storm god.”106 In the present poem, Ben Sira has also brought the notion of YHWH’s glory together with the manifestation of the deity through the storm. Cross notes that P carefully distinguishes the kābôd, the essence of the divine manifestation, from the cloud, the natural phenomenon in which the manifestation takes place. The Priestly writer records that “The glory of YHWH (kəbôd yhwh) appeared in the cloud” (beʿānān, Exod 16.10).107 Ben Sira, too, subtly differentiates the divine kābôd from the natural phenomenon that encloses it: YHWH’s glory “fills his works” (mlʾ mʿśy w, Sir 42.16b). For Ben Sira, as well as for P, God’s manifestation is not identical with nature. As I noted earlier, one of Ben Sira’s main points in his theology of crea-

————

In this sense, Proverbs lists kābôd (honor) as an attribute of personified Wisdom. See Prov 3.16; 8.18. 104 According to P, the divine presence settles upon the tabernacle in the wilderness also in a cloud (Exod 40.34–8; Num 9.15–22). 105 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 151–2. 106 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 153 n 30. Cf. pp 165–9, where Cross prefers the latter option. For a later poetic tradition which connects divine theophany and the kəbôd yhwh, see Psalm 104, esp. vv 31–2. 107 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 166. Cross also gives the example of Exod 24.18. 103

48

CHAPTER TWO

tion is that God is greater than his works, which means that Ben Sira must avoid any notion that YHWH is coterminous with his creations. Thus far, I have tried to demonstrate that the central idea in Ben Sira’s theology of creation is the overarching sovereignty of YHWH. Ben Sira draws on several biblical motifs in order to bolster his argument—those of the Divine Warrior, the storm god, and the primordial battle against chaos. He also engages a variety of rhetorical strategies, the main one being amplification: he attempts to instill in the reader awe at the natural realm and then to demonstrate that YHWH as creator of the natural realm deserves even greater awe. I showed through my analysis of his appropriation of the Chaoskampf motif that Ben Sira viewed YHWH’s creation of the world not in terms of the absolute defeat of chaos in the primordium, but as divine containment of the sea monster. I have also tried to show that from the primary principle of YHWH’s sovereignty, and the notion that he alone possesses all wisdom, flows the idea that YHWH can dispense wisdom to whomever he pleases. Indeed, the closing colon of the creation hymn reiterates the idea that I first observed in Sir 1.9b–10b: Sir 43.33a b

πάντα γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος καὶ τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν ἔδωκεν σοφίαν108

Sir 43.33a b

For YHWH made all things, and to the righteous he gave wisdom.

This verse associates YHWH’s status as creator of the world with an apportionment of divine wisdom to a select group of persons. Skehan and Di Lella interpret the final cola to mean that “God ‘gives wisdom’ only ‘to those who fear him.’”109 In light of other passages in which Ben Sira suggests that YHWH gives wisdom to all humanity (17.6–7), indeed to all creation (1.9b–10a), however, Skehan and Di Lella overstate their case.110 In fact, I tried to demonstrate that Ben Sira, like his predecessors in the Israelite wisdom tradition, affirms

———— 108

MS B is damaged at this point, and my translation is based on G. In Sirach, εὐσεβής most often corresponds to ṣaddîq (righteous); see, e.g., Sir 11.15, 20; 12.2; 13.17; and 16.13. In Sir 37.12, the term corresponds to məpaḥēd (in this case meaning “pious, the”). See, further, my text-critical discussion in Appendix D, p 269, n 42. 109 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 496. Italics added. 110 Calduch-Benages (“God, Creator of All,” 89) observes the connection between Sir 43.33 and Sir 1.10.


49

the principle that knowledge of the deity is universally available to all human beings through observation of the natural world. Yet, as I observed in 1.1–10 (cf. 1.11–30; 50.28–9), Ben Sira indicates that certain persons have been given an extra measure of wisdom, a fact that distinguishes them from other human beings. In the present verse (43.33), Ben Sira calls the special group to whom God grants wisdom “the righteous” (τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν). In the preceding verse, Ben Sira claims that the majority of God’s works remain hidden, and that even he has seen only a few of them (43.32). Presumably Ben Sira counts himself among the righteous and, thus, among those to whom God has apportioned extra wisdom. This echoes the second poem of the book (1.11–30), in which the attainment of wisdom is linked closely with piety, or the fear of the Lord, and both are connected to God’s creation of the world.111 The reference to “the righteous” in 43.33b links the hymn on creation to the next major section of the book, the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old, in which Ben Sira says his purpose is to praise “godly people” (ʾan šê ḥesed, 44.1 MS B). THE SUN, THE MOON, AND THE ELECTION OF ISRAEL I have attempted to show that, for Ben Sira, the distinction made by YHWH in the human realm witnessed in the two apportionments of wisdom flows from the principles of YHWH’s overarching sovereignty and possession of all wisdom. Although by no means a necessary derivative of divine sovereignty, the divine distinction is certainly a prerogative of Ben Sira’s sovereign God. As I suggested in my analysis of the book’s opening poem (Sir 1.1–10), YHWH’s possession of all wisdom means that he can dispense wisdom to whomever, and in whatever amounts, he desires. The nature of this distinction should be seen in terms of the biblical idea of Israel’s election. Ben Sira’s understanding is effectively illustrated in his distinction between ordinary time and festivals, which he respectively associates with the sun and the moon. As I will discuss later in this section, Ben Sira’s doctrine of election does not imply the general denigration of other non-elect nations, but the favoring of Israel.

———— 111

Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 96. I take up the theme of piety in chapter 5.

50

CHAPTER TWO

Ben Sira scholars have not generally recognized that the mechanism that expresses the distinction among human beings in Sirach is election. Indeed, as I noted above, Argall and Marböck understand the primary binary system operative in Ben Sira to be one of opposition. Other scholars also perceive a system of polarities in Ben Sira’s thinking. James Crenshaw, for example, observes in Ben Sira “a concept of opposites or complementary pairs” which he suggests is “a key concept for understanding much of Sirach’s thought.”112 Matthew Goff concludes that the sage divides the world into “two very different kinds of people,” and that Ben Sira evinces a “pronounced dualism.”113 Scholars frequently cite Sir 33.7–15114—in which Ben Sira contrasts evil with good, life with death, and the good person with the wicked—as the clearest expression of Ben Sira’s doctrine of opposites. Skehan and Di Lella, for example, see this passage as important for understanding Ben Sira’s notion of “the antinomies or polarities or opposites that are found in creation.”115 Argall and Marböck derive their doctrine of opposites or double aspect primarily from their interpretation of Sir 33.7–15 and then read this doctrine into many other passages in Sirach (as I observed above in my treatment, for example, of Sir 42.15–43.33). In contrast to this widespread view among scholars that Ben Sira sees the world in terms of opposites, I will argue that the sage bases his anthropology not on the notion of opposites, but rather on the idea of Israel’s election, a notion he derives from his observation of the cosmos, as well as from older biblical traditions. I also suggest that Ben Sira associates his doctrine of Israel’s election with the principles of divine sovereignty and wisdom. In Sir 33.7–15, Ben Sira draws an analogy between profane and sacred time, on the one hand, and two groups of human beings, on the other. Ben Sira establishes the first half of the analogy as follows:

———— 112

Crenshaw, “Problem of Theodicy in Sirach,” 53. Matthew J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, STDJ 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 118–9. Cf. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 272–3, and the comments of von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 250, 266–8. 114 See my text and translation in appendix B. 115 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 399. About this passage, Skehan and Di Lella (p 400) also write, “God has established in creation a series of opposites or contrasts or contraries.” Goff (Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 118–9) also uses this passage to argue for the presence of a “pronounced dualism” in Sirach. 113


51

Sir 33.7a b 8a b 9a b

διὰ τί ἡμέρα ἡμέρας ὑπερέχει καὶ πᾶν φῶς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀφ᾿ ἡλίου ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς116 ‫ והקדשו‬117‫]מהם[ הרים‬ ‫ומהם שם לימי מספר‬

Sir 33.7a b

Why is one day superior to another, when all year long the light of every day comes from the sun? By YHWH’s knowledge they were distinguished, and he differentiated seasons and festivals. [Some he ex]alted and sanctified, and some he appointed as ordinary days.

8a b 9a b

The terms of comparison in this half of the analogy are “ordinary days” (profane time), on the one hand, and those days which mark “seasons” and “festivals” (sacred time), on the other. Both sets of days—the ordinary and the festive—are alike in the sense that the light of the sun illuminates them both (33.7b). Yet, Ben Sira notes, YHWH designates certain days out of the year to mark religious occasions. From Ben Sira’s comparison of the respective functions carried out by the sun and moon in 43.1–12 (see above, p 30), it is clear that in Sir 33.7–15, Ben Sira alludes to the role of the moon in marking sacred time in the version of the Jewish calendar that he recognizes, even though the moon is not mentioned explicitly.118 The distinction between ordinary days, illuminated by the sun, and exalted days, which are distinguished by the moon as well as illuminated by the sun, will prove an apt illustration for the way Ben Sira thinks about election. Ben Sira expresses the second half of the analogy as follows:

————

116 MSS E and F of Sir 33.7–8 are corrupt. Thus, I follow G, as do most commentators. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396. 117 MS E reads “blesses” ([bē]rak), as does Syr. I follow Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396), who read hrym (exalts) based on G (ἀνύψωσεν) and note that the verb bērak belongs in v 12. 118 Ben Sira’s explicit treatment of the sun and moon in Sir 43.2–8 clearly indicates that he follows a lunar calendar. See Benjamin G. Wright III, “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, ed. Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, SBLSymS 35 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 95–6.

52

CHAPTER TWO

Sir 33.10a b 11a b 12a b c d Sir 33.10a b 11a b 12a b c d

119

‫]כל אנשים כ[לי חמר‬ ‫ומן עפר נוצר אדם‬ ‫]בינ[ת ייי תבדילם‬ 120 ‫וישם אותם דרכיהם‬ 121 ‫]מהם ברך והרי[מם‬ [‫ומהם הקדיש וא]ליו הקריב‬ [‫]ומהם קלל וה[שפי]לם‬ ‫ודחפם ממעמד]יה[ם‬ [All human beings are ve]ssels of clay; for from dust Adam was formed. Yet YHWH’s [understand]ing distinguished them; he set them upon their respective paths. [Some he blessed and exal]ted, and some he sanctified and [drew near to him]self. [Some he cursed and brought] low, and drove from the[ir pl]ace.

Just as all days of the year partake in the light of the one sun, so too, Ben Sira suggests, all human beings share the same basic quality of being formed from the earth, a characteristic he traces to the creation of Adam (cf. Gen 2.7). Nevertheless, in the same way that YHWH set apart certain days of the year to mark sacred occasions, so also he distinguished certain human beings from all others (33.11–12). Later in the poem, Ben Sira labels these two groups of people “the wicked” and “the good” (33.14c). Most commentators identify correctly the terms of the analogy: profane time : sacred time : : the wicked person : the good person.

They nonetheless misconstrue the nature of the analogy as one of opposition. Perdue’s description of this passage is typical: Here . . . Ben Sira proclaims that God has separated the components of reality into contrasting opposites. In this poem, the two

———— 119

E, partially reconstructed from G: καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους. Reading the marginal note drkyhm in place of MS E: dr y hʾ[rṣ]. Cf. G for v 11: ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν (In the fullness of YHWH’s knowledge, he differentiated them; he made distinct their ways). Cf. the language of G in Sir 33.8. 121 In v 12, I follow MS E, which is reconstructed using G, with two exceptions. In 12a, I read wahăr îmām (3mp suffix) for MS E [whr y]mh. And in 12d, I read mimmaʿămaddêhem for MS E mmʿbd[..]m. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396. For the reconstruction of qll from καταράομαι, see Sir 3.16; 4.5. 120

MS


53

categories of opposites are time (sacred and profane) and humans (the good and the bad).122

This widespread interpretation of the analogy as opposition likely results from the assumption on the part of commentators that Ben Sira views the wicked person and the good person as opposites. Scholars then project this perception of the distinction between the wicked and the good persons back onto the distinction between profane and sacred time. In Ben Sira’s rhetoric, however, the analogy moves unidirectionally—from his observation of the distinction between profane and sacred time, which is rooted in the respective functions of the sun and moon, to the distinction made among human beings. In other words, Ben Sira uses a cosmological observation in order to make an anthropological classification. Thus, one must analyze the precise nature of the division between profane and sacred times in order to interpret the type of distinction Ben Sira wishes to communicate regarding human beings. The nature of the relationship between profane time and sacred time is not opposition, as Perdue, Argall, and others have argued, since in Ben Sira’s view the same sun illuminates every day of the year. Those days which mark festivals and seasons YHWH has “exalted and sanctified” (hēr îm wəhiqdī šô) from the “ordinary days” ( yəmê mi spār). The verb hēr îm can have the simple connotation of “lifting up” (see Ps 75.8), but frequently, especially in priestly texts, it means to set one thing apart from a whole, such as an offering for dedication to YHWH,123 a holy district for the temple area,124 spoils of war as tribute to YHWH,125 or a “chosen one” (David) to be king.126 In each instance, a portion of the whole is set apart from the rest for a special purpose. The verb hiqdî š has similar connotations. To “sanctify” means to set apart human and animal firstborn,127 the temple,128 or a prophet129 for special divine service. The item or per-

————

Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 272. Perdue (p 273) also comments, “Thus [Ben Sira] moves from cosmology, in particular the bipolar structure of time, to anthropology, where he posits the same dualistic system of opposites.” 123 Num 15.9, 20; 18.19, 24, 26; 31.52; Ezek 45.13. 124 Ezek 45.1; 48.8–9, 20. 125 Num 31.28. 126 Ps 89.20 [Eng. 19]. 127 Num 3.13; 8.17. 128 1 Kgs 9.3, 7 = 2 Chr 7.16, 20; 2 Chr 30.8; 36.14. 129 Jer 1.5. 122

54

CHAPTER TWO

son set apart does not become the opposite of those that remain members of the original group. Rather, the one that is set apart is “elected” for a special purpose. Thus, the days designated as sacred by the function of the moon are not the opposite of all the other profane days. Rather, sacred time denotes those days of the year that are “set apart” from all others “through YHWH’s knowledge” (Sir 33.8a). By analogy, then, Ben Sira suggests that YHWH has similarly set apart certain people from all others for a special divine purpose, even though all persons derive from the same basic substance, the dust of the earth. Indeed, Ben Sira applies the same two verbs— hēr îm and hiqdî š—to describe the manner in which certain human beings have been set apart from the rest of humankind. The nature of this distinction, thus, is also one of election, not opposition. Moreover, in the language he uses to describe the distinction among humans, Ben Sira alludes to instances of election in Israel’s national traditions. In Sir 33.12a, for example, the verb bērak (to bless) calls to mind references to the election of Abram and his descendants (cf., for example, Gen 12.1–3; 22.17–18; 28.13–14; Exod 32.13; Deut 1.10). The verb hēr îm (to exalt) does not appear in any biblical passage referring to the election of Abram’s line, but in a general way the term in Sirach may indicate YHWH’s promise to give to Abram numerous offspring (Gen 15.5; 22.17). That this is how Ben Sira’s grandson understood the verb is confirmed in the Greek text of Sirach, which explicitly connects this verb (ἀνυψόω; see G Sir 33.9a, 12a) with YHWH’s promise to make Abram’s offspring as numerous as the stars (G 44.21d).130 Perhaps this is the connection that Ben Sira himself also intended to forge. In another example, Sir 33.12b, the verb hiqr î b (draw near) calls to mind the special function of the Levites and the priests as distinct from the rest of the Israelites: they are the ones who draw near to YHWH for temple service (Ezek 40.46; 42.13; 44.15–16; 45.4). Ben Sira’s wording especially evokes the Korahite-Aaronide controversy

————

130 G reads literally that YHWH swore “to exalt his offspring like stars” (ὡς ἄστρα ἀνυψῶσαι τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ). This colon and the preceding one (44.21c) in G are missing from MS B and Syr. Joseph Ziegler, however, notes that these lines dropped out of Heb. and Syr. by homoioteleuton and, thus, should be considered original (idem, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, Septuaginta. VT Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 12, 2 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965], 334).


55

of Numbers 16 (a matter to which he also alludes in Sir 16.6) over who may function as a priest of YHWH.131 In this narrative, Moses devises a test whereby YHWH will make known whom he will “choose” ( y ibḥar) and “draw near to himself” ( yaqr î b ʾēlâw, Num 16.5) for priestly service. I have already discussed the general meaning of hiqdî š, the other verb in this colon, as “set apart.” The related adjective “holy” (qādôš ) and noun “holiness” (qōdeš) figure prominently in describing priests who are set apart for temple service (Lev 21.6–8; Num 16.5, 7; 2 Chr 23.6; 31.18; 35.3; Ps 106.16; Ezra 8.28).132 The evocation of these instances of election in Israel’s history—of Abram and his descendants from the other peoples of the earth and of the Levites and priests from the rest of Israel—also suggests that the nature of the analogy in Sir 33.7–15 is election and not opposition. Yet one might question whether the matter is as simple as I have suggested. At the end of the poem, Ben Sira contrasts three pairs of apparent opposites. Sir 33.14a b c 15a b Sir 33.14a b c 15a

‫]נוכח רעה[ טוב‬ ‫ונוכח חיים מות‬ 133 ‫]נוכח[ איש ]טוב[ רשע‬ ‫]הבט[ אל כל מ]עשה[ אל‬ [‫כולם שנים שנים זה לעומת ]זה‬ [Evil contrasts with] good, and life contrasts with death, so a [good] person [contrasts] with the wicked. [Consider] every w[ork] of God;

———— 131

In the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old, Ben Sira alludes to the Korahite-Aaronide controversy in his treatment of Aaron (see Sir 45.18–19). 132 Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 400) and Perdue (Wisdom and Creation, 274) both note Ben Sira’s evocation in this passage of the election of Abram and his descendants, as well as of the Levites and priests. Nonetheless, they still interpret the overall dynamic in this poem in terms of opposition. For a succinct analysis of Ben Sira’s priestly ideology and its relationship to the various priestly ideologies contained in the Hebrew Bible, see Saul M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86, esp. 267–75. 133 My reconstruction of MS E in v 14 is based on G: ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός (literally, “thus the sinner contrasts with the righteous”). MS E adds an additional colon: wnwkḥ hʾwr ḥ š k (and light contrasts with darkness). Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396) note that Syr. also contains this colon but lacks the line regarding the good and wicked persons. They suggest that MS E represents a conflation of the traditions found in G and Syr., and thus I leave off this additional colon.

56

CHAPTER TWO

b

all of them come in pairs, one corresponding to [the other].

In v 14, Ben Sira seems to compare the dyad good person/wicked person to the dyads life/death and good/evil. Should one not understand the elements of these dyads as opposites? In his study of dyadic pairings, Saul Olyan notes the prevalence of binary oppositions throughout the discourse of the Hebrew Bible.134 Some binary oppositions in the biblical texts represent totalities, that is, they seek to classify all elements into one of two categories. Examples of such comprehensive dyads, according to Olyan, include male/female, clean/unclean, circumcised/uncircumcised, and whole/blemished. Such totalities permit no intermediate position. Olyan observes, however, that other dyads are not comprehensive and allow for intermediate categories. He gives as examples the pairs wise/foolish and good/evil. In the case of these noncomprehensive dyads, the two elements represent ends of a continuum, and it is possible, for example, for someone to be neither wise nor foolish, but somewhere in between.135 The present passage from Ben Sira contains the noncomprehensive dyad evil/good (33.14a). This dyad is common in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the Wisdom literature (Prov 11.27; 13.21; 14.19; 17.13, 20; Eccl 7.14).136 It is well known that the discourse of the Wisdom tradition tended to articulate its view of the world using dyads; the word pairs wise/foolish and wicked/righteous are ubiquitous in Wisdom literature. Proverbs 14.19 and Eccl 9.2, for example, contrast the elements of this latter pair (cf. Prov 12.2). This simplistic way of portraying the world glossed over more complex realities in which gray areas existed. Yet even the book of Proverbs recognized that some persons belonged neither to the wise nor the foolish. The naïve or inexperienced person ( pet î )—usually portrayed as a young male—represents someone who is neither wise nor foolish, but who is, rather, in need of wisdom instruction in order to

————

Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 3. 135 Olyan, Rites and Rank, 124 n 6. 136 Prov 11.27, for example, contrasts good and evil, and suggests that the one who seeks the former gains divine favor. Outside the Wisdom tradition, the pairing good/evil is also widespread. See Gen 44.4; Num 24.13; 1 Sam 24.17; 25.21; Ps 35.12; 38.21 [Eng. 20]; 109.5; Jer 15.11; 18.20; 21.10; 32.42; 39.16; 44.27; Lam 3.38; Amos 9.4; and Mic 3.2. 134


57

become wise, and in particular danger of encountering misfortune because he lacks wisdom (Prov 1.4, 32; 7.7; 8.5; 14.18; 22.3; 27.12).137 Given the correlation in Wisdom literature of the wise, righteous, and good persons, and of the foolish, wicked, and evil persons, one should understand Ben Sira’s pair wicked person/good person as a noncomprehensive dyad. As I noted above, this means that the pair wicked person/good person represents two ends of a continuum with intermediate positions between the two extremes. Indeed, despite the tendency in biblical discourse to speak in terms of binary oppositions, Joel Kaminsky has shown that the Hebrew Bible does not portray Israel’s election in strictly binary terms. “The Israelite idea of election presupposes three categories,” he argues, “rather than two: the elect, the anti-elect, and the nonelect.”138 In general, the elect are the people of Israel; the anti-elect are those few groups of people considered unredeemable enemies of YHWH, such as the Amalekites, Canaanites, and sometimes the Midianites; and the non-elect consist in everyone else.139 Kaminsky notes that the last group, the non-elect, contains the vast majority of non-Israelites who “were always considered fully part of the divine economy.”140 Thus, the biblical authors conceived of humanity visà-vis Israel’s election not in dyadic but triadic terms. Olyan notes that, in the Hebrew Bible, triadic constructions occur much less frequently than binary constructions. Examples of triadic

———— 137

I do not mean to suggest that the purveyors of Israelite Wisdom tradition imagined the pətāʾyīm (“inexperienced persons”) as a category in which one might end up, like the wise or foolish persons. Rather, I simply point to them as an acknowledgment within Wisdom literature that the categories are more complex than a superficial reading might first indicate. 138 Joel Kaminsky, “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?,” HTR 96 (2003): 398. For Kaminsky’s more recent, book-length treatment of election in the Hebrew Bible, see idem, Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), where a virtually identical quotation appears on p 109. 139 Kaminsky, “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?,” 398–9, 401; idem, Yet I Loved Jacob, 109. Kaminsky carefully distinguishes passages where the Midianites are portrayed positively (Exod 2.15–22; 18.1; Num 10.29), those where Midianites are Israel’s enemies but not members of the anti-elect (Gen 37.36; Judg 6–7), and passages where Midianites are treated as though they are members of the anti-elect (Num 25; 31). On the categories anti-elect and non-elect in the Hebrew Bible, see further idem, Yet I Loved Jacob, 111–19 and 121–36, respectively. 140 Kaminsky, “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?,” 399; idem, Yet I Loved Jacob, 109.

58

CHAPTER TWO

constructions cited by Olyan include priest/Levite/other Israelite (e.g., Num 18.1–7) or Israelite/resident outsider (gēr)/nonresident alien (nokr î , Deut 14.21). These triadic formulations, according to Olyan, “are generated out of and dependent upon binary oppositions.”141 The triadic formulation priest/Levite/other Israelite, for example, represents a development from an underlying dyad priest/nonpriest. Olyan observes, “One member of the initial opposition has itself been divided: the category nonpriest gives rise to the categories Levite and Israelite.”142 (See diagram below.) priest

priest

nonpriest

Levite

other Israelite

It seems plausible that the triadic construction of Israel’s election tradition identified by Kaminsky also developed out of a binary construction which one might call elect/un-elect. The second element of this binary construction was further divided into the non-elect and the anti-elect, resulting in the triadic construction. (See the diagram on p 59, below.) One could argue that, in one sense, the elect and anti-elect are opposites. The elect are “exalted” for special divine purpose while the anti-elect are “brought low” for special divine disfavor (see Sir 33.12). If, however, I am correct in my understanding of the development of this particular triadic construction, then the anti-elect are not the binary opposite of the elect. Rather, if the anti-elect are the opposite of any group, they are the opposite of the non-elect, since these two terms were generated as a secondary binary construction from what I have termed the un-elect. Considering the triadic construction priest/Levite/Israelite identified by Olyan illustrates the nonoppositional relations among the elements of the triad. It is apparent that the Israelite priest and Israelite non-priest are not opposites, since both elements share the larger identity “Israelite.” Indeed, one cannot even affirm that the Levite and Israelite

————

Olyan, Rites and Rank, 6. For a cross-cultural perspective on triads, see Rodney Needham, Symbolic Classification (Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1979), 9– 14; cited in Olyan, Rites and Rank, 126 n 15. 142 Olyan, Rites and Rank, 7. 141

59


are opposites. Rather, it seems, the nature of the secondary dyad Levite/Israelite originates in the selection of a subset of Israelites (the non-priest descendants of Levi) to serve in a special role. Thus, one should construe even this supposed binary opposition as a nonoppositional dyad.143 In terms of election, then, perhaps one should speak of the anti-elect as being selected from among the un-elect for negative divine treatment.144 elect

elect

un-elect

non-elect

anti-elect

It seems that Ben Sira has in mind just such a group corresponding to what Kaminsky calls the anti-elect. Parallel to Ben Sira’s allusion to the election of Israel from the other nations and of the priests from the rest of the Israelites (see my discussion of Sir 33.12ab above, p 54), the sage alludes to a subset of humanity selected by YHWH for divine disfavor. According to Ben Sira, YHWH “cursed” (qillēl) this group (33.12c). This verb evokes in particular the narrative regarding Abram’s election in Gen 12.1–3, in which YHWH promises to “curse” (ʾāʾōr) those who curse Abram (məqallelkā, Gen 12.3a; cf. 27.29). Ben Sira’s language also calls to mind the curse of Canaan in Gen 9.25. This Genesis passage likely represents a tradition in which Israelites considered as cursed the inhabitants of the land of Canaan—one group belonging to Kaminsky’s anti-elect.145 Accordingly, Ben Sira has in mind a group that has positioned itself as the enemy of YHWH’s elect. The intended allusion of the other two verbs Ben Sira uses to describe YHWH’s actions toward this dis-

————

143 By discussing the triad priest/Levite/Israelite, I do not mean to suggest that it has a direct analogy in the triad elect/non-elect/anti-elect. My purpose, rather, is to illustrate the nature of one triadic construction from the Hebrew Bible and to demonstrate the nonoppositional nature of its constituent elements. 144 I might even term this negative selection of the anti-elect “dis-election.” As can be seen from the title of his book, Heard (Dynamics of Diselection) uses this term (without the hyphen) in his analysis of the process of election in Genesis, but he too reads the discourse about election in strictly binary terms. 145 E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 62–3; and Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, rev. ed. (London: SCM, 1972), 137–9.

60

CHAPTER TWO

favored group—hi špîl (bring low) and dāḥap (drive away, 33.12cd)— are more difficult to pinpoint. Skehan and Di Lella suggest that “bring low” in 33.12c is a “reference to the Gentiles in general, who were not chosen as Israel had been.”146 What Skehan and Di Lella call “the Gentiles in general” corresponds to my category unelect, however, and, in light of my discussion of the triadic construction of election in the biblical tradition, the verb hišpîl (bring low) more likely refers to the abasing of the anti-elect. In the Hebrew Bible, the verb dāḥap (drive away) occurs only in late biblical texts and only in passive forms with an intransitive meaning of “rush, hurry” (2 Chr 26.20; Esth 3.15; 6.12; 8.14). The interchangeable147 verb dāḥâ (to thrust down, drive on), on the other hand, refers to the “wicked” (rā šāʿ) who are “thrust down” by their own “evil” (rāʿâ, Prov 14.32; cf. Ps 36.13 [Eng. 12]) or to the psalmist’s enemies whom the angel of YHWH like a wind “drives on” (Ps 35.5). It seems, therefore, that Skehan and Di Lella are correct in the second part of their assessment of Sir 33.12d: namely, that Ben Sira refers “in particular [to] the Canaanites, whom the Lord had expelled ‘from their place.’”148 To sum up, while Ben Sira appears to have in mind the abasement of the anti-elect and the elevation of the elect in this passage, one should not assume that the sage views all persons as falling into one of these two categories. Like the biblical traditions on which he depends for his ideas about Israel’s election, Ben Sira does not portray in a negative light the non-elect, that large intermediate group of non-Israelites.149 Indeed, the sage has a generally favorable view of peoples I would call non-elect (see Sir 17.1–10; 39.4).150 Ben Sira’s appropriation of Israel’s election tradition represents a significant development in the Israelite wisdom tradition. While Proverbs speaks of “the one whom YHWH loves” (Prov 3.12; 15.9;

————

Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 400. Thus Marcus Jastrow, ed., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1971), 293. 148 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 400. In this regard, Skehan and Di Lella note Gen 9.25–7; 12.6–7; Exod 33.1–3; Deut 34.1–4; and 1 Sam 2.6–8. 149 Kaminsky (“Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?,” 408) notes that in the Hebrew Bible the “‘non-elect’ . . . often assumed a very important and positive place in Israel’s understanding of the divine economy.” 150 I discuss further Ben Sira’s views of foreign nations in chapter 6. 146 147


61

cf. Prov 8.17, 21), and the prose framework to the book of Job portrays its protagonist as a favored, patriarch-like figure (Job 1.10; 42.7–17), the election tradition is at best latent in these older wisdom works. Thus, Ben Sira’s emphasis on election represents the incorporation of an important theme from non-wisdom biblical literature into the Israelite wisdom tradition. CONCLUSION: ELECTION AND CREATION While Ben Sira borrows the idea of Israel’s election from non-Wisdom biblical traditions, he nonetheless ties his doctrine of election to his creation theology in at least two ways. First, Ben Sira arrives at his doctrine of election through an observation he makes in nature, that is, in the roles of the sun and moon. Ben Sira’s contemplation of this distinction in the heavens between the functions of the sun and moon leads him to consider another distinction, one between two groups of human beings. He observes that the distinction YHWH made between human beings through the election of some over others—though not at the expense of others—has an analogue in the respective functions of the sun and moon in determining profane and sacred times. Second, Ben Sira associates Israel’s election with YHWH’s sovereignty and wisdom, that is, with YHWH’s divine prerogative to choose whomever he desires. As Ben Sira says, by means of his “knowledge” YHWH set certain days apart from all the others to be special religious occasions (33.8a).151 Similarly, exercising his sovereignty, YHWH distinguished among human beings through his “understanding” (33.11a). Thus, both through the principles of divine sovereignty and the observation of nature, Ben Sira bases his doctrine of election on his creation theology. Ben Sira goes further, however, and suggests that the election of Israel has its roots among the original acts of creation. In the Hebrew Bible, various sources—virtually without exception—portray YHWH’s election of Israel as a historical event. The juxtaposition of J’s account of the call of Abram in Gen 12.1–3 with

————

151 Perdue (Wisdom and Creation, 273) also notes that the answer (given in vv 8– 9) to Ben Sira’s question about the superiority of one day to another (asked in v 7) “is grounded in divine sovereignty.”

62

CHAPTER TWO

what scholars generally call the prehistory of Genesis 1–11 illustrates the character of Israel’s election as a historical event. As Ephraim Speiser notes, Gen 12.1–3 “signal[s] the beginning of the integral history of a particular group as opposed to the background episodes in the prehistory of the [human] race as a whole.”152 The historical cast to Abram’s election becomes apparent when viewed in conjunction with J’s universal genealogy in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.153 Moreover, for J, the election of Abram not only occurs as an event in history, but the future tense of the verbs indicates that the blessing which results from Abram’s election unfolds temporally as well.154 The tradition contained in Exod 19.3b–8155 portrays the election of the Israelite nation as a historical event that took place at Mount Sinai. The temporal reference which begins the pericope—“on the third new moon after the Israelites had departed from Egypt” (19.1a)—indicates the narrative’s historical cast. In the author’s portrayal of this event as historical, YHWH promises the Israelites that—contingent upon their obedience and observance of the covenant—they, from among all the nations, will become his treasured possession (19.5). “Although all the earth is mine,” says YHWH to the Israelites, “you will become a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (19.5bβ–6a). For the most part, the Deuteronomist also portrays Israel’s election as a historical phenomenon.156 Deuteronomy 9.4–9 describes Israel’s election as the fulfillment of a historical promise that YHWH made to Israel’s ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v 5; cf. Deut 10.15). Deuteronomy 7.6–8 also suggests that YHWH’s election of

————

Speiser, Genesis, 87. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 represents a conflation of J and P sources. For a source-critical analysis of this chapter, see Speiser, Genesis, 64–73. 154 See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 148–52. 155 Walter Beyerlin attributes these verses to E (Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, trans. S. Rudman [Oxford: Blackwell, 1965], 6–11, 67–77). More recently, some scholars detect the editorial influence of D; see, e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 186. 156 One exception to the general portrait in the Hebrew Bible of election as a historical phenomenon is Deut 32.7–9, which implies that YHWH selected Israel for his own “portion” (ḥēleq) and “inheritance” (naḥălâ) in the distant past ( yəmôt ʿôlām). This passage significantly influenced Ben Sira’s thoughts about Israel’s election, and I return to a discussion of it at the end of the present chapter (see p 67), as well as in subsequent chapters. 152 153


63

Israel to be a “holy people . . . , a treasured possession” (v 6) results from a historical promise to Israel’s ancestors, as well as because of YHWH’s inexplicable “love” for Israel (v 7). Indeed, both of these passages from Deuteronomy fall within the portion of the book that has been compared to the historical prologues found in suzerain-vassal treaties.157 First and Second Isaiah also view Israel’s election in historical terms. In the promise of restoration found in Isa 14.1–2 and directed towards Judah following the Babylonian exile, the prophet announces a second choosing of God’s people. This reelection also implies a historical character to Israel’s earlier election. Isaiah 43.8– 13 links Israel’s chosenness to her role as a witness for YHWH (v 10) in his judicial confrontation with rival gods of the nations. Israel’s credibility as a witness stems from her historical relationship with YHWH and her experience of YHWH’s mercy and judgment.158 These biblical traditions all share the notion that Israel’s election results from specific historical events. They portray YHWH’s election of Israel as unfolding at discrete moments in history—in the selection of Abram while in Haran, through the covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, or in the second choosing of Israel following the Babylonian exile. At these particular historical moments, according to the biblical tradition, YHWH singled out Israel for a special role in the divine economy. In the book of Sirach, however, the dominant biblical view of Israel’s election as a historical phenomenon is eclipsed by the notion that Israel’s chosenness originates in a primordial decision on the part of YHWH. Whereas the biblical tradition generally roots election in “historical providence,” Ben Sira grounds election in “primordial determinism.”159 In his commentary on Sir 33.12, Gerhard von Rad

————

Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, repr. ed. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 69–70. 158 See Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, ed. James Luther Mays, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 66–71. 159 Here I am building on von Rad’s (Wisdom in Israel, 263) distinction between “determinism” and “providence.” By “determinism,” von Rad means “the idea of a primeval, divine pre-determination of specific events and destinies.” “Providence,” on the other hand, denotes “a divine guidance of history and fate.” According to von Rad, the notions of determinism and providence share the idea “that all events depend on YHWH.” They differ in that providence perceives “this dependence . . . in the presence of the hand of YHWH” while determinism views “the divine will” as being “active in history long before the appearance of the events.” Providence sees 157

64

CHAPTER TWO

suggests that determinism rather than providence is at work. For Ben Sira, von Rad proposes, Israel’s election results from “a primeval decision on God’s part”:160 The election of Israel, that is, a historical phenomenon of great consequence, actually appears as an act of God’s determining differentiation (v. 12).161

This may be an overinterpretation of the verse in and of itself. As I have shown, Sir 33.12 evokes biblical traditions regarding historical portrayals of Israel’s election.162 Moreover, nothing in the verse links Israel’s election explicitly to a divine decision in primordial times. Ben Sira derives the doctrine of election from observation of natural phenomena, specifically, from the relative function of the sun and moon in determining profane and sacred times. This does not, however, necessarily mean that YHWH made the decision to elect Israel from the beginning or from primordial times. Nonetheless, von Rad’s instincts are correct about Ben Sira’s understanding of election in general. If one considers the first part of the poem (33.7–12) in conjunction with the last part of the poem (33.14–15), von Rad’s assertion appears more accurate. As noted, v 14 contrasts elements of three dyads, one of which (the good person and the wicked person) I showed could be correlated with two of the three categories in the Bible’s triadic construction of election: the elect and the anti-elect. In v 15, Ben Sira includes these dyads among “all the works of God” (v 15a), which he asserts “come in pairs, one corresponding to the other.” From this verse, it appears that Ben Sira not only derives the doctrine of election from an observation of the sun and moon but locates the divine distinction among human beings in the very creation of the natural world. Election seems to result from a divine decision rooted in the act of creation itself. Indeed, several other texts that I have already discussed confirm that Ben Sira grounds his doctrine of election in creation. I observed the notion that some humans are given more wisdom than others in my treatment of Sir 1.9b–10ab and 43.33b. In these texts, by expli-

———— history as more fluid, whereas determinism emphasizes the “unalterable nature” of historical events. 160 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 270. 161 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 267. 162 See my discussion of this passage above, p 54.

65


cating his doctrine of election in the context of delineating his doctrine of creation, Ben Sira associates this distinction with creation itself. The opening poem in 1.1–10 is a hymn on the origin of wisdom as a divine creation (vv 1a, 4, 9a). Through the poetic structure of the hymn, the sage connects the differential outpouring of wisdom that I observed in 1.9b–10b—in which those who love YHWH receive an additional measure of wisdom—directly to the creation of wisdom herself in 1.9a.163 Similarly, at the end of the lengthy hymn on creation that I analyzed above, Ben Sira associates the special divine dispensation of wisdom to a particular group—“the righteous” (43.33b)—with YHWH’s creation of the world (43.33a). If one reconstructs the Hebrew of this bicola, its chiastic structure becomes apparent. Sir 43.33a b Sir 43.33a b

164

[‫את הכל ]עשה ייי‬ [‫]ולצדיקים נתן חכמה‬

All things YHWH made, and to the righteous he gave wisdom.

It is impossible to capture the chiasm in a meaningful English translation. Nonetheless, one can diagram the Hebrew of this verse as follows: A All things and to the righteous D

B made he gave B'

C YHWH wisdom A'

The direct object of the second line, “wisdom” (A'), parallels the direct object of the first, “all things” (A). Indeed, as I showed, Ben Sira considers wisdom to be the first of YHWH’s creations (1.4; 24.9a). Individually, each line pivots around the verbs (B and B'),

————

See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 139, for a discussion of the thought and vocabulary of Sir 1.9a. 164 As I noted above, MS B is damaged and must be reconstructed from G: πάντα γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος καὶ τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν ἔδωκεν σοφίαν. Where I read ṣaddîqîm, M. H. Segal reads ḥăsîdîm (The Complete Book of Ben Sira [in Hebrew], 2d ed. [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958], ‫)רצ‬, and Skehan and Di Lella read ʾan šê ḥesed (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 496). In Sirach, however, εὐσεβής most often corresponds to ṣaddîq (righteous); see, e.g., Sir 11.15, 20; 12.2; 13.17; and 16.13. Skehan and Di Lella’s reading is no doubt influenced by the desire to draw a connection between 43.33b and the beginning of the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old in 44.1a. 163

66

CHAPTER TWO

and the “giving” of wisdom in 33b parallels the “making” of the world in 33a. Finally, at the center of the chiasm stand YHWH and the righteous (C and D). Although these elements are not parallel grammatically, in the poetics of the bicola their juxtaposition nonetheless indicates that they are meant to be closely associated. Moreover, the location of YHWH and the righteous at the center of the chiasm signals the importance of these elements in the poetic structure of the verse. I do not mean to propose that the righteous are divine; rather, it seems that through his poetic structuring of this verse Ben Sira intends to communicate that a special relationship exists between the righteous and YHWH. Furthermore, as in Sir 1.9b–10b, he suggests that in conjunction with that relationship comes a special dispensation of wisdom. Moreover, the parallelism between the direct objects and the verbs in vv 33a and b indicates that this special relationship, which I have shown should be understood in terms of election, is grounded not in history but in creation.165 In other passages the sage also grounds Israel’s election in a primordial decision of YHWH. In Sir 24.1–12, personified Wisdom recounts her origins in the mouth of YHWH and her primordial journey through the created realm (vv 4–5). While Wisdom acquired mastery over all creation during her primordial journey (v 6), she nonetheless sought a particular location in which to dwell (v 7). YHWH chose Israel for Wisdom’s ultimate dwelling-place: Sir 24.8a b c d

τότε ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ κτίστης ἁπάντων καὶ ὁ κτίσας με κατέπαυσεν τὴν σκηνήν μου καὶ εἶπεν ἐν Ιακωβ κατασκήνωσον καὶ ἐν Ισραηλ κατακληρονομήθητι

Sir 24.8a b c d

Then the creator of all commanded me, the one who created me chose the spot for my tent; he said, “In Jacob pitch your tent, in Israel receive your inheritance.”

Although the temporal sequence of events in Wisdom’s autobiography remains unclear, it seems as though YHWH’s election of Israel as the location for Wisdom’s inheritance occurs during a part of the process of creation. As John Collins aptly notes, this election of Israel occurs before the notice in v 9 of Wisdom’s creation. Indeed,

———— 165

On the identity of the righteous in this verse, see above, p 48.


67

“Wisdom’s quest for a resting place completes the process of creation.”166 James Kugel also suggests that Sir 24.8–10 may suggest that YHWH had “already decided at the time of the creation of the world that Wisdom (that is, the Torah and its laws) was to dwell with [Israel],” though he notes the confusing sequence of events.167 The closest biblical parallel may be Deut 32.8–9, in which Elyon apportions the nations of the earth to the sons of God. In this tradition, Israel became YHWH’s portion (ḥēleq). An additional example occurs in Sir 44.2. In the introduction (44.1–15) to the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old, Ben Sira describes the special relationship between YHWH and Israel’s heroic forebears: Sir 44.2a b

168

Sir 44.2a b

Great in glory, the Most High’s portion and his share from days of old.

‫רב כבוד חלק עליון‬ ‫וגרלו מימות עולם‬

The relevant question at this point is the meaning of the temporal marker “days of old” ( yəmôt ʿôlām). Since Ben Sira does not otherwise use the phrase, it is difficult to discern the exact temporal reference intended. The similar phrase mēʿôlām (from the beginning), however, appears in Sirach several times. In 42.21b, mēʿôlām seems to refer to a primordial time from which point forward YHWH is “one.” In Sir 39.20, the sage juxtaposes the term with the phrase ʿd ʿwlm (eternity), demarcating the temporal frame for the deity’s eternal gaze. Finally, in Sir 51.8, the sage recalls YHWH’s mercies “from of old” (mēʿôlām); this last example seems to put the phrase in the distant, but not necessarily primordial, past. As Skehan points out, in all of the Hebrew Bible, the phrase yəmôt ʿôlām occurs only in Deut 32.7. Moreover, he observes, Sir 44.2 shares with Deut 32.7–9 the words ʿelyôn (v 8) and ḥēleq (v 9).169 No doubt, Ben Sira has in mind this passage from Deuteronomy regarding the appor-

———— 166

p 51.

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51, 57. The quote appears on

James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 664. 167

The reading given here is based on MSS B and M. For the reading wg rlw, see Patrick W. Skehan, “Staves, and Nails, and Scribal Slips (Ben Sira 44:2–5),” BASOR 200 (1970): 70–1. 169 Skehan, “Staves, and Nails,” 70. 168

68

CHAPTER TWO

tionment of the nations. Unlike the biblical election traditions surveyed above, Deut 32.7–9 sets the selection of Israel as YHWH’s own people further back in time, when Elyon separated humanity into the various nations.170 While it may be impossible to answer definitively the question regarding the precise meaning of yəmôt ʿôlām, these last two examples suggest that Deut 32.7–9 played a significant role in Ben Sira’s understanding of Israel’s election. The sage seems to have used the Deuteronomist’s notion that YHWH became identified with Israel “a long time ago” in order to project his own doctrine of election back into a primordial past.171 For Ben Sira, Israel’s election seems less a historical event than a cosmogonic phenomenon. In this sense, Ben Sira applies an assumption operative in the cosmogonies of Israel and her ancient Near Eastern neighbors—“the originating moment explains the present.”172 This “originating moment” included for the sage YHWH’s creation of the cosmos through wisdom. It also included Israel’s election by the deity through wisdom (Sir 24.8; 33.11). I began my discussion in the present chapter of Ben Sira’s notion of a divinely ordained distinction among human beings with the observation that the sage portrays two divine apportionments of wisdom, one to human beings generally, the other to the elect people of Israel. In the next chapter, I examine Ben Sira’s understanding of these two apportionments of wisdom as two distinct revelations of divine knowledge.

————

170 4 Ezra also takes a more mythic view of Israel’s election: “O Lord, . . . you have said that it was for us that you created this world” (2 Esd 6.55, NRSV). See also 2 Esd 6.59; 7.11. 171 In chapter 5, I shall show that Ben Sira connects the doctrine of election to his doctrine of creation in another way. The sage suggests that the godly, along with Wisdom, were already set apart in the primordial time, in order to practice a Jewish piety. 172 Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins, “Introduction: The Theology of Creation Traditions,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions, ed. Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins, CBQMS 24 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1992), 7.

CHAPTER THREE

ELECTION AND REVELATION: GENERAL AND SPECIAL WISDOM In chapter 2, I observed that Ben Sira distinguishes between the elect and the rest of humanity. In my analysis of Sir 1.9b–10b, I showed that the sage describes an unequal distribution of wisdom, given to humans through two divine apportionments. The first apportionment involves a general outpouring of wisdom upon all creation, including all humanity. The second consists in a special distribution of an extra measure of wisdom to a select group of humanity. In the present chapter, I argue that the general outpouring of wisdom upon all creation amounts to a form of general revelation. This revelation is available to all humanity through the natural world, and thus I term this wisdom “general wisdom.” Analogously, I suggest that the special distribution of wisdom to the elect constitutes a kind of special revelation. This apportionment of wisdom I label “special wisdom.” As I shall show, Ben Sira develops his understanding of the relationship between the elect people of Israel and special wisdom through the metaphor of inheritance. WISDOM AS DIVINE REVELATION As I noted in chapter 1, Ben Sira famously juxtaposes Wisdom and Torah (see Sir 24). Most scholars refer to this juxtaposition as the “identification” of Wisdom and Torah. By identification, scholars suggest that Ben Sira views Wisdom and Torah as one and the same thing. Sir 17.11–14 indicates that Ben Sira held that the Torah was revealed to Israel at Sinai.1 If Torah is a form of revelation, and Wisdom and Torah are congruous, does Ben Sira also portray Wisdom as a form of revelation?

————

1 Given that Ben Sira refers to “the Torah of life and knowledge” given to Moses at Mount Sinai in Sir 45.5, it seems clear that “Torah of life” in 17.11 refers to the Torah of Moses.

70

CHAPTER THREE

Scholars do not generally consider revelation to be a category native to the ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition.2 The conventional modes for obtaining knowledge in the wisdom tradition of the ancient Near East included observation of human interactions and the natural world, as well as study of the collected writings of sages past (see chapter 2). Among the forms of Judaism extant in the Second Temple period, revelation is most frequently associated with the apocalyptic movement, rather than the Wisdom tradition.3 Nonetheless, numerous texts from Qumran, either roughly contemporaneous with or slightly later than Sirach, evidence a blending of wisdom and apocalyptic themes.4 Scholars frequently contrast Ben Sira with such wisdom-apocalyptic literature at Qumran because of the presumed absence in his work of topics such as “apocalyptic speculation and divine revelation.”5 Matthew Goff, for instance, suggests that the lengthy Qumran text 4QInstruction contains “many important elements [that] resonate with the apocalyptic tradition and have no analogue in biblical wisdom.” Among these, Goff lists “reliance

————

One notable exception is John Coert Rylaarsdam, Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946). While Rylaarsdam’s evolu2

tionary model for the development of revelation in Jewish Wisdom literature proves problematic, his study nonetheless demonstrates that revelation, both as the result of human reason and as divine gift, has long been a concern of the Wisdom tradition. 3 See Daniel J. Harrington, “The rāz nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26, 4Q415–418, 423),” RevQ 17 (1996): 549–53; Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 121–5; and Torleif Elgvin, “Early Essene Eschatology: Judgment and Salvation according to Sapiential Work A,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks, STDJ 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 131, 136. 4 Scholarly investigation of the relationship between wisdom and apocalyptic has blossomed in recent years. For various attempts to understand “the nature and interrelationship of the wisdom, prophetic, and eschatological components in Jewish apocalyptic writings,” see the collection of essays in Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, eds., Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalyptic, SBLSymS 35 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005). The quotation is taken from George W. E. Nickelsburg’s lead essay, “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism: Some Points for Discussion,” p 18. 5 James K. Aitken, “Apocalyptic, Revelation and Early Jewish Wisdom Literature,” in New Heaven and New Earth—Prophecy and the Millennium, ed. P. J. Harland and C. T. Robert Hayward, VTSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 187. Aitken cites as examples Elgvin, “Early Essene Eschatology,” 136 n 23; and Daniel J. Harrington, “Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom: Sirach and Qumran Sapiential Work A,” JSP 16 (1997): 26. To these scholars I would add Goff, Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 117–9.

ELECTION AND REVELATION

71

on revelation.”6 Thus, some scholars understandably view Ben Sira as a traditional wisdom scholar who is uninterested in revelation. If Ben Sira understands the Torah as revelation, but Wisdom seems far removed from revelation, how can Wisdom and Torah be correlated? While it is evident that Ben Sira’s work does not share a number of features common to apocalypticism—such as a strict dualism7 or the concern for eternal life—he nonetheless demonstrates, as I will show, an interest in revelation. The principal way in which Ben Sira incorporates the category of revelation into his work is through his portrayal of wisdom.8 Ben Sira views wisdom as a kind of divine revelation, mediated through the figure of personified Wisdom, whom the sage characterizes in prophetic terms. In this sense, Ben Sira is caught up in a burgeoning concern for the disclosure of heavenly secrets in the late Second Temple period. As I mentioned above, the ancient Near Eastern Wisdom tradition did not generally engage revelation as a category. This was no less true for Ben Sira’s predecessors in the Israelite wisdom tradition. Nonetheless, Israel’s wisdom authors, indeed most wisdom authors of the ANE, viewed wisdom as something that originated with God or the gods.9 As such, Ben Sira’s view of wisdom as divine revelation represents a development, rather than a revolution, in the wisdom tradition. In order to demonstrate my thesis that Ben Sira views wisdom as a kind of divine revelation, let me suggest a definition of revelation and then proceed to show how Ben Sira’s understanding of wisdom coheres with the definition. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl offers two complementary definitions of the term “revelation”: (1) “any divine disclosure of knowledge communicated by visionary or prophetic means,” and (2) “the manifestation of heavenly realities in a historical context.”10 Bockmuehl’s definition of revelation—and indeed the very term itself—assumes that something is hidden. In the Second Temple pe-

————

Goff, Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 7–8. See my argument in chapter 2. 8 On the notion of revelation in Sirach, see Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 53–97. 9 See, e.g., Ahiqar 94b–95; Prov 2.6; 8.22; Job 12.13; and 28.23. On Ahiqar, see the excellent edition of James M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). 10 Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990), 2. 6 7

72

CHAPTER THREE

riod, there was a growing notion that wisdom was inaccessible to human beings. The poem in Job 28 famously poses the problem as follows: “Where can wisdom be found?” (Job 28.12). The poem’s author answers his own question: “Humankind does not know [wisdom’s] arrangement . . . It is concealed (neʿelmâ) from the eyes of all the living” (Job 28.21a; cf. v 13). So, too, in Sirach one discovers the notion that wisdom or the works of YHWH are hidden. This idea appears in the hymn on creation in Sir 42.15–43.33, which I analyzed in chapter 2. Near the beginning of the hymn, Ben Sira observes that, although YHWH’s glory fills all his creations (42.16), “even God’s holy ones fail to recount all his wonders” (n plʾt y w, 42.17ab). The implication is that if the angels do not fully fathom YHWH’s activities, humans certainly cannot. Ben Sira returns to the theme of hiddenness at the end of the hymn. The hymn indicates that human beings are able to discern something about the creator by observing his creations (see chapter 2). Nevertheless, Ben Sira argues that YHWH is greater than all his works and, thus, human beings “cannot fathom (ḥqr) him” (43.28; cf. 43.30d). The sage asks rhetorically, “Who has seen [YHWH] and can describe him?” and suggests that beyond what he has related about God in the hymn “many things greater than these are hidden” (ἀπόκρυφά).11 Even the sagely Ben Sira has seen only “a few of his works” (43.31–2). In another passage Ben Sira asserts similarly that “the works of YHWH are wonderful ( plʾwt), his activity is hidden (nʿlm) from humankind” (11.4). Likewise, in Sir 18.4–7, the sage suggests that aspects of the divine remain a mystery to humans: “it is not possible to fathom (ἐξιχνιάσαι) the wonders (τὰ θαυμάσια) of YHWH” (v 6b).12 This idea that wisdom is hidden provides a necessary precondition for the notion of wisdom as revelation. I observed in chapter 2 that Ben Sira views wisdom as something bestowed upon the world and in particular upon Israel by YHWH, the god of Israel. According to Bockmuehl’s definition, however, revelation requires more than divine gift. The gift must be given “by visionary or prophetic means.” Is there any indication that Ben Sira views wisdom as a divine gift transmitted through prophetic means?

———— 11

Reading G. MS B contains the first word and two letters of the last word in line

32a.

12

Cf. Sir 1.1–6; 4.17–18; and 51.19–20, which also suggest the hiddenness of wisdom or of God’s activity.


73

It is well known that Ben Sira compares his own wisdom teaching to prophecy. At the very end of Sirach 24, the sage characterizes his enterprise as follows: Sir 24.33a b

ἔτι διδασκαλίαν ὡς προφητείαν ἐκχεῶ καὶ καταλείψω αὐτὴν εἰς γενεὰς αἰώνων

Sir 24.33a b

I will further pour out instruction like prophecy and bequeath it to future generations.

As Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella note, Ben Sira understands the wisdom he transmits to be inspired by God, in the same way that the prophecies of Israel’s seers were divinely inspired.13 Ben Sira’s description of his activity in Sir 24.33, nonetheless, remains in the realm of simile: note the word “like.” In Sir 39.6, the suggestion of prophetic means is stronger, inasmuch as Ben Sira envisions that the faithful sage is literally inspired—that is, filled with the spirit—when he engages in his craft. Sir 39.6a b c d

ἐὰν κύριος ὁ μέγας θελήσῃ πνεύματι συνέσεως ἐμπλησθήσεται αὐτὸς ἀνομβρήσει ῥήματα σοφίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν προσευχῇ ἐξομολογήσεται κυρίῳ

Sir 39.6a b c d

If YHWH the Almighty wishes, [the sage] will be filled with a spirit of understanding; he will pour forth his own words of wisdom and in prayer give thanks to YHWH.

————

13 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 338. On the issue of Ben Sira’s claim to inspiration, see Leo G. Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), esp. 135–42. A sapiential appropriation of prophecy and a prophetic understanding of wisdom have deep-rooted antecedents. See, e.g., Isa 11.1–9; Jer 1.7, 9; Job 4.12–21. For a study of prophetic inspiration in the wisdom tradition at Qumran, see Martti Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scripture

in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, JSJSup 126 (Leiden: Brill,

2008), 513–33. On Ben Sira’s understanding of the authority that his own inspired wisdom carries, see Benjamin G. Wright III, “Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar,” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, ed. idem, JSJSup 131, 165–182 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

74

CHAPTER THREE

In Ben Sira’s view, then, the wisdom scholar transmits his teaching under the influence of “a spirit of understanding” that is controlled by YHWH.14 While many scholars have commented on Ben Sira’s notion of the wisdom scholar as a prophet, few have noted that the sage portrays Wisdom herself as a prophetic figure. Randal Argall argues that the sending of Wisdom to Israel in Sirach 24 is based upon an assumed prophetic call. Specifically, the sending of Wisdom to reside in Israel presupposes a prior commissioning scene based on one type of call narrative described by Walther Zimmerli.15 This type of commissioning usually contains most of the following six elements: (1) the divine council convenes around YHWH; (2) the one to be sent has a vision of YHWH seated on a throne; (3) someone poses the question as to who is an appropriate emissary for the divine message; (4) suggestions are made as to who might best complete the task; (5) the one to be sent volunteers or is chosen for the mission; and (6) YHWH gives the chosen intermediary the message to be conveyed, sometimes literally placing the word in the prophet’s mouth.16 The setting for Wisdom’s speech in Sirach 24 is the divine council, “the assembly of the Most High” (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὑψίστου, 24.2; element 1). There is, however, no explicit vision of YHWH upon his throne. Perhaps the throne vision is implicit given the setting in the

————

14 As Jon D. Levenson notes regarding this verse, “Ben Sira’s use of pneumatic language to describe wisdom teaching (Sir 39:6) recalls Psalm 119 and suggests that he regarded his own book as inspired” (“The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 568). See, e.g., Ps 119.34–5, where the psalmist asks for discernment, so that he can observe YHWH’s Torah. Cf. Ben Sira’s reference to the prophet Elisha as filled with Elijah’s spirit (Sir 48.12b). One also thinks of Isa 11.2, where the spirit of YHWH that rests on the future Davidic king will be one of wisdom and understanding. 15 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 54. 16 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Ronald E. Clements, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 1:97– 100. See, e.g., Isa 6 and Ezek 1.1–3.15; cf. 1 Kgs 22.19–23. Zimmerli distinguishes two types of call narratives, of which the “expanded” one described above is the second type. The first type consists of an intimate encounter between the deity or his representative and the person who is called, an expression of “reluctance” or “objection” on the part of the person who is called, and an expression of divine assurance. For examples of the first type, see Jer 1.4–10 and Exod 3.9–15 (E).


75

divine council (element 2). Alternatively, Argall suggests that the throne vision occurs in the companion poem on wisdom found in Sir 1.1–10: Sir 1.8a b 9a 8a b 9a

εἷς ἐστιν σοφός φοβερὸς σφόδρα καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ κύριος . . . There is One, wise, greatly awe-inspiring, seated upon his throne: YHWH . . .

Clearly, the Most High, in Sir 24.1–2, and YHWH, the One seated upon the throne in Sir 1.8–9a, are one and the same figure in Ben Sira’s mind. Nonetheless, unlike the throne vision described by Isaiah of Jerusalem and some of the visions related by Ezekiel, the description of the heavenly throne in Sirach shows no evidence that Ben Sira himself has been transported to the divine council.17 Thus, while Sir 1.8–9a does not consist in a throne vision proper, it nonetheless suggests that the notion of prophetic commissioning constitutes part of Ben Sira’s worldview. Regarding the destination of the prophetic commissioning, Wisdom raises the question, “In whose inheritance should I lodge?” (24.7b), in a sense volunteering herself (element 5). YHWH responds with the commission: “In Jacob pitch your tent, and in Israel receive your inheritance” (24.8cd), confirming that Wisdom has been chosen for the job. Argall explains the absence of certain elements of the commissioning assumed in Sirach 24 by the chosen intermediary’s identity as a heavenly rather than an earthly being.18 For example, with respect to element 6, it is not necessary in the act of commissioning for the Most High to place his words in his agent’s mouth, Wisdom has come from the mouth of the Most High and is, therefore, the word.19

————

17 The visions of Isa 6 and Ezek 3.12–15; 8.1–3 may be examples of what anthropologists call “nonpossession.” In cases of nonpossession, an intermediary’s spirit or soul is thought to “leave his body and travel to a supernatural world.” On the phenomenon of nonpossession, see Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 41–2. The quote appears on p 41. 18 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 54. 19 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 55.

76

CHAPTER THREE

Among these absent elements, Argall observes that in Sirach 24 there is no search for the appropriate candidate and suggests that “Wisdom is the obvious choice.”20 If one turns again to the companion poem in Sir 1.1–10, however, one finds posed the question of who possesses knowledge about the universe and, thus, is able to communicate this knowledge to others (element 3): Sir 1.2a b 3a b

ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει ὕψος οὐρανοῦ καὶ πλάτος γῆς καὶ βάθος ἀβύσσου21 τίς ἐξιχνιάσει

Sir 1.2a b 3a b

The sand of the seashores, the drops of rain, the days of eternity—who can count them? The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the depth of the abyss—who can search them out?

The answer to the question of who is able to mediate knowledge to others (element 4) is provided in the following verse: Sir 1.4a b

προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος

Sir 1.4a b

Before all things Wisdom has been created, prudent Understanding from eternity.

Sir 1.4 seems to suggest that wisdom is able to communicate the inner workings of the universe to human beings, because she was created before everything else.22 Thus one can see that of the six formal elements found in Zimmerli’s second type of prophetic commissioning, at least four (elements 1, 3–5) are explicitly present in

————

Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 55. Reading with Lat. (et profundum abyssi ), Copt., and Eth. Cf. Syr. “the great abyss” (thwmʾ rbʾ) and Sir 24.5. The witnesses of G evidence variation at this point, but most Gk. MSS read “the abyss and wisdom” (ἄβυσσον καὶ σοφίαν). The reading of Lat. and similar witnesses better preserves the literary form of vv 2–3. 22 Most commentators (see, e.g., Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 138) assume that the questions posed in Sir 1.2–3 are answered in vv 8–9a: YHWH. These verses, however, provide the answer to the questions asked in v 6, regarding who knows wisdom. In my interpretation of Sir 1.1–10, then, there is a twofold progression, structured around the questions of vv 2–3 and v 6, respectively. The first questions ask who knows about certain remote details of the universe. Wisdom does. The question then becomes: Who knows wisdom? YHWH does. See my text and translation in appendix A. 20 21


77

the commissioning of Wisdom in Sirach, and the other two (elements 2 and 6) are implied.23 Argall does not address the content of Wisdom’s prophetic oracle. In the immediate context of Sirach 24, however, one can understand Wisdom’s entire speech (vv 3–22) as the message she is to relay to Israel. Thus, the content of Wisdom’s prophetic oracle is Wisdom herself, her celestial and terrestrial biography, as it were. In this sense, there is a high degree of correlation between the medium and the message. Thus, one can see that, according to Bockmuehl’s first definition, wisdom is a divine revelation for Ben Sira. Wisdom is the content of a divine disclosure through prophetic means, and those prophetic means are Wisdom personified. Moreover, wisdom also conforms to Bockmuehl’s second definition of revelation as the disclosure of heavenly realities in a historical context. Wisdom is clearly self-disclosing her own heavenly realities: her emanation from YHWH’s mouth, her celestial travels, and her cloud-throne, for example. She speaks in the assembly of the Most High. Sirach 24.1b suggests that she proclaims her glory among her own people. I should also note here that Wisdom’s self-revelation in Sirach 24 hints at the theme of election, which I will develop more fully below. This should not come as a surprise, since, as I mentioned in chapter 1, the doctrine of election is a correlate to the doctrine of revelation.24 From the beginning, after her origin as an emanation from YHWH’s mouth, Wisdom’s scope was universal. She covered the earth like a mist, resided in the heavens, and traveled through the abyss. Importantly, Wisdom says she “ruled over the waves of the sea, over all the earth, and over every people and nation” (24.3– 6). Nonetheless, Wisdom came to have a particular home in Israel. Moreover, this choosing of Israel as the particular place for Wisdom to dwell on earth resulted from the command of the creator (24.8).25

————

23 One only needs to compare the commissioning scenes of Isaiah (Isa 6) and Ezekiel (Ezek 1.1–3.15) in order to see the variation permitted by the formal structure. The Isaianic scene contains Zimmerli’s elements 1–3, 5, and 6, whereas the Ezekielian scene contains elements 1, 2, 5, and 6. 24 See Novak, Election of Israel, 8. 25 The verb that Ben Sira uses to describe YHWH’s selection of the location for Wisdom’s “tent” is καταπαύω (to lay to rest). Segal retroverts this verb into Hebrew as hinnîaḥ (The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫)קמה‬, which BDB (p 628) classifies as the Hiphil B form from the root nûaḥ, meaning “to set down.” It is interesting to

78

CHAPTER THREE

Sirach 24, then, characterizes Wisdom as a prophetic revelation. First, she disclosed herself generally throughout the universe, holding sway over all peoples. Subsequently, she revealed herself in Israel, the place YHWH elected for Wisdom to dwell.26 Thus, according to Ben Sira, Wisdom and Torah are both identified as revelation. THE TWOFOLD NATURE OF WISDOM’S REVELATION It would seem that understanding wisdom as a type of revelation permits the kind of identification of Wisdom and Torah that many scholars make. I noted in chapter 1, however, that any simple identification of Wisdom and Torah is problematic for another reason. Wisdom is characterized as universally available to all human beings. Torah, on the other hand, is characterized as the particular preserve of Israel.27 Thus, when scholars characterize Ben Sira’s juxtaposition of Wisdom and Torah as “identification,” they seemingly force a universal peg into a particular hole. Moreover, in their identification of Wisdom and Torah, most scholars subsume one category—Wisdom or Torah—into the other.28 In order to avoid this collapse of one category into another, I suggest that Ben Sira views Wisdom and Torah not as identified but rather as correlated or congruous. Ben Sira’s frequent juxtaposition of the terms indicates not that they are identical, but rather that they are closely related. Moreover, I suggest that Ben Sira has in mind two kinds of wisdom.29 The two apportion-

———— note that this verb is also used in Isa 14.1 in the context of YHWH’s (re)election of the people after the Babylonian exile. The passage says that YHWH “will again choose (bāḥar) Israel and set them (hinnîḥām) on their own land.” 26 Note the parallel between personified Wisdom’s autobiography here and the two apportionments of wisdom envisioned in Sir 1.9b–10b. 27 This calls to mind the statement in ʾEik Rab 2.9: “If anyone will say to you that there is wisdom among the Gentiles, believe him. If he will say that there is Torah among the Gentiles, do not believe him.” 28 See my discussion of this issue in chapter 1. For a concise overview of various scholarly positions on the relation of Wisdom and Torah, see Eckhard J. Schnabel,

Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985),

10–15. 29 Marböck also distinguishes two kinds of wisdom in Sirach: a “wisdom from above” (Weisheit von oben) and a “wisdom from below” (Weisheit von unten); see Weisheit im Wandel, 127–8. The former he refers to as “divine wisdom” and the latter as “profane wisdom.” In one sense, Marböck’s classification resembles the


79

ments of wisdom that I observed in chapter 2 are in essence two revelations of wisdom: a general wisdom which is available to all human beings through creation, and a special wisdom which is available to Israel through YHWH’s commandments. Both kinds of wisdom consist in revelations, analogous to later Enlightenment categories of general and special revelation. Understanding Ben Sira’s view of wisdom in this way complicates any simple “identification” of wisdom with Torah. Ben Sira’s view of wisdom cannot be construed as completely particularistic, because he sees general wisdom as having been revealed to all humanity. Nor can his view of wisdom be wholly universal, because he understands special wisdom to have been revealed to Israel alone. As I shall show, the idea of election is the means by which Ben Sira incorporates these two dimensions of wisdom into an integrated worldview. Let me now turn to an explication of general and special wisdom in Ben Sira’s thinking.

General Wisdom I will show that, for Ben Sira, general wisdom is characterized by three qualities: it is revealed through creation, it is universally available, and it is codified in the teachings of the sages. The wisdom encountered in the hymn on creation in Sir 42.15–43.33, for example, is general wisdom. In chapter 2, I noted the prominence of verbs of ocular perception in this hymn (42.15b, 22b, 25b; 43.32) and suggested that, in line with his predecessors in the ancient Near Eastern Wisdom tradition, Ben Sira emphasizes observation of nature as a universal mode for the acquisition of wisdom. Ben Sira uses the term kābôd (glory) to refer to the observable presence of the deity through his created works, and he understands that the divine kābôd fills YHWH’s works in the same way that the sun “is revealed” (nglth) to all (42.16). It should not be surprising in this analogy between the divine kābôd and the visible sun that Ben Sira uses the verb “to reveal” (glh). Leo Perdue suggests that Ben Sira draws on the Priestly image of the divine kābôd, which manifests itself for the purpose of revela-

———— distinction I shall develop below between special wisdom and general wisdom. He associates wisdom from above with personified Wisdom who resides in Israel and wisdom from below with the international wisdom tradition. Nevertheless, I disagree with Marböck’s (Weisheit im Wandel, 131) characterization of the wisdom resident in Israel as “universal.”

80

CHAPTER THREE

tion: “the purpose of theophany is revelation” or “divine teaching.”30 For the Priestly writer (P), God’s presence (kābôd) appeared to the Israelites from the top of Mount Sinai as a consuming fire (Exod 24.17). Moreover, as Perdue notes, at the beginning of this hymn Ben Sira connects the metaphor of the word to the image of the divine kābôd (42.15–16).31 This “word” is the primary metaphor used by Ben Sira for YHWH’s creation of the world.32 Indeed, immediately after stating his subject of the poem (“the works of God,” 42.15a), Ben Sira relates that these works of creation came about “by the word” (bʾmr, 42.15c) of YHWH. Furthermore, in chapter 2, I demonstrated how Ben Sira’s creation theology brings together notions of creation through divine word and divine wisdom. Recall how Wisdom, YHWH’s first work, emanated “from the mouth of the Most High” (24.3a). Thus, in Ben Sira’s thinking, the notions of word, kābôd, creation, and wisdom all cohere in a system of universal revelation: YHWH creates through his word, which is closely related to his wisdom, and this word-wisdom is manifest in the divine kābôd, which in turn is visible to human beings through his works of creation. The following verses confirm Perdue’s assertion that Ben Sira’s allusion to the Priestly image of the divine kābôd is intended to signal a kind of revelation of divine knowledge. Speaking of YHWH, Ben Sira says: Sir 42.18a b c d 19a b Sir 42.18a b c

————

‫תהום ולב חקר‬ ‫ובמערמיהם יתבונן‬ [‫כי ידע עליון ד]עת‬ ‫]ו[מביט אתיות עולם‬ 33 ‫מחוה חליפות ונהיות‬ ‫ומגלה חקר נסתרות‬ The deep and the human heart he searches out; their secrets he understands. For the Most High possesses knowledge,

Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 279. Edmond Jacob notes that “glory” is a key word for Ben Sira (“Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. John G. Gammie, et al. [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978], 255). The noun δόξα and the verb δοξάζω occur 53 and 31 times, respectively. 31 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 279. 32 Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 289. 33 Reading MS Bmg wnhy wt. Cf. G καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα. MS Btxt reads nhy wt. 30


d 19a b

81

and sees the things that are to come forever. He declares things past and things to come, And he reveals the range of hidden things.34

Ben Sira suggests that numerous areas inscrutable to humans are known to YHWH: the deep, the human heart (see Prov 15.11), things to come, past events, hidden things. While human beings cannot penetrate this knowledge on their own, YHWH nonetheless “declares” (mḥwh) and “reveals” (mglh, v 19) it to them. I would nuance Perdue’s association of the divine kābôd with revelation by suggesting that the revelation Ben Sira indicates by the term, at least in this hymn, is a general revelation, available to all human beings through observation of YHWH’s created works.35 Ben Sira’s view of wisdom as something revealed by YHWH through creation suggests my second point, that wisdom is universally available. Practically speaking, any human being could look at nature and discern something of the creator and the creator’s order.36 The analogy of the sun (42.16) indicates, in Ben Sira’s thought, the universal availability of knowledge concerning the divine. Indeed, I find confirmation for Ben Sira’s view that wisdom is universally available in another poem on creation, Sir 17.1–14. This creation poem comprises part of the larger didactic passage in Sir 15.11–18.14, which responds to the person who suggests that human beings are not responsible for their actions (15.11–12) and that YHWH does not see what human beings do (16.17–22).37 For the moment, I concern myself only with 17.1–10, which describes the creation of humankind. The poem begins with an account of the creation of humankind (ἄνθρωπον) “from the earth,” an account which echoes in large part

————

For the meaning of ḥēqer, see Job 11.7; 38.16. Wright argues that the term ni stārôt refers to the future (“Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” 210–12). 35 As Jacob (“Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 255) observes, “Wisdom manifests itself first in creation.” Commenting on Sirach 24, Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 58) similarly suggests that “the initial revelation of wisdom is in creation itself.” 36 See Collins, “The Biblical Precedent for Natural Theology,” 35–67. Collins points out that the wisdom tradition shares with natural theology the notion that knowledge of God is universally accessible through the natural world. 37 On Sir 15.11–18.14, see Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, 229–34; and Ursel Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der frühen Stoa, BZAW 298 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 143–6. 34

82

CHAPTER THREE

Genesis 1–3.38 Ben Sira narrates how human beings were given dominion over the earth and created in God’s image (Sir 17.1–4). The sage then proceeds to describe the wisdom that human beings were given by virtue of their creation: Sir 17.6a b 7a b 8a b 9 10

διαβούλιον καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ ὀφθαλμούς ὦτα καὶ καρδίαν ἔδωκεν διανοεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς ἐπιστήμην συνέσεως ἐνέπλησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον39 αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν δεῖξαι αὐτοῖς τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ ἵνα καυχᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄνομα ἁγιασμοῦ αἰνέσουσιν40

Sir 17.6a b 7a b 8a b 9 10

Discretion and tongue and eyes, ears and a heart to understand [YHWH] gave them. With knowledge of wisdom he filled them; good and evil he showed them. He put his fear into their heart, to show them the magnificence of his works, that they might boast in his marvelous deeds and praise his holy name.

In these verses Ben Sira affirms that YHWH gave human beings wisdom (vv 6–7; cf. Gen 2.9) and piety (v 8a) from the beginning.41 It is this wisdom and piety that permits human beings to perceive something of the divine presence in his created works (v 8b).42

———— 38

But Ben Sira’s account also echoes Gen 9; Pss 8; 90; Job 14; and Isa 65. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 281–2. 39 Most MSS of G read “eye” (ὀφθαλμόν) in place of “fear.” See Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 202. Ziegler nonetheless reads “fear.” Thus, the colon reads, “He puts his eye on their heart, to show them the magnificence of his works.” If “eye” is the correct reading, perhaps 17.8a means YHWH places his eye, i.e., his capacity for seeing, into the human heart so that, as 17.8b says, human beings have the ability to observe the majesty of his works. Cf. Gen 44.21, where the phrase “to set one’s eye upon” someone means to see visually and in person. 40 Sirach 17.8b–10 is textually problematic. The two lines contained in vv 9–10 are reversed in some MSS. GI repeats the phrase “the magnificence of his works” in 8b and 9. And the future indicative verb form in v 10 does not fit the context. I have followed the reconstruction of Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 279), which involves the substitution of the phrase καυχᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτου from v 8c of GII for the repetitious phrase τὰ μεγαλεῖα τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ of v 9. 41 Burton L. Mack observes, “In Sir. 17:1–14, the divine bestowals upon the human creature are listed and come to climax in the gift of a ‘heart to understand’ (17:6b)” (Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985], 114). 42 See Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 114–5.


83

Moreover, just as YHWH shows (δεῖξαι) human beings his works, he also shows (ὑπέδειξεν) them the difference between good and evil. This knowledge of morality is arrived at by means of the “knowledge of wisdom” (ἐπιστήμην συνέσεως) with which YHWH fills human beings as part of their created status. Thus, Sir 17.1–10 provides an account of the creation of human beings which ends with a sapiential statement about their universal purpose.43 Human beings have a general, God-given capacity for sensory perception, moral action, and intellectual acuity.44 These capabilities are linked by Ben Sira in this passage to an apportionment of wisdom with which YHWH fills each person. This general wisdom given to all humankind is the first apportionment which YHWH as creator bestowed upon “all flesh” in Sir 1.9b–10a (see chapter 2).45 The reference in Sir 17.1 to ἄνθρωπον in the singular, meaning “humankind” generally, makes clear that Ben Sira has in mind human beings universally, not simply some gifted subset of humanity. Burton Mack reads the singular as a reference in particular to Adam. Although the pronouns referring back to ἄνθρωπον after Sir 17.1 are in the plural—a fact which suggests that “humankind” is a better translation—the numerous allusions to Genesis 1–3 throughout Sir 17.1–10 support Mack’s interpretation. In this sense, Mack reads Adam in Sirach as a universal figure, representing what all human beings have in common. As I will show below, Sir 17.11–14 abruptly introduces into the description of the creation of humankind the covenant YHWH made with Israel at Sinai. Mack argues, The ease with which the reflection upon Adam is expanded to include the covenant, a combination of the motifs from Genesis and Exodus facilitated by a notion of wisdom that comprises both knowledge and ethical capacities, shows us that Adam is understood to be a symbol of all humankind.46

In either case, whether ἄνθρωπον refers to humankind or to Adam as a universal type, the passage speaks to Ben Sira’s understanding

————

Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung, 251. See Kaiser, “Covenant and Law in Ben Sira,” 255. 45 See Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 114; Kaiser, “Covenant and Law in Ben Sira,” 252. 46 Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 115. 43 44

84

CHAPTER THREE

of a general wisdom which YHWH bestows on human beings universally. How is this general wisdom accessible to human beings? I have noted that one way this general wisdom is universally available is through observation of nature. But the wisdom tradition also “codified” these observations about nature into sayings and instructions. The concluding verses to the longer passage in which 17.1–14 is contextualized hint at the concretization of general wisdom in a tradition of sapiential instruction. Sir 18.13ab describes the universal reach of YHWH’s mercy to “all flesh” (πᾶσαν σάρκα). The expression of this universal mercy is then described in traditional sapiential terms: Sir 18.13c d

ἐλέγχων καὶ παιδεύων καὶ διδάσκων καὶ ἐπιστρέφων ὡς ποιμὴν τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ

Sir 18.13c d

[YHWH] reproves and trains and teaches and corrects them as a shepherd his flock.

Ben Sira portrays YHWH as a divine sage who instructs all humanity. In the following verse, the last of this lengthy passage, the author suggests that YHWH extends his mercy to those who receive his “training” (παιδείαν) and diligently follow “his judgments” (τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ, 18.14). These verses suggest that sagely instruction, which one can refer to in a shorthand way as torah (instruction), is the means of communicating the general wisdom revealed to all human beings. At other points in his book, Ben Sira confirms that, in his view, general wisdom is available to humanity as torah, or sagely instruction. In Sir 6.18–37, for example, the sage encourages his readers to associate themselves with wisdom. In this passage, Ben Sira suggests that this divine “training” (παιδείαν, v 18a)47 or “discipline” (hmwsr, v 22a) provides the means to “attain wisdom” (t śyg ḥkmh, v 18b).48 The end of the passage suggests that one achieves this discipline, and thus general wisdom, through the instruction of the elders (Sir 6.32–6). These latter verses are connected to the former ones by the root ysr, from which the noun “discipline” (mû sār) is derived. Ben

————

47 The Hebrew for Sir 6.18a is not extant. It is possible that Gk. παιδείαν reflects Heb. mû sār. 48 MS C. MS A of Sir 6.18b is not extant.


85

Sira suggests that the person who desires to “become wise” (t tḥkm) or “clever” (tʿr m, v 32) “will be instructed” (t wsr, v 33).49 One is instructed by the tradition of the sagely elders: Sir 6.34a b

ἐν πλήθει πρεσβυτέρων στῆθι καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτῶν προσκολλήθητι50

Sir 6.34a b

Stand in the company of elders, and attach yourself to their wisdom.

The young person desiring wisdom will attain it through the instruction of his wise elders. Ben Sira elaborates on this tradition of instruction in the following verse. Sir 6.35a b Sir 6.35a b

‫כל שיחה חפוץ לשמע‬ ‫ומשל בינה אל יצאך‬ Yearn to listen to every discourse; let no wise proverb escape you.

Ben Sira describes the instruction of the elders as “discourse” (śyḥh) and “wise proverb” (m š l by nh), terms that appear in synonymous parallelism. The next verse exhorts the reader to search out one who possesses understanding ( yby n, v 36a), another reference to the wise elder. In sum, the passage suggests that the way to attain the general wisdom available to all human beings is through study of the wisdom tradition passed on through the wise elders. In another passage, Sir 8.8–9, Ben Sira again suggests that general wisdom is found in the torah, or the traditional wisdom instruction of the elders. These verses form one stanza of a larger discourse on wisdom matters of a general nature, namely, how to relate to various types of people. Sir 8.8a b c d 8.9a

————

‫אל תטש שיחת חכמים‬ ‫ובחידתיהם התרטש‬ ‫כי ממנו תלמוד לקח‬ ‫להתיצב לפני שרים‬ ‫ שבים‬51‫אל תמאס בשמועת‬

Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 195. Sir 6.34 is not extant in Hebrew. I follow the reading of Ziegler (ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 155) in v 34b. 51 With Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 212), I read the Qal passive participle with w instead of the y of MS A. On the confusion of y and w in the Hebrew text of Sirach, see Alexander A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A TextCritical and Historical Study, SCL 1 (The Hague: Mouton, 1966), 97–101. 49 50

86

CHAPTER THREE

b c d Sir 8.8a b c d 8.9a b c d

‫אשר שמעו מאבתם‬ ‫כי ממנו תקח שכל‬ ‫בעת צרך להשיב פתגם‬ Do not forsake the discourse of the wise, but with their riddles busy yourself.52 For from them53 you will acquire the instruction [necessary] to stand in the presence of princes. Do not reject the tradition of the elders, which they have received from their ancestors, for from it you will obtain the insight to give a reply when the need arises.

The first two lines (8a and b) form a chiasm. From the chiastic structure it can be seen that the “discourse” of the wise parallels “their riddles” (ḥydt yhm). As Skehan and Di Lella note, the word ḥîdâ (riddle) is found in the Wisdom literature only here and in Sir 47.17a and Prov 1.6. In Sir 47.17a, ḥydh parallels m š l (proverb) and mlyṣh (parable), and in Prov 1.6 it is synonymous with mā šāl, məlî ṣâ, and dibrê ḥăkāmîm (words of the wise).54 Recall that “discourse” (śyḥh) parallels “wise proverb” (m š l by nh) in Sir 6.35. Thus, Ben Sira refers here to some collection of sagely instruction, oral or written. Moreover, vv 8 and 9, with four cola each, neatly parallel one another. The A line in each verse warns against abandoning the “discourse” or “tradition” of the wise elders. Thus, sagely wisdom instruction is associated with a tradition passed on from one generation to the next. The linguistic and semantic parallelism in the C and D lines is also clear. From this discourse of the wise or tradition of the elders, the disciple will gain “instruction” (lqḥ) or “insight” (śkl), which will serve him well in his dealings with rulers. This stanza reflects an understanding of wisdom as the tradition passed down from one generation to the next.55 This tradition is considered a source of “insight” (śkl) or wisdom. At this point, one might take issue with my contention that these last examples refer to a universally available, general wisdom accessible through the tradition of the elders. If, as most scholars including me maintain, Ben Sira’s primary audience consists in young Jewish scribes-in-training (see my discussion in chapter 4), would

———— 52 53 54 55

Thus do Skehan and Di Lella translate (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 209). Where Heb. reads a singular suffix, G reads a plural (παρ᾿ αὐτῶν). Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 212. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 213.


87

not phrases such as “the company of elders” (Sir 6.34a) and “the tradition of the elders” (Sir 8.9a) refer to Jewish elders and Israelite sapiential traditions, respectively? Of course they do. But this does not undermine my point about the category of general wisdom. In my interpretation, general wisdom does not refer to the wisdom of non-Jews while special wisdom (treated in the next section) refers to the Jewish sapiential tradition. Rather, general wisdom refers to that tradition of sapiential teaching, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, that derives from observations about the cosmos and social relations, is captured in various genres of wisdom discourse, and is handed on from generation to generation primarily through a line of wise elders, in both oral and written form. In other words, the entire Israelite sapiential tradition forms one part of a much larger cosmopolitan wisdom tradition which comprises for Ben Sira the category I am calling general wisdom. One might also question whether Ben Sira believes that the general revelation of wisdom to universal humanity remains in effect. Does the sage hold a doctrine of the “fall” of humankind, such that the original knowledge bestowed on human beings at creation has somehow been lost? Has the special revelation of wisdom to Israel superseded or even replaced the universal revelation of wisdom? Unlike some later Jewish and Christian authors who found the origins of sin and death in Adam and Eve’s disobedience,56 Ben Sira seems not to have held to the doctrine of a “fall” of humankind. The only hint that the sage may have viewed the garden incident as a kind of fall comes in Sir 25.24: Sir 25.24a b Sir 25.24a b

‫מאשה תחלת עון‬ ‫ובגללה גוענו יחד‬ From woman was the beginning of sin, and on account of her together we die.

That Sir 25.24 refers to Eve is by no means certain. Jack Levison has argued, based in part on the larger context of the verse, that the woman is not Eve but rather the “evil wife” (see Sir 25.13–26).57 If

———— 56

For the notion that human beings lost an original immortality through disobedience of the divine command in the Garden, see, e.g., Wis 1.13; 2.23–4; Philo, QG 1.45; and Apoc. Mos. 14.2. For interpretations of the Garden story as the introduction of sin into the world, see, e.g., 2 Esd 3.21–2; 7.118; and Rom 5.12. 57 Jack Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?: A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24,” CBQ 47 (1985): 622.

88

CHAPTER THREE

the sage does indeed refer here to a tradition of Eve’s disobedience, such as that found in Genesis 3, the surface meaning of the verse directly contradicts the implication of Sir 17.1–2a: Sir 17.1a b 2a

κύριος ἔκτισεν ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτὸν εἰς αὐτήν ἡμέρας ἀριθμοῦ καὶ καιρὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς

Sir 17.1a b 2a

YHWH created humankind from the earth and returns them to it again. A limited number of days and time he gives to them.

Here Ben Sira clearly suggests that humans were created mortal from the beginning. While these two passages stand in tension with one another,58 I am inclined to give more weight to Sir 17.1–2a, since it forms part of an instruction devoted specifically to creation (Sir 16.24–18.14). In addition, in this passage, Ben Sira’s most sustained description of the unfolding of creation, there is no indication that the original bestowal of divine knowledge on humans as part of their status as creatures has been interrupted in any way. In light of this passage, then, I have to conclude that Sir 25.24 does not betray a doctrine of the fall in Sirach. Moreover, given my observations in chapter 2 regarding the availability of general wisdom through the natural world, it seems as though Ben Sira views the universal revelation to be ongoing. As I showed in Sir 1.9b–10, YHWH poured out wisdom not only on human beings, but also on all creation (v 9b). This suggests wisdom’s ongoing availability through the natural world. And as I observed in the creation hymn in Sir 42.15–43.33, verbs of visual perception appear prominently (esp. 42.15b; 42.22b, 25b; 43.32). Sir 42.16 suggests that the divine kābôd remains perceptible in all YHWH’s creations, in the same way that the sun sheds its light over all. These verses indicate that Ben Sira understands the general revelation of wisdom to be continuing alongside the special revelation of wisdom to Israel and to remain undiminished by any fall of humankind. What can one conclude? I have shown that one kind of wisdom, which I have called general wisdom, derives from observation of nature. Since the natural world can be observed by anyone, this kind of wisdom is universally available to all human beings. Moreover,

———— 58

Kugel also notes the contradiction between these two passages (Traditions of

the Bible, 127).


89

this general wisdom derived from observation of nature is codified in the torah, or the wisdom instruction of the elders. As such, this wisdom can be sought in the discourse or instruction of the wise ancestors. Described in this way, general wisdom seems to have much in common with the “commandments” followed by the author of Psalm 119. As Jon Levenson observes, the psalmist views the commandments as being similar to the advice of the sage in the wisdom tradition. In both, wisdom is portrayed as “a gift of God,” not simply one person’s opinion, and thus is a kind of “revelation of the will of God.”59 Levenson characterizes the “word” (dābār) of Psalm 119, which is observable in the heavens (Ps 119.89–91) and simultaneously a kind of revelation, as “a kind of revealed natural law.”60 The phrase seems fitting as well for Ben Sira’s understanding of general wisdom. It is at the same time universally observable and divinely revealed. In this way, general wisdom contrasts with special wisdom.

Special Wisdom How does Ben Sira distinguish special wisdom from general wisdom? Following the three-point structure of the preceding section, I will show that, for Ben Sira, special wisdom derives from observance of YHWH’s special commandments, rather than from observation of nature; special wisdom is revealed to Israel in particular, not to humanity universally; and special wisdom is codified in the traditions of ancient Israel, particularly in the Torah, not in the international tradition of sagely advice. Let me state at the outset what I am not saying. By distinguishing a special wisdom from the general wisdom revealed to all humanity, I am not suggesting that Israel’s wisdom is different in kind from the wisdom of the nations. Recall my interpretation of Sir 1.9b–10b in chapter 2, where I argued that the two apportionments of wisdom are not distinct in quality but rather in quantity. The second apportionment consists in an additional lavishment of wisdom upon the elect, not a dispensation of a different kind of wisdom. In one sense, my interpretation in this chapter of Ben Sira’s distinction between a general wisdom and a special wisdom is heuristic, meant to empha-

———— 59 60

Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 567. Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 569.

90

CHAPTER THREE

size the point that the relation between Wisdom and Torah is more complex than previous commentators have allowed. In reality the two wisdoms are not so separate in Sirach, but rather belong to a continuum of wisdom. Resorting again to the image employed in the title of the present book, the relation between special wisdom and general wisdom is akin to that between root and the entire plant. Whereas general wisdom is derived from observation of nature, special wisdom stems from observance of YHWH’s special commandments. In the poem which immediately follows the book’s opening poem on wisdom, for example, Ben Sira exhorts his reader: Sir 1.26a b

ἐπιθυμήσας σοφίαν διατήρησον ἐντολάς καὶ κύριος χορηγήσει σοι αὐτήν

Sir 1.26a b

If you desire wisdom, observe the commandments, and YHWH will lavish her upon you.

Here the sage suggests that the means to obtain wisdom is observance of YHWH’s commandments. How can one be sure, however, that the wisdom referred to here is the special wisdom available only to Israel (Sir 1.10b) and not the general wisdom given to all humanity (1.9b–10a)? That Ben Sira has in mind the extra wisdom given to the elect is signaled by the same verb that the sage employed in 1.10b (see chapter 2). Ben Sira suggests that YHWH will “lavish” (χορηγήσει) wisdom upon the one who observes the commandments.61 In this strophe Ben Sira contrasts the sinner who disregards wisdom’s sayings with the pious individual who observes the divine commandments. The latter person, like the elect in 1.10b, receives the additional lavishment of wisdom. Ben Sira’s echo of the special apportionment of wisdom to the elect who love or fear YHWH mentioned in 1.10b, coupled with his suggestion that observance of commandments leads to this kind of wisdom, signals that the sage has in mind special wisdom, and not the general wisdom available to all humanity. Thus, special wisdom is lavished upon the elect and connected to observance of the commandments.62

————

“Commandments” (ἐντολάς) probably reflects Heb. mi ṣwōt; see Sir 15.15. At one point, Ben Sira refers to Israel as YHWH’s “firstborn” (Sir 36.17; cf Exod 4.22). Perhaps the sage found inspiration for the idea that God lavishes extra wisdom upon the elect in the tradition of the firstborn’s double inheritance (see Deut 21.15–17). The biblical notions of firstborn and elect share the idea that members of both categories belong to God (see Exod 13.2, 12; 34.19). I discuss the metaphor of inheritance in Sirach at the end of the present chapter. 61 62


91

Various other passages in Sirach reflect a similar view that Israel’s special wisdom is connected to her observance of divine commandments. In Sir 6.37, for example, Ben Sira encourages continual meditation “on [YHWH’s] commandments” (bm ṣwt w), with the result that YHWH “will make you wise” ( yḥkmk). Or in Sir 15.1, after describing the search for wisdom, Ben Sira asserts that “the one who becomes expert in the Torah (t wpś t wrh)63 will attain [wisdom] ( ydr yknh),” the Torah being Israel’s book of divine commandments. Again, in Sir 19.20b, Ben Sira says, “in all wisdom there is performance of the Torah” (ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ποίησις νόμου).64 In all these cases, the sage suggests that the path to obtaining special wisdom for Israel lies in fulfilling YHWH’s commandments. In the notion that special wisdom derives from observance of YHWH’s commandments lies implicitly the idea that special wisdom is revealed to Israel in particular. The idea that special wisdom is revealed to Israel is seen most clearly, perhaps, in Sir 17.11–14, the verses which immediately follow the passage on the creation of humankind (Sir 17.1–10). After affirming that YHWH gave human beings wisdom from the beginning (17.6–7), Ben Sira abruptly alludes to specific events in Israel’s history (17.11–14). In these verses, Ben Sira moves away from the universal experiences of human beings to events specific to the traditions regarding Israel’s history: the law of life (νόμον ζωῆς),65 an eternal covenant (διαθήκην αἰῶνος),66 judg-

————

On this phrase, compare Jer 2.8: tōpəśê hat tôrâ. One must always ask in each case what Ben Sira means by the term σοφία or ḥokmâ and by the term νόμος or tôrâ. That νόμος in Sir 19.20b refers to the Torah seems clear from the context. First, the term stands in parallelism with φόβος κυρίου (fear of the Lord), which in Sirach refers to a particularly Jewish form of Torah piety (see chapter 5). Second, the term follows directly upon the reference to “the Torah of the Most High” (νόμῳ ὑψίστου) in Sir 19.17b. Sir 19.13–17 alludes to and comments on observing the commandments regarding one’s neighbor in Lev 19.17– 18, indicating that νόμος in Sir 19.20 refers to the Torah. This suggests that by πάσῃ σοφίᾳ (all wisdom) Ben Sira does not mean general wisdom but rather the special wisdom associated with the Torah. The adjective πᾶς here could be translated “supreme.” 65 Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 59) notes that the “law of life” (17.11) refers to the Mosaic law (see Sir 45.5) and that the phrase derives from Deut 30.11–20. 66 Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 59) suggests that the phrase “eternal covenant” (17.12) probably refers to the Sinaitic covenant. Luis Alonso Schökel, however, argues that the eternal nature of the covenant alludes instead to the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 23.5), the Aaronic covenant (Sir 45.15), or the new covenant (Isa 61.8; Jer 32.40; Ezek 16.60; 37.26); see idem, “The Vision of Man,” 63 64

92

CHAPTER THREE

ments (τὰ κρίματα), and commandments “concerning the neighbor” (περὶ τοῦ πλησίον). The Sinai allusions are evident in v 13: Sir 17.13a b

μεγαλεῖον δόξης εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἤκουσεν τὸ οὖς αὐτῶν

Sir 17.13a b

[YHWH’s] magnificent glory their eyes saw, the glory of his voice their ear heard.

Clearly Ben Sira alludes to traditions concerning Israel’s experience of theophany at Sinai, in which they behold YHWH’s glory (Exod 24.16–17; cf. 19.11, 16; 20.18) and hear him speak (Exod 19.9, 16, 19; 20.18, 22).67 This series of allusions conjures up Israel’s experience of special revelation at Sinai, which later Jewish communities associated with the promulgation of the Torah and establishment of the covenant. Some scholars read the abrupt transition between the verses on the creation of humankind (17.1–10) and Israel’s experience at Sinai (17.11–14) in a universal vein. John Collins, for example, suggests that “the law set before Adam and Eve was no different from the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai . . . The law of creation and the law of Sinai are one and the same.”68 Similarly, Núria Calduch-Benages observes, “It is remarkable that in 17:11–14 the argument moves from creation to the Sinaitic revelation, which Ben Sira considers to have universal range.”69 Ben Sira himself, however, seems not to have intended such a universalist interpretation. A few verses later, in 17.17, Ben Sira suggests that Israel’s relationship with YHWH is unique among all the nations. Sir 17.17a b

ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν

Sir 17.17a b

For every nation he appointed a ruler, but YHWH’s portion is Israel.

———— 241. It seems to me that the multiple allusions to the Sinai event favor the interpretation of Collins over that of Alonso Schökel. 67 While the allusions point to the events at Sinai narrated in Exod 19–24, WickeReuter (Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung, 161–4) has shown that Ben Sira’s language reflects the theology of law found in Deuteronomy. 68 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 60. 69 Calduch-Benages (“God, Creator of All,” 82 n 12) cites A. Wénin, “De la création à l’alliance sinaïtique,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, ed. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 147–58, esp. 155–8.


93

In other words, the special way that YHWH relates to Israel—which entails the law of life, the eternal covenant, statutes, and commandments regarding the neighbor—is different from the way he relates to the other nations.70 Importantly, the Torah, this “law of life” which is revealed to Israel in particular, conveys “knowledge” (ἐπιστήμην, 17.11a). This special knowledge available through the Torah recalls the general “knowledge” (ἐπιστήμην) given to human beings at the beginning (17.7). According to Ben Sira, this special apportionment of knowledge or wisdom occurs during a subsequent moment of revelation, this time to YHWH’s special people gathered at Sinai (17.12–14). Moreover, this revelation of wisdom corresponds to the apportionment of wisdom to “those who love [YHWH]” in the book’s opening hymn on wisdom (1.10b).71 Thus one can see that Ben Sira’s notion that special wisdom is revealed in particular to Israel contrasts with his understanding of general wisdom, which is revealed to humanity universally. Rather than reading the abrupt shift in Sir 17.1–14 as suggesting that the general wisdom available to humanity is the same as the special wisdom available to Israel, Ben Sira’s manner of presentation suggests a kind of continuity between general and special wisdom. The two are distinct, but not sharply distinguished. Precisely how is special wisdom—that is, the wisdom that is accessed through the divine commandments and revealed to Israel— concretized? I have already suggested that the Torah serves as the collection of the special commandments that YHWH enjoins upon Israel. And observance of these Torah commandments constitutes Israel’s special wisdom.72 The clearest expression of the notion that the special wisdom revealed to Israel is codified in the Torah is found in Sir 24.23. In this famous verse Ben Sira refers to the wis-

———— 70

Sir 17.17 probably refers to traditions like those found in Deut 32.8 and Dan 10.13–21 regarding the idea that YHWH appointed an angel over the nations to serve as an intermediary. 71 Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 115. 72 Above, I noted that in Sir 6.37 Ben Sira encourages continual meditation “on [YHWH’s] commandments” (bm ṣwt w), with the result that YHWH “will make you wise” ( yḥkmk). The encouragement to meditate on the commandments stands in parallelism with the exhortation to reflect “on the Torah of the Most High” (bt wrt ʿly wn, 6.37a). MS A and Syr. read “on the fear of the Most High” (by rʾt ʿly wn). In light of G (ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασιν κυρίου) and Sir 41.4, 8; 42.2; and 49.4, however, Smend (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 61–2) argues for bt wrt, the reading I also adopt.

94

CHAPTER THREE

dom which was revealed to Israel (Sir 24.8) as “the Torah that Moses commanded us” (νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς). This phrase is quoted verbatim from Deut 33.4. Ben Sira further specifies this wisdom as “the book of the covenant of the Most High God” (βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου). This latter phrase indicates that by “Torah” (νόμον) the sage intends not some generic divine instruction or wisdom teaching but the sacred written traditions of Israel. As Gerald Sheppard notes, in Sir 17.11–12 and 28.7, “the book of the covenant” (βίβλος διαθήκης) is synonymous with “the book of the Torah.”73 As Sheppard has shown, in Sir 24.23 Ben Sira blends the idea of torah (divine instruction) as wisdom from Deuteronomy 4 and 32 with the notion of “the book of the Torah” (sēper hattôrâ) from Deuteronomy 30. Both Deut 4.1–8 and 32.1–47 suggest that Israel’s wisdom depends on her observance of torah, an idea that lies behind Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah. While Deuteronomy 30 does not refer to wisdom, it nonetheless describes the Torah as a book, an idea that informs Ben Sira’s description of Wisdom/Torah as “the book of the covenant.”74 While the phrase “the book of the Torah” in Deuteronomy 30 refers to the collection of laws found in the book of Deuteronomy, in Sir 24.23 Ben Sira imbues the phrase with a more expansive meaning. Sheppard notes that, like the phrase “the Torah of the Most High” (ἐν νόμῳ ὑψίστου, Sir 39.1), the term Torah in Sir 24.23 refers to the five books of Moses. “This combined interpretation of Dt. 4, 30, and 32 provides the biblical basis for Ben Sira’s conclusion that ‘the book of the covenant’ is Wisdom.”75 While I would not use the copula “is” as a kind of equals sign, as Sheppard does, I nonetheless agree that Ben Sira’s description of Torah in Sir 24.23 as a written covenant suggests that

————

Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 62 with n 101. I might add that Sir 17.11 parallels the special wisdom (literally “knowledge,” ἐπιστήμην) which YHWH bestowed upon Israel at Sinai with the “Torah of life” (νόμον ζωῆϛ), suggesting that Israel’s wisdom may be found in the Torah. 74 Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 63–8. See also Gerald T. Sheppard, “Wisdom and Torah: The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underlying Sirach 24:23,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Gary A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 166– 76. 75 Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 68. 73


95

the sage understands Israel’s special wisdom to include the specific content of the nation’s literary heritage. Another indication that Ben Sira has in mind a specific written collection of teaching, and not simply a general corpus of wisdom instruction, lies in his peculiar use of the grammatically singular term “commandment” (m ṣwh). In a few places the singular occurs when one might otherwise expect the plural, even when the context does not indicate that he has in mind a particular statute. For example, in Sir 10.19 the sage suggests that those who “transgress the commandment” (ʿwbr m ṣwh)76 are unworthy of honor. Similarly, in Sir 32.23b Ben Sira writes, “In all your deeds guard yourself, for the one who does this guards the commandment” (šwmr m ṣwh).77 It seems likely that by using the singular “commandment” in this way Ben Sira alludes to Deut 30.10–14.78 Sir 15.15a in particular resonates with this Deuteronomic passage: “if you desire, you can keep his commandment” (t šmr m ṣwh).79 While there is little evidence for verbal dependence of Sir 15.15a on Deut 30.10–14, the ideational connection is clear: both passages stress the possibility of observing the commandment. This allusion to Deuteronomy 30, which refers to “the book of the Torah” (sēper hattôrâ), suggests that Ben Sira considers special wisdom to be associated with the entire written collection of commandments contained in Israel’s Torah.80 In conclusion, whereas general wisdom finds expression in torah, that is, in the instruction of the sages, special wisdom is codified in Israel’s Torah. Concretely, the Torah is a divine guidebook.81 It

———— 76 77

MSS A and B. G, Lat., and Syr. read “the commandments.” MS B. G reads the plural. Cf. also the singular m ṣwt w in Sir

6.37. See Karel van der Toorn, “Sources in Heaven: Revelation as a Scholarly Construct in Second Temple Judaism,” in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kul78

turkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina and Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 2002), 271. 79 MSS A and B. G reads the plural. 80 It seems likely—although it may be difficult to prove—that when he refers to a “Torah” and a “Book of the Covenant,” Ben Sira has in mind more than the five books of the Pentateuch. Indeed, several scholars have suggested that by “Torah” the sage intends to specify the entirety of Israel’s sacred traditions. See van der Toorn, “Sources in Heaven,” 271–2; and Jacob, “Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 255. Nevertheless, since scholars do not know precisely what Ben Sira would have included among Israel’s sacred traditions, they should remain circumspect in making such claims. See Benjamin G. Wright III, “Biblical Interpretation.” 81 See Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 68.

96

CHAPTER THREE

represents the divine wisdom instruction (torah with a lower-case t) par excellence. For Ben Sira, the guidebook instructs individual Jews in how to live their lives with respect to both the ethical and ritual dimensions (see chapter 5). It remains for me to examine how my description of Ben Sira’s understanding of general and special wisdom relates to his notion of election. SPECIAL WISDOM AS ISRAEL’S INHERITANCE Thus far in this chapter, I have argued that the different apportionments of wisdom discussed in chapter 2 amount to general and special revelations. Whereas all creation, which includes all humanity, shares in the general revelation of wisdom through the natural world (general wisdom), only Israel as the elect people of YHWH is privy to the special revelation of wisdom, which according to Ben Sira is conveyed primarily through the Torah (special wisdom). In this section, I demonstrate the importance of such terms as “inheritance” (κληρονομία) and “portion” (μερίς) for what they suggest about Ben Sira’s understanding of the relation between special and general wisdom and, thus, the relationship between Israel and the rest of humanity. For the sage, election implies that the particular is chosen for a special divine purpose, and that this purpose involves some universal benefit.82 In Sir 17.11b, immediately following his account of the creation of humankind, Ben Sira suggests that YHWH allotted to Israel the Torah: Sir 17.11b

καὶ νόμον ζωῆς ἐκληροδότησεν αὐτοῖς

Sir 17.11b

the Torah of life he bequeathed to them.

The verb which the Greek translator uses here (κληροδοτέω) means “to distribute land to” or “to give as an inheritance to.” In the Septuagint, this verb occurs only here and in Ps 78.55 and Ezra 9.12. In the psalmist’s rehearsal of Israel’s history, the verb is used in the context of “settling” the tribes in their “inheritance” after YHWH drives out the nations before them. The Septuagint of Ps 78.55 expresses “inheritance” with a cognate accusative κληροδοσία (cf. MT

———— 82

I discuss Ben Sira’s view of the purpose and universal benefits of Israel’s election in chapters 5 and 6.


97

naḥălâ). In Ezra’s anti-exogamy campaign, the verb κληροδοτέω translates the Hiphil of yr š, and refers to the transfer of the land to subsequent generations. Assuming that a word such as hôr î š lies behind the Greek translation of Sir 17.11b,83 it seems that Ben Sira views the Torah, Israel’s “special wisdom,” as something given by YHWH to Israel as an inheritance, in much the same way that, according to the conquest traditions, the land of Canaan was given to Israel. Ben Sira also employs the more common verb-noun pair κληρονομέω (nḥl, to inherit) and κληρονομία (naḥălâ, inheritance) as well as the noun μερίς (ḥēleq, portion) in order to refer to Israel’s special inheritance of land. The last term appears infrequently in Israel’s wisdom literature,84 but frequently in Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History, and Nehemiah. In Sirach μερίς usually has a common meaning, referring to such things as the “reward” for a rich person’s diligence (11.18), a person’s wealth in life (14.9), or a man’s good wife (26.3, 2x). The noun κληρονομία proves even rarer than μερίς in wisdom texts,85 but appears amply in Numbers, Joshua, Psalms, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. As with the term μερίς, Ben Sira often uses κληρονομία in a generic sense of material inheritance (Sir 22.23; 33.24; 42.3; 44.11; 46.9). In Sirach, both ḥēleq and naḥălâ may also refer to the land allotted to Israel. For example, in speaking of Jacob, Ben Sira suggests that YHWH “gave him his inheritance” (w yt n lw nḥlt w), which he then divided into “portions” (lḥlq) for the twelve tribes (Sir 44.23). In this sense, naḥălâ and ḥēleq refer to a particular piece of property

————

Segal (The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ )קג‬retrojects the near synonym hinḥîl. See Alonso Schökel, “Vision of Man in Sirach,” 241. I am aware of the difficulty in reconstructing the parent Hebrew text from the Greek translation. As Benjamin Wright (No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text, SBLSCS 26 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989], 115) concludes in his study on the techniques of the Greek translator, “The Greek Sir would not seem to provide a firm basis for reconstructions [of the Hebrew parent text]. The grandson’s approach to the Hebrew seems to reflect more of a concern for the message than the medium. This is especially true of lexical representation in that the grandson seems primarily concerned with what is communicated rather than consistency of representation.” 84 μερίς occurs 2x in Proverbs, 5x in Job, and 7x in Ecclesiastes. Ben Sira uses the term 13x. 85 In Israel’s older wisdom literature, κληρονομία appears only in Job 31.2 and 42.15. Ben Sira employs the term 18x. 83

98

CHAPTER THREE

designated by YHWH for each tribe from all the land theoretically available for Israel to possess. A variation on this basic idea of “inheritance” and “portion” as land allotted to the tribes occurs in the biblical tradition when it speaks of the priests. In Numbers 18, YHWH instructs Aaron and the priests: Num 18.20a

‫תוֹכם‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ַא ְר ָצם לֹא ִתנְ ָחל וְ ֵח ֶלק לֹא־יִ ְהיֶ ה ְלָך ְבּ‬

Num 18.20a

In their land you shall not have an inheritance, and no portion shall you have in their midst.

The rest of the verse offers a compensation for the restriction on priests holding hereditary land: Num 18.20b Num 18.20b

‫ֲא ִני ֶח ְל ְקָך וְ נַ ֲח ָל ְתָך ְבּתוְֹך ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ I will be your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the Israelites.

Since priests cannot possess hereditary land, YHWH becomes the portion or inheritance of the priests in Israel.86 When Ben Sira eulogizes the priest Aaron, he echoes with close verbal resemblance the tradition in Numbers 18, in which the priests are not permitted to hold hereditary land. Sir 45.22a b Sir 45.22a b

‫[ לא ינחל‬.....] ‫אך‬ ‫ובתוכם לא יחלק נחלה‬ But [in the people’s land]87 he does not inherit, and in their midst he shares no inheritance.

Ben Sira, like Num 18, suggests that as a consequence, YHWH himself is the priests’ portion. Sir 45.22c

αὐτὸς γὰρ μερίς σου καὶ κληρονομία88

Sir 45.22c

For [YHWH] is his portion and inheritance.

————

86 The psalmist plays on this special relationship between God and the priests: “God is my portion (helqî )” (Ps 73.26). 87 The gap in MS B Sir 45.22a can easily be reconstructed from G: πλὴν ἐν γῇ λαοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσει. 88 MS B is poorly preserved at this point. MS B and Syr. add a colon (45.22d; missing in G), which perhaps reads “in the midst of the Israelites.” Cf. Num 18.20b, cited above.


99

Thus, for Ben Sira, as well as for the Priestly tradition upon which he draws, YHWH is the portion and inheritance of the select group of Israelites which make up the priesthood. In other instances, these terms express something about the relationship between YHWH and Israel. It should be evident that, when used to refer to the allotment of land to the tribes of Israel, the notion of “inheritance” or “portion” is based upon the idea of election. Ben Sira builds upon this connection between “inheritance” and “election” by specifically employing the vocabulary of “portion” to describe the special position of Israel among the nations. In contrast to the other nations, over whom YHWH has appointed a ruler or an angel, Israel, according to Ben Sira, is YHWH’s “portion.” Sir 17.17a b

ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν

Sir 17.17a b

For every nation he appointed a ruler, but Israel is YHWH’s own portion.

Ben Sira’s notion that Israel is YHWH’s own portion is likely based on the idea expressed in Deut 32.8 (cf. Deut 4.19 and Dan 10.13– 21) that all the other nations were headed by an angelic intermediary, while Israel, in contrast, was ruled directly by YHWH.89 By employing the term μερίς, the sage suggests that Israel is YHWH’s hereditary portion, analogous to the hereditary land of the tribes. Perhaps Ben Sira’s inspiration for the notion that Israel is YHWH’s special inheritance derives from the use of nḥl in Deut 32.8 to describe the distribution of ruling angels to other nations. For Ben Sira, then, Israel remains distinct from other nations in the sense that it possesses a special relationship with YHWH. The language of inheritance and the notion of Israel as YHWH’s special inheritance reappears in Sir 24. In her autobiography, Wisdom describes how she sought an “inheritance” (κληρονομίᾳ) among all the nations of the earth (24.6–7). The “creator” then instructs Wisdom, “Obtain your inheritance” (κατακληρονομήθητι) in Israel, which parallels the command, “Pitch your tent” (κατασκήνωσον) in Jacob (Sir 24.8). Thus, YHWH elects Israel as the place for Wisdom to obtain her hereditary land. Later, when Wisdom describes the fulfillment of this command, she recounts how she settled

———— 89

In Daniel’s vision, however, even the Jews have their own angelic patron, Michael, who intermediates with YHWH.

100

CHAPTER THREE

in Israel: “in the portion of YHWH is my inheritance” (ἐν μερίδι κυρίου κληρονομία μου, Sir 24.12).90 Thus, through the language of inheritance, Ben Sira connects the idea that Israel as a people is YHWH’s hereditary landholding with the notion that Wisdom resides particularly in Israel. While Israel is Wisdom’s inheritance, in the sense that Israel is the place where Wisdom especially dwells, Ben Sira also speaks of Wisdom herself as an inheritance. In Sir 24.20, Wisdom says: Sir 24.20a b

τὸ γὰρ μνημόσυνόν μου ὑπὲρ τὸ μέλι γλυκύ καὶ ἡ κληρονομία μου ὑπὲρ μέλιτος κηρίον

Sir 24.20a b

For memory of me is sweeter than honey, my inheritance sweeter than the honeycomb.

The first half of this bicolon suggests that the possessive pronouns in both cola should be read as objective genitives. Wisdom speaks not of her own recollection or of her own inheritance of land, but rather of the one who calls her to mind or obtains her as an inheritance. Thus, Ben Sira views Wisdom herself as an inheritance to possess, analogous to YHWH as an inheritance for the priests. Indeed, this notion of Wisdom as an inheritance seems to lie behind the correlation Ben Sira makes between Wisdom and Torah in Sir 24.23. In this famous verse, the sage suggests that this Wisdom which has taken root in Israel is the Torah which Moses transmitted to Israel “as an inheritance” (κληρονομίαν). Sir 24.23a b c

ταῦτα πάντα βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς κληρονομίαν συναγωγαῖς Ιακωβ91

Sir 24.23a

All this is the Book of the Covenant of the Most High God, the Torah which Moses enjoined upon us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob.

b c

————

90 Reading with Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 238. Some Gk. MSS read ἐν μερίδι κυρίου κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ, apparently “in the portion of YHWH, his inheritance,” although the genitive form κληρονομίας seems odd. 91 Although it has received little notice in the commentaries, the appearance of νόμον in the accusative case, rather than the nominative, is puzzling. Perhaps one could best explain the accusative by positing that Ben Sira’s grandson was taking pains to provide an exact quotation of Deut 33.4.


101

The last two lines cite LXX Deut 33.4 verbatim. In MT, Deut 33.4 reads: Deut 33.4a b

‫ה־לנוּ מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ָ ָ‫תּוֹרה ִצוּ‬ ָ ‫מוֹר ָשׁה ְק ִה ַלּת יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ָ

Where the LXX (and Ben Sira) use κληρονομία, MT reads môrā šâ, a near synonym for naḥălâ. While Deut 33.4 certainly does not understand the term tôrâ as a reference to the Pentateuch, it seems likely, given what I have already discovered about his notion of special wisdom, that Ben Sira does refer here to the five books of Moses. Thus, Ben Sira clarifies that the wisdom contained in the Torah, which I have labeled “special wisdom,” is Israel’s particular inheritance.92 Analogous to the land of Canaan, which YHWH bequeathed to Israel as an inheritance, special wisdom is the inheritance which YHWH allotted to Israel in the Torah. Inheritance suggests the notion of a subset of the whole. In the same way that the land of Canaan is the subset of territory allotted to Israel, special wisdom is the subset of universal wisdom allotted to Israel. The ideas of portion and inheritance share in common with the concept of election the notion that a part has been separated from the whole. This is most obvious in a passage such as Sir 7.31 (cf. 45.20), in which μερίς refers to the “portion” of the offering which is due the priest.93 Thus, drawing inspiration from such passages as Numbers 18, Deut 33.4, and Deut 32.8, Ben Sira developed the metaphor of inheritance in order to talk about Israel’s special relationship to wisdom. The metaphor of inheritance served not only to explain Israel as the special place where Wisdom has taken up residence on earth, but also to describe Wisdom or Torah as the special possession of the Jewish people.

————

Speaking about the inheritance language of Sir 24.23, Sheppard (Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 68) says that Ben Sira “expresses the idea of nearness (Dt. 92

4 and 30) more concretely in the election vocabulary, found elsewhere within Deuteronomy (e.g., Dt. 3:18ff., 12:1ff.), of a divine ‘possession’ or ‘inheritance’ in Israel.” 93 See my discussion of Sir 7.31 in chapter 5.

102

CHAPTER THREE

CONCLUSION: ELECTION AND REVELATION What does this twofold nature of wisdom’s revelation mean for Ben Sira’s understanding of election? Viewing wisdom in terms of revelation illumines the way in which the election dynamic works in Ben Sira’s thinking. The notion of election is a correlate to the notion of revelation. While YHWH, the creator, reveals himself to all humanity through a general wisdom poured out upon all creation and observable through the natural world, he also elects Israel to be the recipient of a special wisdom, revealed to her through the Torah. Israel’s election is purposeful, as I shall show in chapters 5 and 6, in that her practice of special wisdom sustains and renews the created order and her divine rescue brings the nations to a proper acknowledgment of YHWH. Moreover, by delineating Ben Sira’s view of wisdom in terms of general and special revelation, I have complicated the facile judgment offered by most scholars, namely, that Ben Sira’s wisdom is universal or, in contrast, particular. Ben Sira’s view of wisdom cannot be construed as completely universal, because he understands special wisdom to have been revealed to Israel alone. Nor can his view of wisdom be wholly particularistic, because he sees general wisdom as having been revealed to all humanity. Rather, as my discussion of the metaphor of inheritance suggests, Ben Sira imagines the relation of special and general wisdom as the relation of part to whole. In the same way that the land of Canaan was chosen by YHWH from all the earth as a place for Israel to dwell, so also special wisdom was selected from universal wisdom as the special inheritance of the Jewish people. In this way, Israel’s special wisdom, the Torah, may be understood not only as “the Jewish particularization” of the universal wisdom found in the world, but also as “the supreme exemplification” of that wisdom.94 In the following chapter, I explore the mechanisms by which Ben Sira thought Israel’s inheritance of special wisdom ought to be preserved and transmitted.

———— 94

Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 568.

CHAPTER FOUR

ELECTION AND TRADITION: THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION OF WISDOM At the conclusion to chapter 3, I showed that Ben Sira employs the vocabulary of inheritance to describe the relation between the elect people of Israel and their special wisdom. In his multivalent use of this metaphor, not only does Israel constitute the inheritance of personified Wisdom—that is, the place where Wisdom resides—but Wisdom herself constitutes a desirable inheritance (Sir 24.20). Indeed, Ben Sira describes the Torah as the special wisdom that Moses transmitted to Israel “as an inheritance” (Sir 24.23). The very notion of “inheritance” in the Hebrew Bible, to which Ben Sira alludes, suggests a portion to be preserved and transmitted within a lineage from generation to generation. As I noted, Ben Sira uses this same terminology in a concrete sense1 when he refers to the allotment of tribal lands to Israel (Sir 44.23). Thus, the metaphorical use of these terms to describe Israel’s relation to Wisdom suggests that Ben Sira views the Torah, Israel’s “special wisdom,” as something bequeathed to Israel, analogous to the bestowal of the land of Canaan in the conquest traditions. Given that Israel, in Ben Sira’s view, was entrusted with an inheritance of special wisdom, I seek in the present chapter to answer the question: What particular mechanisms for preserving Israel’s wisdom did the sage envision? Ben Sira clearly associates wisdom instruction with a tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Sir 8.9a b Sir 8.9a b

————

‫אל תמאס בשמיעת שבים‬ ‫אשר שמעו מאבתם‬ Do not reject the tradition of the elders which they learned from their ancestors.

1 For the common usage of μερίς (portion), see Sir 11.18; 14.9; and 26.3 (2x). For the generic sense of κληρονομία (inheritance), see Sir 22.23; 33.24; 42.3; 44.11; and 46.9.

104

CHAPTER FOUR

While the inheritance metaphor implies the necessity to preserve and transmit wisdom, the metaphor itself provides little help in answering this question. Is there an approach by which one might discern precisely what Ben Sira thought the mechanisms for conserving and handing on Wisdom among the elect should be? A “PRINCIPLE OF SUCCESSION” IN SIRACH? On the surface, the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old in Sirach 44–50 appears to present a human chain of transmission. Might this chain be the mechanism by which Ben Sira imagined wisdom to be preserved and transmitted? The hymn recounts a series of mostly heroic individuals in Israel’s history.2 In this series of individuals, Martin Hengel sees evidence for a “‘principle of succession’ . . . by which the continuity of salvation history is guaranteed.”3 Hengel compares Ben Sira’s account of succession to the succession of kings and prophets in the history of Eupolemus, to the reference by Josephus to “the exact succession of the prophets” (τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν), and to the chain of transmission for the oral Torah in Pirqê ʾAbot.4 “The continuity of tradition,” he argues, “is meant to provide rational backing for the ancestral heritage and to support its authority.”5 In particular, Hengel points to three specific examples of succession. In Sir 46.1, Ben Sira describes Joshua as the “minister” (m šrt) of Moses. Ben Sira derives this title from the descriptions of Joshua in Exod 24.13; 33.11; Num 11.28; and Josh 1.1. While it is true that in the Deuteronomistic narrative Joshua succeeds Moses after the latter’s death, the title m šrt never otherwise implies succession in the Bible. Moreover, had Ben Sira wanted to emphasize Joshua’s role as successor, he could have alluded to the account of his suc-

————

2 Note, however, Teresa R. Brown’s observation that the hymn does not deem the actions of all the figures as praiseworthy (“God and Men in Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in Praise of the Fathers [Sir 44–50],” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002], 214–20). 3 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:136. 4 Eupolemus, FHG 723, frag. 2b (Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.30.1–34.18) and frag. 5 (Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.39.2–5); Josephus, C. Ap. 1.41; m. ʾAbot 1.1–18. 5 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:136.

ELECTION AND TRADITION

105

cession through laying on of hands and spirit possession (Deut 34.9). The other two examples offered by Hengel imply more clearly some type of succession. In Sir 47.12, the sequence moves from David to Solomon: “[And] because of [David] there arose after him (ʿmd ʾḥr y w) a discerning son who dwelt in security.” The phrase ʿmd ʾḥr y w implies that Solomon followed his father in the position of king. In Sir 48.12, the succession proceeds from Elijah to Elisha. While MS B is badly damaged in this verse, G reads: “When Elijah was shrouded in the whirlwind, Elisha was filled with his spirit” (καὶ Ελισαιε ἐνεπλήσθη πνεύματος αὐτοῦ). The reference to Elisha’s inspiration with Elijah’s spirit recalls the story in 2 Kgs 2.1– 25, in which the former succeeds the latter. Curiously, however, Ben Sira does not mention the transfer of the mantel from Elijah to Elisha, which in the biblical story also signals succession. In addition to these purported examples of succession, only two of which seem to expressly note any transfer of office or authority, Hengel observes that on three occasions Ben Sira employs the Aramaic word taḥălîp (successor), a term not found in the Hebrew Bible.6 In the first occurrence, Sir 44.17, the figure in question is Noah. MS M is damaged in v 17b, but MS B reads “at the time of destruction hyh tḥly p.” The ancient versions and modern commentators vary widely in their interpretation of this term.7 If the term does indeed mean “successor” here, the implication is that Noah succeeds the generation that died in the flood. The second occurrence in Sir 46.12 concerns the judges. Ben Sira says, “[the judges] never abandoned God; may their memory be a blessing and their name a tḥly p to their children.”8 Here the term

————

6 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:136. The term tḥly p is an Aramaic noun based on the verb ḥălap (to pass away, change). In Hebrew, ܰ the verb ḥālap means “to pass on or away, pass through.” Its Syriac cognate (ḥəlap) means “to change, substitute,” and its Arabic cognate kalap̄ a means “to come after, succeed, replace” (cf., e.g., the Arabic noun “caliph”). 7 G reads ἐγένετο ἀντάλλαγμα (he became something offered in exchange). Skehan and Di Lella translate MS B as “he kept the race alive” (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 503). In Sir 44.17, tḥly p must be a noun, because it is paired with the verb hāyâ. 8 G reads καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν ἀντικαταλλασσόμενον ἐφ᾿ υἱοῖς δεδοξασμένων αὐτῶν (and may their name be received upon the offspring of those who have been glorified), apparently construing tḥly p as a verb. Here the term cannot be construed as a Hiphil verb, however, because šēm is always masculine.

106

CHAPTER FOUR

implies the transmission of a name or reputation from father to children as a kind of legacy. This should not be construed, however, as suggesting a succession of judges within a family line; in the book of Judges, the office of the judge does not pass from one person to the next.9 Rather, judges arise as charismatic leaders in times of military crisis. The third occurrence in Sir 48.8 concerns the succession from Elijah to Elisha. Addressing himself to Elijah, Ben Sira says, you appointed “a prophet as successor in your stead” (wnbyʾ tḥly p tḥt y k). In this instance the term clearly refers to succession from one figure to the next. Overall, the few examples deduced, and the weakness of some of them, suggest that Ben Sira does not intend his hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old as a great series of successors in the sense that Hengel intends. Indeed, Amram Tropper’s work, which suggests that Pirqê ʾAbot was modeled on Hellenistic succession lists, shows the deficiencies in Hengel’s attempt to portray Sirach 44–49 as a chain of transmission.10 It is true that Pirqê ʾAbot and Sirach 44–49 evidence several similarities: both trace a “non-familial” series;11 both contain “a bare-bones outline of Jewish history”;12 and “after following a chronological order, both seem to include a chronologically misplaced afterthought” (m. ʾAbot 5.6 and Sir 49.14–19).13 Despite these similarities, however, Sirach 44–49 differs from Pirqê ʾAbot in that it does “not present a teacher-disciple succession schema in a scholastic setting as found in Avot.”14 The remark of John Collins supports Tropper’s position: Sirach 44–49 “singles out

———— 9

One apparent exception to the non-familial succession rule in Judges is the sequence of Gideon and Abimelech. Neither figure, however, is ever referred to as a šōpēṭ (judge), although arguably Gideon is depicted as one. 10 Amram Tropper, “Tractate Avot and Early Christian Succession Lists,” in The

Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2003), 166. See also his monograph on Pirqê ʾAbot: Amram Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East, OOM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 11 Tropper, “Tractate Avot,” 166. 12 Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 58. 13 Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 58 n 39. 14 Tropper, “Tractate Avot,” 166 n 17. Tropper follows the work of Elias Bickerman, “La chaîne de la Tradition Pharisienne,” RB 59 (1952): 44–54; reprinted in Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: Ktav, 1977), 127–37.


107

individuals as examples to be praised but presents no continuous historical narrative.”15 Thus, Hengel’s judgment that Sirach 44–49 presents a succession list cannot be maintained in the strict sense of that term.16 If Sirach 44–49 does not portray a chain of transmission for wisdom, is there other evidence in Sirach for the mechanisms by which the sage thought wisdom ought to be preserved and transmitted? A perusal of Sirach suggests that various institutions serve as important means, in Ben Sira’s view, for preserving wisdom and transmitting it to future generations. Specifically, the sage alludes to four institutions that play a role in conserving and handing on wisdom: the family, the king, the scribe, and the priest. In order to measure the significance of these institutions for Ben Sira, I will compare these four institutions in Sirach with the same institutions as they are portrayed in the book of Proverbs.17 Such a comparison will show that Ben Sira marginalizes the role of the king and, to a certain extent, the family, while he elevates the importance of the scribe and introduces the role of the priest as preserver and transmitter of wisdom. Let me first treat the family.

————

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 97. In light of this evidence, I concur with Tropper’s (“Tractate Avot,” 166) suggestion that “pre-rabbinic Jewish writings do not seem to offer a compelling literary precedent for th[e] type of succession” found in Pirqê ʾAbot. Italics added. James Crenshaw has suggested that the background to Pirqê ʾAbot’s succession list lies in the Mesopotamian tradition of the apkallu and ummānu (Old Testament Wisdom, 5). Against Crenshaw, Tropper (“Tractate Avot,” 166 n 17) argues that “it seems unlikely that this motif would have lain dormant throughout Hebrew wisdom literature only to appear in Avot for the very first time.” 17 Richard Clifford first suggested this approach to me. He briefly analyzes the mediating institutions in the book of Proverbs and concludes, “These three ‘institutions’—king, scribes . . . , and heads of families—mediated the divine wisdom that the human race requires in order to live at a human level and be good servants of God.” See Richard J. Clifford, “The Community of the Book of Proverbs,” in Con15 16

stituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr., ed. John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 281–93; quotation at 282.

108

CHAPTER FOUR

THE FAMILY

Proverbs In the long-standing debate about the social location of the book of Proverbs, some scholars have argued that chapters 10–29 contain numerous sayings that originated in the lives of ordinary folk who were situated in small agricultural villages. Claus Westermann suggests, “It is th[e] realm of the simple person and his everyday life out of which the proverbs have grown.”18 Westermann’s student, Friedemann Golka, argues that many of the sayings in the book of Proverbs represent an “indigenous Israelite wisdom” that “originated among ordinary people.”19 Similarly, Norman Whybray concludes that “the origins of the ‘sentence literature’ in the book of Proverbs are primarily to be sought in the life of the people of Israel itself” and that the central collections in the book of Proverbs (10.1–22.16; 25–29) derive from “ordinary people” who are “of moderate means.”20 While Westermann, Golka, and Whybray certainly overstate the case for the family and village origins of much of this material, some of the individual proverbs no doubt derive from the daily lives of ordinary people. As Michael Fox observes, some proverbs not only are about the lives of simple folk but also “speak from within” this milieu.21 Moreover, the father-son instructions in Proverbs 1–9 and elsewhere suggest a family setting for the transmission of wisdom.22

————

Claus Westermann, Roots of Wisdom: The Oldest Proverbs of Israel and Other Peoples, trans. J. Daryl Charles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 60. Cf. 18

pp 24, 56. 19 Friedemann W. Golka, The Leopard’s Spots: Biblical and African Wisdom in Proverbs (London: T&T Clark, 2004). The quotations appear on pp 15 and 13, respectively. See also pp 28–29, 31, 32, 34. The first two chapters of Golka’s book, from which these citations are taken, appeared originally as Friedemann W. Golka, “Die israelitische Weisheitsschule oder ‘Des Kaisers neue Kleider,’” VT 33 (1983): 257–70; and idem, “Die Königs- und Hofsprüche und der Ursprung der israelitischen Weisheit,” VT 36 (1986): 13–36. 20 R. N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). The quotations are taken from pp 73 and 61, respectively. 21 Michael V. Fox, “The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. idem (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 233. 22 Prov 1.10, 15; 2.1; 3.1, 11, 21; 4.10, 20; 5.1, 20; 6.1, 3, 20; 7.1; 19.27; 23.15, 19, 26; 24.13, 21; 27.11. Cf. the plural bānîm (sons) in Prov 4.1. It is interesting to note that outside of Proverbs 1–9, five of the seven occurrences of “my


109

Some have argued that the father-son instruction constitutes a literary fiction,23 or that the father-son relationship represents metaphorically the teacher-pupil relationship.24 But as Fox points out, in comparable Egyptian wisdom instructions “the . . . authors are . . . speaking to their actual sons.”25 In the Instruction of Any, for example, the scribe’s self portrait as a minor official speaking to his son suggests that the text reflects a literal father-son relationship, not a figurative teacher-pupil setting.26 Similarly, Amenemope’s address to “his son, the youngest of his children, the smallest of his family” points to a familial setting, not a metaphorical school setting.27 The comparison with Egyptian wisdom instructions suggests that a literal father-son relationship is imagined by the authors of Proverbs. In addition to the external parallels provided by Egyptian wisdom instructions, internal evidence also indicates that the father-son instruction of Proverbs is more than literary or metaphorical. The exhortations in Prov 1.8 and 6.20 for the son to obey not only his father’s teaching but also that of his mother reveals that the author refers to the concrete reality of the family, not some school setting. Or, as Fox observes, the reference in Prov 4.3–4 to the author’s own youth, when his father taught him, “envisions education in the family, not the school.”28 Thus, we can conclude that the book of Proverbs promotes the family as one mechanism for preserving and transmitting wisdom.

————

son” appear in Prov 22.17–24.22, perhaps a reflection of the influence of the Instructions of Amenemope. Against this speculation, however, Richard Clifford argues that only Prov 22.17–23.11 evidences the influence of Amenemope, and none of the references to “my son” occur in those sayings (Proverbs: A Commentary [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 200). 23 Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” 116–31. 24 James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 188–9, 198–9. 25 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 8. 26 See, for example, Instr. Any 8.10–14; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:135–46. 27 Instr. Amenemope 2.14–15; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:149. 28 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 9. For the family as a setting for instruction in Israelite wisdom, see further Roland E. Murphy, “Israelite Wisdom and the Home,” in “Où

demeures-tu?” (Jn 1,38): la maison depuis le monde biblique: en hommage au professeur Guy Couturier à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans, ed. Jean Claude Petit,

André Charron, and André Myre (Montreal: Fides, 1994), 199–212; and Carole R. Fontaine, “The Sage in Family and Tribe,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 155–64.

110

CHAPTER FOUR

This last-mentioned father-son instruction in Prov 4.1–9, where the father recounts what his father once instructed him, provides one of the clearest expressions of the family’s role in transmitting wisdom in the entire book: Prov 4.4b c 5a b Prov 4.4b c 5a b

‫ְך־דּ ָב ַרי ִל ֶבָּך‬ ְ ‫יִ ְת ָמ‬ ‫ְשׁמֹר ִמ ְצו ַֺתי וֶ ְחיֵ ה‬ ‫ְקנֵ ה ָח ְכ ָמה ְקנֵ ה ִבינָ ה‬ ‫י־פי‬ ִ ‫ל־תּט ֵמ ִא ְמ ֵר‬ ֵ ‫ל־תּ ְשׁ ַכּח וְ ַא‬ ִ ‫ַא‬ Let your heart grasp my words; keep my commandments and live. Acquire wisdom; acquire understanding. Do not forget and do not turn aside from the words of my mouth.

Here the father closely associates his own words with wisdom. To heed the father’s advice is tantamount to the acquisition of wisdom itself.29

Ben Sira Ben Sira continues the wisdom tradition of addressing his teaching to “my son.” In the Greek text, τέκνον (child) appears in the vocative eighteen times.30 In twelve of these, the extant Hebrew texts reflect bənî (my son).31 In addition, Ben Sira addresses the plural τέκνα (children) three times32 and υἱοὶ (sons) one time.33 Of course, the question must still be raised: Is Ben Sira literally instructing his son? Or is the form of address a metaphorical reference to his pupils or readers? In Sirach, there are no familial details or other internal

————

29 The father-son instruction in Prov 2 also identifies the father’s words with wisdom. See especially vv 1–8. 30 Sir 2.1; 3.12, 17; 4.1; 6.18, 23, 32; 10.28; 11.10; 14.11; 16.24; 18.15; 21.1; 31.22; 37.27; 38.9, 16; 40.28. 31 Sir 3.12, 17; 4.1; 6.32; 10.28; 11.10 (MSS A and B); 14.11 (MS A); 31.22; 37.27 (MSS B and D); 38.9, 16 (MS B); 40.28 (MS Bmg for MS Btxt mny). In addition, bny is attested in 41.11 MS Bmg (no parallel in G), but bny is not attested in 16.24 MS A, where G reads τέκνον. According to Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 480), traces of bny are also discernible in MS B 42.11a. 32 Sir 3.1; 23.7; 41.14. MSS B and M have no equivalent in 41.14. 33 Sir 39.13. Because the verb εἰσακούω may take its object in the genitive case, one could translate the preposition μου with the verb (“Listen to me”) instead of with the noun (“my sons”), as Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 455) do. For a text-critical analysis of this colon, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 456.


111

indicators, which might imply that Ben Sira addresses a literal son. Therefore, it seems best to conclude that in Sirach the address to “my son” has taken on a purely literary quality. The “son” whom Ben Sira aims to instruct is his reader, or, perhaps, his pupil.34 Despite the literary nature of the father-son address in Sirach, Ben Sira refers on several occasions to the importance of instructing children. Sirach 7.23, for example, exhorts the one with children to “discipline them” (παίδευσον αὐτὰ) and “make them obedient” (κάμψον . . . τὸν τράχηλον αὐτῶν, literally “bend their neck”).35 Frequent disciplining of children is one item in a catalog of things about which one should not be ashamed (42.1–8). Ben Sira also discusses the negative consequences of failing to discipline a child: “The shame of a father lies in the birth of an undisciplined son” (αἰσχύνη πατρὸς ἐν γεννήσει ἀπαιδεύτου, 22.3). Sirach 16.1–3 suggests that it is better to die childless than to raise worthless or ungodly children. Ben Sira’s most sustained discussion of child training appears in 30.1–13, which may be divided into two sections. The first section (30.1–6) commends discipline of a son for its benefits: discipline and instruction result in a product with which the father will be pleased (30.1) and which will evoke jealousy in the father’s enemies and joy in the father himself (30.3). The second section of the poem describes negative consequences of not disciplining a son (30.7–13). Ben Sira’s treatment of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam in the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old illustrates the point: David was honored by his wise son Solomon (47.12), while Solomon was shamed by his foolish son Rehoboam (47.23). Thus, by not using the father-son instruction literally, Ben Sira, in comparison to Proverbs, may downplay the significance of the family in preserving and transmitting wisdom. It should be clear, how-

————

Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 150) suggest that “my son/child(ren)” in Sirach represents merely the form of address to one’s pupils. Benjamin Wright begins with the premise that the father-son instruction in Sirach constitutes a literary device and then explores the rhetorical power that this construct wields over readers as children (“From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu [Leiden: Brill, 2006], 309–32). 35 MSS A, C, and Syr. have “take for them wives.” For text-critical issues, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 204. 34

112

CHAPTER FOUR

ever, from his various references to the importance of disciplining children that Ben Sira still views the Jewish family as one mechanism by which wisdom is distributed from generation to generation. THE KING

Proverbs In the book of Proverbs, the royal court is arguably the most important institution for the preservation and transmission of wisdom. The root mlk occurs 34 times36 in Proverbs, mostly as the masculine singular noun melek (23 times).37 Other terms for rulers such as rôzənîm (rulers)38 and śār îm (princes)39 appear five times in total, often in parallelism with məlākîm (kings). An analysis of these occurrences offers the following portrait of kingship, as sketched by the editors of the book of Proverbs. First, many of these sayings suggest that the king is responsible for justice.40 For instance: Prov 29.4 Prov 29.4

‫ֶמ ֶלְך ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט יַ ֲע ִמיד ָא ֶרץ‬ A king, by justice, maintains the land.

In the worldview of Proverbs, the king sits at the apex of the social order and through just rule sustains that order, a notion that the wisdom tradition shares with the royal ideology of Psalm 89.41

———— 36

Prov 1.1; 8.15 (2x); 14.28, 35; 16.10, 12, 13, 14, 15; 19.12; 20.2, 8, 26, 28; 21.1; 22.11, 29; 24.21; 25.1, 2, 3, 5, 6; 29.4, 14; 30.22, 27, 28, 31; 31.1, 3, 4 (2x). 37 The plural noun occurs 9 times, and the root occurs twice as a verb. 38 Prov 8.15; 31.4. 39 Prov 8.16; 19.10; 28.2. 40 Prov 16.10, 12, 15; 20.8, 26; 29.4, 14; cf. 25.5. 41 In one scholarly interpretation of kingship in ancient Israel, the king was viewed as the paterfamilias, and his kingdom constituted his “house” or “household” (bayit) over which he presided. See, for example, Lawrence E. Stager, “Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 149– 51, 171–2; Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1998), 6–7, 13–14; Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 4–5; and J. David Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East, SAHL 2 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 54, 252–67.


113

Second, the king and his court govern by means of wisdom.42 Proverbs 8.15–16 unites this second point with the first. There personified Wisdom says: Prov 8.15a b 16a b Prov 8.15a b 16a b

‫ִבּי ְמ ָל ִכים יִ ְמֹלכוּ‬ ‫וְ רוֹזְ ִנים יְ ח ְֹקקוּ ֶצ ֶדק‬ ‫ִבּי ָשׂ ִרים יָ שׂרוּ‬ ‫וּנְ ִד ִיבים ָכּל־שׁ ְֹפ ֵטי ֶצ ֶדק‬ By me kings reign and rulers legislate what is right. By me princes govern, and nobles, all who judge what is right.

Indeed, it is the king’s wisdom which enables him to rule justly. Third, the king serves as a sponsor of wisdom (Solomon in 1.1; Hezekiah in 25.1; Lemuel, king of Massa, in 31.1). Fox’s study on the social location of Proverbs confirms the importance of the royal court in the selection and editing process which led to the book’s formation. As Fox observes, many of these sayings “speak not only about kings and courtiers, but to and for them.”43 For the book of Proverbs, therefore, the royal court constitutes the most important institution for the preservation and dissemination of wisdom. Not only do many individual sayings take as their topic “the king,” but some of the collections of the very book itself comprise the products of the royal court.44 Moreover, the introduction to the book as a whole (Prov 1.1–7) characterizes the work as “the proverbs of Solomon . . . , king of Israel” which serve the purpose of “learning wisdom and instruction.”

Ben Sira Given that Jewish kingship was nonexistent in Ben Sira’s day, the number of times the sage mentions kings comes, at first glance, as a surprise. Taking into account the extant Hebrew and Greek wit-

———— 42

Prov 8.15–16; 20.26; 25.2; 30.28. Fox, “The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs,” 235. Italics in original. 44 Of course a composite book such as Proverbs seldom speaks univocally. One verse in the Words of Agur may diminish the king’s importance to wisdom: the locusts who have no king nonetheless display great wisdom in their organization (Prov 30.27). This verse does not detract, however, from the book’s overall association between wisdom and the monarchy. 43

114

CHAPTER FOUR

nesses, Ben Sira uses the term “king” (melek,45 βασιλεύς46) some twenty times. Many of these references to “kings” appear in chapters 44–50, the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old.47 One should reckon with the possibility that melek refers to the Seleucid or Ptolemaic emperor. This seems unlikely, however, in many occurrences. For instance, Sir 7.4–5 cautions against seeking from the melek a “seat of honor” or parading one’s intelligence before him. But as Richard Horsley and Patrick Tiller point out, “Ben Sira’s readers were [not] in a position to petition the emperor for any position of honor.”48 It seems reasonable to conclude that in such sayings the term melek refers either to an indigenous Judean king, even though kingship was not operative at the time, or to the de facto head of state. According to Martha Himmelfarb, Ben Sira downplays the importance of ancient Israel’s kings and suggests that kingship itself was defective.49 As in the Deuteronomistic History, so also in Sirach: only David, Hezekiah, and Josiah receive unqualified praise (Sir 49.4). David is remembered mainly for his military prowess and musical abilities (Sir 47.2–11), but even his royal covenant serves as a foil for the broader priestly covenant implemented through Aaron (45.25). Solomon, of course, is praised for his wisdom, but his reputation was marred by his failure to live up to the Deuteronomic ideal of kingship: he amassed wealth, entered marital alliances, and

————

45 Sir 7.4, 5; 10.3, 10; 38.2, 3; 45.3; 46.20; 48.6; 49.4; 50.3 (MS B; transposed with 50.2 in Gk.), 7; 51.12n. MS A has melek twice in Sir 7.5, but G reads κύριoς (Lord) for the first instance. The verb mlk appears once in reference to Solomon’s rule (47.13), the noun malkût (kingdom) occurs twice (10.8; 44.3), and the noun mamleket once (47.11). 46 Sir 7.4, 5; 8.2; 10.3, 10; 38.2; 45.3, 25; 46.20; 47.11; 48.6, 8, 23; 49.4; 51.6. Sir 51.1 refers to God as king. βασιλεία (kingdom, sg. and pl.) also occurs in Sir 10.8; 44.3; 46.13; and 47.21. 47 Jeremy Corley, “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), 155–82. Wright assesses the source of Ben Sira’s ideals of kingship and concludes that he depends primarily on the biblical traditions and does not rely on Hellenistic peri basileias literature (“Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship,” 80–8). 48 Richard A. Horsley and Patrick Tiller, “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple,” in Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture, ed. Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan, JSOTSup 340 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 81. 49 Himmelfarb, “The Wisdom of the Scribe,” 94–9.


115

turned his heart away from God (Sir 47.12–22).50 Ben Sira recalls Solomon’s son and successor, Rehoboam, as one “broad in folly and lacking understanding” (47.23c). Given that Jewish kingship was not operative in Ben Sira’s day, and that the encomiastic purpose of the hymn, as Thomas Lee and Burton Mack have shown,51 is to praise the high priest, Simon II, it is not surprising that the sage minimized the importance of the king in his own construction of the ideal Judean society. Compared with Proverbs, Ben Sira employs a broad set of terms for leaders. In addition to melek, the extant Hebrew manuscripts use the terms “prince” (śār), “noble” (nādîb), “ruler” (môšēl), “exalted one” (ni śśāʾ), “officer” (nā śîʾ), “magistrate” (šôpēṭ), and “leader” (nāg îd). The Greek uses δυνάστης (ruler),52 ἄρχων (ruler),53 μεγιστάν (prince),54 ἡγούμενος (ruler),55 and κριτής (magistrate).56 In their survey of these terms, Horsley and Tiller conclude that “they all refer to local rulers of the Jewish temple-state.”57 Horsley and Tiller continue: “Assuming that Judea was a temple-state with the high priest as political ruler, then these chiefs, rulers, judges and nobles must have been members of the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.”58 Sirach 9.17 suggests that the ruler of a people (môšēl, ὁ ἡγούμενος) must be an understanding sage (ḥăkam bînâ).59 Sirach 10.3 affirms that a city flourishes through the insight (śēkel, ἐν συνέσει) of its princes (śārêhā, δυναστῶν). But the converse is also true: a

———— 50

See Himmelfarb, “The Wisdom of the Scribe,” 98. Lee, Form of Sirach 44–50, 81–103, 206–39; and Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 128–37. 52 Sir 4.27; 7.6; 8.1; 10.3, 24; 11.6; 13.9; 41.17. In addition, δυνάστης also occurs a few times in reference to the deity. 53 Sir 46.13, 18. 54 Sir 4.7; 8.8; 10.24; 11.1; 20.27, 28; 23.14; 28.14; 32.9; 33.19; 38.3; 39.4. 55 Sir 9.17; 10.2, 20; 17.17; 32.1; 33.19; 39.4; 41.17; 44.4; 46.18; 49.15. 56 Sir 7.6; 8.14; 10.1, 2, 24; 41.18. Sir 35.22a [Heb. 21d] refers to God as judge, and 46.11 refers to the judges of the book of Judges. 57 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 82. 58 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 82–3. They point out that “in both 33(30).19(27) and 39.4 (Greek only) μεγιστᾶνες λαοῦ (śr y ʿm) is paralleled by οἱ ἡγούμενοι ἐκκλησίας (m š ly qhl), suggesting that the priestly aristocracy were the rulers.” 59 The reading ḥăkam bînâ requires an emendation; G reads “proved wise by his words.” For text-critical remarks on this verse, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 222. 51

116

CHAPTER FOUR

king lacking restraint (pār ûaʿ, ἀπαίδευτος) destroys the city.60 Sirach 10.1 ascribes a teaching function to the leaders: a (wise) magistrate (šôpēṭ, κριτὴς σοφὸς) instructs (yôsēr, παιδεύσει) his people. By examining Ben Sira’s use of these terms, a picture emerges in which various leaders of Judea are charged with the preservation and transmission of wisdom. Compared with the book of Proverbs, then, the book of Sirach lacks any clear connection between the specific institution of the king and the preservation and transmission of wisdom. Notably absent from Ben Sira’s work is the royal authorization of wisdom found in Proverbs. Instead, responsibility for the preservation and distribution of wisdom falls on the shoulders of a varied and diffuse set of offices that one might lump together under the rubric “the ruling class.” THE SCRIBE The term sōpēr (scribe) presents two challenges. First, it is difficult to define precisely what the term meant in ancient Israel. Fox suggests that sōpēr refers to a “scholar” or “clerk” in the medieval sense, rather than “scribe,” for being a sōpēr was not in itself a profession, but a qualification for various professional opportunities.61

But references to sōpәr îm in various administrations from the time of the monarchy suggest that in some instances the term denotes a specific position.62 Perhaps the term “secretary” in contemporary English offers a close approximation.63 “Secretary” designates positions both high and low, and it functions both as a description of a particular kind of work as well as the title of professional positions. And like the term sōpēr, the meaning and function of the term

———— 60

MS A. Instead of “city,” G reads “ruins his people.” Fox, “The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs,” 236. 62 2 Sam 8.17; 20.25; 1 Kgs 4.3; 2 Kgs 12.11; 18.18, 37; 19.2; 22.3, 8, 9, 10, 12; 25.19. See also Ezra, who is called a sōpēr (scribe, Ezra 7.6) and a kōhēn-sōpēr (priest-scribe, Ezra 7.11). 63 See Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 242; and Lester L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1995), 161. 61


117

“secretary” vary dramatically based on the particular position. A second problem is that the root spr does not occur at all in the book of Proverbs. Nonetheless, it is possible to postulate the presence of a group of sōpәr îm who were involved in the editing of the book of Proverbs, and since sôpēr is the term used by Ben Sira (38.24), I too use it here.

Proverbs While Proverbs does not use sōpēr, the term ḥākām (wise man, sage) appears forty-seven times. The vast majority of these occurrences, however, refer only in a general way to a person who possesses “a particular skill or insight.”64 For example, Prov 16.14 suggests that a “wise man” (ʾî š ḥākām) may appease a king’s anger, but the attributive use of the adjective ḥākām with the noun ʾî š suggests not so much a specific royal office of the sage as a garden-variety wise man in the right place at the right time. Indeed, in his study of the intellectual tradition in ancient Israel, Whybray concludes that the term ḥākām does not refer to a professional class of people in the same way that the terms sōpēr or yôʿēṣ do.65 In only a few cases in the book of Proverbs does the term ḥākām potentially suggest an official position in the royal court.66 But as Joseph Blenkinsopp points out, a tradition needs “institutional grounding [to be] sustained and transmitted.” Pointing to the description of Qohelet in the appendix to the book of Ecclesiastes as a ḥākām (Eccl 12.9), Blenkinsopp argues that in later periods the term ḥākām specifies a category of intellectuals.67 The two references to the ḥăkāmîm in Prov 22.1768 and 24.23 may suggest that, at a period even earlier

————

Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 11. In addition to 64

the term ḥākām, the Niphal participle nābôn appears nine times, but only with the general meaning “intelligent or discerning one.” The term yôʿēṣ (advisor) occurs four times, and in Prov 11.14; 15.22; and 24.6, the term clearly refers to an official advisory position. 65 R. N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 15–31. 66 In addition to passages cited elsewhere in this section, Clifford (“The Community of the Book of Proverbs,” 291) points to Prov 13.14; 16.14; and 28.4 as references to “professional” sages. 67 Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 11. 68 It is likely that dibrê ḥăkāmîm (words of the wise) was the original title to the collection beginning in Prov 22.17. See Luis Alonso Schökel and Jose Vilchez

118

CHAPTER FOUR

than that of Ecclesiastes, the term ḥākām designated persons officially responsible for proverbial material. In addition, the reference in Prov 25.1 to the role Hezekiah’s men played in collecting69 Solomon’s sayings implies the involvement of royal officials in the editing of Proverbs. Prov 25.1 Prov 25.1

‫ם־א ֶלּה ִמ ְשׁ ֵלי ְשֹׁלמֹה ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ְע ִתּיקוּ‬ ֵ ַ‫גּ‬ ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ַאנְ ֵשׁי ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬ These, too, are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of king Hezekiah of Judah collected.

Fox is certainly correct when he defines these “king’s men” as “clerks and officials of high and low degree,”70 in other words “scribes.” The Hebrew Bible attests to numerous officials from various royal administrations in the history of ancient Israel, including the time of Hezekiah, who bore the title “scribe” (sōpēr). Such officials were responsible for writing, record keeping, the administration of temple treasuries, and, in later periods, the preservation of sacred written traditions.71 The mundane archaeological evidence of scribal activity—ostraca, the Siloam inscription, seals, seal impressions, and stamped jar handles—dated around the time of Hezekiah, as Blenkinsopp suggests, “point to a social and economic infrastructure capable of generating, or at any rate, of supporting, a genuine literary tradition.”72 And if Moshe Weinfeld’s thesis regarding the book of Deuteronomy—namely, that the book is the product of educated scribal circles—has any merit, then it seems clear that scribes were not merely bureaucratic technicians but also produced works of religious import.73 Thus, while Proverbs is not specific about the identity of “the king’s men” who collected Solomon’s proverbs, we can infer

————

Lindez, Proverbios, NBE, Sapienciales I (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1984), 423; and Clifford, Proverbs, 204. 69 On the possible meanings of the verb heʿt îqû in this verse, see Clifford, Proverbs, 219. 70 Fox, “The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs,” 236. 71 On the role of scribes in writing and record keeping, see Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 161; and Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 30–1. 72 Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 32. 73 Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 153. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 158–78. Grabbe (p 155) also points to the situation in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where gathering and editing wisdom material was a scribal activity: “If the analogy of Mesopotamia and Egypt is anything to go by, the collection and composition of proverbs and sayings were a scribal endeavor.”


119

that—based on their literary skill, location in the royal court, and presumed leisure—scribes were in a position to undertake such activity. If scribes are responsible for the book of Proverbs, then they are also responsible for the preservation and distribution of wisdom. For that is the express purpose of the book, as laid out in the introduction (Prov 1.1–7). The scribes preserved the voice of Wisdom speaking through the institutions of the family and the king, encapsulated these sayings and instructions in literary form, and transmitted them to future generations.74

Ben Sira While the role of the scribe in preserving and transmitting wisdom must be inferred for Proverbs, it is explicit in and central to Sirach. In Sir 38.24–39.11, Ben Sira compares the role of the “scribe” (sw pr MS B, γραμματεύς, 38.24) to other trades (τέχνη, 38.34) and reflects on the scribal profession itself. While these other professions are necessary for civilized life, their importance pales in comparison to that of the scribe, who is knowledgeable about judicial matters and explains instruction and judgment (ἐκφάνωσιν παιδείαν καὶ κρίμα, 38.32c–4), all activities which require leisure unafforded to the other trades (38.24–5). While there must have been many different types of scribes in his day, Ben Sira refers to the scribe who is charged with the study and teaching of wisdom and Torah (38.34; 39.8; cf. 51.23).75 Arguably Ben Sira’s book aims (among other things) to instruct future scribes. If so, Sir 6.34–6 offers a glimpse into the way in which scribes accomplished their work.76 Sir 6.34a b 35a b

ἐν πλήθει πρεσβυτέρων στῆθι καὶ τίς σοφός αὐτῷ προσκολλήθητι77 ‫כל שיחה חפוץ לשמע‬ ‫ומשל בינה אל יצאך‬

———— 74

See Clifford, “The Community of the Book of Proverbs,” 291–3. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 20. As a result, Grabbe (Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 159) suggests that Ben Sira may have been “a temple scribe.” In Sirach, as in Ezra, the scribe’s subject matter is the divine law. 76 Fox, “The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs,” 236. 77 Sir 6.34 is not extant in MS A. In place of τίς σοφός αὐτῷ, Ziegler (ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 155) reads τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτῶν based upon Lat. 75

120

CHAPTER FOUR

36a b Sir 6.34a b 35a b 36a b

‫ יבין ושחריהו‬78‫ראה מי‬ ‫ רגלך‬79‫ותשחוק בסיפו‬ Stand in the assembly of elders. Who is wise? Be joined to him. Desire to hear every discourse, and let no intelligent proverb elude you. See who is intelligent, and seek him diligently; let your foot wear out his doorsill.

These verses exhort young scribes to immerse themselves in the speech of wise individuals. Presumably such scribes would record these sayings of the wise and incorporate them into a written tradition. Moreover, if we assume that Ben Sira himself works as a scribe, then other passages that describe his own teaching activity illustrate the scribe’s role in the transmission of wisdom. At the beginning of one instruction, for example, Ben Sira promises to “pour out” his spirit and “declare” his knowledge (Sir 16.25).80 The sage’s word choice suggests that he views his instructional role in a manner parallel to that of personified Wisdom (cf. Prov 1.23).81 Indeed, after his own portrait in Sirach 24 of personified Wisdom as a river brimming with knowledge, Ben Sira describes how his teaching originates from Wisdom’s river as a canal that grows into a sea of instruction (Sir 24.30–3).82 Thus, in Ben Sira’s idealized view of his own Jewish community, the scribe functions as a vital conduit for the transmission of wisdom, from the source herself to future generations.

———— 78 79 80 81

280.

82

Reading with Syr. MS A reads mâ (what). Cf. Syr. MS A reads sy py (my threshold). MS A: ʾbyʿh bm šql r wḥy / wbh ṣnʿ ʾḥwh dʿy. Prov 1.23: ʾbyʿh lkm r wḥy. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira,

On Ben Sira’s use of the first person pronoun “I” in Sir 24, see Wright, “Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar,” 171–3.


121

THE PRIEST

Proverbs The root khn never appears in the book of Proverbs.83 The woman of Proverbs 7 refers to the offering of sacrifices and the fulfilling of vows; presumably a priest would have assisted with this transaction. Otherwise, the book does not allude to priests. It seems safe, therefore, to conclude that, for the compilers of Proverbs, the priest does not play a role in the preservation and transmission of wisdom.84

Ben Sira In contrast, priests play a central role in the preservation and transmission of wisdom in Sirach. In the extant Hebrew manuscripts, the root khn appears eight times.85 More than this modest number of references to priests might suggest, however, the outlook of the entire work elevates the priests to the pinnacle of Ben Sira’s ideal society.86 Sir 7.29–31 essentially equate honoring the priests with fearing God. Moreover, several features of the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old indicate Ben Sira’s high regard for the priests, specifically for the high priest. First, Ben Sira devotes sixty-four lines to Aaron (45.6–22; cf. vv 23–26), more than to any other ancient Israelite figure.87 Second, the eternal covenant with Aaron and all of his sons (45.15) surpasses the covenant made with David (45.25).88 Third, as I mentioned earlier, the encomiastic purpose of the epic

———— 83

The root appears once in Job 12.19 and never in Ecclesiastes. Given the later picture of Levites as scribes, it may be reasonable to assume that some of the royal scribes responsible for the book of Proverbs were also priests. 85 Sir 7.29, 31; 45.15, 24; 46.13; 50.1, 16; 51.12i. Hebrew khn lacks a Greek parallel in 46.13 and 50.16. In addition to the Hebrew evidence, ἱερεύς (priest) appears in 50.12 and ἱερατεία (priesthood) in 45.7. 86 See Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum 84

Berufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum, WUNT 2/6 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1980), 55–68, 274–84; and Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 261–86. 87 David receives 32 lines and Moses 18 lines. 88 On the different readings of Sir 45.25 in the Hebrew and Greek, see Jeremy Corley, “Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach,” in The Septuagint and Messianism, ed. Michael A. Knibb, BETL 195 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 309.

122

CHAPTER FOUR

poem is to praise Simon II.89 And fourth, Ben Sira claims that the responsibility to instruct Israel in the Torah lies with the Aaronite priesthood (45.17; cf. 45.5), which in the sage’s day means Simon and his priestly assistants. Thus, whereas in Proverbs priests play no discernible role in the transmission of wisdom, in Sirach they play an indispensible part in its guarding and dissemination. A SOCIOLOGY OF BEN SIRA’S JERUSALEM To summarize the foregoing discussion, whereas Proverbs portrays the king as a patron of wisdom, with the family and scribe playing secondary roles, Ben Sira downplays the roles of the family and the king, elevates the role of the scribe, and introduces the function of the priests in the transmission of wisdom. One can make sense of this remarkable sociological shift by considering the new political configuration of Ben Sira’s Jerusalem. The transfer of custodial responsibilities for wisdom from the king to scribes and priests reflects changing leadership patterns in the Second Temple period. Horsley and Tiller’s critical adaptation of Gerhard Lenski’s comparative historical sociology of traditional agrarian societies reconstructs the various social strata in secondcentury B.C.E. Judea.90 In Horsley and Tiller’s analysis, Ben Sira’s Judea fits the pattern of “a traditional agrarian society . . . dominated by centralized rule,” that is, by the Seleucids.91 In light of Lenski’s model, the book of Sirach reveals a societal structure in which the high priest functions as the “political-religious” head of a Judean temple-state. The high priest oversees a ruling class consisting in the priestly aristrocracy. This ruling class is supported by what Lenski terms the retainer class, individuals who mediate between the ruling class and the common people. Supporting the high priest, the priestly aristocracy, and the retainer class is the roughly 90 percent of the population that made up the peasant producers.92

————

Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 78. See Mack, WisMS B Sir 50.1–21 in praise of Simon encompasses 68 lines, more lines than Ben Sira devotes to Aaron. 90 See Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966). 91 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 92. 92 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 93, 100. 89

dom and the Hebrew Epic, 129, 136, 168.


123

Let me briefly discuss the first three of these groups, starting with the high priest.

The High Priest During the period of the monarchy (when much of Proverbs must have been compiled), the king presided over the cult, and, as a result, the position of “high priest” (hakkōhēn hag gādôl or hakkōhēn hārōʾš)93 was not as important as it came to be in later periods.94 As Lester Grabbe observes, “With the loss of the monarchy and the incorporation of Judah into the Persian empire as a province, the office of high priest expanded in importance to fill the gap of local leadership.”95 Ben Sira’s description of Simon indicates that the high priest had assumed some of the functions previously performed by the king, such as rennovating the temple and temple precinct (50.1cd), constructing walls (50.2),96 and securing a water supply for the city (50.3).97 In addition to these concrete functions of maintaining the infrastructure, the high priest, in the absence of the monarchy, also assumed responsibility for instructing the people in wisdom (Sir 45.17). Thus in comparison to Proverbs, which lodges responsibility for preserving and transmitting wisdom with the king, Ben Sira associates this duty with the high priest.

The Ruling Priestly Aristocracy Assisting the high priest in his duties were the members of Lenski’s ruling class. These were the various rulers, magistrates, leaders, and

———— 93

For example, 2 Kgs 22.4, 8; and 2 Chr 31.10. Lester L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000), 144. On the role of the king in the cult and on the role of the high priest during the monarchy, see Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 20–40, 60–2. 95 Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 144. On priestly governance in the early Second Temple period, see further Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 1:73–83. Grabbe (Judaic Religion, 145) notes that late biblical texts frequently mention the office of high priest (for example, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles). 96 G. MS B 50.3. 97 G. MS B 50.2. Cf. Ben Sira’s comments on the high priestly role of Phinehas and his descendants in Sir 45.25e–6d, which suggests that they are responsible for governing the people. On the transfer of formerly royal duties to priestly officials in Sirach, see C. T. Robert Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996), 51. 94

124

CHAPTER FOUR

nobles mentioned by Ben Sira. Based on the parallelism in Sir 33.19 and 39.4 between μεγιστᾶνες λαοῦ and οἱ ἡγούμενοι ἐκκλησίας, Horsley and Tiller argue that these ruling positions were likely populated by members of the priestly aristocracy.98 How much this ruling priestly aristocracy should be identified with a permanent governing institution during the Second Temple period is uncertain. The historical sources use several terms to refer to a ruling assembly, such as γερουσία (council of elders, senate), βουλή (advisory council), and συνέδριον (assembly).99 Do these terms refer to the same institution? Or are they distinct entities? Moreover, βουλή and συνέδριον frequently refer to ad hoc advisory councils and may not indicate a continuously operating governing assembly.100 Some scholars doubt that any permanent governing assembly existed at all during the late Second Temple period.101 Yet the ruling high priest, no doubt, required assistance in his administrative responsibilities, and, as Lester Grabbe concludes, the textual evidence indicates that some sort of body assisted in the governance of Judah through much of the Second Temple period, though its function and even its designation may well have varied over the centuries.102

It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that these terms refer to a ruling body consisting mainly of the priestly aristocracy and that this body assisted the high priest in governing Judah. The decree of Antiochus III preserved by Josephus (Ant. 12.3.3– 4, §§138–44) provides one window into the significance of the ruling priestly aristocracy.103 According to the decree, the γερουσία was part of the Jewish delegation that welcomed Antiochus to Jeru-

———— 98

Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 82–3. Sir 39.4 is not extant in Hebrew. In MS E Sir 33.19, the parallel terms are śr y ʿm and m š ly qhl, respectively. 99 Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 145. See p 146 for sources. 100 Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 145. 101 See, for example, David M. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 75–130. 102 Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 145; cf. 147. 103 On the authenticity of the decree, see Elias Bickerman, “La Charte séleucide de Jérusalem,” REJ 100 (1935): 4–35 (reprinted in revised form in Elias Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part Two [Leiden: Brill, 1980]); and Ralph Marcus, Josephus, 9 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), 7:744–61.


125

salem after he had defeated the Ptolemies at the beginning of the second century B.C.E. (§138). Later, the decree lifts the burden of certain taxes from “the γερουσία, the priests, the scribes of the temple, and the temple singers” (§142). The mention of the γερουσία first in the decree, even ahead of “the priests,” indicates their importance in the governance of Judea. That “the priests” are listed as a separate category may suggest that the γερουσία consisted in the priestly aristocracy and thus did not include all priests, or that some non-priestly aristocrats also populated the ruling body. In any case, the decree paints a picture of Judean governance in which the γερουσία played a leading role.104 It is remarkable that the decree of Antiochus III fails to mention the high priest separately.105 Ben Sira portrays the high priest as the highest administrative official, presumably positioned above the γερουσία. This must have been either the reality of Ben Sira’s time or his ideal, a view that stands at odds with that of the decree of Antiochus III, which suggests that the γερουσία may have been over the high priest at times.106 At any rate, as I suggested above, the ruling priestly aristocracy aided the high priest in fulfilling his responsibility for the preservation and transmission of wisdom.107

The Scribal Retainers The high priest and the priestly ruling class were assisted in their duties by Lenski’s retainer class. Among these retainers were physicians, ordinary priests, and scribes.108 Scribes possessed little independent power but instead relied upon the influence of the member of the ruling class who employed them.109 This subsidiary role of scribes can be observed in the decree of Antiochus III, which lists

————

104 Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 1:191, 246–7; and Patrick Tiller, “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea” (paper presented at the New England Society of Biblical Literature, April 2002), 3. I am grateful to Dr. Tiller for sharing his unpublished paper. 105 Tiller, “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea,” 4. Cf. the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans (Ant. 13.5.8, §166; 1 Macc 12.6), in which the high priest Jonathan is mentioned first, followed by the γερουσία. 106 Tiller, “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea,” 9. 107 Cf. Sir 9.17; and 10.1, 3, cited above in the section “The King.” 108 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 93. 109 Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 243.

126

CHAPTER FOUR

the office of “temple-scribe” (οἱ γραμματεῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ).110 Because the decree mentions the office of scribe after it mentions “the priests,” Tiller correctly describes the temple-scribe as “a politicalreligious office . . . which was subordinate to the priesthood.”111 The decree of Antiochus III corroborates the portrait of scribes offered by Ben Sira: the scribe engages in the work of preserving and transmitting wisdom in his capacity as retainer to the ruling class. In his description of the scribe in Sir 38.24–39.11, Ben Sira indicates that scribes serve as advisors to the Jerusalem leadership. The scribe serves among “the great” (μεγιστάνων) and appears before “rulers” (ἡγουμένων, Sir 39.4). In large part, we can infer how Ben Sira defines the role of the scribe by how he describes what the other professions cannot do: advise the people’s council (βουλὴν λαοῦ),112 take prominent positions in the assembly (ἐκκλησίᾳ), and attend to “rulers”113 (Sir 38.32–34). This service among the ruling class sets the scribe apart from the other professions. Ben Sira’s depiction of the scribe makes it difficult to imagine that he sees himself as anything other than a scribe. As Tiller observes, “Unquestionably, Ben Sira was one of these ‘scribes of the Temple.’”114 Moreover, as a kind of manual for the training of scribes, the book of Sirach prepares young men for service among “princes” (śr y m, Sir 8.8).115 This all suggests that scribes were subordinate to the ruling priestly class and functioned primarily to assist the ruling class in

————

Josephus, Ant. 12.142: “and let the senate (γερουσία), and the priests, and the scribes of the temple (οἱ γραμματεῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the sacred singers, be discharged from poll-money and the crown tax and other taxes also.” 111 Tiller, “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea,” 5. 112 Sir 38.32c is attested only in Sc, L, and Syr.; see Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 305. As Horsley and Tiller (“Sociology of the Second Temple,” 83–4) note, here the phrase seems not to refer to the γερουσία (senate). 113 Supposing Hebrew bəmōšəlîm, which G misread as bim šālîm = ἐν παραβολαῖς. See Patrick W. Skehan, “They Shall Not Be Found in Parables (Sir 38,33),” CBQ 23 (1961): 40; and Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 448. 114 Tiller, “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea,” 5. Grabbe (Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 159) writes that Ben Sira is “clearly speaking from the experience of the scribe.” Ben Sira may also have been a priest (see Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 1–39, esp. 26; and Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 263–5), but this is not so clear. At any rate, the roles of scribe and priest are not mutually exclusive, as the case of Ezra makes clear (Ezra 7.1–6, 11, 12, 21). 115 Cf. Sir 11.1. 110


127

their governing duties. The success of a ruler would depend upon having wise scribes among his counselors.116 While the high priest remained ultimately responsible for the teaching of wisdom, Sirach depicts a situation in which much of this responsibility has been delegated to scribes like Ben Sira.117 CONCLUSION: ELECTION AND TRADITION From the time of Proverbs to the time of Sirach, then, the responsibility for preserving and transmitting wisdom shifted remarkably. This shift may be explained by the changing patterns of leadership during the Second Temple period. During the time of the Israelite monarchy, wisdom was most closely associated with the king, as it was in much of the ancient Near East. The king was expected to maintain the social order by means of just rule, something wisdom enabled him to do. By the time of Ben Sira, however, the Judahite monarchy has disappeared. Into this vacuum steps the high priest, in order to fulfill functions previously ascribed to the king. Assisted by the priestly ruling class and their scribal retainers, the high priest now assumes custody for the maintainance of the social order, which, according to Ben Sira, includes his responsibility for the safekeeping and diffusion of wisdom. The priests’ responsibility for the preservation and transmission of wisdom derives from their status as elect members of the Israelite community. This connection can be seen most clearly in Ben Sira’s portrait of Aaron. In his description of the first priest, the sage says that God “exalted Aaron in holiness” (wyrm qdwš ʾt ʾhrn, Sir 45.6a), using two terms that I have shown suggest election (see chapter 2). Burton Mack also points to Aaron’s anointing (Sir 45.15) and his chosenness (Sir 45.16) as indicative of his elect status.118 Immediately following Ben Sira’s identification of Aaron as one divinely chosen “from all the living,” the sage describes Aaron’s role in transmitting special wisdom to Israel: Sir 45.17a

‫ויתן לו מצותיו‬

———— 116

Tiller, “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea,” 7; Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 80. 117 Horsley and Tiller, “Sociology of the Second Temple,” 85. 118 Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 20, 24, 27–8.

128

CHAPTER FOUR

b c d Sir 45.17a b c d

‫וימשילהו בחוק ומשפט‬ ‫וילמד את עמו חק‬ ‫ומשפט את בני ישראל‬ [God] gave him his commandments and put him in charge of prescriptions and ordinances. And [Aaron] taught his people the prescriptions and the Israelites the ordinances.

These commandments, prescriptions, and ordinances constitute the extra measure of wisdom bestowed upon the elect, and responsibility falls to Aaron and his descendants for guarding and disseminating this wisdom to future generations. Thus far I have shown that Ben Sira envisioned a special wisdom bestowed upon Israel. As a divinely given inheritance, this wisdom required mechanisms to ensure its preservation as well as its proper transmission to future generations. Ultimate responsibility for these functions lay with the high priest and the priestly ruling class, but scribes such as Ben Sira in their capacity as retainers to the ruling class also played a major role in exercising guardianship over wisdom. In the following chapter, I probe the implications that this special wisdom bestowed upon and preserved in Israel has for the kind of piety Ben Sira expects Jews to practice.

CHAPTER FIVE

ELECTION AND PIETY: THE “FEAR OF YHWH” Prudent, cautious self-control, is wisdom’s root. —Robert Burns

In chapters 2 and 3, I showed that Ben Sira distinguishes between a general wisdom revealed through creation to all humanity and a special wisdom bestowed through the Torah upon Israel, a people elected by YHWH in the primordium for the purpose of receiving this extra apportionment of wisdom. In chapter 4, I observed that the priests and their scribal retainers are tasked with preserving and transmitting Israel’s special wisdom to future generations. In chapters 5 and 6, I address the question of how Israel and the nations ought to proceed on the basis of the revelation that they have each received. Whereas in chapters 2 and 3 the particular-universal dynamic was addressed within each chapter, in the next two chapters I deal primarily (although not exclusively) with the particular in chapter 5 and the universal in chapter 6. Specifically, in the present chapter, I argue that, according to Ben Sira, the elect were chosen for the purpose of practicing a particular kind of piety centered around the performance of the Torah commandments. For the sage, Israel’s particular piety has primordial roots, along with wisdom, and was associated from the beginning with the “pious,” that is, with those who fear YHWH. In chapter 6, then, I shall consider the obligations of the nations to practice a universal piety, based on their receipt of general wisdom. Like his predecessors in the Israelite wisdom tradition (see Prov 9.10), Ben Sira associates fear of God with wisdom. The sage often expresses this linkage asyndetically, making it difficult to understand how the association should be articulated. The problem of interpreting the asyndetic linkage between fear of YHWH and wisdom is analogous to the problem of interpreting the linkage of Torah and wisdom. Just as Torah turned out to be the special supplement to the

130

CHAPTER FIVE

general revelation available to all nations through creation, so does fear of YHWH turn out to have a special meaning for Jews and a general meaning for the nations. This asyndetic connection between fear of God and wisdom has led some scholars to suggest that fear of God equals wisdom, or is identical to it. I will argue, however, that, for Ben Sira, fear of YHWH is not identical to wisdom. The sage uses the phrase in two senses. Most often in Sirach the phrase refers to a particular piety that is incumbent upon Israel as the elect members of the covenant community. This piety is connected to Torah, in the sense that the Torah serves as a divine guidebook for how the Israelite ought to engage in a Jewish piety. Since, as I argued in chapter 3, Torah is associated with the special wisdom made available to Israel, this sense of fear of YHWH must be connected not to the general wisdom available to all human beings, but to the special wisdom which is the possession of Israel. Understood in this way, fear of YHWH in Sirach usually refers to covenant loyalty and observance of divine commandments. As I will show, less often Ben Sira uses the phrase in another sense to refer to a universal piety that is incumbent upon the nations. The commandments that form part of Israel’s particular piety can be divided into two categories: ethical and ritual. Some scholars argue that Ben Sira is really interested only in the ethical, and not the ritual, dimension of piety. I will demonstrate, however, that Ben Sira is keenly interested in recommending Jewish observance of the cultic as well as the ethical laws. WISDOM AND FEAR OF YHWH At least since Josef Haspecker published his 1967 monograph on fear of God in Sirach, scholars have recognized the importance of the concept in Ben Sira’s thinking. In the Greek text, fear of God— expressed either with the noun φόβος or with the verb φοβέω—occurs fifty or more times.1 Given the prevalence of this expression,

———— 1

I used the BibleWorks (v. 5.0.038i) BGT database for the concordance work. Together the nominal and verbal phrases occur 50 times. This number includes Sir 50.29, where clearly φόβος is intended, although BGT reads φῶς (light). A few other verses may also contain references to “fear of God.” Sir 1.8 and 43.29 attribute the quality of “fearsomeness” (φοβερός) to God. Sir 17.4 and 17.8 (see discussion below) could arguably mention fear of God. Finally, the expansive tradition of

ELECTION AND PIETY

131

Haspecker argues that Ben Sira’s work treats principally the theme “fear of God,” and that wisdom is a secondary consideration.2 While “fear of God” undeniably plays a central role in the book of Sirach, I believe that in describing it as the “overall theme” Haspecker goes too far. The wisdom poems offer a better framework for understanding the structure of the book taken as a whole,3 and I thus side with those scholars, such as Gerhard von Rad4 and Johannes Marböck,5 who argue that wisdom, not fear of God, assumes the central position in Ben Sira’s book. In one sense, however, this argument is misleading, since, as I will demonstrate, Ben Sira correlates wisdom and fear of YHWH.

The Asyndetic Correlation of Wisdom and Fear of YHWH Like his predecessors in the Israelite wisdom tradition,6 Ben Sira frequently associates wisdom with the fear of YHWH. Unfortunately, however, the sage often correlates wisdom and fear of YHWH using asyndetic statements. Sir 1.27a is typical in this regard. Sir 1.27a

σοφία γὰρ καὶ παιδεία φόβος κυρίου

Sir 1.27a

For the fear of YHWH [is] wisdom and discipline.

The Greek simply juxtaposes these terms in the nominative with an implied copula. The author does not specify how fear of YHWH and wisdom are correlated, and the nature of the relation must be inferred by the reader. The asyndetic correlation of wisdom and fear of YHWH has led many scholars to suggest that the two notions are identical, or nearly

———— GII inserts additional references to fear of God, such as in 19.18 and 26.23, 25. According to Josef Haspecker, the phrase “fear of God” occurs 55–60 times in Sirach (Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung [Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967], 82). 2 Haspecker (Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 87) says that Ben Sira “presents unambiguously the fear of God as the central theme and subject matter of his work.” Haspecker entitles chapter 2 of his book (pp 87–105) “Gottesfurcht als Gesamtthema des Sirachbuches” (Fear of God as the Overall Theme of the Book of Sirach). 3 See, e.g., the structure proposed by Richard J. Clifford, in which “each of the eight parts of Sirach begins with a poem on wisdom” (The Wisdom Literature [Nashville: Abingdon, 1998], 118–20). 4 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 242. 5 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 132. 6 See, e.g., Prov 1.7; 9.10; 15.33; and Job 28.28. Cf. also Isa 11.2; 33.6; Ps 111.10; and Mic 6.9.

132

CHAPTER FIVE

so. Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella, for example, consider Ben Sira’s overall theme to be “wisdom as fear of God”; moreover, they articulate the central thesis of his book as follows: “wisdom . . . can be achieved only by the one who fears God and keeps the commandments.”7 Indeed, Skehan and Di Lella consider the processes of finding wisdom and fearing YHWH to be “the same thing.”8 John Collins’s statement on the matter is only slightly more nuanced: “While Sirach stops short of an outright equation, it would seem that fear of the Lord is a virtual synonym for wisdom.”9 This tendency among scholars to equate wisdom and fear of YHWH, or to regard them as synonyms, creates two problems. First, as Michael Fox has observed with respect to a similar phenomenon in scholarly treatments of the book of Proverbs, interpreting the two notions as identical transforms a passage such as Sir 1.27a into a tautology.10 Were this all Ben Sira intended to communicate, his book would seem much less interesting. Second, the scholarly equation of fear of God and wisdom suggests one of two alternatives, neither of which is desirable. According to the first alternative, if fear of God equals wisdom, and wisdom is a universal category, then fear of God must also be a universal category. The phrase must apply to humanity generally. As I shall demonstrate, however, Ben Sira most often uses fear of God in a restrictive sense to refer to a “Jewish” piety that is incumbent upon Israel alone. According to the second alternative, if fear of God equals wisdom, and fear of God is not a universal category, then neither can wisdom be a universal category. As I have shown in chapter 2, however, Ben Sira holds wisdom to be universally available to all humanity through creation. In order to avoid this logical difficulty, I seek to find an interpretation of the relation between these two notions in which wisdom is connected to fear of YHWH, but not identical to it. My strategy in this chapter is twofold. First, I recall the distinction I elicited in chapter 3 between general and special wisdom. In the present chapter, I argue that Ben Sira most often associates fear of YHWH with special wisdom. In this sense, fear of YHWH relates to the special wisdom Israel possesses by means of its Torah. As we will see, fear

————

Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 75–6. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 342. 9 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 46. 10 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 113. 7 8

ELECTION AND PIETY

133

of YHWH infrequently in Sirach may also have a more general sense, when it refers to a universal piety obliged upon the nations. Second, I show that the relation between fear of YHWH and Israel’s special wisdom proves more complex than the comparative terms “equal” or “synonymous” allow. In his analysis of the notion of the fear of God, Michael Barré suggests that throughout the ANE, fearing the gods involved much more than a general reverence.11 It also involved on the part of the god-fearer the responsibility to worship the gods, to observe their feast-days, to offer sacrifices at the prescribed times, etc. In other words, fear of the gods translated concretely into cult.12

In the last section of this chapter, I shall detail the close connections Ben Sira makes between fear of YHWH and the cult. From the Hebrew Bible, Barré offers the example of 2 Kgs 17.24–8, in which the foreign peoples who had been forcibly resettled in Samaria by the Assyrians after the deportation of the Northern Kingdom are killed by lions because, the text says, “they did not fear YHWH” (lōʾ yārəʾû ʾet yhwh, v 25). The Assyrian king realizes that the new settlers do “not know the law of the god of the land” and, therefore, he sends back to Samaria a deported Israelite priest to teach them the law (vv 26–7). The priest returns, the text says, and instructs the settlers in “how they should fear YHWH” (v 28). Barré rightly observes that in this context, fear of YHWH could not mean simply having a certain “attitude” toward YHWH. The colonists had to be shown in some detail how to carry out the proper worship of this god in his own territory.13

Barré’s definition clarifies that the phrase “fear of god” does not imply undifferentiated reverence. Rather, the term refers to revering a particular deity by performing the prescribed rituals and remaining obedient to that god. Specifically, in the Israelite tradition, fear of God or fear of YHWH refers to Israel’s pious devotion to her deity.

————

11 Michael L. Barré, “‘Fear of God’ and the World View of Wisdom,” BTB (1981): 41–3. Barré (p 41) finds parallels to the Hebrew expression in the Akkadian phrase “fear of the gods” ( palāḫ ilī) and the Aramaic “fearing the gods” (dḥl ʾlhyʾ). 12 Barré, “Fear of God,” 42. Italics in original. 13 Barré, “Fear of God,” 42–3.

134

CHAPTER FIVE

Although an important corrective to older scholarship on the fear of YHWH, Barré’s description nonetheless emphasizes the cultic dimensions of the phrase “fear of god” while downplaying the ethical connotations with which some biblical passages imbue the phrase. The prologue to the book of Job, for example, correlates Job’s fear of God with his blamelessness (tām), uprightness (yā šār), and turning from evil (sār mērāʿ, Job 1.1, 8; 2.3).14 In the Hebrew Bible, therefore, the phrase can imply performance of both cultic and ethical demands that a deity places on the devotee. As I shall show, for Ben Sira, fear of YHWH most often refers to a specific kind of piety that involves Israel’s loyalty to its covenant with YHWH and observance of his commandments contained in the Torah, which include both ethical and cultic spheres of life.15 Since Israel is the only people Ben Sira requires to maintain fidelity to the covenant and to observe the commandments—and in actuality the only people that does all these things—by the phrase “those who fear YHWH” the sage must mean Israel.

Fear of YHWH and Universal Piety Before moving on to discuss in more detail the specific content with which Ben Sira imbues the phrase “fear of YHWH” in its particular sense, let me remark briefly on the meaning of the phrase in its more universal sense. While I have suggested that most occurrences of the phrase “fear of YHWH” in Sirach apply to Jews in particular, a few may refer to non-Jews or to human beings generally. For instance, in a section on human honor or glory (Sir 10.19–27), Ben Sira suggests that the glory of a “sojourner, outsider, foreigner, or

————

14 For other passages where “fear of God” possesses an ethical dimension, see, e.g., Gen 20.11; 42.18; Deut 25.18; Prov 3.7; 8.13; 14.2; 22.4. I discuss further this ethical connotation of the phrase below (see p 157). 15 While I find myself in agreement with much of Renate Egger-Wenzel’s analysis of the phrase y irʾat ʾĕlōhîm in Sirach, I nonetheless choose to retain the traditional translation “fear of God” rather than adopt her suggestion to translate “faith in God.” For many modern readers, the term faith connotes belief or assent to propositional truths. The term fear better captures the two senses in which Ben Sira uses the phrase: literal fright and pious reverence. See Renate Egger-Wenzel, “‘Faith in God’ Rather Than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 38 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), 211–26.

ELECTION AND PIETY

135

pauper” resides in his “fear of YHWH” (Sir 10.22).16 The first three of these terms—gēr, zār, and nokr î—can refer to non-Jews. Because the stanza begins by talking about “human offspring” (zrʿ lʾnwš ), non-Jews may be the intended referent. On the other hand, all three terms can also be used of Jews.17 That the dishonored human offspring are those who transgress the commandment (10.19d)18 suggests that Ben Sira has in mind Israel here, since Israel is the only people upon whom the Torah commandments are enjoined. Another example may be found in G Sir 15.19a. In the context of a discussion on human free will and responsibility (Sir 15.11– 16.23), the Greek text suggests that G Sir 15.19a καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν G Sir 15.19a [YHWH’s] eyes are on those who fear him.

In the larger passage, Ben Sira says that YHWH made human beings subject to their own free will when he first created them (15.14), suggesting that he has in mind human beings generally. In contrast to G, however, MS A reads: 19

MS

A Sir 15.19a

MS

A Sir 15.19a The eyes of God behold his works.

‫עיני אל יראו מעשיו‬

Skehan and Di Lella suggest that the colon in G “has been accommodated to Ps 32(33):18.” 20 The confusion may also have originated in the Hebrew text of Sirach, since “behold” ( y rʾw) is easily confused with “those who fear him” ( y rʾy w). If MS A’s reading is preferred to that of G, then this passage does not address fear of YHWH at all.

————

B. MS A reads “fear of God ( ʾlhy m).” For gēr applied to Israelites, see Exod 22.20; 23.9; Lev 19.34; 25.23, 35; Deut 10.19; 23.8 [Eng. 7]; 1 Chr 29.15; Pss 39.13 [Eng. 12]; and 119.19. For zār, see Exod 30.33; Lev 22.10, 12, 13; Num 1.51; 3.10, 38; 17.5 [Eng. 16.40]; 18.4, 7; and Deut 25.5. On nokr î, see Exod 2.22; 18.3; Ps 69.9 [Eng. 8]; Prov 27.2; and Jer 2.21. 18 Sir 10.19bc has dropped out of MS A by homoioarchton. See p 144 n 44, below. 19 The first part of MS B Sir 15.19a is missing, but the end of the line mʿśy w confirms the reading of MS A. Normally feminine, the noun ʿayin is nonetheless sometimes construed as masculine (Zech 3.9; 4.10), as it must be here. 20 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 269. LXX Ps 32.18 (MT 33.18) reads: οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτὸν. 16 17

MS

136

CHAPTER FIVE

While these examples do not prove conclusively that Ben Sira uses fear of YHWH in regard to human beings generally, it may be profitable to ask, In what sense might the fear of YHWH be applicable to non-Jews? If, as I contend, fear of YHWH in Sirach refers most often to a Jewish form of piety, what meaning might the phrase have for human beings more generally? There are at least two senses in which fear of YHWH may be applicable to non-Jews. First, fear of YHWH may apply to non-Jews when it connotes literal fright. In the prayer for deliverance of the nation Israel in Sirach 36, Ben Sira petitions YHWH, “Rescue us, O God of all, and put your fear ( pḥdk) upon all the nations (hg w y m)” (36.1–2). Here the context clearly concerns foreign nations (hg w y m). Significantly, the word that Ben Sira employs for fear is not the usual y irʾâ but the alternate term paḥad. While the root pḥd can denote “piety,”21 given that the prayer envisions the destruction of Israel’s oppressors (vv 6– 12), it seems likely that Ben Sira has in mind literal fright of the deity.22 Second, “fear of YHWH” may apply to non-Jews when it has the sense of “awe before the creator.” In the passage on the creation of humankind in Sir 17.1–10, Ben Sira says Sir 17.8a b

ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον23 αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν δεῖξαι αὐτοῖς τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ

Sir 17.8a b

[YHWH] put his fear into their heart, to show them the magnificence of his works.

Given that the context of the larger passage involves the creation of humanity, when Ben Sira refers to “their heart” (17.8a), he undoubtedly has in mind human beings generally. I demonstrated a similar connection between the notion of “fear of YHWH” and the splendor of creation in my analysis of the creation hymn in Sir 42.15–43.33 (see chapter 2). There, I noted Ben Sira’s use of the rhetorical technique of amplification. He first describes the awesome (nôrāʾ, 43.2b, 8b) nature of various created works; then he suggests

———— 21

See, e.g., Sir 37.12a. Note, however, that the prayer expresses the hope that the nations will come to recognize YHWH as the only God (Sir 36.5). This recognition could result from a frightful experience, but it may also mean that Ben Sira envisions the nations coming to practice some kind of Jewish piety. I discuss the matter further in chapter 6. 23 Most MSS of G read “eye” (ὀφθαλμὸν) in place of “fear.” See chapter 3, p 82 n 39. 22

ELECTION AND PIETY

137

that, since YHWH has created these works, he is more awesome still (nôrāʾ məʾōd məʾōd, 43.29a). The word Ben Sira uses to describe the awesome nature of YHWH—nôrāʾ, the Niphal participle of yrʾ—suggests that a principal goal of these hymns is to instill in the reader a “fear of YHWH,” that is, a sense of awe before the deity. This observation about the fear of YHWH in Sirach finds parallels in the ANE, where, according to Barré, fear of the gods conveys the sense of “overpowering awe in the presence of the wholly other.”24 Both the creation hymn in Sir 42.15–43.33 and the poem on the creation of humanity in Sir 17.1–10 envision a human response to this experience of awe. In the former passage, the sense of the surpassing greatness of the creator—coupled with the experience of human limitation in comprehending the marvels of creation—leads Ben Sira to call for readers to “praise” the deity (43.28).25 The latter passage also suggests that the experience of awe at the grandeur of creation is designed to lead one to praise the creator (17.10).26 A general aim of Ben Sira’s creation poems is to instill in the reader the fear of YHWH—that is, a sense of awe before the creator himself— which in turn should lead the reader to praise YHWH. Literal fright and awe represent experiential manifestations of the fear of YHWH. That is, they primarily concern the experience of the person who reacts to the deity. Since these connotations of the phrase pertain to the experiential realm, they are theoretically applicable to all human beings, not just to Jews. Indeed, as I have noted, the connection between this meaning of “fear of YHWH” and human observation of the created world suggests that in this sense the phrase can have a universal appeal. For this reason, I label the piety which results from the experience of awe and fright universal. As a universal piety, fear of YHWH can refer to the experiential sense of awe or fright that non-Jews feel when they observe heavenly phenomena or experience divine judgment. It can refer, nonetheless, to the Jew, who also may observe creation or experience YHWH’s judgment.

———— 24

Barré, “Fear of God,” 42. Calduch-Benages has analyzed the movement Ben Sira makes in this hymn on creation from contemplation of the works of the creator to contemplation of the creator himself (“God, Creator of All,” 89). 26 Sir 17.8b–10 contains several textual difficulties. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 279. 25

138

CHAPTER FIVE

Some scholars interpret fear of God in Sirach primarily in this realm of “feeling.” For example, Collins remarks that, for Ben Sira, “fear of the Lord . . . is primarily an attitude of reverence for God and respect for received tradition.”27 While the experiential meaning may apply to some instances in Sirach of the phrase “fear of YHWH,” it does not seem to characterize the majority of occurrences. Indeed, what Barré has written about “fear of God” in the ANE generally—that it refers to the fulfillment of the requirements pertaining to a particular deity—is true about Ben Sira specifically. For Ben Sira, fear of YHWH as it applies to Jews has less to do with feelings, such as that implied by Collins’s use of the word “attitude,” and more to do with the performance of specific requirements. In order to anticipate my conclusions in the next section, let me state that, for Ben Sira, fear of YHWH in the particular sense means loyalty to the covenant with YHWH and keeping his covenant stipulations—which include participation in his cult in the Jerusalem temple and leading an ethical life. The term “piety”—meaning habitual devotion to YHWH and fulfillment of the religious duties required by him—offers a good approximation of what Ben Sira means by “fear of YHWH.” Since only a few of the occurrences of the phrase “fear of YHWH” in Sirach can be conclusively associated with non-Jews, or human beings in general, the evidence suggests that Ben Sira uses this term most often in reference to Jews, and in that sense, “fear of YHWH” designates the piety that Israel is required to practice.28 This affirms the observation I made above that, for Ben Sira, fear of YHWH is associated most frequently with special wisdom. FEAR OF YHWH AND SPECIAL WISDOM In chapter 2, I observed that Ben Sira distinguishes between the elect and the rest of humanity. Sirach 1.9b–10b describes an unequal distribution of wisdom, given to humans through two divine apportionments. The first apportionment involves a general outpouring of

————

27 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 47. Cf. the comments of Fox (Proverbs 1–9, 112) with respect to “fear of YHWH” in Proverbs: “Fear of the Lord is essentially an emotion or attitude.” 28 In chapter 6, I examine in what sense “fear of YHWH” may come to characterize the nations.

ELECTION AND PIETY

139

wisdom upon all creation, including all humanity. The second consists in a special distribution of an extra measure of wisdom to a select group of humanity. According to the majority of manuscripts in GI, Ben Sira calls the select group of people who receive a second apportionment of wisdom “those who love him” (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, Sir 1.10b), that is, those who love YHWH. In place of “those who love him,” a few Greek manuscripts and the Syriac tradition read “those who fear him” (τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν).29 Scholars have offered compelling arguments for the originality of each of the two readings. On the one hand, GII adds a bicolon (Sir 1.10cd) after this line which takes up the theme “love of YHWH.” As Skehan and Di Lella note, the Greek text likely read “those who love him” when this addition from GII was inserted.30 On the other hand, Marböck, following Haspecker, prefers “those who fear him,” since this reading unites the introductory poem (Sir 1.1–10) with the following poems (Sir 1.11–30 and 2.1–18), which treat at length the theme “fear of YHWH.”31 The text-critical problem may not be solvable, but this fact does not hinder one’s ability to understand Ben Sira’s thinking here. Indeed, on one level the debate is moot, since in Sir 2.15–16 Ben Sira equates “those who fear YHWH” with “those who love him” (see p 146, below). For Ben Sira, these two phrases designate one and the same group, though, as I will show, the actions indicated by “fear of YHWH” and “love of YHWH” should be distinguished: “love” implies covenant loyalty and “fear” implies piety. In the view of Ben Sira, Jewish piety involves loyalty to the covenant. All this suggests that when Ben Sira talks about fear of YHWH as wisdom, he usually means the special wisdom granted to the elect, not wisdom in general. That Ben Sira uses the phrase “fear of YHWH” most often with reference to Israel’s piety makes sense when one recalls that, according to Barré, the phrase “fear of god” in the ANE always involves devotion to a particular deity. Non-Jews would not be expected to practice this particular kind of piety. If, as I suggest, “fear

————

Syr. reads lkl dḥlwhy (for all who fear him). Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 137. Smend perceives the influence the other way around, suggesting that GI ἀγαπῶσιν was influenced by the presence of ἀγάπη in v 10c of GII (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 9). 31 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 21–2. 29 30

140

CHAPTER FIVE

of YHWH” in Sirach refers primarily to Jewish piety, what, specifically, does this particular piety involve? In order to answer this question, let me consider more closely the precise nature of the relation between fear of YHWH and special wisdom.

Piety and the Pursuit of Wisdom Ben Sira treats the relation between special wisdom and fear of YHWH in Sir 1.11–30 and 2.1–18. Having introduced his book with a poem on wisdom’s divine origins and the special apportionment of wisdom to a select group of “those who fear” YHWH (1.1–10), Ben Sira elaborates on the connection between the extra measure of wisdom given to the elect and the fear of YHWH (1.11–30) and on the specific content of the fear of YHWH (2.1–18).32 Before I proceed, I must respond to one potential objection. How can I be sure that, in these poems, Ben Sira elaborates on the special wisdom given to Israel and not on the general wisdom available to all humanity? Twice more in Sir 1.11–30, Ben Sira correlates wisdom with piety. Sir 1.25a b 26a b 27a b

ἐν θησαυροῖς σοφίας παραβολαὶ ἐπιστήμης βδέλυγμα δὲ ἁμαρτωλῷ θεοσέβεια ἐπιθυμήσας σοφίαν διατήρησον ἐντολάς καὶ κύριος χορηγήσει σοι αὐτήν σοφία γὰρ καὶ παιδεία φόβος κυρίου καὶ ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ πίστις καὶ πραότης

Sir 1.25a b 26a b

In wisdom’s treasuries are proverbs of knowledge, but piety33 is an abomination to the sinner. If you desire wisdom, observe the commandments, and YHWH will lavish her upon you.

————

32 With Smend (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 9); Haspecker (Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 93); and Marböck (Weisheit im Wandel, 21–2), I agree that Sir 1.1–

2.18 are united thematically. As a larger unit, these poems indicate the close connection Ben Sira makes between wisdom and fear of YHWH. 33 Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 145) note that the rare Greek word θεοσέβεια, which I have translated as “piety,” corresponds to y irʾat ʾĕlōhîm in Gen 20.11 and to y irʾat ʾădōnāy in Job 28.28. In Bar 5.4, the context does not permit a precise definition of the term. In 4 Macc 7.6, 22 and 17.15, the term refers to martyrs’ steadfast adherence to the law, in contrast to the temptation to profane the law in order to escape death. In Hellenistic Jewish epigraphic and literary sources, the adjective θεοσεβής (God-fearing) is ubiquitous. See, e.g., Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987), 48–66, and the secondary literature cited there.

ELECTION AND PIETY

27a b

141

For the fear of YHWH is wisdom and discipline; fidelity and humility are his delight.

As I argued in chapter 3 (see p 90), Ben Sira’s use of the same verb that he employed in Sir 1.10b (χορηγέω, lavish) and his suggestion that observance of divine commandments results in this kind of wisdom indicate that in this passage the sage refers to the special wisdom given to the elect, and not the general wisdom available to all humanity. Ben Sira signals the theme of the non-acrostic poem of twenty-two bicola found in Sir 1.11–30 by employing the phrase “fear of YHWH” at the beginning of each of the first three verses (1.11–13). Then, Ben Sira correlates wisdom and the fear of YHWH. The next eight bicola form a highly structured unit in which the fear of YHWH is associated with various aspects of wisdom. I provide only the first line of each pair of bicola below: Sir 1.14a 16a 18a 20a

ἀρχὴ σοφίας φοβεῖσθαι τὸν κύριον . . . πλησμονὴ σοφίας φοβεῖσθαι τὸν κύριον . . . στέφανος σοφίας φόβος κυρίου . . . ῥίζα σοφίας φοβεῖσθαι τὸν κύριον . . .

Sir 1.14a 16a 18a 20a

The The The The

beginning of wisdom is to fear YHWH . . . satiety of wisdom is to fear YHWH . . . crown of wisdom is fear of YHWH . . . root of wisdom is to fear YHWH . . .

Skehan and Di Lella note the chiastic structure of this set of four bicola, based on the notions of beginning and end.34 As a result, one might be tempted to interpret this chiasm as representing the whole or entirety of wisdom. Were this the case, then Ben Sira would be speaking of all wisdom, including both what I have termed general and special wisdom. It is likely, however, that by mentioning the beginning and end of wisdom, Ben Sira refers not to the entity “wisdom” but to the process by which one attains wisdom. Sirach 1.14a is a close restatement of Prov 1.7; 9.10; and Ps 111.10,35 and scholars debate the meaning

————

Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 143. Alexander A. Di Lella notes that these three verses are identically worded in LXX: ἀρχὴ σοφίας φόβος θεοῦ (“Fear of the Lord as Wisdom: Ben Sira 1,11–30,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997], 122). 34 35

142

CHAPTER FIVE

of the term “beginning” in the biblical verses.36 Proverbs 1.7 and Ps 111.10 use the word rēʾšît, which could mean either “beginning” or “principal part.”37 Fear of YHWH cannot be the principal part of wisdom, however, since, as Fox observes, “it is not part of wisdom, one component among many.”38 That Ben Sira does not view fear of YHWH as one constituent of wisdom should be clear from Sir 1.14a, 16a, 18a, and 20a.39 In the case of Proverbs, the temporal relation between fear of YHWH and wisdom is confirmed by Prov 9.10, which uses the word t əḥillâ (beginning), which “never has a purely qualitative sense, as rēʾšît sometimes does.”40 If the temporal interpretation of Prov 1.7; 9.10; and Ps 111.10 proves correct, then the notion of beginning refers to the process by which one acquires wisdom. The practice of Jewish piety becomes a precondition for the attainment of special wisdom.41 But Ben Sira— perhaps concerned that one may read passages such as Prov 1.7; 9.10; and Ps 111.10 and then dispense with piety once the journey toward wisdom has begun—suggests that piety should accompany the pursuit of wisdom at all times. So, at least for Ben Sira, the fear of YHWH does not serve merely as wisdom’s propaedeutic. The nature of the argument at this point may seem circular. YHWH bestows a special wisdom upon the elect Israel. This special wisdom is connected with fear of YHWH, a piety that I have suggested is

————

36 See Fox (Proverbs 1–9, 67–8) for the positions of various scholars, as well as for the divergent ways the MSS traditions of LXX Proverbs understand the term rēʾšît. 37 In his discussion of this problem with respect to the interpretation of Prov 1.7, Fox (Proverbs 1–9, 67) offers a third definition: “the best part in quality and importance, a sense supposedly related to rēʾšît, ‘first-fruits.’” This interpretation, however, can be classed under the temporal definition given above. 38 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 67–8. Italics in original. 39 In Sir 1.14a, Segal reconstructs the Hebrew with rʾšyt, but interprets this to mean “the excellent and chief part of wisdom” (The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫)ו‬. He notes, however, that one may also interpret this to mean “beginning” in the sense that one must acquire fear of YHWH before one can acquire wisdom. 40 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 68. My survey of the 22 occurrences of t əḥillâ in the Hebrew Bible confirms Fox’s conclusion that the term always includes a temporal meaning. Fox also suggests that the qualitative meaning of rēʾšît is rare, and he cites Num 24.20; Deut 33.21; Amos 6.1; Jer 49.35; and Ezek 48.14 as the few examples in which the term possesses this meaning. However, a qualitative sense seems to be implied as well in 1 Sam 2.29; 15.21; Ezek 20.40; Dan 11.41; and Amos 6.6. Together, these constitute nearly 20 percent of the 51 occurrences of the term in the entire Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the qualitative meaning is not exactly rare. 41 See Fox (Proverbs 1–9, 68), who makes a similar argument in the case of Prov 1.7: “The issue in 1:7 . . . is the place of the fear of God in the learning process.”

ELECTION AND PIETY

143

characterized by covenant loyalty, observance of commandments, ethical behavior, and participation in the cult. And now I have just noted that this piety leads to wisdom. The circle occurs, however, not in my argument, but in the nature of the relation Ben Sira envisions between fear of YHWH and wisdom. He affirms that all wisdom is from YHWH, and that wisdom is a gift divinely bestowed upon human beings. Nonetheless, a person must still strive for wisdom, and, as the present passage shows, this striving achieves the best results when it is accompanied by the particular piety that is incumbent upon the people of Israel.

Fear of YHWH and Jewish Piety Ben Sira’s suggestion in Sir 1.26 that YHWH will lavish wisdom upon the one who observes the commandments provides a clue to the content of the Jewish piety indicated by the phrase “fear of YHWH.” Fear of YHWH possesses an experiential sense of fright or awe, and in this sense it could refer to Jews and non-Jews alike. The phrase also contains a performative sense, and I now turn to a consideration of this meaning. In its performative sense, fear of YHWH pertains to Jews and the particular piety that is incumbent upon them.

Fear of YHWH as Observance of Commandments Ben Sira frequently associates fear of YHWH with observance of divine commandments.42 Sirach 19.20, for instance, connects fear of YHWH and adherence to the Torah indirectly through each notion’s correlation with wisdom. Sir 19.20a b

πᾶσα σοφία φόβος κυρίου καὶ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ποίησις νόμου

Sir 19.20a b

All wisdom is fear of YHWH, and in all wisdom is the performance of the Torah.43

Here as in other passages Ben Sira places “fear of YHWH” in synonymous parallelism with “performance of the Torah.” In some pas-

————

42 For other instances of literary connections between fear of God and observance of the commandments, in addition to the examples given below, see Sir 1.26–7 (discussed above, p 140); 9.15–16; 14.20–15.10; 19.24; 21.11; 23.27; 32.24; and 33.1– 3. 43 On my interpretation of πᾶσα σοφία and νόμος in this passage, see p 91 n 64.

144

CHAPTER FIVE

sages, Ben Sira places fear of YHWH in antithetical parallelism with transgression of the commandments. 44

Sir 10.19b d

[‫]זרע נכבד מה ירא ייי‬ ‫זרע נקלה ]מה[ עובר מצוה‬

Sir 10.19b

Honored offspring—what is it? The one who fears YHWH. Dishonored offspring—what is it? The one who transgresses the commandment.

d

Here, the honored person who fears YHWH stands in contrast to the dishonored person who disobeys YHWH’s decree. Because Ben Sira associates fear of YHWH and observance of commandments so intimately in his book, Roland Murphy suggests that the sage holds a nomistic understanding of fear of YHWH.45 This nomistic conception of fear of YHWH would seem to connect Ben Sira’s thought to that of Psalms 19; 112; and 119. Psalm 112, for example, begins: Ps 112.1a b Ps 112.1a b

‫י־אישׁ יָ ֵרא ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ַא ְשׁ ֵר‬ ‫וֹתיו ָח ֵפץ ְמאֹד‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ִמ ְצ‬ Happy is the one who fears YHWH, who greatly delights in his commandments.

The apparent connection between the thought of Ben Sira and these psalms should not be surprising, given the sapiential outlook of the latter. As Jon Levenson has observed, Psalm 119 holds a view of the commandments that is very similar to that contained in the book of Proverbs. In both cases, “mi ṣwâ (and its synonyms) indicate . . . the counsel of a sage rather than juridical or cultic norms.”46 As a sage

————

44 Sir 10.19b is reconstructed from G (σπέρμα ἔντιμον ποῖον οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον). Sir 10.19bc is missing from MS A, according to Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 228) by homoioarchton. The extant portion of MS B begins with Sir 10.19cd. 45 Roland E. Murphy, “Qohelet’s Quarrel with the Fathers,” in From Faith to Faith: Essays to Honor Donald G. Miller on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian (Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1979), 235–45; and idem, “Religious Dimensions of Israelite Wisdom,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 455. 46 Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 566.

ELECTION AND PIETY

145

in the tradition of Proverbs, one might expect Ben Sira to have what Levenson calls a “sapiential concept of commandments.”47 Another possibility is that Ben Sira’s interest in commandments may derive from Deuteronomic influence; the Deuteronomic author also frequently associates fear of YHWH with observance of divine commandments. Deuteronomy 8.6, for example, exhorts the Israelites to observe “the commandments of YHWH . . . by fearing him.”48 For the Deuteronomic author, fear of YHWH and keeping the commandments go hand in hand; both are meant to ensure the future well-being of Israel as a nation (Deut 5.29). There is a major distinction, however, between the outlook of Deuteronomy and that of a nomistic psalm, such as Psalm 119. As Levenson notes, “the strictly sapiential concept of commandments” in Psalm 119 “pays no attention to covenant,” whereas Deuteronomy conceives of divine commandments within the context of covenant.49 Moreover, for the Deuteronomic author, the divine commandments are the covenant stipulations, that is, those found within the book of Deuteronomy. Unlike Psalm 119, Ben Sira seems to have in mind pentateuchal norms when he refers to commandments. Whereas the psalmist never refers specifically to any legislation from the first five books of the Bible,50 Ben Sira alludes to pentateuchal laws at various points. Sirach 3.1–6, for example, offers a commentary on the Decalogue’s command to honor father and mother (Exod 20.12). Sirach 4.1–6 and 7–10 reflect social laws found in Deut 15.7–11 and 24.17–22, respectively.51 Sirach 19.13–17 provides an exegesis of the law of reproach in Lev 19.17.52 While Ben Sira neither mentions the dietary laws nor focuses on the ritual laws of P, in these cases “observance is arguably taken for granted.”53 Indeed, given that Ben Sira mentions the “book of the covenant of the Most High God” and “the Torah that Moses commanded us” in apposition (Sir 24.23), it

———— 47

Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 567. Cf. Deut 4.10; 5.29; 6.2, 24; 13.5; 17.19; 25.58; and 31.12. 49 Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 567. 50 Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 566. 51 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 47; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 166–7. 52 James L. Kugel, “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17,” HTR 80 (1987): 43–61. 53 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 47. 48

146

CHAPTER FIVE

seems reasonable to suggest that the commandments to which Ben Sira refers throughout his work are those found in the Pentateuch.54 Let me now turn to consider the correlation Ben Sira makes between fear of YHWH and loyalty to the covenant. I shall show how Ben Sira, in a move analogous to that of the Deuteronomic author, contextualizes the pentateuchal commandments as covenant stipulations.

Fear of YHWH as Loyalty to the Covenant In addition to associating fear of YHWH with observance of divine commandments, Ben Sira also connects fear of YHWH with “love of YHWH.”55 An excellent example appears in Sir 2.1–18, a passage which belongs to the complex of introductory poems that lead off the book (along with Sir 1.1–10 and 1.11–30). As I indicated earlier, this poem elaborates on the statement in Sir 1.10b that YHWH gives wisdom to those who love or fear him. Like the poem found in Sir 1.11–30, the present poem has as its theme “fear of YHWH.” In Sir 2.1–18, the phrase occurs a total of seven times.56 In vv 15–17, Ben Sira closely associates fear of YHWH and love of YHWH. Sir 2.15a b 16a b 17a b Sir 2.15a b 16a b 17a b

οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον οὐκ ἀπειθήσουσιν ῥημάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀγαπῶντες αὐτὸν συντηρήσουσιν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον ζητήσουσιν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀγαπῶντες αὐτὸν ἐμπλησθήσονται τοῦ νόμου οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον ἑτοιμάσουσιν καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ταπεινώσουσιν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν Those who fear YHWH do not disobey his words, and those who love him observe his ways. Those who fear YHWH seek his approval, and those who love him are filled with his Torah. Those who fear YHWH prepare their hearts and humble their souls before him.

———— 54

sion.

Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 47) reaches the same conclu-

Haspecker (Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 281–312) devotes an entire chapter to this theme. See his analysis of Sir 2.15–17; 7.27–30; and 34.17–19a. 56 Sir 2.7a, 8a, 9a, 10c, 15a, 16a, 17a. The Syr. contains an additional instance in 2.1a: “My son, if you approach the fear of God (dḥlth dʾlhʾ).” Smend (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 18) prefers this reading over G: “when you come to serve YHWH.” 55

ELECTION AND PIETY

147

Sirach 2.15–16 places the phrase “those who fear YHWH” in synonymous parallelism with the phrase “those who love him,” indicating that the groups are one and the same.57 That Ben Sira has in mind one group—the elect people of Israel—in effect renders moot the text-critical debate in Sir 1.10b over the alternate readings “fear” and “love.” I have suggested that “fear” refers to piety, and below I will show that “love” refers to covenant loyalty. In this passage, Ben Sira proposes that practicing a Jewish piety includes remaining loyal to YHWH’s covenant with Israel. Thus, while the verbal actions implied by love and fear remain distinct, those who fear YHWH (that is, engage in piety appropriate to him) of necessity also love him (that is, maintain fidelity to his covenant). These verses prove significant for understanding the specific content with which Ben Sira imbues the notion “fear of YHWH.” In three of the cola, those who fear YHWH are said to observe the commandments (Sir 2.15a, b, 16b). Ben Sira thus locates a nomistic understanding of fear of YHWH (that is, observance of the commandments) within the context of love of YHWH. From what source, one might inquire, does Ben Sira derive a connection between fear of YHWH, love of YHWH, and observance of divine commandments? The answer to this question may help one understand the precise relation Ben Sira envisions between these three notions. Like the book of Sirach, Psalm 119 refers to “fear of YHWH”58 and connects the notions of “love” and “commandments.” In the nomistic piety of Psalm 119, however, “love” almost always has as its object the divine law. Ps 119.127a b Ps 119.127a b

‫ל־כּן ָא ַה ְב ִתּי ִמ ְצו ֺ ֶתיָך‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬ ‫וּמ ָפּז‬ ִ ‫ִמזָּ ָהב‬ Therefore, I love your commandments more than gold, more than fine gold.

In eleven of the twelve occurrences of the verb ʾāhab (to love) in Psalm 119, the psalmist expresses his love for YHWH’s command-

———— 57

Also, cf. Sir 34.17–19a, where Ben Sira asserts that YHWH takes care of “those who love him,” who are synonymous with “those who fear him.” As I have noted, however, the actions associated with the verbs “to fear” and “to love” are not identical. 58 Reference to fear of YHWH occurs four times: Ps 119.63, 74, 79 (all y rʾ), and 120 ( pḥd).

148

CHAPTER FIVE

ments;59 only once (Ps 119.132) is the deity (šəmekā, your name) the direct object of the verb. While it may be a short leap logically from loving the commandments to loving the giver of the commandments, the latter is not the usual idiom of this psalmist. The usual object of the verb “love” is the commandments themselves, not the deity. Deuteronomy provides a better source for Ben Sira’s synthesis of fear of YHWH, love of YHWH, and observance of divine commandments. In several Deuteronomic passages, all three concepts appear together. In answer to the question of what YHWH demands of Israel, the author responds: Deut 10.12 Deut 10.12

‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ם־ליִ ְר ָאה ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ ‫ִכּי ִא‬ ‫וּל ַא ֲה ָבה אֹתוֹ‬ ְ ‫ל־דּ ָר ָכיו‬ ְ ‫ָל ֶל ֶכת ְבּ ָכ‬ Only to fear YHWH your God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him.

Here fear of YHWH, walking in his ways (another way of indicating observance of his commandments), and love of YHWH appear together in series. In another passage, in response to the hypothetical invitation of a prophet to follow other gods, the Deuteronomic author urges the listener not to follow the prophet, saying, Deut 13.4b 5a Deut 13.4b 5a

‫ֹלה ֶיכם ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ֵ ‫ִכּי ְמנַ ֶסּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ֹלה ֶיכם‬ ֵ ‫ָל ַד ַעת ֲהיִ ְשׁ ֶכם א ֲֹה ִבים ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫וּב ָכל־נַ ְפ ְשׁ ֶכם‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ַב ְב ֶכם‬ ְ ‫ְבּ ָכ‬ ‫ֹלה ֶיכם ֵתּ ֵלכוּ‬ ֵ ‫ַא ֲח ֵרי יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫וֹתיו ִתּ ְשׁמֹרוּ‬ ָ ‫ת־מ ְצ‬ ִ ‫וְ אֹתוֹ ִת ָיראוּ וְ ֶא‬ For YHWH your God is testing you, to know whether you love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. YHWH your God shall you follow, him shall you fear, and his commandments shall you observe [Eng. 3b–4a].

Deuteronomy, more than any other biblical book, links fear of YHWH, love of YHWH, and observance of divine commandments. Unlike the author of Psalm 119, the author of Deuteronomy ex-

———— 59

Ps 119.47, 48, 97, 113, 119, 127, 142, 159, 163, 165, 167.

ELECTION AND PIETY

149

presses his nomistic theology through the idiom of love of the deity.60 Moreover, as William Moran has demonstrated, love of YHWH in Deuteronomy implies loyalty to YHWH’s covenant. The phrase “love of God” derives from ancient Near Eastern political treaties and indicates an exclusive relationship. A loyal subject should love his king wholeheartedly and—since political allegiance tolerates no divided loyalties—sever all ties to other rulers. Israel applied this political treaty language to its relationship with YHWH, with the implication that, if one loves YHWH, one cannot relate also to other gods.61 Moran’s insight into the connection between love of God and loyalty to God’s covenant permits one to understand the connection Deuteronomy makes between covenant and commandment. A vassal who loves his sovereign will obey all stipulations laid down by the king. Moran observes: Above all, [love in Deuteronomy] is a love which must be expressed in loyalty, in service, and in unqualified obedience to the demands of the Law . . . It is, in brief, a love defined by and pledged to the covenant—a covenantal love.62

In other words, in Deuteronomy love of YHWH contains the basic sense of loyalty to the covenant, and one expresses loyalty to the covenant through observance of the covenant stipulations.63 Sirach 7.27–30 reveals the Deuteronomic influence behind Ben Sira’s notion that fear of YHWH involves covenant loyalty (that is, love of YHWH).

————

60 See Levenson, “Sources of Torah,” 567. In Ps 119, the commandments become almost a hypostasis of the deity, and thus the psalmist’s expression of love of the commandment may not be all that distant from the characteristic “love” language of the Deuteronomist, which takes the deity as object. My point, however, is that the two traditions use different idioms. 61 William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. 62 Moran, “Love of God in Deuteronomy,” 78. Weinfeld also notes that the phrase “to fear God” like the phrase “to love God” derives from treaties of the second and first millennium B.C.E. and expresses religious loyalty (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 83–4, esp. 83 n 6 for a few examples). 63 See above, for example, Deut 10.12–13, which brings together fear of YHWH, serving YHWH “with all your heart and with all your soul,” and observance of the commandments and statutes. Cf. the mention of fear of God, love of God, and observance of divine commandments in Neh 1.5 and Dan 9.4.

150

CHAPTER FIVE

Sir 7.27a b 28a b 29a b 30a b Sir 7.27a b 28a b 29a b 30a b

‫]בכל לבך כבד אביך‬ ‫ואם תחוללך אל תשכח‬ ‫זכר כי מהם היית‬ [‫ומה תגמל להם כגמולם לך‬ ‫בכל נפשך פחד אל‬ ‫ואת כהניו הקדיש‬ ‫בכל מאודך אהוב עושך‬ 64 ‫ואת משרתיו לא תעזב‬ [With all your heart honor your father, and the mother who bore you do not forget. Remember that from them you came into being; How can you repay them according to what they have done for you?] With all your soul, fear God, and his priests treat as sacred. With all your strength, love your maker, and his servants do not neglect.

This passage offers an interpretation of Deut 6.5, from which Ben Sira derives the initial phrases of 27a, 29a, and 30a (see underlined portions) verbatim. Deut 6.5 Deut 6.5

‫ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשך ובכל־מאדך‬ You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Thus, Sir 7.27–30 elaborates what it means in Deut 6.5 to “love YHWH” with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. For the sage, to love YHWH “with all your heart” means to honor father and mother. To love YHWH “with all your soul” means to fear God and treat God’s priests as holy. To love YHWH “with all your strength” means

———— 64

In MS A, only verses 7.29–30 are extant, and a textual mishap is apparent. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 206) attribute the missing verses (vv 27– 8) to homoioarchton. MS A reads: Sir 7.29 30

bkl lbk pḥd ʾl wʾt khny w hqdyš bkl mʾwdk ʾhwb ʿwśk wʾt m šrt y w lʾ tʿzb

It seems that after copying bkl lbk, which corresponds to the beginning of v 27a in G, a scribe jumped to the next bkl, which according to G would have been bkl npš k (ἐν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ σου) in 29a. One can also see from MS A that the 2ms pronominal suffix appears on mʾwdk, even though it is missing in G. For my reconstruction of vv 27–8, I have followed Segal (The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ )מז‬and G.

ELECTION AND PIETY

151

to love the creator and take care of those who serve him in the sacrificial cult. Below, I will discuss further the significance of this passage for the importance Ben Sira places on participation in the cult of the Jerusalem temple. For the moment, let me point out that in his articulation of the meaning “love YHWH” in Deut 6.5, Ben Sira includes fear of YHWH. By placing “fear YHWH” and “love your Maker” in poetic parallelism, the sage suggests that piety and covenant loyalty are intimately connected. While neither the immediate verses cited in Ben Sira’s commentary (Sir 7.27–30) nor the verse on which he comments (Deut 6.5) mention commandments, one can see in the larger context of Deut 6.4–25 a more extensive web of interrelations. This Deuteronomic passage constitutes a series of allusions to and a commentary on the first part of the Decalogue (Deut 5.6–10).65 This commentary brings together the notions of fear of YHWH, love of YHWH, and keeping YHWH’s commandments. Moses says he is charged with teaching Israel the Torah, so that the Israelites and their descendants “may fear YHWH” and “keep all his decrees and commandments” (Deut 6.2). The Israelites are instructed by Moses that, when they enter the land of Canaan, they shall “fear YHWH,” which is understood as exclusive service to YHWH (Deut 6.13). Finally, in time to come, when the descendants of those present ask about the commandments, the Israelites are instructed to tell their children that after the exodus, YHWH commanded them to observe all the statutes and to fear YHWH so as to keep Israel alive (Deut 6.20–4). By echoing the words of Deut 6.5 in his meditation on what it means to love YHWH, Ben Sira correlates fear of YHWH with the Deuteronomic covenantal language of loving YHWH, as well as with the Deuteronomic concern for observance of the covenant stipulations.66 Should there be any doubt that Ben Sira understands the observance of divine commandments to be intimately connected to fidelity

————

65 Moran (“Love of God in Deuteronomy,” 85) says, “‘And thou shalt love the Lord, thy God . . . ’ in 6,5 presupposes . . . ‘those who love me’ in 5,10 (Ex 20,6).” I would add that Deut 6.17 also alludes to 5.10. Note also that Deut 6.12, 21, and 23 allude to 5.6; Deut 6.4 and 14 allude to 5.7; and Deut 6.15 alludes to 5.9. 66 The Nash Papyrus suggests that Deut 6.4–9 was used liturgically as early as the second century B.C.E. William Foxwell Albright dates the MS to the second half of the second century (“A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus,” JBL 56 [1937]: 149). This suggests that the liturgical circulation of the Shema may also have been Ben Sira’s source for the Deuteronomic language.

152

CHAPTER FIVE

to YHWH’s covenant, the sage explicitly links the two notions in Sir 28.7. Sir 28.7a b

μνήσθητι ἐντολῶν καὶ μὴ μηνίασῃς τῷ πλησίον καὶ διαθήκην ὑψίστου καὶ πάριδε ἄγνοιαν

Sir 28.7a

Remember the commandments, and do not be angry with your neighbor; [remember] the covenant of the Most High, and overlook mistakes.

b

Here, through synonymous parallelism, Ben Sira associates observance of commandments with loyalty to the covenant. The one commandment the sage references specifically is the injunction against hating one’s neighbor (Lev 19.17).67 This suggests not only that the commandments to which Ben Sira refers are the pentateuchal commandments, but also that he views the pentateuchal commandments as covenant stipulations. Thus far, I have demonstrated that Ben Sira considers Jewish piety—expressed through the phrase “fear of YHWH”—to include loyalty to the covenant of YHWH. Moreover, loyalty to YHWH’s covenant implies strict observance of the stipulations contained in that covenant. In this sense, his notion of “fear of YHWH” approximates more closely the covenantal sense contained in the book of Deuteronomy than the strictly nomistic understanding of the phrase found in certain psalms, such as Psalm 119. Indeed, it appears that Ben Sira has drawn upon Deuteronomy, as Sir 7.27–30 indicates, in formulating his understanding of the relation between fear of YHWH, loyalty to YHWH’s covenant, and observance of YHWH’s commandments. Moreover, the commandments to which Ben Sira refers are indeed those found in the Pentateuch. One can go further, in terms of specifying the objective requirements of the Jewish piety to which Ben Sira refers. The pentateuchal commandments which Ben Sira enjoins upon the faithful Jew may be categorized—at least heuristically—as ethical and cultic requirements. This distinction is somewhat artificial, in the sense that one cannot pick and choose among the commandments or follow only one category of them or another. Indeed, the fulfillment of directives from both categories mutually reinforces the wisdom of the elect,

———— 67

In Lev 19.17–18, the neighbor or brother that one is enjoined from hating is the fellow member of the covenant community.

ELECTION AND PIETY

153

which in turn serves the whole world. Let me turn first to a consideration of the ethical component of the fear of YHWH in Ben Sira’s thinking. ETHICAL PIETY: TORAH AND “THE TORAH” Much of what wisdom literature in the ANE treats may be termed practical wisdom. In this respect, Israel’s wisdom tradition is no different. Through aphorisms and instructions, the wisdom writers seek to inculcate in their readers a certain code of ethical behavior. While the sages always linked this code of ethical behavior to religion in some way, they often transmitted it through means that were universal, non-theistic, and void of overt religious content. About one half of the book of Sirach pertains to these matters of practical wisdom.68 The sage’s teachings on practical wisdom treat relationships with various persons, as well as topics such as social justice, almsgiving, and the like. It seems that most of Ben Sira’s teaching is informed by the larger wisdom tradition, that is, by the tradition of transmitting the instruction (torah) of the sage. Indeed, as Richard Clifford observes, “As expected of a sage writing in the wisdom tradition, Ben Sira rarely invokes the Law as a motive for conduct.”69 Ben Sira does, however, refer to the Torah on a few occasions (see above, p 145). And given that Ben Sira stands within the larger wisdom tradition—which was generally reticent to express ethical norms in overtly particularistic terms—it seems highly significant that he makes any reference to Israel’s Torah whatsoever. This raises the problem of the relation in Sirach between wisdom instruction (torah) and Israel’s Torah. How exactly do the ethical norms of the Torah fit into Ben Sira’s overall wisdom teaching? Ben Sira’s treatment of adultery illustrates the problem. The motif of

————

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 62. The topic of Ben Sira’s ethics has been adequately covered by other studies. See, for example, Jack T. Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” HUCA 50 (1979): 73–106; Otto Kaiser, “Die Begründung der Sittlichkeit im Buche Jesus Sirach,” in Der Mensch unter dem 68

Schicksal: Studien zur Geschichte, Theologie und Gegenwartsbedeutung der Weisheit, BZAW 161 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), 63–90; and Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 62–79. My purpose here is not to replicate these

discussions, but to understand the motivations for the ethical piety that Ben Sira urges upon the elect. 69 Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 128.

154

CHAPTER FIVE

adultery recurs often in Wisdom literature.70 Ben Sira treats the matter in Sir 9.8–9; 23.16–26; 26.9–12; and 42.10. In Sir 23.16–26, Ben Sira equally denounces the husband and the wife who engage in extramarital affairs.71 The sage refers to the adultery of the wife specifically as a transgression of “the Torah of the Most High” (νόμῳ ὑψίστου, 23.23a).72 Almost as if violation of the Torah commandment provides insufficient justification for condemning adulterous behavior, Ben Sira also underscores the wrongness of the woman’s action by adding that she has offended her husband and begotten children with another man (23.23b–d). These more practical motives appeal to principles of traditional wisdom,73 rather than divine law. Moreover, while Ben Sira envisions punishment for the person who commits adultery—the adulterer “will be denounced in the streets of the city” (23.21), while the adulteress “will be dragged before the assembly” (23.24a)—he makes no reference to capital punishment, the penalty stipulated by pentateuchal law (Lev 20.10; Deut 22.22– 4; cf. Ezek 16.36–40).74 And although Ben Sira does not insist that the pentateuchal law be strictly fulfilled in terms of disciplining the adulterous persons, he nevertheless suggests that their punishment will demonstrate to others that fear of YHWH and obedience to his commandments are highly recommended (Sir 23.27). This example suggests two possible ways to understand the relation between torah and the Torah with respect to guiding ethical be-

————

See, e.g., Prov 6.32–5; 30.20; Job 31.9–10; Eccl 7.26; Instr. Ptahhotep lines 277–90; Instr. Any 3.13–17; and Pap. Insinger 7.20–8.20. For the Egyptian sources cited here and throughout this chapter, see Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature. 71 It is unclear whether Ben Sira considers sexual relations between a married man and an unmarried woman to be adulterous. He refers to the husband as “the man who transgresses his bed” (ἄνθρωπος παραβαίνων ἀπὸ τῆς κλίνης αὐτοῦ, Sir 23.18a). κλίνη (couch, bed) rarely connotes the marriage bed. But the term is used in this sense in LXX Prov 7.16 and Ezek 23.41, and this must be the sense intended here. This may suggest that for the sage any kind of extramarital affair constitutes adultery. 72 See Exod 20.14 and Deut 5.18 for the pentateuchal proscriptions on adultery. 73 Prov 6.33–4, e.g., refers to “wounds and dishonor,” as well as to the “fury” and “revenge” of the wronged husband, as undesirable consequences of adultery. 74 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 69. Collins notes that Proverbs also does not call for capital punishment in the case of adultery. See, e.g., Prov 6.32–5. I would add that Ben Sira’s non-insistence on implementing legal consequences outlined in the Pentateuch is consistent throughout his book. For example, the sage views the first humans as mortal from the beginning (Sir 17.1), whereas Gen 1–3 may suggest that a capital sentence results from disobedience of the divine command. 70

ELECTION AND PIETY

155

havior. On the one hand, that he refers to the pentateuchal prohibition as the first reason for condemning the adulteress may imply that for Ben Sira the Torah is paramount, and all sapiential instruction should be understood in light of the special wisdom YHWH bequeathed to Israel. In this view, torah would be subsumed into Torah. On the other hand, that he seems unencumbered by the details of punishment for such behavior specified in the Pentateuch may indicate that Ben Sira is really only interested in “conformity to the tradition in principle.”75 In this view, the sapiential tradition establishes the norms, and pentateuchal commandments only serve to buttress wisdom’s maxims. In this case, the Torah would be subsumed into torah.

Motivations for Ethical Piety In order to understand the way in which the ethical norms of the Torah fit into Ben Sira’s overall instruction in wisdom, one must probe the motivations the sage offers for engaging in ethical behavior. A constant in the debate regarding Ben Sira’s ethics has been the charge that the sage motivates ethical behavior primarily through what many scholars perceive to be eudaemonism, or even selfishness.76 Henry Maldwyn Hughes, for example, interprets “Sirach’s view of morality” as “decidedly prudential.”77 Hughes continues:

————

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 70. The matter may be further complicated since, under Seleucid rule, no Jewish authority likely possessed the ability to inflict the pentateuchal punishment. Tiller has assessed the scant evidence for reconstructing the political powers of the γερουσία (“Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea,” 1–10). He observes (p 4) that “we lack . . . a clear idea of the particular powers . . . of this council.” Ben Sira’s suggestion that the adulteress “will be led away to the assembly” (εἰς ἐκκλησίαν, 23.24a) may imply that some council “had juridical responsibilities in cases where imperial law was not involved.” But as Tiller (p 7) points out, scholars do not know whether the assembly referred to here is the same as the γερουσία. See further my discussion of the γερουσία in chapter 4. 76 See Paul Volz, Hiob und Weisheit: das Buch Hiob, Sprüche und Jesus Sirach, Prediger, 2d ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), 107; Otto Fridolin Fritzsche, Die Weisheit Jesus-Sirach’s (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1859), xxxiv; Rylaarsdam, Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature, 57–8; Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 386–92; Helmut Lamparter, Die Apokryphen I: Das Buch Jesus Sirach, BAT 25 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972), 12; and Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 75–6. 77 Henry Maldwyn Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature (London: R. Culley, 1910), 33. 75

156

CHAPTER FIVE

This spirit of prudent calculation is carried to the extent of meanness and hypocrisy in xxxviii. 17 f., where a pretence of mourning for the dead is recommended “lest thou be evil spoken of.”78

In another place, Hughes notes that Ben Sira promotes charity “not so much from compassion for the poor, as for the furtherance of selfish ends.”79 Hughes quotes Sir 29.11 (cf. v 12), where Ben Sira’s recommended motives for almsgiving appear to be selfish rather than altruistic. Hughes gives his overall judgment on Ben Sira’s ethics as follows: On the whole it must be concluded that the ethical teaching of Sirach is somewhat individualistic and self-centered. Ethical questions are viewed from the standpoint of the individual, and that chiefly in their external bearing; the nation and the race lie outside the writer’s range of interest. He gives many evidences of humane feeling, but none of a spirit of genuine altruism.80

While it is easy to see how the examples adduced by Hughes could lead to a judgment of Ben Sira’s ethics as self-centered, it must be admitted that his motivations for ethical behavior are more complex than Hughes allows. Indeed, I have already noted the example of adultery, in which Ben Sira proscribes a particular ethical behavior in part, at least, because of the Torah commandment. Other examples in which Ben Sira endorses a particular mode of conduct on the basis of pentateuchal legislation include the prescription to provide the priest with “his portion, as it has been commanded you” (Sir 7.31),81 the injunction against hating one’s neighbor (Sir 28.7),82 and the prohibition on appearing in the temple during a pilgrimage festival without a sacrificial offering (Sir 35.6–7).83 Moreover, in the very passage Hughes uses to make his point about Ben Sira’s supposed selfishness regarding charity (Sir 29.8–13), the sage commends almsgiving as follows: “on account of the commandment help the

————

Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, 34. Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, 38. 80 Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, 39. 81 See Exod 29.27–8; Lev 2.1–10; 7.31–6; Num 18.9–20; Deut 14.28–9; and 18.1–8. 82 See Lev 19.17, as well as the positive wording of this commandment in Lev 19.18. 83 See Exod 23.14–17; 34.18–24; and Deut 16.16–17. 78 79

ELECTION AND PIETY

157

poor man” (Sir 29.9).84 Thus, that certain actions are prescribed or proscribed in the Torah should, in Ben Sira’s eyes, serve as a motivator for the Jew to conduct himself accordingly. In addition to reminding his reader that a particular action is enjoined or prohibited by a pentateuchal commandment, Ben Sira also motivates ethical behavior through appeal to fear of divine punishment. Consider again the example of charity toward the poor. In Sir 4.2–6, the sage commends almsgiving so as not to anger the destitute person through refusal. Should you incense such a person, Ben Sira reasons, he might curse you, and “his Maker will hear his entreaty” (4.6). The implication is that YHWH will respond to the poor man’s prayer and judge you for your parsimony.85 While almsgiving falls within the category of behaviors legislated by the Torah (see Deut 15.7–11), anxiety over divine retribution may also serve to motivate ethical behavior in areas not covered by pentateuchal legislation. In this sense, apprehension of punishment by YHWH as a motivator has affinities with fear of God, as the phrase is sometimes used in the Bible. As Fox suggests, fear of God “motivates right behavior even when socially enforced sanctions do not exist or cannot be effective.”86 In the Elohist’s version of the story of the endangerment of a matriarch (Gen 20.1–18), for example, Abraham explains that he represented Sarah as his sister, because he feared that he would be killed on her account since, he thought, “surely there is no fear of God ( y irʾat ʾĕlōhîm) in this place” (Gen 20.11). As Fox observes, “No legal authority would have punished the Philistines if they had killed the unprotected stranger; only fear of a divine power might restrain them.”87 In one instance, Deuteronomy also appears to imbue the phrase “fear of God” with a sense of anxiety over divine retribution. The author judges Amalek’s attack on the stragglers in the rear to be an immoral act, which the Deuteronomist attributes to Amalek’s lack of

————

84 See Deut 15.7–11. As can be seen from the above list, Ben Sira invokes the Torah to justify both ethical and cultic practices. The latter I take up in the next section. 85 On Ben Sira’s view of YHWH as a god who responds to petitionary prayer, see chapter 6. 86 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 70. 87 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 70.

158

CHAPTER FIVE

fear of God (Deut 25.18).88 In this sense, the notion of fear of God is important for the wisdom tradition, since Wisdom literature tends to treat conduct which occurs outside the norms addressed by the law.89 This nuance of the phrase lurks in the background of Ben Sira’s discussion of adultery in Sir 23.16–26. The sage reports the speech of the adulterous husband as follows: “Who can see me? Darkness surrounds me, the walls conceal me, and no one sees me” (Sir 23.18; cf. Job 24.15). Ben Sira points out, however, that the adulterer “fears” only “human eyes.” The sage notes that YHWH’s eyes, in comparison, are “ten thousand times brighter than the sun” and that they “observe all human actions and peer into hidden places” (Sir 23.19).90 Although he does not use the phrase “fear of God,” the passage implies that the adulterer lacks such fear. In this case, anxiety over divine punishment regulates behavior such as adultery— a transgression which, the passage suggests, the offender commits clandestinely. Even if other human beings do not observe the unethical act and, thus, do not hold the transgressor accountable, YHWH sees all that human beings do and will punish them, Ben Sira implies, for the sins committed covertly. In addition to the nomistic motivation and the fear of divine punishment, Ben Sira employs other incentives to encourage ethical behavior. Many of these incentives are characteristic of the wisdom tradition. Wisdom writers frequently use life, in particular the good life, to motivate ethical behavior.91 Ben Sira, too, in a passage in which he discourages begging (Sir 40.28–30), suggests that the life of a beggar “cannot be counted as a [way of] life (ḥay y îm, 40.29b).”92 In another instance, Ben Sira summarizes an instruction on wisdom and self-control by saying that “many have perished

————

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 274–5. These examples further illustrate the point I made earlier that “fear of God” contains not only a cultic dimension, but an ethical one, too. 89 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 71. 90 Cf. the thought of Sir 16.17–23, where the speaker contemplates commission of sin, since, he thinks, “I am hidden from God.” 91 Life as a motivator of ethical behavior is especially frequent in the book of Proverbs. See, e.g., Prov 4.4; 9.6; 13.3; 16.17; and 19.16, among other instances. See also Eccl 3.12; 7.12; and 9.9. 92 Cf. Sir 30.15, 22. 88

ELECTION AND PIETY

159

through lack of discipline (mû sār),93 but the one who guards himself (hanni šmār) prolongs life (ḥay y îm, 37.31).” Nonetheless, Ben Sira connects even this motivator, which is familiar from the larger wisdom tradition, to Israel’s piety and Torah. In Sir 50.29, for example, the sage suggests that “the fear of YHWH is life (ḥay y îm).” And in reference to Moses, Ben Sira writes that YHWH “set in his hand the commandment, the Torah of life (tôrat ḥay y îm) and understanding” (Sir 45.5). Thus, even a universal motivator such as life should be understood, according to Ben Sira, as stemming from the practice of Jewish piety and observance of the Torah. The larger wisdom tradition also motivates ethical behavior by instilling a concern for one’s reputation or name.94 Ben Sira, too, employs this strategy. At the end of a section on proper speech (Sir 5.9–16), the sage warns against deceit in one’s words, because “you will inherit a bad name (šēm raʿ ), disgrace, and reproach” (Sir 5.16a).95 Ben Sira also promotes strict control by a father over his daughters, lest she make of him “a byword in the city” (dibbat ʿîr, 42.11c).96 Yet Ben Sira joins even this staple motivator of the wisdom tradition to Jewish piety. In the closing stanza of a section on anxieties and joys in human life (Sir 40.1–41.13), Ben Sira uses the word šēm once in each of the three bicola. He suggests that one’s reputation is even more important than one’s life (41.11, 13), and that a “pious name” (šēm ḥesed) will not be cut off (41.11b). The use of the word ḥesed here recalls the ʾan šê ḥesed (pious men), that is, the ancestors whom Ben Sira praises in Sirach 44–50. Indeed, the sage refers several times to the pious ancestors’ reputation, which endured even though their bodies had expired (Sir 44.8, 11; 49.1). The wisdom tradition also employs avoidance of shame as a motivating factor in promoting ethical behavior.97 Ben Sira’s most sus-

———— 93

Reading MS D. Prov 10.7; 22.1; Job 18.17; Eccl 7.1; Pap. Insinger 2.12; 15.7; 16.9; Instr. Ankhsheshonq 6.2; 17.26. 95 Following the versification of MS A. The verse numbering of G differs slightly at this point. 96 Consider also that MS B Sir 42.11b, the first part of which line is damaged, ends with reference to “a seditious name” (šēm sārâ), which the father incurs as a result of the wayward daughter. In place of “a seditious name,” G reads “an object of malignant joy” (ἐπίχαρμα). Other examples of “name” as a motivating factor in proper behavior include Sir 15.6; 37.26; 41.13; 44.8, 14; and 49.1. 97 Prov 10.5; 12.4; 19.26; 29.15; Pap. Insinger 3.3; 9.7, 8, 12, 13, 23; 13.4; 15.7, 13; 27.23; Instr. Ankhsheshonq 17.26. 94

160

CHAPTER FIVE

tained treatment of the topic of shame stands at the end of his lengthy section on practical advice, before the poem on creation (Sir 42.15–43.33) and the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44–50). This unit (Sir 41.15–42.8),98 entitled in MS B “Instruction Concerning Shame” (mû sar bošet), consists of two catalogs. The first lists acts that should make one feel shame. Actions that ought to cause shame include deceit (41.17b, 18a), disloyalty (41.18c), theft (41.19a), stinginess (41.19d), and gossiping (42.1), among other things. Ben Sira reasons that the person who is ashamed of such deeds “will find favor in the eyes of all the living” (42.2d). The second catalog lists those actions of which a person should not be ashamed, lest he attempt to “save face and sin” (42.1ef). These include, among other things, maintaining accurate scales and measures (42.4ab), frequent training of children (42.5a),99 and keeping careful financial records (42.6a, 7ab). The very first item on the list of things that one should not be ashamed of is “the Torah of the Most High and the statute” (tôrat ʿelyôn wəḥôq, 42.2a). Thus for Ben Sira, it seems, the Torah and its individual prescriptions (the ḥôq) play an important role in protecting a person from the experience of shame. Indeed, the person who aligns himself with the Torah and its commandments keeps himself from shame.

Guarding Oneself and Guarding the Torah Jack T. Sanders has suggested that what unites all these motivators of ethical behavior in Sirach is not their self-interested nature so much as their common appeal to “caution.”100 According to Sanders, caution constitutes the “basic manifestation” of what others have interpreted as the sage’s eudaemonism.101 For example, Ben Sira treats the subject of the sage as a person who guards himself in Sir 13.8–13, where, according to Sanders, he counsels “caution” in dealings with nobility.102 The middle verses of this passage discuss

————

98 I follow the versification found in MSS B and M. According to Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 478), in this passage G “has jumbled the correct order of the verses.” 99 This colon does not appear in MS B and is damaged in MS M. It does appear, however, in G, at 42.5b. 100 Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 73–106. 101 Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 79. 102 Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 76. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 249) read 13.8 together with the preceding stanza (vv 1–7), which advises

ELECTION AND PIETY

161

details such as the proper distance one must maintain from a noble person (vv 9–10) and advice concerning suitable topics for conversation (vv 11–12). These detailed admonitions are bracketed by two general statements in which the sage urges the reader, “guard yourself”: Sir 13.8a b 13a b Sir 13.8a b 13a b

‫השמר אל תרהב מאד‬ ‫ואל תדמה בחסירי מדע‬ ... ‫השמר והיה זהיר‬ ‫ואל תהלך עם אנשי חמס‬ Guard yourself against being too haughty; do not be like those lacking knowledge. ... Guard yourself, and be wary; do not accompany men of violence.

The Niphal of šmr occurs twice in these verses, while the root zhr appears once (see the underlined portions). Sanders suggests that in all of Ben Sira’s teaching regarding ethical behavior “this primary caution . . . often determines the details of the individual paraenesis.”103 While the presence of the root zhr in this passage connotes a cautious attitude, I doubt whether all of Ben Sira’s ethics can be reduced to one primary motivator, such as “caution.” As the foregoing survey suggests, the sage offers multiple and varied incentives for adhering to his ethical teachings. Moreover, the root šmr occurs frequently in older Israelite Wisdom literature, and one of its meanings there is “to protect.” When it has this meaning, the verb šmr takes the wise person as the object of protection and may have God, Wisdom, or the wise person himself as the subject of the action.104 In the worldview of the Israelite wisdom tradition, life is filled with dangers or evils, against which the wise person needs to protect

———— caution when dealing with the rich. Two observations, however, suggest that v 8 serves as an introduction to the following stanza (vv 9–13), which treats encounters with nobility. First, the verb rh b in the Qal means “to solicit persistently” (Prov 6.3) or “to act arrogantly” (Isa 3.5), not “to be easily upset,” as Skehan and Di Lella translate. Second, Skehan and Di Lella emend MS A tdmh (be like) to t iddam (which they translate “come to grief”), without versional support. 103 Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 79. 104 See, e.g., Job 10.12; 29.2; 36.21; Prov 2.8, 11; 3.26; 4.6; 6.22, 24; 7.5; 13.3; 14.3; 16.17; 19.16; 21.23; 22.5; and Eccl 4.17 [Eng. 5.1].

162

CHAPTER FIVE

himself, or to be protected by God. This seems to be the sense in which Ben Sira uses the term in Sir 13.8a, 13a above. Thus, if anything, Ben Sira promotes an ethic of “self-protection,”105 but unlike Sanders I do not propose a totalizing interpretation in which all of Ben Sira’s ethics reduce to this one motivation. Nonetheless, “selfprotection” proves to be a significant incentive to uphold the sage’s ethical code, and, in the passage considered below, Ben Sira associates this motive with fidelity to the Torah and its commandments. In Sir 32.21–4, Ben Sira uses the root šmr not only to refer to the one who exercises sagely self-protection (vv 23c, 24a), but also in reference to observance of the commandment (v 23d). Sir 32.21a 22b 23c d 24a b

‫אל תבטח בדרך מחתף‬ 106 ‫ובארחתיך הזהר‬ ‫בכל מעשיך שמור נפשך‬ ‫כי עושה זה שומר מצוה‬ ‫נוצר תורה שומר נפשו‬ ‫ובוטח בייי לא יבוש‬

Sir 32.21a 22b 23c d 24a b

Do not trust the road on account of bandits,107 and in your paths be wary. In all your doings guard yourself, for the one who does this guards the commandment. The one who keeps the Torah guards himself, and the one who trusts in YHWH will not be put to shame.

———— 105

At one point, Sanders (“Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 86) uses the phrase “self-preservation,” which articulates better Ben Sira’s use of šmr. By an ethic of self-protection I mean to include protection by God: the wise person acts in such a way to keep God on his side. 106 In Sir 32.21–2, I follow MS B and the verse numbering in the Hebrew Language Academy edition (Ze'ev Ben-Hayyim, ed., The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary [in Hebrew] [Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973], 33); the numbering of cola by Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 150) differs slightly in vv 21–3. I have eliminated several cola (21b, 22a, 23a and b) due to the presence of doublets in the text of MS B. Colon 21b (ʾl tbṭḥ bdrk ršʿym) doubles 21a; 22a (wbʾḥrytk hšmr) doubles 22b; 23a (bkl drkyk šmwr npšk) doubles 23c; and 23b (ky kl ʿwśh ʾlh šwmr mṣwh) doubles 23d. Sanders (“Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 77) translates all of the lines without drawing attention to the textual problems in these verses. See the discussion of Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 395) regarding the doublets. One of the doublet lines (22a) also uses the Niphal of šmr in an absolute sense of “take heed,” which—were the line original—would tie this passage to Sir 13.8–13, as Sanders suggests it in fact does. 107 In support of reading ḥetep as “bandits,” Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 395) point to Sir 50.4a and Prov 23.28.

ELECTION AND PIETY

163

By this dual use of šmr, Sanders suggests, Ben Sira draws a verbal association between guarding (šmr) oneself and observing (šmr) the commandment.108 Indeed, my analysis of the tight literary structure that Ben Sira creates in this passage in order to connect guarding oneself and guarding the commandment confirms Sanders’s suggestion. The complex chiastic structure of these verses becomes clear once outlined, and the literary artistry can best be shown through a diagram (see p 164, below). The parallelism between “be wary” (v 22b) and “guards himself” (v 24a) in the B2-3 lines recalls the serial use Ben Sira made of these two roots in Sir 13.13a, discussed above. The parallelism between “in your paths” (v 22b) and “the one who keeps the Torah” (v 24a), in the B1 lines, may not be as obvious. The phrase nā ṣar tôrâ (to keep torah/the Torah) is rare.109 In the didactic hymn found in Psalm 105, tôrôt (in the plural) occurs as an object of n ṣr, parallel to ḥuqqôt (statutes, v 45). The phrase refers to keeping divine commandments. In Ps 119.34, to “keep tôrâ” means to observe divine teaching or commands, not the Torah. Finally, in Prov 28.7, where the intelligent son keeps tôrâ, the noun refers to the instruction of the sage. These examples might lead one to think that Ben Sira has in mind here not the Torah, but torah in the sense of wisdom instruction. But for Ben Sira, the Torah commandments contain YHWH’s wisdom instruction for Israel. Thus, by “the one who keeps tôrâ” Ben Sira likely means the one who keeps the Torah, in the sense that he upholds the commandments contained therein.110

———— 108

Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 77. Sanders refers to this as “the wisdom of caution,” what I term an ethic of “self-protection.” 109 The verbs which more usually take tôrâ as a direct object are šmr, ʿśh, and less commonly hlk. Especially in Deuteronomy and Joshua, however, the preferred verbal construction is šāmar laʿă śôt. 110 Moreover, the use of the singular miṣwâ in v 23d suggests that Ben Sira has in mind the collective literary heritage of Israel, not simply an individual instruction given by a sage.

164

CHAPTER FIVE

The element parallel to “the one who keeps the Torah”—“your paths” (ʾorḥōtêkā)—can have several meanings. It may refer simply to literal paths, which at first glance appears to be its meaning in light of the reference to the bandit-filled road (derek) in v 21a. But ʾōraḥ also possesses more figurative meanings, such as one’s course or fortunes in life,111 one’s character or personal conduct,112 or the ways of human righteousness.113 Most likely, however, here ʾorḥōtêkā has the meaning of divine commandments, as it does in Ps 119.15, where it stands in parallelism with piqqūdêkā (precepts). A1 do not trust A2 the road A3 on account of bandits B1 in your paths B2 be wary B3 ∅

  21a    22b 

C1 in all your doings C2 guard C3 yourself

  23c 

C1' the one who does this C2' guards C3' the commandment

  23d 

B1' the one who keeps the Torah B2' guards B3' himself A1' the one who trusts in A2' YHWH A3' will not be put to shame

  24a    24b 

Not until readers have reached the end of the passage can they realize that Ben Sira speaks not simply about guarding oneself while

————

111 See, e.g., Job 8.13; 13.27 (cf. 33.11); 19.8; Ps 139.3; 142.4 [Eng. 3]; Prov 3.6; 4.18; and 15.19. 112 See Job 34.11 and Ps 119.9. 113 See Ps 25.4 and 44.19 [Eng. 18]. The occurrence of ʾorḥekā in Ps 44.19 [Eng. 18] stands in parallelism with bər îtekā (your covenant) in Ps 44.18 [Eng. 17].

ELECTION AND PIETY

165

traveling, but rather about the way in which one observes the divine commandments. In retrospect, the term “bandits” serves as a metaphor for the dangers on the road of life against which a wise person must protect himself. The central point of the chiasm lies in the middle, that is, in the C lines. From C to C', the author shifts from the second person to the (implicit) third person and from the general to the particular. In these lines Ben Sira connects his ethic of self-protection to observance of the pentateuchal commandments. In v 23c, speaking like a traditional sage, Ben Sira urges self-protection (šəmôr napšəkā) in all that one does. This is the sage’s instruction, the torah. In v 23d, he suggests that the one who does this, also observes the commandment (šômēr miṣwâ). In chapter 3, I proposed that this “commandment” (singular) should be understood as a reference to the pentateuchal legislation as a whole.114 Confirmation for this interpretation is found in the following line, v 24a, which I discussed above. In this colon, Ben Sira refers to keeping the Torah. Here, however, he moves the argument in the other direction. The one who keeps the Torah by so doing also “guards himself” (šômēr napšô), that is, protects himself in his ethical behavior. How, then, should one understand the relation between torah (the sage’s instruction) and the Torah? Sanders suggests that, for the sage, torah and Torah mean essentially the same thing: Ben Sira “equates this caution with the keeping of the commandment or of the Torah.”115 Sanders correctly notes the association Ben Sira draws linguistically between keeping oneself (šmwr npš k) and keeping the commandment (šwmr m ṣwh), as well as his juxtaposition of keeping oneself and keeping the Torah. But one should not mistake linguistic equivalence and asyndetic juxtaposition for signs of identity, as if the two notions were one and the same. Ben Sira’s clever use of the verb šmr and of the chiastic literary structure are meant to demon-

————

In this sense, the use of the singular mi ṣwâ (commandment) to refer to the entire body of miṣwōt (commandments) parallels the use of the singular tôrâ (instruction) to designate the collected tôrôt (instructions) of the Pentateuch. 115 Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution,” 77. Sanders adds that “the keeping or guarding of the commandment is equated with the keeping or guarding of oneself” (p 79), and that Ben Sira “proposes a very careful ethics of self-preservation which is for him the practice of traditional wisdom and which he merges with the keeping of the Torah to such a degree that he does not distinguish them” (p 86). 114

166

CHAPTER FIVE

strate in this instance a close connection between torah and Torah, but not identity. If, as I suggest, the movement in this passage between torah and Torah is bidirectional, and if the two elements are not identical, then the relation between torah and Torah seems to be one of mutual reinforcement. That is, by attending to Torah, Israel’s special wisdom, the Jew strengthens himself for the following of torah, the general wisdom instruction (Sir 32.24a). And vice versa: the Jew who adheres to the teaching of the wisdom tradition grows in his ability to remain faithful in observance of the Torah and its stipulations (Sir 32.23cd). For the Jew, participation in this dynamic of torah and Torah signals trust in YHWH and prevents one from experiencing shame (Sir 32.24b). The problem of the relation between torah and Torah is the problem of the relation between the universal and the particular. All human beings have been granted general wisdom, which provides guidance in living the ethical life. Anyone, Jew or Gentile, who desires to grow in this general wisdom should follow the torah, the sapiential instruction, for proper ethical behavior. In addition to this general wisdom, however, Israel has been granted special wisdom. Ben Sira associates this special wisdom most closely with the Torah, Israel’s own special book of divine guidance. And in order to grow in this special wisdom, a Jew must also follow the ethical teachings of the Torah. The elect are both bound to keep the Torah and counseled to keep themselves by following the torah (wisdom instruction). In contrast, the non-elect are not bound by the Torah, but like Israel they are strongly urged to adhere to the torah, the sage’s practical teaching. For the Jew, moreover, Ben Sira suggests, the ethical teachings of the Torah and the ethical teachings of the sage’s torah stand in a dynamic relation. Rather than being in conflict, for the observant Jew torah and the Torah mutually reinforce one another. Observance of the ethical teachings contained in both the torah and the Torah leads one to achieve the greatest wisdom. There remains one other dimension to the special wisdom of Israel contained in the Torah. Let me now turn to the cultic stipulations of Israel’s covenant with YHWH.

ELECTION AND PIETY

167

CULTIC PIETY: THE ACTUALIZATION OF WISDOM In the previous section, I suggested that an ethical piety expresses one dimension of Israel’s devotion to YHWH. In this section, I explore the cultic dimension of Israel’s particular piety. I shall show that Ben Sira associates wisdom with the fear of YHWH in another way, through a cultic piety in which the pious Jew actualizes wisdom through the Jerusalem temple. Although Ben Sira’s instruction regarding the cult takes up less space in his work than his ethical teaching, it occupies no less important a place in his understanding of the particular piety to which Israel is called, nor in his view of wisdom. Not all scholars agree that Ben Sira is genuinely interested in the cult. Some argue that Ben Sira is really interested only in ethical, and not ritual, matters. Skehan and Di Lella, for example, contend, “For Ben Sira, concern for social justice is far more important and central to authentic religion than any prescribed ritual, no matter how colorful or emotionally satisfying it may be.”116 Ben Sira is keenly interested, however, to recommend observance of the ritual as well as the ethical laws. Ben Sira’s motivations in commending both types of regulations are multiple: their observance benefits the practitioner, the poor person, and the priest; their observance is commanded by YHWH, and nonobservance has negative consequences; and, finally, Israel’s observance of the commands actualizes wisdom, which renews and sustains creation and, thus, benefits all humankind, indeed the whole world.

Participation in the Cult of YHWH In my discussion of Sir 7.27–30 above, I noted that Ben Sira connects piety to covenant loyalty. In the same passage Ben Sira also draws a close connection between piety and cultic observance. In vv

————

116 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 88, citing J. G. Snaith, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of the Liturgy,” VT 25 (1975): 167–74, presumably with approval. See also Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, xxiv; Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 375; and Hilaire Duesberg and Irenee Fransen, Les scribes

inspirés: Introduction aux livres sapientiaux de la Bible: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiaste, Sagesse, Ecclesiastique (Bruges, Belgium: Beyaert, 1966), 712–15. Duesberg and

Fransen argue that Ben Sira elevates the ethical commandments over the cultic ones. Crenshaw (Old Testament Wisdom, 141) suggests that Ben Sira spiritualizes the cultic requirements yet nonetheless commends their performance.

168

CHAPTER FIVE

29 and 30, cited above, Ben Sira suggests, through parallelistic structures, that fearing YHWH implies treating the priests as sacred (v 29), and that loving the creator entails giving those who serve in the sacrificial cult their priestly dues (v 30).117 In the verse that immediately follows, Ben Sira makes clear that he intends to associate these acts closely: Sir 7.31a b c d Sir 7.31a b c d

‫כבד אל והדר כהן‬ ‫ות]ן ח[לקם כאשר צוותה‬ 118 [‫לחם אברים ותרומת ]יד‬ ‫ צדק ותרומת קדש‬119[‫]זבחי‬ Glorify God and honor the priest, and give their portion as you have been commanded: the guilt-offering120 and the [heave-]offering, [the sacrifices of] righteousness and the holy offering.

In v 31a, Ben Sira clearly links devotion to YHWH with giving honor to YHWH’s priests. Moreover, giving the priests their honor necessitates providing them with their portion of sacrifices per the stipulations of the covenant (v 31b). Ben Sira then lists various offerings, which are likely meant not as an exhaustive catalog of those he deems required but rather as examples. As Benjamin Wright comments on this verse, “Performance of the cult and giving the priests their due is elevated to the level of extending to God his proper honor.”121 This passage would seem to provide a prima facie case that Ben Sira views participation in the sacrificial cult as part and parcel of Jewish piety.

————

117 See Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 264. Beyond the implied semantic parallelism, Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207) note the chiastic structures within Sir 7.29 and 30, each of which closely allies those who serve in the sacrificial cult with YHWH. 118 G reads δόσιν βραχιόνων (gift of the shoulder), which may reflect Heb. yad. So Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 264 n 11. 119 G reads the singular θυσίαν (sacrifice). 120 MS A lḥm ʾbr y m is unintelligible. G reads πλημμελείας, and on this basis Smend (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 72) emends to lḥm ʾšmy m (guilt-offering), as does Stadelmann (Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 56). The list of offerings in G, however, contains an additional item, and, as Olyan (“Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 264 n 11) notes, G begins the list with ἀπαρχὴν (firstfruits). Nevertheless, for lack of a better alternative, I translate with the emendation of Smend and Stadelmann and note the caveat of Olyan. 121 Wright, “Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” 193.

ELECTION AND PIETY

169

Numerous interpreters, however, do not consider Ben Sira’s concern in this passage to be about participation in the sacrificial cult per se. Rather, they insist, Ben Sira’s interest is social, not cultic. By encouraging participation in the sacrificial cult, the sage is merely safeguarding the welfare of the priests, whose livelihood depends upon receiving “their portion” of the sacrificial offerings.122 The view that Ben Sira’s motives here are purely social usually involves reading Sir 7.29–31 with the following stanza (7.32–5), which treats almsgiving, rather than with the preceding verses (7.27–8), regarding honor of father and mother.123 Sir 7.32–5 begins: Sir 7.32a Sir 7.32a

‫וגם לאביון הושיט יד‬ And also to the poor extend your hand.

The beginning of this colon (“And also”) would seem to connect this stanza and its theme of care for the needy with the concern to provide the priests with their portion. Thus, it is probably true that, when Ben Sira urges fulfillment of the required sacrificial offerings, he has in mind the well-being of the priests. As I will show, however, his motivations for cultic participation extend well beyond the social realm. Indeed, Sir 7.29–30 are intimately linked with 7.27–8 through their allusion to Deut 6.5. Dividing the literary structure between vv 28 and 29 separates the phrase “with your whole heart” (v 27) from the phrases “with all your soul” (v 29) and “with all your strength” (v 30), and thus destroys the Deuteronomic allusion. If one reads Sir 7.27–31 intact, as a commentary upon Deut 6.5, then one can see that Ben Sira urges fulfillment of the sacrificial requirements not purely out of social motives—that is, because they provide the priests’ livelihood—but also because they are commanded by YHWH (7.31b).124 One can go further and suggest that Ben Sira’s motiva-

————

122 Marböck (Weisheit im Wandel, 87), e.g., says that the issue is not cultic but social duty: “Die positive Empfehlung der Abgaben für die Priester in 7,29–31 wird nicht als kultische, sondern als soziale Plicht betont im Zusammenhang des Verhaltens gegen verschiedene Menschengruppen.” Cf. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 304, 312; and Snaith, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of the Liturgy,” 168–9. 123 So Snaith, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of the Liturgy,” 168–9. 124 Leo Perdue suggests that the following section on almsgiving indicates that social concern is one of Ben Sira’s motives, but he also notes that describing the

170

CHAPTER FIVE

tions are not only social and nomistic but also covenantal. As I argued above, Ben Sira does not promote the fulfillment of commandments just for the sake of the commandments, but because they are addressed to Israel in the context of its covenant with YHWH. Sirach 7.27–31 clearly places the commandments to offer sacrifices in the context of the individual’s relationship with his God. As Saul Olyan notes, “the striking and essential point” of these verses is the close connection Ben Sira draws between “the individual’s relationship with YHWH . . . [and] his/her relationship with the priesthood.”125 While Olyan’s characterization of Sir 7.27–31 rightly points out the connection between the human-divine relationship and support of the cult, his interpretation of the passage remains on the level of the individual, the audience typically intended in Israel’s wisdom tradition. Olyan suggests that the allusion to Deut 6.5 by Ben Sira is “intentional” because “this passage [Deut 6.5] focuses on the nature of the individual’s relationship to YHWH.”126 The Deuteronomic author, however, frequently shifts between the second person plural and singular, even within one passage.127 Some scholars have suggested that this vacillation between the singular and plural signals composite authorship.128 Indeed, this seems to explain the dual introduction to the book as a whole, but it does not adequately address the composition of Deuteronomy 6.129 More likely, the grammatical switching between singular and plural is stylistic, and heightens the personal nature of the address.130 By encouraging the participation of

————

sacrifices as “commanded” supplies “a second motivation for giving” (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: Scholars Press, 1977], 251 n 225). 125

Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 265. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 266. Italics added. 127 See, e.g., the larger context of the present speech in Deuteronomy. In Deut 6.1, the addressee is referred to in the plural, and in 6.2 in the singular; in 6.3 the singular is used, but Israel as a collective is the referent; in 6.4 the singular with collective referent Israel is used again, followed by the plural; and in 6.5 one again finds the singular. Cf. Deut 12 for another striking example of this vacillation between singular and plural. 128 See, e.g., G. Minnette de Tillesse, “Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deutéronome,” VT 12 (1962): 29–87. 129 Alternatively, one could argue that all these singulars refer to Israel as a collective, as some occurrences certainly do. See n 127, above. 130 On this shift between singular and plural, see C. T. Begg, “The Literary Criticism of Deut 4:1–40. Contributions to a Continuing Discussion,” ETL 56 (1980): 126

ELECTION AND PIETY

171

the individual in fulfilling the cultic requirements of the covenantal law, and by his allusion to the Deuteronomic covenantal language, Ben Sira does more than address the individual Israelite’s relationship to YHWH. He addresses the individual’s relationship to the Israelite God qua member of the covenant community. In Sir 34.21–35.13, Ben Sira treats participation in the sacrificial cult more fully.131 The sage starkly contrasts the sacrifices offered by the “godless” (ἀσεβῶν, 34.23) with those offered by the righteous (δικαίου, 35.8–9). YHWH accepts the latter but rejects the former, and the different outcomes are directly connected to the ethical conduct of the offerer. As in the interpretation of Sir 7.29–31, numerous scholars have used Sir 34.21–35.13 to suggest that Ben Sira favors the ethical over the cultic. Collins, for example, argues that, for Ben Sira, “the ethical demands of the Law are more important than sacrifices.” As evidence, he quotes Sir 35.1–2: Sir 35.1 2

The one who keeps the Law makes many offerings; one who heeds the commandments makes an offering of well-being.132

Collins continues: The point here is not that the Law requires many sacrifices (a point that Sirach would also grant) but that observance [of the ethical commandments] is the equivalent of many sacrifices . . . The point is that kindness and almsgiving are as effective as sacrifice in pleasing God.133

But Collins’s interpretation of this passage misses the point entirely. For Ben Sira, both the cultic and the ethical prescriptions belong to the same corpus—the Torah. The issue for the sage is not whether ethics is more important than the cult: the importance of the cult is a given for him (see, for example, Sir 35.6–9 and my discussion be-

————

10–55; and idem, “The Significance of Numeruswechsel in Dt: The Pre-History of the Question,” ETL 55 (1979): 116–24. 131 On this passage, see Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 68–138; and Wright, “Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” 193–4. 132 The translation is from Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 90), who follows the NRSV. For translation issues in these verses, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 414. 133 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 90.

172

CHAPTER FIVE

low). What concerns Ben Sira is the proper and improper use of the cultic system.134 In Sir 34.21–31, Ben Sira asserts that cultic practice divorced from ethical behavior is ineffective. If one offers goods taken illicitly from the poor, YHWH will not accept the sacrifice (34.21). Or, if one offers a sacrifice in atonement for sin, but subsequently and habitually commits the same sin, the sacrifice becomes ineffectual (34.23; cf. 34.30–1). In contrast, in Sir 35.1–13, Ben Sira suggests that cultic practice joined with ethical behavior “enriches the altar”; “the sweet smell” of such sacrifices rises “before the Most High” (35.8). The nomistic motive for offering sacrifices is also present in this passage (35.7), but Ben Sira adds an additional reason. If you are generous in giving to God, he will be generous in giving back to you (35.13). As Wright notes, Ben Sira’s “other comments about the cult in [Sir 34.21–35.12] do not seem to spiritualize [the cult] in favor of ethics.”135 The point of Sir 35.1–2 (as well as 35.3–5) is not, as Collins sees it, that ethics is more important than cult, but that cult and ethics are closely connected.136 One other example should suffice to show that Ben Sira holds the sacrificial cult in high esteem. In Sir 3.12–16, the sage advocates honor of father. He provides the motivation for this ethical action as follows: Sir 3.14a b 15a b Sir 3.14a b

————

137

‫צדקת אב לא תשכח‬ ‫ותמור חטאת היא תנטע‬ ‫ביום צרה תזכר לך‬ ‫כחם על כפור להשבית עוניך‬ 138

Kindness to a father will not be forgotten; it is a substitute for a sin-offering and will be firmly

134 In this sense, Ben Sira continues the prophetic view that sacrifices offered insincerely are unacceptable. See, e.g., 1 Sam 15.22–3; Hos 6.4–6; Amos 5.21–5; Mic 6.6–8; Isa 1.10–17; Jer 6.16–21; 7.21–6; and cf. Pss 50, 51. 135 Wright, “Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” 193. 136 C. T. Robert Hayward says it well: “As far as ben Sira is concerned, there can be no question of a dichotomy between ritual and moral commandments” (“Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on Ben Sira’s Attitude to the Temple Service,” in Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology, ed. S. W. Sykes [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 31). 137 Reading with G and MS C. MS A reads lʾ tmḥh (will not be blotted out). Where G reads the future indicative, MS C reads ʾl tškḥ, either a jussive or a negative imperative. 138 Reading with MS Amg.

ELECTION AND PIETY

15a b

173

planted. In the day of distress, it will be remembered on your account; like heat upon frost to remove your sins.

Clearly Ben Sira advocates honor of one’s father because it furthers the well-being of the child. By comparing honor of father to making a sin-offering, the sage does not suggest that the ethical act displaces the cultic requirement. Rather, the comparison indicates his lofty regard for the sacrifice: it is as important as doing right (ṣədāqâ) by one’s father.

Wisdom and the Jerusalem Temple Thus far, I have suggested that Ben Sira associates piety (expressed through the phrase “fear of YHWH”) with Israel’s special wisdom. This piety is not one-dimensional, only focusing on the ethical, as some scholars have suggested. Rather, the fear of YHWH includes a cultic dimension which involves participation by the observant Jew in the sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple. If Ben Sira connects wisdom with Jewish piety, and one aspect of that piety pertains to cultic observance, then it should not be surprising that the sage also associates, in a special way, personified Wisdom herself with the temple. Scholars have noted the connections between the portrait of personified Wisdom in Sirach 24 and Israel’s cult, especially as practiced in the Jerusalem temple.139 To begin with, the setting for Wisdom’s speech is “the assembly of the Most High” (24.2a). While this probably refers to the divine council (see the references to “hosts” in v 2b), the connection between the divine council and the temple is well established.140 Moreover, Wisdom recounts that she served YHWH “in the holy tent” (ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ), a reference to the wilderness tabernacle,141 and later took up residence in Zion, that is,

————

139 For example, see Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, 189–90; Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 21–71; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 331–8; and Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 49–53. 140

See, e.g., Isa 6. Christopher R. Seitz notes that Isaiah’s call both incorporates the motif of the divine council and takes place within the temple (Isaiah 1–39, IBC [Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993], 54). 141 See Exod 25.9; 26.1, 6, 7, 9; 27.9, 21; 28.43; etc.

174

CHAPTER FIVE

in the temple in Jerusalem (24.10). Finally, in 24.15, Wisdom compares herself to various spices used in Israel’s cult: Sir 24.15a b c d

ὡς κιννάμωμον καὶ ἀσπάλαθος ἀρωμάτων καὶ ὡς σμύρνα ἐκλεκτὴ διέδωκα εὐωδίαν ὡς χαλβάνη καὶ ὄνυξ καὶ στακτὴ καὶ ὡς λιβάνου ἀτμὶς ἐν σκηνῇ

Sir 24.15a b c d

Like cinnamon and sweet aspalathus and like choice myrrh I give off a sweet smell; like galbanum, onycha, and stacte, like the smoke of frankincense in the tent.

As Gerald Sheppard has observed, these are the spices used in the Priestly source to make the anointing oil and incense for the wilderness sanctuary.142 A comparison with LXX Exod 30.23, 34, and 36 illuminates the source for Ben Sira’s portrait of Wisdom. Exod 30.23

καὶ σὺ λαβὲ ἡδύσματα τὸ ἄνθος σμύρνης ἐκλεκτῆς πεντακοσίους σίκλους καὶ κινναμώμου εὐώδους τὸ ἥμισυ τούτου διακοσίους πεντήκοντα καὶ καλάμου εὐώδους διακοσίους πεντήκοντα

Exod 30.23

Take spices: of the flower of choice myrrh five hundred shekels, of fragrant cinnamon half of this, two hundred and fifty, and of fragrant cane two hundred and fifty.

Exod 30.34

. . . λαβὲ σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα στακτήν ὄνυχα χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ . . .

Exod 30.34

. . . take for yourself spices: stacte, onycha, sweet galbanum, and translucent frankincense . . .

Exod 30.36

. . . ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ τοῦ μαρτυρίου . . .

Exod 30.36

. . . in the tent of meeting . . .

The similarities between Sir 24.15 and the P passages from Exodus are quite striking. In Exodus, two of the first three spices mentioned by Ben Sira—cinnamon and myrrh—are mixed with cassia and olive oil to make an anointing oil for consecrating the wilderness sanctuary, its appurtenances, and the priests (Exod 30.23–33). The last four spices—galbanum, onycha, stacte, and frankincense—constitute the ingredients of the incense used in the tent of meeting (Exod 30.34–8). Clearly Sirach 24 associates the presence and activity of

———— 142

Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 57.

ELECTION AND PIETY

175

wisdom with Israel’s cultic practices, especially with the Jerusalem temple. The connection between Wisdom and the Jerusalem temple cult becomes more striking when one compares the portrait of personified Wisdom in Sirach 24 with that of Simon the high priest in Sirach 50.143 Like Wisdom, Simon is said to serve in the “tent” (ʾhl) and in “the house of the veil” (byt hprkt, 50.5), images drawn from the wilderness sanctuary and applied to the Jerusalem temple. Just as wisdom was compared to the elements of the holy incense, so too Simon is said to be “like the blaze of incense at the grain offering” (wkʾš lbwnh ʿl hmnḥh, 50.8d).144 In addition to these cultic images which connect Wisdom and Simon the high priest, Robert Hayward notes other verbal associations between the two figures in Sirach 24 and 50. For example, Ben Sira uses the same plant imagery to describe both figures. Simon is said to be “like rose blossoms in the spring time” (50.8a),145 and Wisdom is “like rose bushes in Jericho” (24.14b).146 Simon is said to be “like a luxuriant olive tree filled with fruit” (50.10a),147 while Wisdom is “like a comely olive tree in the plain” (24.14c).148 Both are compared to “a cypress tree,” or in Syriac to “an oil tree” (50.10b; 24.13b).149 Simon and the attending Aaronide priests are compared to sprouts of cedar trees from Lebanon (50.8c; 12d),150 and Wisdom

————

143 My discussion below owes a significant debt to Hayward (“Sacrifice and World Order,” 23–4). I am grateful to Richard Clifford for bringing Hayward’s article to my attention. 144 On the minḥâ, see, e.g., Lev 2.14–15. The verse numbering for Sirach used here follows MS B, according to Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 89. G numbers this colon 50.9a. 145 Following G: ὡς ἄνθος ῥόδων ἐν ἡμέραις νέων. MS B is corrupt at this point: knṣ bʿnpy bymy mwʿd. Smend (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 482) reconstructs the first two words as n ṣny ʿnpy m (branch blossoms). 146 G: ὡς φυτὰ ῥόδου ἐν Ιεριχω. 147 MS B: k z yt rʿnn mlʾ g rg r. 148 G: ὡς ἐλαία εὐπρεπὴς ἐν πεδίῳ. 149 G reads “like a cypress tree towering in the clouds” (ὡς κυπάρισσος ὑψουμένη ἐν νεφέλαις, 50.10b) and “like a cypress tree on the heights of Hermon” (ὡς κυπάρισσος ἐν ὄρεσιν Αερμων, 24.13b). Syr. reads “like an oil tree (ʾ ylnʾ dm š ḥʾ) full of branches” (50.10b) and “like an oil tree (ʾ ylnʾ dm š ḥʾ) on Senir, the mountain of snow” (24.13b). MS B 50.10b (“like an oil tree [ʿṣ šmn] whose branches are saturated”) supports the reading of Syr., which may suggest that the Syr. reading is preferable in 24.13b as well. 150 MS B 50.12d. According to G, which employs the singular βλάστημα (shoot), Simon is the one being compared to the cedar of Lebanon.

176

CHAPTER FIVE

recounts that she “grew tall like a cedar tree in Lebanon” (24.13a). Finally, G also portrays the Aaronide priests and Wisdom similarly: during the offering of sacrifices, the priests surround Simon “like trunks of palm trees” (50.12e),151 and Wisdom says that she “grew tall like a palm tree in Ein-gedi” (24.14a).152 These last two images of the cedar and palm trees especially evoke the Jerusalem temple. In the biblical tradition, Lebanon itself was associated with the Jerusalem temple, as a source for the cedar building materials and for the utensils sent by King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5–9).153 Additionally, Ps 92.13–14 [Eng. 12–13] compares the righteous to cedar and palm trees, and suggests that “they are planted in the house of YHWH, and flourish in the courts of our God.”154 Moreover, as Hayward notes, in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple, palm trees are carved onto the walls, pillars, and gates (Ezek 40.16, 22, 26; 41.18, 19, 20, 25).155 Ben Sira uses one other verbal similarity in order to link the portraits of Simon the high priest and Wisdom. The sage describes Simon’s activity at the altar with the verb šrt (to serve, 50.14a, 19c).156 The G tradition renders this as λειτουργῶν (to perform religious service), the same word Wisdom uses to describe her activity in the wilderness sanctuary (24.10a).157 As Hayward suggests,

————

151 G: ὡς στελέχη φοινίκων. According to MS B, the Aaronide priests “encircle [Simon] like poplars of the wadi.” 152 G: ὡς φοῖνιξ ἀνυψώθην ἐν Αιγγάδοις. 153 Geza Vermes, “Lebanon,” in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 26–39. In the targums (see Geza Vermes, “The Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targums: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition,” JTS 9 [1958]: 1–12) and rabbinic literature, “Lebanon” becomes a codeword for, among other things, the Jerusalem temple. See, e.g., y. Yoma 6.3 [43c]; and b. Yoma 39b, both commenting on Zech 11.1. 154 Vermes, “Lebanon,” 37. 155 Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 26. 156 Cf. also 7.30b, where the participle occurs in reference to those who render priestly service. 157 Note also the connection between wisdom and liturgical service in Sir 4.14a. The larger passage concerns personified Wisdom’s instruction of “her children” (4.11a). Ben Sira says that “those who serve [Wisdom] serve the Holy One” (m šrt y qd š m šr t yh). The sage probably has in mind the priests, or lay people acting through the priests, who serve wisdom through temple worship. For use of the verb šrt in cultic contexts, see Deut 10.8; 17.12; 21.5; and Jer 33.21.

ELECTION AND PIETY

177

“Sacrifice, it seems, is intimately bound up with Wisdom. Both of them are part of the service of God on Zion.”158 Through the analogous portraits of Wisdom in Sirach 24 and Simon and his priestly assistants in Sirach 50—based on lists of similes, comparable actions, and verbal similarities—Ben Sira associates Wisdom with the Jerusalem temple and the operation of its cult and concretizes Wisdom’s functions in the cultic institutions of Israel from the earliest times during the wilderness trek down to the sage’s own day.159 Moreover, Ben Sira suggests that the temple priests, and Simon the high priest in particular, exercise wisdom as they perform the sacrificial service of the temple.160 That the sage draws such a close connection between wisdom and the priests should not surprise, given what I observed in chapter 4 about priestly responsibility for the preservation and transmission of wisdom.

Cultic Piety and Creation What, one may ask, is the larger implication of the association Ben Sira draws between Wisdom and the function of the Jerusalem temple cult? A clue to the answer lies in Ben Sira’s famous correlation of Wisdom and Israel’s Torah in Sir 24.23, along with the Edenic imagery which immediately follows. For Ben Sira, Israel’s Torah served as a divine guidebook filled with ethical and ritual commandments. The sage asserts that everything Wisdom says about herself in Sir 24.3–22 also proves true regarding the Torah. Moreover, Ben Sira elaborates on the wisdom which resides in the Torah by comparing “the book of the Most High’s covenant” (24.23a) to the four branches of the river that flows from the garden of Eden in Gen 2.10–14: the Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon (Sir 24.25– 7).161 In the last part of the chapter, Ben Sira describes himself, the sage, as a conduit from a river which waters a “garden”

———— 158

Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 26. Cf. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Her-

meneutical Construct, 47.

See the comments of Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 59. Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 23, 29. 161 Hayward (“Sacrifice and World Order,” 26) suggests that the “reference to the Jordan in verse 26 does not destroy the Paradise imagery, but ties the four Paradise rivers close to the land of Israel.” As Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 330) note, G’s “the Nile” (v 27a) should not be construed as a sixth river in Ben Sira’s list but rather represents a misreading of ʾôr (light) as yəʾôr (the Nile). 159 160

178

CHAPTER FIVE

(παράδεισον, 24.30), employing the same word that the Septuagint uses to refer to the garden of Eden (see LXX Gen 2.8, for example). This cumulative imagery of the four paradisiacal rivers and Ben Sira’s conduit that waters a garden evokes Ezekiel’s image of the stream which flows from the temple in order to water a lush garden (Ezek 47.1–12).162 Hayward rightly concludes: “It would appear, therefore, that ben Sira has portrayed the temple as an earthly Eden which sends out the Paradise waters of Wisdom.”163 The portrait of Simon in Sirach 50 also contains an Edenic connection. The poem begins by naming “Simon the priest, the son of Jochanan” as “the splendor of his people” (t pʾrt ʿmw, 50.1a). This phrase links the chapter about Simon back to the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old, which concludes with a reference to “the splendor of Adam” (t pʾrt ʾdm), which, the sage says, surpasses the splendor of any living being (Sir 49.16b).164 I should note that Ben Sira also alludes to Adam (ὁ πρῶτοϛ, literally “the first one”) in Sirach 24 when he uses the four paradisiacal rivers to describe the abundance of wisdom found in the Torah (24.28). It would appear that, in Ben Sira’s view, Simon tends the temple (Eden) in the same way that Adam tended the garden (Eden). Ben Sira’s association of the Torah’s wisdom with the operation of the temple cult, then, seems to be connected with the beginning of the world. Indeed, in Sirach 24—where the description of Wisdom is replete with references to the temple cult—Ben Sira arguably portrays Wisdom’s association with Israel as beginning in the primordium.165 In this chapter, YHWH exercises his prerogative of election in order to link his chosen people with Wisdom in a special way. In her universal aspect, Wisdom permeates the entire world (“the earth,” “the heights of heaven,” “the abyss,” “the waves of the sea,” and “the earth,” Sir 24.3–6). Indeed, the culmination of Wisdom’s universal dimension states that she “ruled over every people and nation” (24.6b).166 Sirach 24.8–12 then depicts how Wisdom

———— 162

Hayward (“Sacrifice and World Order,” 26) also makes this connection. Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 26–7. 164 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 545, 550. See also Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 27–8; and Johannes Marböck, “Henoch—Adam—der Thronwagen,” BZ 25 (1971): 103–11. 165 Thus Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. 166 G: καὶ ἐν παντὶ λαῷ καὶ ἔθνει ἐκτησάμην. Segal (The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ )קמה‬reconstructs wbkl ʿm wg w y m š lt y. 163

ELECTION AND PIETY

179

came to dwell in Israel. Wisdom recounts that “the creator of all things” commanded her to pitch her tent “in Jacob” and to obtain her inheritance “in Israel” (24.8). The association of Wisdom with Israel results from YHWH’s election of Israel as the place where Wisdom dwells most fully on earth. And, as I have shown, within Israel, Wisdom resides specifically in the Jerusalem temple (24.10– 11). As I noted, Wisdom says that she served in the wilderness sanctuary (Sir 24.10a). This suggests, as Collins observes, “that Wisdom had settled in Israel before Israel settled in its land.” Moreover, in the order of presentation in Sirach 24, the divine choice of Israel as Wisdom’s special earthly dwelling occurs prior to the description of her creation “before the ages” (πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος, 24.9a). Thus, Collins argues, Ben Sira “suggests that the association of wisdom with Israel is primordial.” The imagery of this passage evokes Deut 32.8– 9, in which YHWH apportions the nations “according to the number of the divine beings.”167 Presumably, while every other nation was assigned to some lesser divine being, Jacob is YHWH’s “inherited portion” (ḥebel naḥălātô, Deut 32.9).168 The noun κληρονομία (inheritance, Sir 24.7b) and the verb κατακληρονομέω (to inherit, Sir 24.8d)—which frequently translate naḥălâ and nāḥal, respectively— suggest that Ben Sira may have this Deuteronomic passage in mind. The innovation introduced by Ben Sira, as Collins notes, is that YHWH “exercise[s] the election of Israel through Wisdom.” As this passage is constructed, the settlement of Wisdom in Israel “completes the process of creation.”169 Admittedly, the temporal unfolding of events in Sirach 24 is not entirely clear. Thus, one might ask if any other passage in Ben Sira can confirm my interpretation of Sir 24.3–12 as an assertion of the primordial connection between Wisdom and Israel’s cultic piety.

————

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. On the text-critical problem in Deut 32.8, see Patrick W. Skehan, “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 15 (1951): 154–6; idem, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) from Qumran,” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–15; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), 384–5; Tov, Textual Criticism, 269; and Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 55–9. 168 See my discussion on the significance of inheritance and of Deut 32.8–9 in chapter 3. 169 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. 167

180

CHAPTER FIVE

Ben Sira’s commentary in Sir 1.14–15 on the proverbial notion that “the fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom” provides just the confirmation I seek. As I noted above, Sir 1.14a (“to fear YHWH is the beginning of wisdom”) echoes Prov 9.10 nearly verbatim (cf. Prov 1.7 and Ps 111.10).170 Τhe subsequent cola (1.14b–15b) develop what Ben Sira understands this correlation of fear of YHWH and the beginning of wisdom to mean. Ben Sira gives three answers to the question posed in 1.14a: What does it mean to say that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of YHWH? First, the sage asserts: Sir 1.14b

καὶ μετὰ πιστῶν ἐν μήτρᾳ συνεκτίσθη αὐτοῖς

Sir 1.14b

With the faithful [wisdom] is formed in the womb.

One answer to the question, Ben Sira suggests, is that wisdom accompanies the “faithful” (πιστῶν)—that is, those who fear YHWH— from the time before they are even born. In v 15, Ben Sira offers two additional answers to the question. The text of G at this point, however, is problematic.171 Sir 1.15a b

μετὰ ἀνθρώπων θεμέλιον αἰῶνος ἐνόσσευσεν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν ἐμπιστευθήσεται

Sir 1.15a b

Among human beings she built an eternal foundation, and with their offspring she will be entrusted.

If my translation captures the essence of this difficult bicolon, G suggests that wisdom has established herself among humanity generally and will abide with humanity in perpetuity. Literally, the colon in v 15a reads: “Among human beings she nested an eternal foundation.” The mixed imagery between verb (to build a nest) and object (a foundation), however, suggests that something has gone askew in the transmission of this verse. M. H. Segal’s reconstruction of the Hebrew in Sir 1.15 provides one solution to this problem. I provide his retroversion of 1.14 as well, in order to understand better the entire strophe. Sir 1.14a b 15a b

‫ראשית חכמה יראת יי‬ ‫ועם נאמנים ברחם נוצרה‬ ‫עם אנשי חסד מעולם תקנה‬ ‫ועם זרעם תאמן‬

———— 170 171

See p 141 n 35, above. See Di Lella, “Fear of the Lord as Wisdom,” 116 n 10, 123.

ELECTION AND PIETY

Sir 1.14a b 15a b

181

The beginning of wisdom is fear of YHWH; with the faithful she is formed in the womb. With men of piety she was established in primeval days, and with their offspring she will remain.172

Segal’s retroversion corrects the Greek text at two points. First, he suggests that Greek θεμέλιον (foundation) translates Hebrew yəsôd, which represents a scribal error for ḥesed (piety).173 The reconstructed text (ʾanšê ḥesed, cf. Sir 44.1, 10) recasts v 15a into a statement about wisdom’s connection to the particular group designated “men of piety” rather than the universal “human beings” of G. This affects my reading of v 15b as well, since “offspring” now refers not to the human race as a whole, but to the descendants of the pious. This emendation eliminates the dissonance between verb and object by removing the object from the equation. Nevertheless, the resulting text—which suggests that Wisdom “nested” among the pious—remains odd. Thus, Segal offers a second emendation. Segal observes that Greek ἐνόσσευσεν (she made a nest) translates Hebrew qinnēnâ. On the basis of the Syriac tradition, he suggests an emendation to t uqqānâ (a pausal form of t uqqənâ, “she was established”).174 Skehan and Di Lella propose a more elegant emendation. Instead of the nonsensical qinnēnâ, they read qunnətâ (she was created).175 Skehan and Di Lella’s resolution requires only a simple substitution of one letter (from qnnh to qnth) in the consonantal text, whereas Segal’s reconstruction requires both the substitution of a letter and the reordering of the consonants (from qnnh to tqnh).

————

172 Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ג‬. On p ‫ו‬, Segal suggests that the Niphal verb tēʾāmēn connotes that wisdom will both “remain faithful to and be established among” (‫ )תהיה נאמנה וקיימת‬the descendants of the pious. Thus, I have translated “remain” in an attempt to capture both these senses. Cf. Isa 7.9, which plays on the senses of this root in the Hiphil (to trust) and the Niphal (to be established). 173 Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ו‬. 174 Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ו‬. In support of this interpretation, I point to Sir 47.9, where Ben Sira uses the Piel t yqn to talk about David arranging music. Segal suggests this reading on the basis of Syr. ʾet taqnat (she was fashioned), a passive Ethpaal form. For the Syriac, see Núria Calduch-Benages, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba: Edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del

libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa

(Estella [Navarra]: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003), 66. 175 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 140, 142.

182

CHAPTER FIVE

If the emendation of Skehan and Di Lella proves correct, then Ben Sira may be alluding to a tradition about the creation of Wisdom “in primeval days” (mēʿôlām qunnətâ), such as that found in Prov 8.22– 3. Prov 8.22a b 23a b Prov 8.22a b 23a b

‫אשׁית ַדּ ְרכּוֹ‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ָקנָ ִני ֵר‬ ‫ֶק ֶדם ִמ ְפ ָע ָליו ֵמ ָאז‬ ‫עוֹלם נִ ַסּ ְכ ִתּי‬ ָ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ֵמרֹאשׁ ִמ ַקּ ְד ֵמ‬ YHWH created me at the beginning of his course, at the inception of his works of old. In primeval days I was formed,176 at the start, at the origins of the earth.

These verses describe the beginnings of Wisdom. According to the ancient sage of Prov 8.22–3, Wisdom declares that YHWH “created” her (qānānî ) at the start of his creative activity, and that she was woven together “in primeval days” (mēʿôlām). Whether or not Ben Sira composed his meditation on the fear of YHWH and the beginning of wisdom with Prov 8.22–3 in front of him,177 it seems as though Ben Sira uses one sapiential tradition about the inception of Wisdom at the very beginning of the creation to interpret the potentially ambiguous meaning of another sapiential tradition about the connection between “the beginning of Wisdom” and “the fear of YHWH” (such as that contained in Prov 9.10). Ben Sira goes beyond Prov 8.22, however, to suggest that not only was wisdom acquired at the beginning of creation, but so too were the “men of piety” (ʾan šê ḥesed). In this sense, Ben Sira traces the founding of the pious—that is, those who fear YHWH—back to the beginning of wisdom, literally, “in primeval days.”178 Thus, Ben

————

MT reads ni ssakt î, the Niphal of nsk, literally “I was poured out.” Many scholars repoint the consonantal text as nəsakkōt î, the Niphal of skk, literally “I was woven together,” thus my translation “I was formed.” Cf. Ps 139.13. See the discussion of Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 281, as well as that of Walter Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3d ed., 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1967–1990), 3:754. 177 The verbal similarities may suggest that he did. The consonance between tēʾāmēn in Sir 1.15b and ʾāmôn in Prov 8.30 may be intended to provide another link between the two passages. 178 If my interpretation of Sirach on this point is correct, Ben Sira shares with Jub. 2.17–20 the notion that the deity elected a people to observe a Jewish kind of piety already in the primordial time. Cf. Bar 3.32–4.1a, which suggests that God 176

ELECTION AND PIETY

183

Sira suggests that the proverbial saying “the fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom” means that piety was created with wisdom at the beginning of creation. For this reason, YHWH chose Israel, the pious ones, in primordial times in order to have a people who would practice this primordial piety.179 Sir 24.8–12 appears to be an elaboration of Ben Sira’s commentary on “the beginning of wisdom” (Prov 9.10) as I have characterized it in my interpretation of Sir 1.14–15. These verses in Sirach 24 pick up on the theme of Wisdom’s creation “in primeval days.” Sirach 24.9 suggests that YHWH created Wisdom “before the ages, from the beginning.”180 The description, then, of Wisdom dwelling in Israel and in the Jerusalem temple elaborates on Wisdom’s primeval association with “the men of piety” in Sir 1.15a. Having thus confirmed that Ben Sira indeed views the connection between Wisdom and Israel’s piety to be a primordial one, let me return to the question of the larger implications of this association. The importance that Ben Sira places on Israel’s cultic piety can perhaps best be discerned by asking about the motivations he offers for participation in the rituals of the Jerusalem temple. As Hayward notes, Ben Sira sometimes motivates involvement in the sacrificial cult by appealing to the Torah directive to observe such rituals.181 As an example, recall Sir 35.1–2: Sir 35.1 2

The one who keeps the Torah makes many offerings; the one who heeds the commandments makes an offering of well-being.

A few verses later, Ben Sira suggests that in all cases one should offer sacrifices “on account of the commandment” (χάριν ἐντολῆς, Sir 35.4),182 a phrase that appeared above in my discussion of ethical

———— allotted to Israel the Torah in the primordial time. See my comparison of Sirach and Jubilees in chapter 7. 179 The final colon of this strophe appears to project something other than a “beginning” of wisdom. Yet, if one understands tēʾāmēn in the two senses that Segal suggests—“faithful” and “established” (see p 181 n 172, above)—it becomes apparent that wisdom reestablishes herself with each successive generation of the pious. In the sense of 14b, wisdom is formed anew with each person in the womb, and in this sense 15b elaborates on what it means for the fear of YHWH to be the beginning of wisdom. 180 G: πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέν με. 181 Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 28. 182 Sir 32(35).7 in Ziegler’s verse numbering.

184

CHAPTER FIVE

piety with respect to charity (Sir 29.9). As Hayward points out, the sage employs this phrase nowhere else in his book. In my discussion of ethical piety, I noted the multiple motivations that Ben Sira gives for keeping the ethical commandments. Similarly, Hayward suggests that “it seems unlikely that he regards sacrifice as desirable only because of the written commands to do it.”183 Indeed, for Ben Sira the ongoing significance of the sacrificial cult is due, at least in part, to its association with wisdom. The commandments enjoin upon Israel a cultic piety, and these commandments themselves are part of Israel’s Torah, or divine book of instruction. And as I pointed out, the sage correlates Torah with the special wisdom bestowed upon Israel. Moreover, as von Rad has observed, Ben Sira views this Torah-Wisdom as “a self-presentation of primeval order” or as “the primeval order inherent in the whole world.”184 In the practice of the Torah’s ritual commandments, Israel actualizes Wisdom as the primeval order of the world. As Hayward puts it, 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 the creation stands.185

And Hayward notes further that, for Ben Sira, the sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple reflects the primeval order since, as I have observed, “the sacrificing high priest in the sanctuary robed in his vestments is analogous to Wisdom ministering in the sanctuary and to the first man who worked in the Garden of Eden.”186 Thus, the

———— 183

Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 29. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 246. Hayward (“Sacrifice and World Order,” 29) also notes this characterization by von Rad. 185 Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 29–30. The connection between the temple and creation has deep antecedents in ancient Israel, especially in the Priestly source, as well as in the wider mythical traditions of the ANE. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 61–2; Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the ‘Sitz im Leben’ of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 501–12; and Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 282–91. 186 Hayward, “Sacrifice and World Order,” 30. Hayward (p 31) also notes that the germ for Ben Sira’s notion that the sacrificial cult reflects the primeval order lies in the Hebrew Bible itself: “According to the Pentateuch, the pattern of the sanctu184

ELECTION AND PIETY

185

vital significance of Israel’s cultic piety for Ben Sira lies in its ability to renew and sustain creation through the actualization of the Torah commandments, which the sage associates with wisdom, the primeval order of YHWH’s created world. CONCLUSION: ELECTION AND PIETY I have shown that Ben Sira uses “fear of YHWH” primarily to refer to a particular kind of piety that I have characterized as Jewish. Concretely, fear of YHWH implies loyalty to the covenant relationship between Israel and its God. One demonstrates loyalty to YHWH’s covenant through observance of the covenantal stipulations, which for Ben Sira are the pentateuchal commandments. These commandments include ethical and cultic requirements, both of which are important for the sage. Thus, Ben Sira’s use of “fear of YHWH” represents a synthesis of the various nuances implied by that phrase in the Hebrew Bible. The sage obliges Israel as the elect covenant community to practice both the ethical and cultic dimensions of Jewish piety. Ben Sira associates the exercise of this Jewish piety with personified Wisdom, through her close association to the Jerusalem temple and her description in terms of the sacrificial cult (Sir 24). Moreover, the sage draws a close parallel between Wisdom as portrayed in Sirach 24 and the priestly personnel who officiate over the sacrificial cult at the Jerusalem temple in Sirach 50. These close associations between Wisdom and the Jerusalem temple suggest that the elect, by studying and enacting the ethical and ritual commandments of the Torah, bring their lives into harmony with this special wisdom and the primeval order. Such harmony with the primeval order bestows upon them benefits and leads to yet greater wisdom. The benefits are not restricted, however, to the elect. Performance of the Torah’s covenantal commandments renews and sustains the primeval order upon which the world is built. In this way, the practice of Jewish piety benefits the whole of humankind, indeed the whole world.187 The articulation of universal benefits resulting from Israel’s performance

———— ary was revealed to Moses directly from heaven (Exod. 25:9, 40). The Chronicler took up this idea, and considerably elaborated it (I Chron. 28:11–19).” 187 Cf. m. ʾAbot 1.2: “Upon three things the world stands: upon the Torah, upon divine service, and upon deeds of charity.”

186

CHAPTER FIVE

of the Torah indicates that Ben Sira attributed to Israel’s election an “instrumental” function.188 That is, Israel’s chosenness is intended to achieve goals greater than the covenant community. I have also noted, however, that in a few instances the phrase “fear of YHWH” retains something of its more literal connotation. In its experiential dimension, according to Ben Sira, fear of YHWH entails the sense of awe one feels from contemplation of YHWH’s works of creation or the sense of fright one suffers at the thought of divine punishment. A sense of awe or reverence for the deity can motivate the Jew to practice the specific Jewish piety associated with the Torah. And a fear of divine punishment may inspire adherence to ethical and cultic norms even when their infraction may otherwise go unnoticed. But as I suggested, in its experiential sense, fear of YHWH implies a kind of universal piety which all persons ought to practice. The experience of YHWH as an awe-inspiring and frightful deity can affect non-Jews as well as Jews. While Ben Sira does not expect nonJews to practice the particular Torah piety enjoined upon Jews, he expects them to observe at least the sage’s instruction (torah) and to exhibit appropriate reverence for YHWH as the creator of the universe. In the next chapter, on election and eschatology, I explore further the question of what kind of universal piety Ben Sira expects the nations to practice and the role he envisions for the elect people of Israel among the nations.

———— 188

The term comes from Levenson, “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism,” 154–6.

CHAPTER SIX

ELECTION AND ESCHATOLOGY: ISRAEL AMONG THE NATIONS In chapter 5, I argued that Ben Sira obliges the elect to practice a particular kind of piety that corresponds to the special wisdom they have received in the Torah. In the present chapter, I turn from the elect to the non-elect and pose a similar question: What are the obligations of the nations based on their receipt of general wisdom? Ben Sira’s ideas about the nations find expression in his eschatology—to be specific, in the prayer for deliverance in Sirach 36. In this prayer, the sage urges YHWH to act as Divine Warrior to rescue his elect people from foreign oppressors. The eschatological vision embodied in the prayer both grows naturally out of the sage’s theology of creation and expresses Ben Sira’s views on the ultimate destinies and obligations of Israel and the nations. As I showed in chapter 5, the sage refers to the particular piety enjoined upon the elect as the “fear of YHWH,” and he correlates it with Israel’s special wisdom. For Ben Sira, this Jewish piety implies loyalty to YHWH’s covenant and fulfillment of his ethical and ritual commandments. While the sage does not portray Israel’s piety as universal—in the sense of enjoining it upon non-Jews—he nonetheless attributes to it a universal effect in the maintenance of the primeval order established at creation. In this way Israel’s election benefits all humankind. I also noted, however, that, for the present, Ben Sira occasionally uses the phrase “fear of YHWH” in a universal sense, correlates it with general wisdom, and applies it to non-Jews. In its more general meaning, fear of YHWH implies a recognition of YHWH’s sovereignty and the practice of traditional wisdom. But what about the future? Certain other Second Temple texts anticipate some kind of universal worship of YHWH.1 Does Ben Sira also imagine an eschatological future in which all peoples come to

———— 1

See, e.g., the visions regarding the universal worship of Israel’s God in Zech 8.20–3 and Tob 14.6–7a. Cf. the conversion of Achior the Ammonite in Jdt 14.10.

188

CHAPTER SIX

Jerusalem to worship YHWH as Jews do? Or does he envision that the nations should continue their limited fear of YHWH indefinitely? And what role should Israel as YHWH’s elect play in bringing about the eschatological reality visualized by Ben Sira? These questions relate directly to my theme of the relation of the universal and particular. If Ben Sira envisions a time when all nations shall practice a Jewish piety, then it seems that the particular becomes the universal. If this is not his vision, what, then, is the relation of the universal and particular? In order to understand Ben Sira’s views on these matters, this chapter examines two passages in particular: in addition to the prayer for deliverance in Sirach 36 mentioned above, I will also examine Ben Sira’s discourse on the creation of human beings in Sirach 17 for what it can divulge about the sage’s views on the obligations of the nations. Before I discuss these passages, however, let me assess the sage’s consciousness of ethnic distinctions and his attitude toward non-Jews in general. BEN SIRA AND THE NATIONS Compared to previous Israelite wisdom authors, Ben Sira betrays a greater interest in the distinction between Jews and others. For the authors of Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet, the dichotomy Jew/non-Jew scarcely arises, if at all. Like the older Israelite wisdom authors, Ben Sira often speaks in universal human terms—making general claims about “human beings” (bny ʾdm or ʾdm/ἄνθρωπος, e.g., Sir 3.24a; 5.13b; 10.11a), “all flesh” (kl bśr, e.g., Sir 13.16a; 39.19a), or “mortals” (ʾnwš, e.g., Sir 8.6a; 35.24a). Nonetheless, Ben Sira’s interest in the distinctiveness of Israel is apparent in the vocabulary he uses for Jews and non-Jews, respectively. Unlike his sagely predecessors, he uses a wide range of terms to speak specifically about the nation of Israel: Israel ( yśrʾl, e.g., Sir 36.17b2; 46.1f), Israelites (bny yśrʾl, e.g., Sir 45.16d, 17d, 23f), [God’s] people (ʿmw, Sir 35.25a), the people of Israel (ʿm yśrʾl, Sir 37.25b), the inheritance of Jacob (κληρονομία Ιακωβ, Sir 23.12), the tribes of Jacob (š bṭ y

———— 2

Sir 36.12b in MS B.

ELECTION AND ESCHATOLOGY

189

yʿqb, Sir 36.13a3), and the people called by [God’s] name (ʿm nqrʾ bšmk, Sir 36.17a4). Ben Sira also uses a range of terms to identify non-Israelites; nonIsraelite groups are usually lumped together as “the Gentiles” or “the nations” (g w y m/ἔθνει). Once he refers to “the foreign nation” (ʿm nkr, Sir 36.3). Occasionally, Ben Sira speaks about particular groups of non-Israelites by specifying a historical circumstance without mentioning the nation by name. For example, Ben Sira refers to the Canaanites as the “doomed people” (g w y ḥr m) in Sir 16.9 and 46.6, or in 39.23 as the “nations” (g w y m) that God “disinherited” ( y wr yš ).5 In Sir 16.8, he alludes to Sodom and Gomorrah as “the neighbors of Lot” and in Sir 39.23 as “a watered land turned into salt.” In Sir 49.5, he describes the Babylonians as “a foreign nation” (g w y nkr y).6 A rare exception to these instances of circumlocution occurs in the numerical proverb of Sir 50.25–6; there three nations are singled out by name: Seir, Philistia, and Shechem. From his use of these various ethnic markers, it seems apparent that compared to his predecessors in the Israelite wisdom tradition, Ben Sira has a keener sense of Jews as a distinct group. Given Ben Sira’s consciousness of other peoples, some scholars argue that he held a generally negative attitude toward non-Jews, especially toward the Greeks and Greek culture. Rudolf Smend, for example, suggests that Ben Sira “hates with all his heart Hellenism and the Greeks, as well as the small pagan neighboring nations, and yearns for the day of God’s reckoning with them.”7 Martin Hengel understands Ben Sira’s concern to be admonishing “young men, who were in especial danger from the attractions of Hellenistic civilization.”8 Victor Tcherikover also reaches a negative verdict:

———— 3

Sir 36.11a in MS B. Sir 36.12a in MS B. 5 Recall that the Canaanites belong to Kaminsky’s category of the anti-elect. See my discussion in chapter 2. 6 MS B reads “a foolish foreign nation” (g w y nbl nkr y). Skehan and Di Lella suggest that the word “foolish,” which precedes “foreign” in MS B, is a gloss based on Deut 32.21 (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 541). 7 Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, xxiv: “Er hasst das Griechentum und die Griechen wie die kleinen heidnischen Nachbarvölker von ganzem Herzen und verlangt sehnsüchtig nach dem Tage, da Gott mit ihnen abrechnen wird.” 8 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:132. On Ben Sira’s supposed concern to counter Greek learning, see further the comments of Hengel (pp 1:78–83) and those of Jacob (“Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 248–9). 4

190

CHAPTER SIX

Ben Sira fought against the spirit of Greek civilization all his life, for he understood the danger threatening Judaism from Hellenism. Free inquiry which was not afraid to ask questions about nature and morality, or to answer them by the power of the human mind alone, Greek wisdom, unassociated with fear of God, aroused the fear of Ben Sira, who saw in them a contradiction to the spirit of Judaism and warned his pupils from treading this path.9

Indeed, a brief survey of several passages in Sirach (Sir 50.25–6; 39.22–4; 16.5–16) leaves a reader with such an impression. Nonetheless, a careful analysis of these passages reveals that Ben Sira’s apparently negative attitude toward foreigners in several instances does not translate into a universal view of non-Jews as inferior to Jews. I have already cited the numerical saying that contains one of the most extreme references to foreigners, in this case Judah’s neighbors: Sir 50.25a b 26a b Sir 50.25a b 26a b

‫בשני גוים קצה נפשי‬ ‫ איננו עם‬10‫והשלישית‬ ‫יושבי שעיר ופלשת‬ ‫וגוי נבל הדר בשכם‬ My being hates two nations, And the third is not even a people: The inhabitants of Seir and Philistia, And the foolish nation that dwells11 in Shechem.

Israelite contempt for the Edomites (the inhabitants of Seir) stems from the advantage taken of Israel by her neighbor in the wake of

————

Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, repr. ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 144. Tcherikover cites Sir 3.21–4 as evidence for Ben Sira’s supposed fear of Greek wisdom. So also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:139–40; and Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 160–1. Wright, however, interprets these verses as part of an inner-Jewish dispute over pursuit of esoteric knowledge (“Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” 208–12). More recently, other scholars have also argued for Ben Sira’s supposed conflict with Greek authorities and Hellenistic cultural influences. See Núria Calduch-Benages, “Fear for the Powerful or Respect for Authority,” in Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), 99; and, in the same volume, Renate Egger-Wenzel, “‘Denn harte Knechtschaft und Schande ist es, wenn eine Frau ihren Mann ernährt’ [Sir 25,22],” 46. 10 Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 556) note that the t at the end of wh š lyšt is erroneous. 11 I take MS B hdr as a Qal participle from dûr, a rare verb that occurs in Ps 84.11 [Eng 10] (in a negative context) and Ezek 24.5. Some also read this verb in place of ydwn in Gen 6.3. See BDB, p 189. 9


191

the Babylonian destruction in 586 B.C.E. (Ps 137.7; Obad 10–14). The Philistines were ancient Israel’s enemy in the time of Saul and David.12 Ben Sira reserves his harshest words for the residents of “Shechem,” that is, the Samaritans, whom Ben Sira denies even the status of “a people.” A general animosity between Jews and Samaritans is well known, from the Jewish side, on account of the putatively heretical nature of the worship practiced by the allegedly ethnically mixed population derived from the survivors of the Assyrian attack.13 The strong language of hatred in this proverb becomes understandable when one considers the specific history between Israel and each nation named. Sir 39.22–4 also seems to portray non-Israelites negatively. Sir 39.22a b 23a b 24a b Sir 39.22a

‫ברכות כיאר הציפה‬ ‫וכנהר תבל ריותה‬ ‫[ זעמו גוים יוריש‬..] ‫ויהפך למלח משקה‬ ‫[ת תמים יישרו‬....] ‫כן לזרים ]יס[תוללו‬ [God’s] blessing like the Nile overflows,14

————

12 It is doubtful that any identifiable descendants of the Edomites and Philistines existed in Ben Sira’s day. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 558) suggest that the Philistines here represent “those who have accepted paganism and Hellenization.” This speculation demonstrates more about Skehan and Di Lella’s assumptions regarding Ben Sira’s attitudes toward Greeks and Greek culture than about his actual attitudes. 13 See James D. Purvis, “Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem,” JNES 24 (1965): 88–94. This article is reprinted in James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, HSM 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 119–29. See also Otto Mulder, 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 Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel, JSJSup 78

(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 221–33; and Matthew J. Goff, “The Foolish Nation that Dwells in Shechem: Ben Sira on Shechem and Other Peoples in Palestine,” in The Other in Second Temple Judaism: A Festschrift in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Matthew J. Goff et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming). 14 Grammatically, something in this colon seems askew. As a subject, the feminine plural brkwt of MS Btxt disagrees with the feminine singular verb h ṣy ph. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 457) point to a supposed reading in MS Bmg, birkātô, but Beentjes indicates that “the marginal reading is illegible” (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 68 n 38). I concur with Beentjes, based on my examination of the facsimile of MS B (see Solomon Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew [London: Oxford University Press, 1901], n.p.). Nonetheless, I accept Skehan and Di Lella’s solution, “his blessing,” since it involves only the metathesis of the w and t. The resulting text remains problematic,

192

CHAPTER SIX

b 23a b 24a b

and like the Euphrates drenches the earth. [Even so]15 his anger disinherits the nations, and turns a watered land into salt. For the blameless [his paths]16 are straight; for the insolent17 [they] are rocky.

In these verses, the sage equates “the nations” with “the insolent.” As such, the nations are recipients of divine wrath, in contrast to “the blameless” upon whom YHWH’s blessings flow abundantly.18 Nonetheless, the allusions in v 23 are to specific peoples in the history of ancient Israel. The nations that God disinherits (v 23a) are likely a reference to the various Canaanite inhabitants of the land, who according to the book of Joshua were expelled before the conquering Israelites. The watered land turned to salt (v 23b) obviously refers to Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 13.10; 19.24–8).19 Again, an apparently blanket reference to the wicked nations becomes, in context, a designation for a specific historical enemy of Israel. In Sir 15.11–16.23, Ben Sira also seems at first glance to denigrate non-Israelites. The sage refers to Sodom and Gomorrah (mg wr y lwṭ, 16.8a); the “doomed nation” (g w y ḥr m, 16.9a), likely a reference to the Canaanites;20 and “a godless nation” (gwy ḥn p) against whom divine anger bursts forth (16.6b). The first two of these references seem to refer to non-Israelites, but the third, the

————

however, since the Hiphil form h ṣy ph implies a causative action and requires a direct object. 15 G reads οὕτως, perhaps a reflection of Heb. kēn. See Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫רסד‬. 16 MS Bmg supplies an alternate reading [.] rḥwt y w for the lacuna at the beginning of this colon. G αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ confirms the reading of MS Bmg. 17 On MS B l zr y m, Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 457) read lazzēdîm (haughty), noting that G and Syr. render this word freely. The emendation can be explained as an error in MS B, which reads r for d. 18 In Sir 39.25, the opposition is “good” (τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, Heb. missing) and “wicked, sinners” (τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς, Heb. lərāʿîm). Cf. v 27, where the comparison is between the “pious, righteous” (τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν) and the “wicked, sinners” (τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς, Heb. lərāʿîm). Sir 39.28–31 describes the role of natural elements in punishing the “godless, unholy” (ἀσεβεῖς, Heb. missing). 19 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 459–60. In contrast to MS B, which joins the two cola of v 23 with the conjunction wə-, G joins the two lines with ὡς (as), suggesting that the disinherited nations are identified with Sodom and Gomorrah. 20 Cf. the obvious reference to the Canaanites in Sir 46.6c as “all the doomed nations” (kl gwy ḥrm), in the context of the account of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan.


193

“godless nation” upon whom “wrath flies,” may allude to the destruction of rebellious Israelites at Taberah in Num 11.1–3.21 Whether or not I am correct about this last identification, other allusions in the passage clearly refer to Israelites. For example, the parallel colon in Sir 16.6a, “Against a wicked band fire burned” (bʿdt ršʿy m y wqdt ʾš ), refers to Korah and the Israelites who followed him in Num 16.1–35.22 In another instance, Ben Sira speaks of the “six hundred thousand foot soldiers” (šš mʾwt ʾlp rgly) who “were gathered [to their fathers] (hnʾspy m) on account of the insolence of their hearts” (Sir 16.10; cf. Judg 2.10). Obviously, the soldiers who perished refers to the company of Israelite males whom, according to tradition, Moses led out of Egypt and who died before entering the land of Canaan (Exod 12.37; Num 11.21; cf. Sir 46.8b).23 In this passage, therefore, Ben Sira discusses the wickedness not only of “the nations”—indeed, he refers to specific nations—but also of Israelites from the past. In fact, he does so interchangeably, as if there were no difference between the wickedness of non-Israelites and that of Israelites. Ben Sira’s main point in this passage is perhaps expressed in Sir 16.12: with Israel’s God reside both mercy and punishment, and he judges people not according to their national affiliation but based upon their deeds (ʾyš kmpʿly w yšpṭ). Based on my survey of these cases, one would have to conclude— contrary to the judgments of Smend, Hengel, and Tcherikover—that Ben Sira did not hold a generally negative attitude toward foreigners, not even toward Greeks.24 Indeed, many of the passages in which he expresses such a negative attitude allude to specific peo-

————

G, which translates MS A’s verb nṣth with ἐξεκαύθη (to kindle), certainly links Sir 16.6b to Num 11.1–3. The phrase gôy ḥānēp also appears in Isa 10.6 (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 273), where it refers to the Assyrians; thus, the possibility that Ben Sira has in mind Israel’s archnemesis from the 8th–7th centuries B.C.E. must also be entertained. 22 Ben Sira’s verbal allusions to Num 16.2, 6, 21 and 35 are apparent. Moreover, compare the language of Sir 16.6a to that of Sir 45.18–19, where Ben Sira explicitly mentions Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and their followers. 23 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 274. 24 Ben Sira’s generally positive attitude toward non-Jews seems all the more remarkable in light of the mostly antagonistic tone that much Hellenistic Jewish literature adopts toward the religious practices of non-Jews. See Robert Goldenberg, The 21

Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes Towards Other Religions

(New York: New York University Press, 1998), 51–4.

194

CHAPTER SIX

ples in Israel’s history—the Canaanites, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Edomites, the Philistines, and the Samaritans—for whom, according to biblical tradition, Israel maintained an animosity. Moreover, some of these groups belong to Joel Kaminsky’s category of the :anti-elect (see chapter 2), and thus these passages are not indicative of a generally negative attitude toward non-Israelites on Ben Sira’s part.

The Wisdom of the Nations and the Fear of YHWH Notwithstanding his interest in the dichotomy Jew/non-Jew, Ben Sira seems to have had a generally positive, or at worst neutral, attitude toward non-Jews. When he lists the activities of the Torah scholar, Ben Sira suggests that “he travels through the lands of foreign nations (ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίων ἐθνῶν) to test what is good and evil among human beings (ἐν ἀνθρώποις)” (Sir 39.4). Rather than insulating himself from the putatively negative influences of foreigners, the sage ought to travel among them to find out the good as well as the bad. Ben Sira’s generally positive view of Gentiles stems in part, I believe, from his understanding that non-Jews as well as Jews are recipients of general wisdom though creation. Recall how in chapter 3 I argued that Ben Sira envisions a general revelation of wisdom to all humankind, Jew and non-Jew alike. I showed, for example, how Sir 17.1–10 portrays all human beings as recipients of divine wisdom by virtue of their created status. As the creator of all “humankind” (ἄνθρωπον, 17.1), YHWH grants humans “discretion” (διαβούλιον), “a heart to understand” (καρδίαν διανοεῖσθαι, cf. 1 Kgs 3.9), and “knowledge of wisdom” (ἐπιστήμην συνέσεως, Sir 17.6–7). Since non-Jews have presumably equal access to general divine wisdom, it seems clear that Ben Sira does not maintain a view of Israel’s election as “self-sufficient.”25 That is, the nations have a means by which they can know YHWH and fear him apart from Israel. But does that possession of general divine wisdom require nonJews to worship the Israelite god in the same way that Jews worship him? About human beings generally Ben Sira suggests that

———— 25

The terminology comes from Levenson, “Universal Horizon,” 156.


Sir 17.8a b 9 10

195

[YHWH] put his fear into their heart, to show them the magnificence of his works, that they might boast in his marvelous deeds and praise his holy name.26

Based on this passage, Otto Kaiser argues that given “Ben Sira’s teleological interpretation in Sir 17:8–10 of the gift of reason to all men, [human beings] are thereby all in a position, and all intended, to fear and praise God for his mighty deeds.”27 As I indicated in chapter 5, however, Ben Sira does not otherwise clearly predicate fear of God in its particular sense of non-Jews. Rather, non-Jews may be moved to fear God, but only in the experiential sense of fright or awe. This accords with the awe a person experiences when confronted with the wonders of nature (Sir 42.15–43.33). Thus, Kaiser’s interpretation of Sir 17.8–10 as attributing a Jewish kind of piety to the nations seems overdrawn. Although he does not mention the passage, the following call to repentance in Sir 17.25–32 would, at first glance, seem to support Kaiser’s interpretation. Sir 17.25a b 27a b Sir 17.25a b 27a b

ἐπίστρεφε ἐπὶ κύριον καὶ ἀπόλειπε ἁμαρτίας δεήθητι κατὰ πρόσωπον καὶ σμίκρυνον πρόσκομμα . . . ὑψίστῳ τίς αἰνέσει ἐν ᾅδου ἀντὶ ζώντων καὶ διδόντων ἀνθομολόγησιν Turn back to YHWH and forsake sins; stand in need before his face and reduce offenses . . . Who will praise the Most High in Hades; in place of the living who will give thanks?

One connection between Sir 17.8–10 and 17.25–32 is the motif of praise (αἰνέω, vv 10, 27a). If Ben Sira is speaking about human beings generally in Sir 17.1–24, then it seems clear that the call to repentance in 17.25–32 would be aimed at non-Jews as well as Jews. But on this question, the two principal manuscript traditions, GI and GII, disagree. In the former tradition, the identity of the people Ben Sira treats in Sirach 17 remains ambiguous. In GI, starting with v 1, it seems that the sage is talking about all human

———— 26

See my text and text-critical notes in chapter 2. Kaiser, “Covenant and Law in Ben Sira,” 253. In support of his interpretation, Kaiser connects the motif of “fear” in Sir 17.8 to the mention of “fear” on the part of the nations in Sir 36.2. I shall consider Sir 36 below. 27

196

CHAPTER SIX

beings. The matter becomes ambiguous precisely in vv 11–14, where Ben Sira begins discussing what appear to be specific events in Israel’s history: the bestowal of the Torah (11b), the establishment of the covenant (12a), the giving of the commandments (12b), and the theophany and resulting instructions at Sinai (13–14). Despite these apparent allusions to events in Israel’s past, Ben Sira does not mention his people by name until v 17. Verses 19–20 seem to continue the theme of v 15, how the ways of human beings are known to YHWH, a theme which v 17 interrupts. Even with v 17, which also mentions “every nation,” the referent of vv 19–20 remains ambiguous. Does the sage here mean that the actions of all human beings are visible to YHWH, or just the actions of Israel? The point is this: in GI, it is possible to interpret Sir 17.1–24 as a meditation on the responsibilities of humans generally. If this is the case, then the call to repentance and praise in Sir 17.25–32 would be directed at non-Jews as well as Jews. This interpretation of GI would seem to support Kaiser’s reading of the significance of “fear” in Sir 17.8 as a kind of Jewish piety incumbent upon all human beings. The additions of GII28 clarify the imprecision present in the text of GI. The first addition in GII occurs in v 16, which picks up the mention of “their ways” in v 15. Verse 16 seems to talk negatively about the people discussed previously, presumably human beings generally, since Israel has not yet been named. Then v 17 introduces Israel. GII expands upon this mention of Israel through a second addition in v 18. With this expansion, GII suggests that YHWH may chastise Israel, but only out of a sense of care.29 The sole focus of v 18 on Israel—and this is where GII’s additions alter the subject and thus the meaning of the passage from here on out—clarifies the ambiguity inherent in GI. Whereas the subject of vv 19–20 is ambiguous in GI, GII’s addition of v 18 clearly intends that vv 19–20 refer to Israel, not all humanity. As with the nations, God sees all the deeds of Israel. And as reported in v 18, God chastises them for their misdeeds, but he does not destroy them. Like the nations, Israel contains its own share of wickedness (v 20). Yet, despite her wickedness, GII’s insertion of v 21 proposes, the Lord continues to care for Israel and spares her. The hortatory address in Sir 17.25–

————

28 For the biblical allusions contained in GII’s expansions, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 279–80. 29 See my discussion of this verse at the end of the present chapter, p 236.


197

32, calling for a return to YHWH, then, should be read as addressed to Israel, not human beings in general, at least from the viewpoint of GII.

The Propaedeutic Quality of General Wisdom If Ben Sira does not intend the general wisdom bestowed upon nonJews to lead them to a Jewish form of piety, what purpose does it serve? Instead of interpreting “fear” of God in Sir 17.8–10 in the sense of Jewish piety, as Kaiser does, one may understand it in the general sense that I outlined in chapter 5. If here the term refers to a general piety rooted in awe or fright, one arrives at a different interpretation of the obligations the sage would impose on non-Jews from the one proposed by Kaiser. In this case, Ben Sira is suggesting that non-Jews—through the general wisdom bequeathed to them as creatures—have the capacity to acknowledge that YHWH is creator and, therefore, is worthy of praise. The point made here might be understood if one considers for a moment the hypothetical situation in which human beings were created without any divine wisdom. The inverse of Sir 17.8–10 would be that humans would not have the capacity to experience a general fear of YHWH through observation of the natural world. Thus, for Ben Sira, the general wisdom bestowed on humankind from the beginning serves the purpose of a propaedeutic: the universal wisdom available to all human beings permits them to recognize YHWH as creator of the world.30 But what if general wisdom fails as a propaedeutic, and the nations do not fear YHWH? General wisdom, in Ben Sira’s thinking, seems to be a necessary condition for the nations to fear YHWH. But clearly it is not sufficient. In other words, even though the nations have access to general wisdom, they do not necessarily practice a universal piety. This would seem to be the case in Ben Sira’s own time, when he is living under foreign occupation by first the Ptolemaic and later the Seleucid empires.31 If the awesomeness of creation does not move the Gentiles to fear YHWH, then God’s miraculous rescue of his oppressed people becomes necessary. This, in

————

30 Note how here wisdom serves as a propaedeutic for fear of God, instead of the other way around. 31 For a concise discussion of Ben Sira’s historical context of living under foreign Greek rule, see Wright, “‘Put the Nations in Fear of You:’ Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” in SBLSP 38 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 77–93.

198

CHAPTER SIX

short, is the content of Ben Sira’s eschatological vision, which I shall now elaborate. THE NATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF YHWH The notion that YHWH’s dramatic rescue of his chosen people from foreign oppression will move the nations to fear him appears in Sir 36.1–22. The references to the “end” (qēṣ) and to the “appointed time” (môʿēd, v 10a) in this prayer for deliverance clearly indicate the author’s eschatological concern. The prayer bears upon the question of whether Ben Sira thought that non-Jews ought to fear YHWH in the same way that Jews fear him, as well as upon the sage’s understanding of Israel’s role among the nations. In this staunchly nationalistic passage, the author petitions God to rescue his people from the enemy. The hoped-for result of Israel’s divine deliverance is that the nations will come to know that there is no god other than YHWH. In my analysis of the prayer below, I am interested in what kind of universal piety the author expects the nations to practice in the future, and whether Israel as YHWH’s elect plays a special role in producing the eschatological reality envisioned by the author. The authenticity of the prayer in Sirach 36 has been challenged by several scholars, most notably by Theophil Middendorp and John Collins.32 Middendorp suggests that “the prayer could have another author,”33 and Collins argues that the prayer “is so alien to the thought world of Ben Sira that it must be regarded as a secondary addition, possibly from the Maccabean period.”34 The argument that the prayer for deliverance does not fit in the book of Sirach derives not from considerations of genre, that is, on account of its character as a prayer of petition in a wisdom text. Even Collins acknowledges that the petitionary prayer in Sir 22.27–23.6 belongs to the original

————

32 Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 125–32; and Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 23, 44, 110–11. 33 Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 125. 34 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 23. See also John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 33.


199

book of Sirach.35 Rather, objection arises both from the tone of the prayer and from putative evidence that it differs markedly in terms of vocabulary from the rest of Sirach. In what follows, I consider the arguments against authenticity, and then demonstrate that the prayer is well integrated into its present context. The prayer for deliverance, despite its jarring eschatological tone, fits thematically within Ben Sira’s creation theology. Middendorp’s argument against the authenticity of the prayer for deliverance rests on what he interprets to be lexical and thematic differences between the prayer and the rest of the book. Since Johannes Marböck has fully responded to Middendorp’s treatment of the prayer,36 I only discuss two representative examples. I engage the argument of Collins below in my discussion of the prayer itself. In terms of lexical dissimilarity, Middendorp notes that in the book of Sirach the Niphal of qd š occurs only in this prayer (1x, Sir 36.4a).37 By my count, the other four occurrences of qd š occur in the Hiphil stem (Sir 7.29b; 33.9a, 12b; 35.11b).38 Ben Sira’s inspiration for the use of this root in the Niphal appears, however, to be the book of Ezekiel (see p 217, below). Moreover, the distribution of qd š across the Niphal and Hiphil stems in Sirach mirrors the root’s distribution across these stems in the Hebrew Bible as a whole.39 Given the numerous allusions to the Hebrew Bible in Sirach, this fact should not surprise. Therefore, it seems perfectly logical that the Niphal accounts for only 20 percent of the occurrences of qd š in the book as a whole.40

————

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 44. Johannes Marböck, “Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions, Sir 36,1.22 (Gr. 33,1– 13a; 36,16b–22) im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras,” in Memoria Jerusalem: Freundesgabe Franz Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Johannes B. Baer and Johannes Marböck (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck-Verlagsanstalt, 1977), 93– 116, esp. 103–16. 37 Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 127. 38 See Dominique Barthélemy and Otto Rickenbacher, eds., Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 345. 39 In the Hebrew Bible, the root qd š occurs 11 times in the Niphal stem and 45 times in the Hiphil stem. Thus, the 1:4 ratio of the Niphal and Hiphil stems of qd š in Sirach is nearly identical to the ratio in which this root appears in these two stems in the Bible. 40 I might add that, from the view of a statistical analysis, the sample (one occurrence of Niphal qd š ) proves too small to reach conclusions about whether or not the passage belongs to the larger work. 35 36

200

CHAPTER SIX

In terms of thematic dissimilarity, Middendorp suggests that the notion expressed in Sir 36.5b that there is no god other than YHWH “is a clear reference to a later theology.” As confirmation for this conclusion, he notes that comparable ideas are found in the later stratum GII: “and there is no other than he” (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλοϛ πλὴν αὐτοῦ, Sir 18.2b) and “YHWH Almighty alone is God, and apart from him there is no savior” (Sir 24.24cd).41 These distinctly monotheistic statements, however, nowhere cause dissonance with other passages in Sirach. Moreover, similar statements exist not just in GII but in GI as well. Ben Sira’s God “is from eternity one and the same” (Sir 42.21b), and “He is the all” (Sir 43.27b). In the opening poem, the author claims: “there is one, seated upon his throne: YHWH” (Sir 1.8). Clearly the monotheizing statement of Sir 36.5b does not stand at odds with the rest of the book. Middendorp’s verdict that the prayer in Sirach 36 constitutes a later insertion rests on such lexical and thematic examples. He concludes: The overview shows that every step of the way we bump into a word use unusual for Ben Sira . . . Moreover the speech is very clearly by political opponents [of Seleucid rule], whereas Ben Sira sought anxiously to keep himself away from politics.42

On the whole, I do not find Middendorp’s evidence persuasive. As I will show below, there are also many lexical and thematic connections between the prayer and the surrounding passages. Moreover, I will argue that what Middendorp refers to as the “political” tone of the prayer can be understood in light of Ben Sira’s creation theology. Middendorp’s argument has been challenged most fully by Marböck.43 Marböck demonstrates that numerous characteristics of the prayer occur in other parts of Sirach. His conclusions have been endorsed by Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella, Benjamin Wright, Georg Sauer, Pancratius Beentjes, and Matthias Henze.44 With these

————

Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 127. Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras, 130. 43 Marböck, “Gebet um die Rettung Zions,” 93–116. 44 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 418; Wright, “Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” 83; idem, “Eschatology Without a Messiah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in The Septuagint and Messianism, ed. Michael A. Knibb, BETL 195 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 315; Georg Sauer, Jesus Sirach, Ben Sira: über41 42


201

scholars I see no reason to consider the passage to be spurious. The prayer in Sirach 36 dovetails neatly with its context, especially with the preceding passages in Sir 34.21–35.26; together with Sir 36.1– 22, these passages form a literary unit in which the prayer functions as a conclusion. In the passages that follow the prayer, there is a clear change of topic; the next section treats the kinds of people with whom the wise person should associate (Sir 36.23–37.15).45 This abrupt thematic juncture remains even if one excises the prayer for deliverance. Thus, what I am mainly concerned to show are the interconnections between the prayer and the section that immediately precedes the prayer, Sir 34.21–35.26. My analysis should be seen as complementing the work of Marböck, and as providing additional evidence for his conclusion that the prayer belongs to the original book of Sirach.

Proper and Improper Piety and YHWH’s Response The prayer for deliverance in Sirach 36 is embedded within, and provides a conclusion to, a larger unit in Sir 34.21–36.22. The passage as a whole concerns piety broadly construed in its ethical and ritual dimensions (see chapter 5) and YHWH’s response to proper and improper forms of piety. In general, the passage suggests that God responds favorably to proper acts of piety (charity, observance of the Torah, sacrifice) and passes judgment on improper acts (sacrifice of wrongly acquired profits, withholding charity, offering bribes).

————

setzt und erklärt, ATD. Apokryphen 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000),

249; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “God’s Mercy: ‘Racham’ (pi.), ‘Rachum’, and ‘Rachamim’ in the Book of Ben Sira,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 110; and Matthias Henze, “Invoking the Prophets in Zechariah and Ben Sira,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 120–34. Corley notes that the “nationalistic element” of the prayer for deliverance is present in other parts of Sirach, such as 16.7–9; 24.8–12; 50.25–6; and especially in chapters 44–49 (“Seeds of Messianism,” 310 n 22). 45 There are only a few, weak verbal and thematic connections between the prayer and the following passage on the wise person’s choice of associates (Sir 36.23–37.15). Ben Sira refers to the good friend who will “fight with you against the alien foe (ʿm zr); against your enemies (ʿr y m) he will hold up your shield” (MSS B and D Sir 37.5). Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 428) suggest reading ṣār îm in place of ʿār îm, given the consonance of sibilants in the bicolon. Ben Sira advises his reader to consult with a “pious person” (ʾ yš mpḥd, Sir 37.12; cf. 36.2). Here the “pious person” is the one who “observes the commandment” (šwmr m ṣwh).

202

CHAPTER SIX

YHWH’s response to these divergent acts is characterized as “justice.” Ben Sira describes him as a “god of justice” (ʾlhy m špṭ, Sir 35.15b [15a in MS B]) who “judges justly and executes justice” (wšwpṭ ṣdq yʿśh m špṭ, Sir 35.22a [21d in MS B]; cf. Gen 18.25). The execution of divine justice envisioned in this passage is twofold: (1) YHWH visits upon the guilty punishment for their sins, and (2) he gives mercy to the oppressed. Ben Sira expresses this dual distribution of justice with the causative form of the verb šûb (to repay). In the positive sense, God “repays” ( yšyb)46 a person sevenfold for his good deeds (35.13b).47 In the negative sense, God “repays vengeance” ( yšyb nqm) on the nations (35.23a [22d in MS B]), “repays” ( yšyb) humankind according to its deeds, and “requites” (g mwl) humanity according to its evil thoughts (35.24). Commensurate with the theme of YHWH as a god of justice, the passage develops the notion that petitionary prayer arouses the deity’s sense of justice. Indeed, verbs of praying and related nouns, as well as affirmations that YHWH heeds the prayers of the oppressed, punctuate the entire unit.48 In Sir 35.16b the sage suggests that “[God] will heed the supplications of [those in] distress (wtḥnwny m ṣwq yšmʿ ).” Ben Sira singles out the “cry” (ṣʿqt)49 of the orphan and the “complaint” (śyḥ) of the widow as petitions which God does not “forsake” ( yṭ š, Sir 35.17). He also declares that a bitterly distressed person “will be accepted” (δεχθήσεται, Sir 35.20).50 Such a person’s “cry” (ṣʿqh) reaches the clouds, suggesting that God will hear it. Similarly, in Sir 35.21, he affirms that a poor person’s “cry for help” (šwʿt) passes through the clouds51 and does not rest until

————

Bmg reads yš lm “rewards.” Cf. Sir 35.13a and n 47, below. This colon stands in parallelism with Sir 35.13a: “He is a God of reward/punishment (t slwmwt).” Like špṭ and šûb, the noun t slwmwt, which does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, can indicate both reward and punishment. See m. B. Qam. 1.1. 48 In addition to the examples discussed below, see Sir 34.29 (εὔχομαι, to pray; εἰσακούω, to give heed), and Sir 34.31c (τῆς προσευχῆς αὐτοῦ τίς εἰσακούσεται, who will heed his prayer?). No Hebrew MSS are extant for Sir 34.21–35.10. 49 MS Bmg reads ʾnqt (groaning). 50 As Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 415) note, MS B t mr wr y rṣwn hnḥh makes no sense. G reads: θεραπεύων ἐν εὐδοκίᾳ δεχθήσεται. θεραπεύων (one who serves) appears out of context. The phrase “bitterly distressed person” derives from Syr. mr rʾ dnpš h. For the verb, Syr. reads šmʿ (he hears). Skehan and Di Lella suggest, tentatively, that the clause may have read mar nepeš bərā ṣôn yērā ṣeh. 51 G reads “passes through the clouds” (νεφέλας διῆλθεν), which accords with MS Bmg ʿ by m ḥlph. MS Btxt’s reading ʿnn ḥl ʿm makes little sense. 46 47

MS


203

God “takes note” ( y pqwd). All of these examples suggest that a cry for help from a person wronged effects a divine answer. As I shall show in my analysis below, the prayer emerges seamlessly from this notion that YHWH is a god of justice who can be activated through petitionary prayer to punish the wicked and reward the righteous.

YHWH’s Judgment of the Nations The final verses leading up to the prayer, Sir 35.22b–26, detail how God responds to the prayers of the oppressed. Sir 35.22b c d 23a b c 24a b 25a b 26a b Sir 35.22b c d 23a

————

‫גם אל לא יתמהמה‬ ‫וכגבור לא יתאפק‬ ‫עד ימחץ מתני אכזרי‬ ‫ולגוים ישיב נקם‬ ‫עד יוריש שבט זדון‬ ‫ומטה רשע גדוע יגדע‬ ‫עד ישיב לאנוש פעלו‬ ‫וגמול אדם כמזמתו‬ ‫ ריב עמו‬52[‫]עד יריב‬ ‫ושמחם בישועתו‬ ‫ מצוקה‬53‫בזמ[ן‬............] ‫כעת חזיזים בעת בצורת‬ Indeed, God will not delay; like a warrior, he will not restrain himself until he shatters the loins of the cruel one and on the nations repays vengeance;54

The beginning of v 25a is damaged in MS B. The initial stroke of the ʿ is visible at the beginning of the line in the facsimile edition of Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, n.p. At the end of the damaged portion, the Academy of the Hebrew Language edition reconstructs a b, the bottom stroke of which may be visible in the facsimile (Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 28). G reads κρίνῃ, which suggests yšpṭ, but even though a washed-out š may be visible in the facsimile, there is not enough space for the entire word. I thus read with Segal (The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫ )רכ‬y r yb, which fits in the space and takes account of the reconstructed b. Cf. the use of the participle of r îb with the cognate accusative r îb in Jer 51.36. 53 Again, the initial part of v 26a is damaged in MS B. The only clearly decipherable letter in the first part of the colon is the final n. The Academy of the Hebrew Language edition (Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 28) reconstructs the consonants bzm. My translation of the beginning of the line is filled in from G: ὡραῖον ἔλεος ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως αὐτοῦ. 54 In order to capture the elegant parallelism and chiasmus in this stanza, I have preserved in my translation something of the Hebrew word order, even though this results in a less stylistically acceptable English prose. Note especially the synony52

204

CHAPTER SIX

b c 24a b 25a b 26a b

until he expels the scepter of insolence and the staff of the wicked utterly hacks in two; until he repays humankind for its deeds and requites humanity according to its evil thoughts; until he prosecutes the case of his people and gladdens them by means of his rescue. Seasonable is his mercy in time of distress as thunderheads55 in time of drought.

Whereas Sir 34.21–35.22a treats principally matters of justice concerning individuals (the orphan, widow, or bitterly distressed person), Sir 35.22b–6 clearly transfers the theme of YHWH’s justice, which is activated by petitionary prayer, into the realm of the corporate.56 Specifically, the sage envisions a divine judgment upon the “nations” (Sir 35.23a) and a deliverance of God’s “people” (Sir 35.25). As such, these verses serve as a kind of overture to the prayer in Sirach 36.57

A Prayer for Deliverance The prayer for deliverance offers a glimpse into the author’s eschatological vision. In the prayer itself, the petitioner seeks a divine response to injustice. The prayer ends with a call for YHWH to “heed” (t šmʿ ) the “prayer” (t plt) of his servants (36.22a), two key terms which feature prominently in the passage immediately preceding the prayer proper. Thus, the author offers the petition on the assumption that God responds affirmatively to the distressful cry of the oppressed, in this case the people of Israel. My investigation that follows will demonstrate additional associations between the prayer and the preceding passages, especially Sir 35.22b–6. These associations lead me to conclude that the prayer for deliverance is well-integrated with the material which precedes it.

———— mous parallelism in the first (22bc) and fourth (24ab) bicola and the chiasms in the second (22d–23a) and third (23bc) bicola. 55 For MS B kʿt, G and Syr. suggest kʿby (like clouds of), which I follow here, as do most commentators, e.g., Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 415; and Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 212. 56 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420. 57 On this I agree with Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420) and Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 111).


205

The prayer consists of four stanzas, each of which contains four bicola.58 Each of the stanzas begins with an imperative, as one would expect in a petitionary prayer. Moreover, the first, second, and fourth stanzas each include a closing statement.59 The closing statements of both the first and fourth stanzas are marked with the causal conjunction kî, and the closing statement of the second stanza may be identified by its similarity to that of the first stanza. My treatment below will indicate how stanza 3 differs from the others.

Stanza 1 The initial line of the first stanza establishes the theme of the prayer as an appeal for divine deliverance (v 1). Sir 36.1 2 3a b 4a b 5a b Sir 36.1 2 3a b 4a b 5a

‫הושיענו אלהי הכל‬ ‫ פחדך על כל הגוים‬60‫ו]ש[ים‬ ‫ על עם נכר‬61‫הניף יד‬ ‫ויראו את גבור]ת[יך‬ ‫כאשר נקדשת לעיניהם בנו‬ 62 ‫כן לעינינו הכבד בם‬ ‫וידעו כאשר ידענו‬ ‫כי אין אלהים זולתך‬ Rescue us, O God of all, and [p]ut your fright upon all the nations! Brandish your hand against the foreign people, so that they may see your migh[t]y deeds. Just as you have shown them your holiness by us, so now show us your glory by them, so that they may know, as we know,

———— 58

For my literary division of the prayer, see my text and translation in appendix C. Beentjes (“God’s Mercy,” 111) and Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420) also delimit the stanzas where I do, but the latter include the extra bicolon found in G and Syr. at v 11. 59 Beentjes, “God’s Mercy,” 111. 60 G reads ἐπίβαλε (he cast). For a discussion of the differences between the Hebrew and Greek traditions in Sir 36, see Wright, “Eschatology Without a Messiah,” 315–7. Wright concludes that the Greek translator “remains relatively faithful to Ben Sira’s message, even if the Greek modifies it at places. Although he might try to dampen the emotion in some passages, the grandson does not eliminate its eschatological flavor, and he does not soften the pleas for God to defeat enemies.” The quotation appears on p 316. 61 MS Bmg inserts yad (hand), which G and Syr. confirm. The word is missing in txt MS B . 62 Reading with MS Bmg and G. MS Btxt repeats bānû from the first half of the verse.

206

CHAPTER SIX

b

that there is no god but you.

The opening imperative “Rescue us (hwšyʿnw)!” echoes the statement in Sir 35.25b that God gladdens his people “by means of his rescue” (byšwʿt w), again suggesting a literary connection. The notion that God rescues his beleaguered people as a result of heeding their petitions also occurs in Sir 48.18–21. In this passage, Ben Sira recalls how, during Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, the people “appealed” (ἐπεκαλέσαντο)63 to “God Most High” who “heard” (ἐπήκουσεν)64 the “sound of their prayer” (qwl t pltm). As a result, God “rescued them” (wywšyʿm) by the hand of Isaiah.65 Another verbal connection between the prayer and the preceding passage occurs through the root gbr. In Sir 35.22c, Ben Sira suggests that YHWH will exact vengeance on the nations “like a warrior” (kgbwr). The notion of God as warrior infuses the entire prayer for deliverance, but a verbal reflection of this image appears in the cognate noun that expresses the results of the warrior’s strength. The petitioner urges YHWH: “Brandish your hand against the foreign people, so that they may see your mighty deeds” (gbwrtyk, Sir 36.3). The root gbr suggests YHWH’s ability as Divine Warrior to effect justice.66 Moreover, as in Sir 35.22b–6, the author of the prayer envisions a collective distribution of YHWH’s justice on Israel’s enemies. YHWH’s action is to be taken against “the foreign people” and his fright is to descend upon “all the nations” (vv 2, 3a). In the earlier passage, Ben Sira envisioned God’s judgment on “humankind” (ʾĕnôš, Sir 35.24a), which Skehan and Di Lella argue should be understood in its collective sense as a reference to foreign adversaries.67 In the corresponding colon, the sage calls for punishment of “humanity” (ʾādām, Sir 35.24b), another collective noun that despite

———— 63 64

MS B lacks all but the final w In MS B the verb is illegible.

of the verb.

65 Such an example counters the claim by Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 110) that Ben Sira does not expect prophecies to be fulfilled (cf. Sir

36.20–1). For the biblical traditions to which Ben Sira alludes, see 2 Kgs 18–9; Isa 36–7; and 2 Chr 32. 66 See my discussion of the Divine Warrior motif at the end of the chapter. 67 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420. Skehan and Di Lella point to Ps 56.2 [Eng. 1], where ʾĕnôš parallels lōḥēm (opponent).


207

its apparently universal range seems to be contrasted with the members of the covenant community in Sir 17.1–14.68 According to the parallelism of the first two cola of the stanza, the dramatic rescue will result in YHWH’s fright (paḥad) falling upon the nations. While this term probably connotes fear in its experiential sense of terror or dread, it is also possible that Ben Sira is suggesting that the nations’ experience of YHWH’s rescue of Israel will result in the instilment of a Jewish piety in non-Jews. Indeed, the closing statement of the stanza indicates a consequence of the divine deliverance: the nations will come to understand, as Israel understands, that there is no god other than YHWH. I will return to the meaning of this statement below.

Stanza 2 The second stanza of the prayer achieves a climactic intensity. Sir 36.6 7 8 9 10a b

‫חדש אות ושנה מופת‬ 69 ‫האדר יד זרוע ימין‬ ‫העיר אף ושפוך חמה‬ 70 ‫והכניע ]צר[ והדוף אויב‬ ‫החיש קץ ופקוד מועד‬ 71 ‫כי מי יאמר לך מה תעשה‬

————

68 See my discussion in chapter 3 and the comments of Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 114–5. In this line, “humanity” is punished for its “evil thoughts,” which Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420) interpret as “their evil

designs against his Chosen People.” 69 MS B reads hʾdr yd wʾmṣ zrwʿ wymyn (show the grandeur of your hand, and strengthen your arm and your right hand). G and Syr. do not attest the verb wʾmṣ. I have revised MS B in light of G: δόξασον χεῖρα καὶ βραχίονα δεξιόν. 70 Line 9 is partially damaged in MS B. Where I read ṣar, G has ἀντίδικον (adversary). Cf. Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 28; and Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫רכה‬. For the last word in the line, Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 62) mistakenly reads ʾwhb (friend). I verified the reading ʾw yb (enemy) with Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, n.p. 71 G and Syr. include v 11: Sir 36.11a b

ἐν ὀργῇ πυρὸς καταβρωθήτω ὁ σῳζόμενος καὶ οἱ κακοῦντες τὸν λαόν σου εὕροισαν ἀπώλειαν

Sir 36.11a b

Let the survivor be devoured by fiery wrath, and let those who mistreat your people meet destruction.

While the content of the verse fits the context of the stanza, I choose to omit the bicolon, since it destroys the pattern of the prayer, which otherwise consists of four stanzas, each containing four bicola.

208

CHAPTER SIX

12a b Sir 36.6 7 8 9 10a b 12a b

72

‫השבת ראש פאתי אויב‬ ‫האומר אין זולתי‬

Renew a sign and repeat a wonder; show the grandeur of your right hand and arm. Stir up anger and pour out wrath; subdue [the adversary] and drive out the enemy. Hasten the end; observe the appointed time! Let them recount your mighty deeds.73 Crush the hairy heads of the enemies74 who say, “There is no one but me.”

This intensity may be quantified by the number of imperative verbal forms appearing in each stanza. In the prayer as a whole, the imperatives crescendo from the first stanza to the second, and then diminish in the third and fourth stanzas (see Table 1, below). The preponderance of imperatives in the second stanza seems designed to arouse in the deity a sense of justice and to activate his judgment upon Israel’s enemies. Indeed, the sage calls for the deity to “subdue the adversary and drive out the enemy” (v 9) and to “crush the hairy heads of the enemies” (v 12a). In this way, the author petitions YHWH to repay vengeance on the nations in actuality, creating a thematic parallel to the punitive side of divine justice, which I observed in the passages preceding the prayer (see, for example, Sir 35.23a). Stanza First Second Third Fourth

No. of Imperatives 4 10 4 3

No. of 2ms Pron. Suffixes75 3 1 6 7

Table 1: Distribution of Imperatives and 2ms Suffixes in Sir 36.1–22

————

Following MS Bmg. MS Btxt reads mwʾb (Moab). From G: καὶ ἐκδιηγησάσθωσαν τὰ μεγαλεῖά σου. MS B (see above) reads: “For who can say to you: ‘What are you doing?’” 74 Many commentators translate this puzzling line with G (σύντριψον κεφαλὰς ἀρχόντων ἐχθρῶν), which takes paʾătê to mean “rulers.” Another possibility, suggested to me by Eugene McGarry, is that pēʾâ has the meaning “hair,” as it does in Lev 19.27. Both Ps 68.22 and Deut 32.42 suggest that God takes vengeance on the hairy heads of the enemy, a tradition Ben Sira seems to replicate here. 75 The enumeration of Beentjes (“God’s Mercy,” 111) differs from my count only with respect to the second stanza, in which he does not find any occurrences of the 2ms pronominal suffix. But I suggest that the suffix occurs one time, in 36.10b, either with MS B lk or with the alternative reading of G: τὰ μεγαλεῖά σου. 72 73


209

As a justification for exacting vengeance, the author points to the oppressors’ pride. The prayer envisions divine recompense on foreign enemies who possess sufficient hubris to say, “There is no one but me” (ʾy n zwlt y, Sir 36.12b). As a closing statement to the stanza, the phrase echoes the conclusion to the first stanza, which the author addresses to YHWH: “There is no god but you” (ʾy n ʾlhy m zwltk, Sir 36.5b). Rhetorically, the purported claim of the foreign enemies stands as an antithesis to the sage’s claim about YHWH and is designed to trigger a divine response. This charge of pride on the part of the foreign enemies again echoes Sir 35.22b–6. There Ben Sira affirms that God will dispossess the “scepter of insolence” (š bṭ zdwn; Sir 35.23b).76 The term šēbeṭ stands in parallelism with maṭ ṭeh (rod) in the following colon.77 While both terms can indicate an ordinary staff,78 they may also connote a rod of oppression,79 which fits the context of Sir 35.22b–6. At the same time, the terms may symbolize authority, as they both clearly do in Ezek 19.14. Thus, the “scepter of insolence” in Sir 35.23b suggests the pride of those foreigners who rule over Israel in an oppressive manner.80 Both the second stanza of the prayer and the preceding passage expect that YHWH’s intervention on the side of justice is imminent. In Sir 35.22b, Ben Sira affirms that “God will not delay (ʾl lʾ yt mhmh)” in executing vengeance on the nations. Similarly, the petitioner calls upon the deity, “Hasten the end; observe the appointed time!” (Sir 36.10a). The notion that the “end” (qēṣ) can be moved forward in time, Collins observes, creates “tension” with the idea that the time for divine recompense is appointed (môʿēd). He suggests that the belief that YHWH “can hasten the end arises from the urgency of prayer.”81 Collins may be right, but Ben Sira may not

————

MS Bmg reads the plural š bṭ y “scepters.” In fact, as Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420) note, the entire bicolon forms a chiasm: ʿd y wr yš : š bṭ zdwn :: wmṭh ršʿ : gdwʿ ygdʿ. 78 For šēbeṭ as “staff,” see Exod 21.20; Prov 10.13; 22.15; and Isa 28.27. For the common meaning of maṭ ṭeh, see Gen 38.18, 25; Exod 4.2, 4, 17; 7.15, 17, 20; 9.23; 10.13; 14.16; 17.5; and Isa 10.15. 79 See Isa 9.3 [Eng. 4]; 10.5, 15, 24; and 14.5 where maṭ ṭeh parallels šēbeṭ in each case. 80 In Sir 9.17–10.18, Ben Sira also suggests that pride on the part of rulers leads to their dethronement by YHWH. See especially Sir 10.14. 81 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 110. Collins notes, “The linking of the terms ‘end’ and ‘appointed time’ derives from Hab. 2:3, and is reflected 76 77

210

CHAPTER SIX

have perceived the tension, since presumably the one who establishes the appointed time can also change it. In any case, the expressed wish that the divine intervention occur sooner rather than later also serves to incorporate the prayer into its larger literary context.

Stanza 3 If the second stanza is designed to compel the punitive side of YHWH’s justice, the third is intended to arouse the deity’s mercy. Sir 36.13 16 17a b 18a b 19a b

‫אסוף כל שבטי יעקב‬ ‫ויתנחלו כימי קדם‬ ‫רחם על עם נקרא בשמך‬ ‫ישראל בכור כיניתה‬ ‫רחם על קרית קדשך‬ ‫ירושלם מכון שבתיך‬ ‫מלא ציון את הודך‬ ‫ומכבודך את היכלך‬

Sir 36.13 16 17a b 18a b 19a b

Gather all the tribes of Jacob, so that they may inherit as in the days of old. Have mercy upon the people called by your name, Israel, whom you designated your firstborn. Have mercy upon the city of your holiness, Jerusalem, the place of your throne. Fill Zion with your splendor, and from your glory (fill) your temple.

Here the sage petitions Israel’s God to restore his people. As Pancratius Beentjes has shown, the third stanza evidences certain peculiar features that charge it with a rhetorical power. First of all, the Piel of rḥm (to show mercy) appears twice in the prayer, both times in the present stanza. Moreover, of all the instances of rḥm in the book, only here does the sage direct this verb in the imperative to the deity. Second, the third stanza, along with the fourth, contain the majority of 2ms pronominal suffixes in the prayer (see Table 1, p 208). The prevalence of these suffixes in the latter half of the prayer serves to arouse YHWH’s sense of personal relationship with

———— several times in Daniel (10:14; 11:27, 35), where it invariably implies that the time is fixed.” In Hab 2.3, in addition to qēṣ and môʿēd, the prophet uses the relatively rare (9x in MT) verbal root mhh “to delay,” the same verb employed by Ben Sira in Sir 35.22b. YHWH tells Habakkuk that he should wait for the vision at the end, though it “delays” ( y it mahmāh), for though it tarries ( yəʾaḥēr) it will surely come.


211

his people, Israel. Third, Beentjes observes that while the first, second, and fourth stanzas contain “rather general supplications,” the third stanza focuses on YHWH’s people, with a series of terms “which becomes more and more specific”: all the tribes of Jacob (v 13); the people called by your name (v 17a); Israel, YHWH’s firstborn (v 17b); the city of YHWH’s holiness (v 18a); Jerusalem (v 18b); Zion (v 19a); and YHWH’s temple (v 19b).82 The series moves from the tribes of Jacob, a reference to the northern kingdom which remained scattered abroad, to the specific locale of the Jerusalem temple. The final bicolon contains a chiasm,83 which emphasizes Ben Sira’s petition that YHWH return his divine presence to the temple. The sage apparently finds YHWH’s presence lacking, since foreigners rule over the holy city and its inhabitants.

Stanza 4 The fourth and final stanza continues the theme of YHWH’s mercy or favor (rəṣônekā, v 22b). Sir 36.20a b 21a b 22a b c d

‫תן עדות למראש מעשיך‬ ‫והקם חזון דבר בשמך‬ ‫תן את פעלת קוויך‬ ‫ונביאיך יאמינו‬ ‫תשמע תפלת עבדיך‬ ‫כרצונך על עמך‬ ‫ אפסי ארץ‬84‫וידעו ]כ[ל‬ 85 [‫כי אתה אל ]עולם‬

Sir 36.20a b 21a b 22a b c d

Give witness to your deeds of old, and bring about the vision spoken in your name. Give recompense to those who have waited for you, and let your prophets be proved trustworthy. Heed the prayer of your servants in accordance with your favor upon your people, so that [a]ll the ends of the earth may know that you are the [eternal] God.

———— 82

Beentjes, “God’s Mercy,” 111. The chiasm is noted by Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 422–3. It appears that this chiasm provides the concluding statement to the third stanza, which Beentjes (“God’s Mercy,” 111) otherwise finds lacking. 84 Only the beginning (top left corner) of the k is visible in MS B. But the correctness of the reading is suggested by G πάντες. 85 The end of this line in MS B is badly damaged. The reading ʿwlm is derived from G: ὁ θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων (the God of the ages). 83

212

CHAPTER SIX

Ben Sira implores YHWH to “heed” (tšmʿ ) the “prayer” (tplt) of his servants, a specific verbal allusion that also ties the prayer to the preceding passages. By heeding the prayer, the deity would confirm the prophets of old and the visions they offered for a restored Israel (vv 20b, 21b). More importantly for my concerns, Ben Sira reaffirms and expands one of the reasons given in the first stanza for the divine rescue: the entire world will come to know that YHWH is the eternal God (v 22cd). As a whole, the prayer illustrates a bilateral understanding of YHWH’s justice. The first two stanzas emphasize the punitive side. In these verses, the author urges YHWH to destroy Israel’s enemies, apparently the foreign kings who rule over Jerusalem in Ben Sira’s day.86 Stanzas 3 and 4 stress the merciful side. The author seeks the deity’s compassion for Israel, specifically in the act of restoring God’s people to Jerusalem. Overall, then, the prayer’s rhetoric moves from punishment of the nations to restoration of Zion. In the sage’s eschatology, punishment and restoration constitute two sides of the same coin.87 While Ben Sira’s desired outcome is the glorification of Zion, the nations who occupy Jerusalem stand in the way. For this reason, the author petitions YHWH to deal with them.

The Origin of the Prayer for Deliverance Let me return to the question of the prayer’s origin. Three possible scenarios for how the prayer for deliverance came to be in its present location suggest themselves: (1) the prayer is a late insertion, as Middendorp and Collins maintain; (2) Ben Sira composed the prayer with a specific situation in mind; (3) Ben Sira borrowed the already existing prayer, perhaps from the liturgical tradition.88 Let me consider each of these possibilities in turn.

————

86 Cf. Isaiah’s oracle against Assyria (Isa 14.24–7), in which YHWH says, “[I will] break Assyria in my land.” 87 In this sense, the worldview of the prayer approximates the vision of YHWH’s ultimate victory over the nations found in some of the Zion psalms (such as Pss 46; 48; and 76). In the Zion psalms, YHWH’s victory results in lasting security for Zion. 88 This last scenario is suggested by Jacob, “Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 252.


213

A Late Insertion? The conclusion of Middendorp and Collins that the prayer for deliverance constitutes a late insertion into the book of Sirach rests on the supposed distinctiveness of the prayer within the larger work. Collins, for example, argues for the uniqueness of the prayer as a specific call “for a highly particular judgment on the enemies of Israel.” He contrasts this specificity with Sir 35.21–6, which, he argues, expresses “the universal judgment of God on the unrighteous.”89 On the one hand, Collins seems to be right: Sir 35.21–6 is expressed in more generic terms. It provides the blueprint for the way the world ought to work in Ben Sira’s mind, and the following prayer represents a specific attempt to invoke the justice of God. On the other hand, the universal blueprint and the particular instance of its invocation are not all that different. Both refer to “the nations” as the people standing in judgment. In Sir 35.23a, the vengeance which the deity repays falls upon “the nations” (lgwym). In the prayer, it is the “nations” (hgwym) again who are to experience the dread of YHWH’s judgment (Sir 36.2). Likewise, the recipients of divine mercy in both cases are God’s “people.” In Sir 35.25a, YHWH defends the cause of “his people” (ʿmw), while in Sir 36.17, the petitioner asks God to have mercy upon “the people called by your name” (ʿm nqrʾ bšmk), whom he identifies with Israel. Similarly, at the end of the prayer, the petitioner seeks a divine response to the prayer in accord with “your favor upon your people” (ʿmk, Sir 36.22b). In light of the similar distinction between Israel and the nations both in the prayer and in what precedes, as well as all the other thematic and verbal similarities I have adduced above, it should be clear that Collins’s judgment that the prayer is “alien to the thought world of Ben Sira”90 is premature. As such, I find little justification to regard the prayer as a late insertion.

————

89 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 111. Collins seems to consider Sir 35.21 as the beginning of a new unit, whereas I observe a break after Sir 35.22a. Such differences in scholarly judgment point to a high degree of literary integrity in Sir 34.21–36.22 that makes it difficult to divide the unit into stanzas based on thematic junctures. 90 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 23. Cf. his comment on p 44, and see pp 110–1 for his more detailed argument.

214

CHAPTER SIX

A Ben Sira Composition? If the prayer for deliverance is not a late insertion, perhaps Ben Sira composed the prayer with the specific circumstances of his own time in mind. Despite the claim of Collins that the prayer calls for a particular judgment upon Israel’s enemies, it actually offers very few specifics from which one can reconstruct a historical context. The object of scorn is described only in imprecise terms: the nations, the adversary, the enemy. Skehan and Di Lella interpret these in a general way as references to the Seleucids, who had wrested control of Judea from the Ptolemies in 200 B.C.E.91 Moreover, they suggest that the “end” refers to “the end of the Seleucid oppression of the Jews” and governance of Judea, and the “appointed time” alludes to “the moment of the hoped-for deliverance from the hated Syrians.” In addition, Skehan and Di Lella claim that Antiochus III (223–187 B.C.E.) was prideful enough to say, “There is no one but me” (Sir 36.12b).92 The problem with such a historical reconstruction is that by most accounts Antiochus III was a relatively benevolent ruler, especially compared to Antiochus IV (175–164 B.C.E.) of the Maccabean era. Daniel 11.18 may, however, confirm Skehan and Di Lella’s contention that Antiochus III was overly prideful.93 The verse suggests that a “ruler” (qāṣîn) will put an end to the taunt (ḥerpâ) of Antiochus III. While the word used in the Daniel passage differs from that used by Ben Sira, the evidence of Dan 11.18 suggests that a few years after Ben Sira’s book was composed there remained a memory of Antiochus III as insolent, at least among some Jews. Of course, it is possible that the view of Antiochus III recorded by the author of Daniel has been colored by his experience of Antiochus IV.94 Moreover, given Ben Sira’s towering respect for the high priest Simon II (219–196 B.C.E.; see Sir 50.1–24 and my chapter 5), and Simon’s

———— 91

For an overview of the history of this transition, see Grabbe, Judaism from

Cyrus to Hadrian, 1:269–76. 92 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 421–2.

93 Scholars have generally recognized that Dan 11 contains historically reliable information about the dealings of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers. See Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 1:227. 94 Indeed, John J. Collins shows how the angelic discourse of Dan 11 portrays Antiochus III and Antiochus IV in parallel ways (Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, FOTL 20 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984], 97–8, 102).


215

well-known support for the Seleucids,95 it seems unlikely that Ben Sira would have viewed the Seleucids as “hated,” much less composed this hymn against them.96 Marböck and Wright offer a more specific, and also more plausible, reconstruction of a potential historical context for Ben Sira’s composition of the prayer. Both scholars independently reached the conclusion that the prayer arose out of Ben Sira’s experience of the tumultuous events following the death of Simon II in 196 B.C.E. Simon’s son and successor, Onias III (196–174 B.C.E.), was, unlike his father, pro-Ptolemy. This transfer of the high priest’s office likely led to renewed inter-Jewish squabbles between those who favored the Seleucids and those who favored the Ptolemies.97 Moreover, the situation of the Judeans likely became further destabilized after the rout of Antiochus III by the Romans at Magnesia in 190 B.C.E. Antiochus’s defeat led to the imposition of war reparations on him by the Romans. In order to pay the reparations, Antiochus raided the temple treasuries of his subjects.98 While there is no evidence that he robbed the Jerusalem temple treasury, the picture provided by this historical detail suggests the general uncertainty which must have prevailed in the period following the Roman victory. One verse in particular may elucidate the historical scenario envisioned by the prayer, as well as the author’s interpretation of the historical situation: Sir 36.4a

————

Just as you have shown them your holiness by us,

Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 80. Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 111) may overstate the case only slightly when he remarks, “When a High Priest like Simon II is in office in Jerusalem, there is no need to crush the heads of foreign rulers.” 97 See Marböck, “Gebet um die Rettung Zions,” 105–6; and Wright, “Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” 91–2. 98 Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 1:274–5; and Dov Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B.C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 99–100. Indeed, according to Diodorus Siculus (28.3, 29.15) and Justin (32.2), Antiochus III was killed while attempting to plunder the temple to Baal in Elymais (biblical Elam). For a discussion of the impact which the rivalry between the Ptolemies and Seleucids had on Judea and of the ongoing inter-Jewish struggles during the period of Seleucid rule, see Richard A. Horsley, “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 Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, ed. Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, SBLSymS 35 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 123–45. For a general history of the period, see Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 59–108. 95 96

216

CHAPTER SIX

b

so now show us your glory by them.

What precisely does the author mean when he suggests that YHWH has shown his holiness to the nations “by us?” One possible interpretation is that YHWH used Israel to show the nations his holiness in that he created Israel as a holy people.99 If this reading is correct, then the foreign occupation of Judea may have been viewed by Ben Sira as something of a divine test. While it is clear that Ben Sira generally held to the classical notion of retribution,100 there is also evidence that he understood that the suffering of YHWH’s pious followers was not always the result of sin. In Sir 2.1, the sage warns his pupil that divine service (δουλεύειν κυρίῳ) may result in “testing” (πειρασμόν).101 He continues: Sir 2.5a b

ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ δοκιμάζεται χρυσὸς καὶ ἄνθρωποι δεκτοὶ ἐν καμίνῳ ταπεινώσεως

Sir 2.5a b

For by fire gold is tested, and acceptable human beings in the kiln of humiliation.

Thus, divine favor brings with it the concomitant possibility of testing through suffering. In light of the potential for divine testing of the elect, Ben Sira counsels acceptance and patience (Sir 2.4). Interestingly, these last characteristics seem to be lacking in the author of the prayer.

————

99 The verb here translated “to show holiness” is the Niphal of qd š, the occurrence of which Middendorp uses to argue against the prayer’s authenticity. I observed this same root in my analysis of Sir 33.7–15 (see chapter 2). There the sage suggests that YHWH has “sanctified” (Hiphil qd š ) certain people and not others (33.12b). And Ben Sira understands this sanctified people to be the divinely elected Jews. The notion of Israel as a “holy” people founded by YHWH also probably lies behind the notion of the “faithful” (πιστῶν) and the “pious” (ʾanšê ḥesed, reconstructed), who were divinely formed along with Wisdom a long time ago (Sir 1.14–15). See my discussion of these verses in chapter 5. The notion of Israel as YHWH’s holy people, that is, those who are sanctified and set apart from the nations, is intimately bound up with the idea of election. 100 On Ben Sira’s understanding of the doctrine of retribution, see Alexander A. Di Lella, “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom,” CBQ 28 (1966): 139–54; Crenshaw, “Problem of Theodicy in Sirach,” 47–64; Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, esp. 364–78; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 83–7; and Adams, Wisdom in Transition, 153–213. 101 No Hebrew MS is extant for this passage. As Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 149) note, the English “testing” assumes that πειρασμόν translates Heb. ni ssāyôn, as it does in Sir 4.17.


217

One advantage of this line of interpretation—that YHWH may be testing his pious followers in Judea with foreign occupation—is that it explains the lack of a confession in the prayer. Frequently, petitionary prayers for divine rescue are accompanied by acknowledgments of sin,102 and scholars have puzzled over why such an acknowledgment is missing from the prayer for deliverance.103 If the presence of non-Jewish rulers in Jerusalem constitutes a divine test rather than a punishment for some transgression on the part of contemporary Jews or their distant ancestors, there would be no expectation that the people need to repent before YHWH will act to deliver them. Unfortunately, this explanation seems unlikely given the source of the author’s language for this verse. The idiom of Sir 36.4 bears a remarkable resemblance to several verses from Ezekiel’s oracles of restoration. For example, in the context of a description of Israel’s future return to Zion, YHWH says to Israel: Ezek 20.41b Ezek 20.41b

‫וְ נִ ְק ַדּ ְשׁ ִתּי ָב ֶכם ְל ֵעינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬ I will show myself holy by you in the full view of the nations.

The verbal similarities are striking: the Niphal of qd š, the instrumental use of the preposition bə-, and the prepositional phrase ləʿênê. Here, as in Sir 36.4a, the deity is the subject of the verb, Israel the instrument by which YHWH demonstrates his holiness, and the nations the intended observers of YHWH’s holiness. Interestingly, in the Ezekiel passage, the goal of Israel’s restoration by divine intervention is not that the nations will know YHWH, as in Sir 36.5, but that Israel “will know that I am YHWH” (Ezek 20.42, 44; cf. Ezek 28.26; 39.28). Moreover, the prophet suggests that Israel went into exile as a result of her sins (Ezek 20.43–4). The oracle of Israel’s restoration in Ezek 36.23 also contains wording similar to Sir 36.4a, although in this case the result is that the nations will recognize YHWH (cf. Sir 36.5). An interesting variant occurs in the oracles concerning Gog in Ezekiel 38–9. There,

————

102 As examples, Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 110) lists Ezra 9.6–15; Neh 9.6–37; Dan 9.4–19; the Prayer of Azariah; Bar 2.11–26; and 4QWords of the Luminaries. Ps 79.9 may offer another instance. 103 See Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 110; and Wright, “Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” 92–3.

218

CHAPTER SIX

instead of Israel, Gog serves initially as YHWH’s instrument by which the nations witness the deity’s holiness and thus come to know him (Ezek 38.16); only later when YHWH restores Israel do the Israelites become the instrument by which the deity manifests his holiness (Ezek 39.27). In a final example, following the oracle against Sidon, a brief vision of Israel’s restoration appears with the same wording (Ezek 28.25). Although the vision of restoration is thought to have come from a later hand,104 it is interesting that the preceding oracle against Sidon seems to provide to the author of the Sirach prayer inspiration for the second half of the verse, Sir 36.4b. In the Ezekiel passage, YHWH warns that he will attack Sidon and, speaking directly to her, says: Ezek 28.22a

‫תוֹכְך‬ ֵ ‫וְ נִ ְכ ַבּ ְד ִתּי ְבּ‬

Ezek 28.22a

I will show my glory in your midst.

The parallels between Sir 36.4b and Ezek 28.22a are not so striking as are those between Sir 36.4a and the other Ezekiel passages cited above. First of all, the prepositional phrase ləʿênê is not found in Ezek 28.22a. Moreover, instead of an instrumental bə-, the prepositional phrase bətôk- occurs, which cannot be construed as instrumental.105 Nonetheless, it seems likely that the author’s inspiration for both halves of the bicolon in Sir 36.4 derives from these Ezekiel passages. And since most of the Ezekiel passages occur in a context of Israel’s restoration after a period of punishment at the hands of foreigners, the author of the prayer also likely imagined the domination of the Judeans in his day as a kind of divine punishment for Israel’s sins.106 The worldview assumed to lie behind this interpretation of Sir 36.4a has much in common with that espoused by the authors of the

————

So Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 126. The instrumental bə- is used in this passage, however, at the end of the verse in concert with the Niphal of qd š, as I observed in the other examples from Ezekiel. 106 Most commentators interpret Sir 36.4a to mean that God has punished the Jews for their sins by giving them over to foreign rule. See, e.g., Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 421; Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 110; and Wright, “Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” 77–93. 104 105


219

Deuteronomistic History.107 Wright has argued that Ben Sira also held the view that YHWH sometimes employs the nations as tools of divine judgment upon Israel. Since there is no explicit confirmation for this view in the prayer, Wright develops his argument from other passages in Sirach. Specifically, he suggests that the examples of infidelity to God in the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44–50) offered Ben Sira an explanation for why the Jews were living under foreign occupation in his own time.108 In the sage’s eyes, this punishment extends into his own time by virtue of Seleucid control of Palestine. If this were the case, however, one would expect that the prayer would include a confession of sin, as a necessary precondition for YHWH to restore Israel to political independence. Wright himself concedes that this element is missing.109 The very acknowledgment of Sir 36.4a that YHWH has shown the nations his holiness by surrendering a recalcitrant Israel to foreign occupiers may include a tacit admission of the deity’s rightness. Nonetheless, the lack of an explicit confession remains puzzling. Below I will provide an interpretation of the prayer which, I believe, explains why this feature is missing. All in all, I find the attempts to contextualize the prayer for deliverance historically as a work that Ben Sira composed to address a specific situation unsatisfactory. His temple-raiding notwithstanding, the general benevolence that Antiochus III showed toward the Jews in Palestine does not seem to warrant the heated language of the prayer. The prayer is simultaneously not specific enough to suggest that the Seleucids were thought of by Ben Sira as an “adversary” and too specific with respect to its description of an insolent ruler to apply to Antiochus III or his immediate successor, Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 B.C.E.). Therefore, let me consider a final possibility for the origin of the prayer.

A Borrowing by Ben Sira? If the prayer for deliverance is too well integrated into its present literary context to be considered a late addition, and if the prayer

————

107 As cogent examples, see the summary statements of the Deuteronomistic Historians after the fall of the northern and southern kingdoms (2 Kgs 17.5–23; 24.1–4). 108 Wright, “Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” 77–93, esp. 88. 109 Wright, “Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” 92.

220

CHAPTER SIX

does not fit neatly into any specific, known historical context during the period in which Ben Sira is thought to have composed his book, perhaps the sage borrowed an existing petitionary prayer and incorporated it into his wisdom book.110 Edmond Jacob has suggested just such a prospect: It is possible that rather than being an addition, [the prayer] is a borrowing by Ben Sira from the liturgical tradition.111

Jacob’s hypothesis is strengthened by the existence of other examples in which two distinct, literary compositions were brought together in one text.112 For example, there are numerous instances in the Hebrew Bible in which poetic texts were inserted into narrative contexts.113 In some of these cases, the composition of the poem appears to postdate its narrative context.114 Some poems are so well connected to their narrative context that it is difficult to imagine that the two compo-

———— 110

I am not denying that some details about Ben Sira’s historical circumstances may have prompted him to insert this specific preexisting prayer. In all likelihood, the prayer probably spoke to the condition of the sage’s people, as he understood it. My point is that none of the known historical circumstances fit the details of the prayer exactly. Therefore, I think it best to remain agnostic with respect to the precise historical context that prompted the insertion of this particular prayer. 111 Jacob, “Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 252. 112 Such a hypothesis seems reasonable in light of the proliferation of prayers in Jewish texts from the exilic and post-exilic periods, as discussed by Judith H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). See also Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). 113 For example, Gen 49; Exod 15.1–21; Deut 32; 33; Judg 5; 1 Sam 2.1–10; 2 Sam 1.19–27; 3.33–4; 22; 23.2–7; Isa 38.10–20; and Jon 2.3b–10. On the general phenomenon of commingling prose and poetry in ancient Israel, see Steven Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), esp. 15–58 on Exod 15; Deut 32; and Judg 5. 114 Perhaps the best example is the song of Daniel’s three friends in LXX Dan 3 (see Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative, 60, 94). Some argue that this is also the case for the Prayer of Hannah (1 Sam 2.1–10), and perhaps for 2 Sam 23.1b–7. On the antiquity of the latter, however, see the comment of Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 85. On the separate questions of the composition and insertion of 1 Sam 2.1–10 into its narrative context, see P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 75–6.


221

nents were not composed together.115 In some cases, the protagonists in the biblical narrative are fully credited with the poem,116 whereas in other cases there is only a “superficial” reference to the poetry in the prose account.117 The superficiality of the latter examples may indicate the late insertion of the poem by an editor into the prose account, while the former cases perhaps suggest that the prose context was more consciously structured around the poem. Most of these examples share one feature in common: the imperfect melding of the prose and poetry.118 The Prayer of Jonah (Jon 2.3b–10), for example, differs from its prose context both in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Moreover, the psalm is characterized by a sense of gratefulness, whereas the narrative context calls for a penitential prayer.119 These kinds of discrepancies suggest, at the very least, that the two components possessed separate origins.120

———— 115

David’s dirge over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam 1.19–27, for example. For example, Deborah and Barak in Judg 5; and David in 2 Sam 1.19–27, as well as in 2 Sam 3.33–4. 117 For example, in the cases of Gen 49; Deut 32; 33; 1 Sam 2.1–10; Isa 38.10– 20; and Jon 2.3b–10. The characterization of the relationship between the poem and its prose context as “superficial” comes from Jack M. Sasson, Jonah, AB 24B (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 206. In the case of the Song of Hannah, the MT (wt t pll ḥnh wtʾmr, 1 Sam 2.1) appears to have expanded an extremely superficial introduction reflected in LXX: καὶ εἶπεν (= wtʾmr). See McCarter, 1 Samuel, 68. 118 For an example of this phenomenon in Exod 15, see Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative, 4–5. The dirge of David over Saul and Jonathan and perhaps his lament over Abner are exceptions to this characteristic. 119 Sasson (Jonah, 16, 202) summarizes the differences that scholars have noted between the prayer and its narrative context. Scholars debate whether Jon 2.3b–10 was original to the book of Jonah. Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976), 181–5; André Lacocque and Pierre-Emmanuel Lacocque, The Jonah Complex (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 52–3; George M. Landes, “The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah: The Contextual Interpretation of the Jonah Psalm,” Int 21 (1967): 3–31; Jonathan Magonet, Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah, 2d ed. (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 39–54; and Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), 438–40 argue that the psalm of Jon 2 was part of the original narrative (i.e., the narrative never existed apart from the psalm). Hans W. Wolff thinks that the psalm was not part of the original narrative, but added later (Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986], 78–9, 128– 32). 120 Weitzman (Song and Story in Biblical Narrative, 4) points out that often these poems “were not composed by the authors of the biblical narrative but had some sort of prehistory as independent documents before they were incorporated within narrative settings.” 116

222

CHAPTER SIX

In situations where poetry and prose coexist, if the author of the prose also composed the poem, I would expect a better fit.121 Given that in most of the examples cited above the poetic passages do not fit perfectly into the prose context, two possibilities remain: (1) the author of the prose borrowed an already existing poem because the poem contained some thematic connection to his narrative; or (2) a later redactor inserted the poem, because he thought it fit the prose context. How can one tell the difference? If there is a substantial reference to the poem in the prose, then it seems that the poem was added by the author of the prose. The relationship between the prose and poetic accounts of the story of Deborah (Judg 4–5) provides perhaps the best example of what I am driving at. First of all, the poetic Song of Deborah antedates the prose version.122 Second, it seems likely that the later prose account was composed in part based on the poem.123 Third, the prose account provides a kind of prologue to the song (Judg 5.1). Fourth, despite the substantial reference to the song in the prose, the content of the poem nonetheless does not fit perfectly the context of the prose.124 Understanding the relationship of the prayer for deliverance to the preceding material in a manner parallel to that of Judges 5 and 4, respectively, explains several features of the Sirach texts. First, if Ben Sira borrowed a preexisting petitionary prayer, one can understand why the prayer does not mesh perfectly with its framework

———— 121

As, for example, in David’s dirge over Saul and Jonathan. On the antiquity of the Song of Deborah, see William Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), 13; and Michael D. Coogan, “Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,” CBQ 40 (1978): 143–66. 123 Not all scholars agree with this assessment. See, for example, Wolfgang Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963), 111–12; and Barnabas Lindars, Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 164–5. Nonetheless, the prevailing view of scholarship suggests that Judg 4 depends upon the song. See Peter R. Ackroyd, “Composition of the Song of Deborah,” VT 2 (1952): 160–2; Giovanni Garbini, “Il cantico di Debora,” La parola del passato 178 (1978): 5–31; Baruch Halpern, “The Resourceful Israelite Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography,” HTR 76 (1983): 379–401; and Nadav Na'aman, “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV–V),” VT 40 (1990): 423–36. 124 Just to cite one obvious discrepancy that many scholars have noted, when Yael kills Sisera, he is lying down asleep in the prose account (Judg 4.21), whereas in the song, Sisera appears to be standing (Judg 5.27). 122


223

(Sir 34.21–35.26). Second, one would not expect that a preexisting composition would line up neatly with a specific historical context during Ben Sira’s day. Collins suggests that the prayer is specific, but really it is general enough to apply to many situations. My hypothesis expects that the sage borrowed a petitionary prayer which had some relevance for his situation, but it does not require that the prayer fit Ben Sira’s historical context exactly. As in the case of some biblical poems inserted into prose contexts, one expects only a general association between the two components. As an earlier composition, one should not try to correlate too many specifics of the poem with a precise historical situation in Ben Sira’s time (à la Marböck, Skehan and Di Lella, and Wright) or the time of the Maccabees (à la Collins). Third, granting that the literary and historical contexts fit imperfectly, one can still appreciate the close connections I have observed above between Sir 34.21–35.26 and the prayer. The prayer fits into its context not, as Collins claims, because a later editor chose this particular point to insert the prayer, but because Ben Sira composed Sir 34.21–35.26 with the prayer in mind.125 Fourth, the borrowing hypothesis might explain why Ben Sira could hold that the present occupation of Judea is the result of sin, yet there exists no confession of sin in the prayer. Simply put, the existing composition—for whatever reason—did not contain such a confession. Below, I will explain why, in light of Ben Sira’s creation theology, the lack of a confession is not as serious or unusual as scholars make it out to be. It should be pointed out, however, that the case of the prayer for deliverance differs in several respects from the other examples I have cited above. First of all, the context for the Sirach prayer is not prose, as in the biblical examples. Rather, the context consists in an extended wisdom discourse.126 Second, there is no narrative introduction to the prayer. This last fact should not be surprising,

————

125 Other scholars, including Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 111), have acknowledged that 35.22b–6 serves as an introduction to the prayer. 126 Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 29) use the designation “didactic narrative.” This term is misleading, in the sense that narrative may imply prose, and most of Sirach is not prose but poetry. Moreover, most of the book is didactic, including the hymns, wisdom poems, and individual proverbs. I prefer the term “wisdom discourse” to refer to the extended rhetorical constructions, such as that found in Sir 34.21–35.26. On the literary genres used by Ben Sira, see Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen,” 161–98.

224

CHAPTER SIX

since the context is not a narrative but an extended wisdom discourse. One would not expect a prosaic introduction to the prayer, such as, “Then Ben Sira prayed this prayer.” What one finds, however, as I have demonstrated above, is a clear connection between the extended wisdom discourse and the prayer, such that the discourse which leads up to the prayer functions as the equivalent of a narrative introduction.127 All told, while definitive proof that Ben Sira borrowed an already existing petitionary prayer for his own work may be impossible to amass, in light of other examples in which authors incorporated poems into prose contexts, I suggest that the borrowing hypothesis represents the most likely scenario and furthermore explains several puzzling features of its existence in the book.

The Prayer for Deliverance in the Context of Sirach Whether or not the prayer for deliverance constitutes the borrowing of an already existing petition by Ben Sira, one may profitably ask how the prayer, with its highly vindictive tone, fits into what is otherwise a relatively measured discourse on wisdom. In order to answer this question, I find it useful to step back from the eschatologically focused prayer for deliverance and consider its function in the book of Sirach as a whole, especially in relation to Ben Sira’s creation theology. In what follows, I will propose that two psalms which celebrate creation yet include eschatological notes similar to those found in the prayer of Sirach 36 offer, by way of analogy, a means to interpret the function of the prayer for deliverance in the larger context of Ben Sira’s work. In general, the prayer for deliverance in Sirach 36 exhibits characteristics similar to petitions found in the book of Psalms.128 Nonetheless, scholars have noted that Ben Sira’s prayer diverges in some respects from other petitionary prayers. I have already alluded to the puzzling lack of a confession in the prayer. Additionally, Collins observes that national petitions for deliverance “are usually embed-

———— 127

Cf. the introduction to the Song of Deborah: “Then on that day Deborah and Barak, son of Abinoam, sang . . . ” (Judg 5.1). 128 This is true also of the petitionary prayer in Sir 22.27–23.6 (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 28). For the form of petitionary psalms, see Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 52–71.


225

ded in psalms of complaint, which include some description of the abject state of the community” (Pss 44; 74; 79–80; 83). In the prayer for deliverance, Collins notes, “the distress of Jerusalem is only hinted at.”129 With respect to the latter point, one might counter that the third stanza, in which the sage calls for the restoration of Israel from its broadest sense (including the gathering of the dispersed tribes of Jacob) down to its narrowest sense (the reestablishment of the divine kābôd in the Jerusalem temple) implies the miserable status of the community. Nonetheless, Collins is correct on the formal point, that the prayer does not contain a developed description of the ills that have befallen the community, such as that found in Ps 74.3–9. Another potential response is that the difference results from Ben Sira’s use of a preexisting composition from a different context. This might also explain the lack of a confession of sin. I maintain, however, that in order to understand the apparent oddity of an eschatologically fervent prayer for deliverance in the book of Sirach, one should not look to the national petitions for deliverance cited by Collins. These can only indicate something about the Sirach prayer itself, not about its function within the book as a whole. For this purpose, I propose that the creation hymns Psalms 104 and 8130 provide more useful comparisons.

Psalm 104 Psalm 104 belongs to the small category of biblical psalms that have as a central focus creation and the deity’s sovereignty over nature.131 For my purposes, what is remarkable about this psalm is the apparently dissonant tone struck by the ultimate verse. Ps 104.35a b Ps 104.35a b

‫ן־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫יִ ַתּמּוּ ַח ָטּ ִאים ִמ‬ ‫ְוּר ָשׁ ִעים עוֹד ֵאינָ ם‬ Let sinners be destroyed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more.

The transition from the creation hymn to this call for the wicked to be wiped from the face of the earth is so jarring that one might be

————

Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 110. Cf. Ps 139. 131 John Day, Psalms (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 41. The other psalms in this category are Pss 8 (discussed below); 19A; and 29. 129 130

226

CHAPTER SIX

tempted to consider the verse misplaced. The petition to destroy sinners, however, need not be considered invasive.132 Stephen Geller has most eloquently argued for the harmony of thought between the petition to destroy the wicked and the hymn to YHWH as creator: Given the association of nature and piety in the wisdom tradition as essential aspects of created order, it is appropriate and necessary that allusion be made here to sin and sinners, the one feature of the world that disturbs the perfection of God’s work. It is, in fact, an aspect of the chaos that preceded the ordering of creation and which, as cosmic ocean, but also as evil and sin, continues to threaten the order of the cosmos.133

Thus, for the psalmist, the presence of sinners represents a disorder in the created universe. Their persistence challenges the notion of YHWH’s sovereignty over creation. Only by the complete eradication of such wicked persons can the created order be restored. Jon Levenson’s observation that Psalm 104 is the only biblical passage which suggests that Leviathan was created and is not primordial134 bolsters Geller’s interpretation of v 35. Given the view of the psalmist that chaos—represented by the non-primordial Leviathan—is merely a creature with whom the deity sports, Levenson suggests that “only humanity is capable of posing a challenge to God.”135 Thus, v 35 makes sense in a creation hymn such as Psalm 104, when one considers the notion of creation as divine mastery which underlies the hymn. I suggest that Ben Sira’s seemingly inharmonious prayer performs a similar function in the book of Sirach. The sage’s creation theology retains some features of the ancient Near Eastern notion of creation as the ordering of chaos (see chapter 2). In Ben Sira’s view of creation, the primordial sea monster Rahab and her minions persist as animated living things. Moreover, a hint of the original Chaoskampf remains visible in YHWH’s pacification of Rahab by his wisdom. Furthermore, unlike Leviathan and the other sea monsters

———— 132 133

John H. Eaton, The Circle of Creation (London: SCM, 1995), 73. Stephen A. Geller, “Wisdom, Nature and Piety in Some Biblical Psalms,” in

Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. Tzvi Abusch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 105. 134 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 53–4. In this sense, Levenson

observes, Ps 104 is comparable to Gen 1, where Leviathan is probably implied in the great sea monsters (hat tannînīm) created on the 5th day. 135 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 58.


227

in Psalm 74, Ben Sira’s Rahab is tamed but not destroyed. As a result, primordial chaos, left unchecked, may erupt at any moment. In the same way that the presence of sinners troubles the author of Psalm 104, the presence of foreign occupiers in Judea troubles Ben Sira. The Seleucid overlords, no matter how benevolent toward the Jews, represent the resurgence of primordial chaos, and, as such, their very existence questions the sovereignty of YHWH.136

Psalm 8 Another biblical creation hymn, Psalm 8, combines creation imagery (vv 2, 4–10 [Eng. 1, 3–9]) with a reference to YHWH’s destruction of his enemies (v 3 [Eng. 2]). The juxtaposition of these two elements is similarly jarring. After an introduction, which describes how YHWH has set his majesty over the heavens, the outwardly dissonant verse appears: Ps 8.3a b c Ps 8.3a b c

‫עוֹל ִלים וְ י ֹנְ ִקים‬ ְ ‫ִמ ִפּי‬ ‫יִ ַסּ ְד ָתּ עֹז ְל ַמ ַען צוֹ ְר ֶריָך‬ ‫וּמ ְתנַ ֵקּם‬ ִ ‫ְל ַה ְשׁ ִבּית אוֹיֵ ב‬ From the mouths of children and infants you have founded strength on account of your foes, in order to destroy the enemy and avenger. [Eng. 2]

The psalmist then continues to marvel at the created order, giving special note to the place of human beings within the natural realm. The similarities between Psalm 8 and Ben Sira’s prayer reinforce my point. Whereas in Psalm 104 the challenge to YHWH’s mastery derived from sinners and wicked persons, in Psalm 8 the problem lies with “foes” and “the enemy.” In fact, the verbal echoes of Psalm 8 in Ben Sira’s prayer are striking. The psalmist refers to “your foes” (ṣôrərêkā), while the sage speaks of the “adversary” (ṣar, Sir 36.9), both from the geminate root ṣr r. The author of Psalm 8 and the author of the prayer both refer to “the enemy” (ʾôyēb, Sir 36.9, 12a). Moreover, both employ the Hiphil of š bt (to destroy, Sir 36.12a). Finally, the psalmist refers to the “avenger” (mit naqqēm), and Ben Sira (though not in the prayer proper) refers to “vengeance” (nēqem; Sir 35.23a). Whether or not the author of the prayer found

————

136 Indeed, although I omitted Sir 36.11 from the prayer for literary- and textcritical reasons, the call for the complete destruction of the enemy in the verse parallels the sentiments of Ps 104.35 quite closely.

228

CHAPTER SIX

some inspiration in Ps 8.3 [Eng. 2] for his composition is not the point. Rather, the strikingly similar combination of destruction of enemies and concern for creation in Psalm 8 and the book of Sirach suggest a comparable outlook. In the context of Psalm 8, Geller interprets the “foes” as parallel to the “sinners” in Psalm 104, “an element of chaos which continues to threaten God’s ordering of the cosmos.”137 Indeed, fundamental to the worldview of the prayer in Sirach is the notion that not just individual sinners who commit evil but also national enemies who rule over the Jews represent the eruption of primordial chaos and threaten the belief in YHWH’s divine mastery. Regardless of the historical particularities, that the Jewish people in Ben Sira’s day live under the control of foreigners does not fit with the sage’s notion that Israel alone is YHWH’s portion and that he in turn is their ruler (Sir 17.17).

The Divine Warrior and the Nations One other aspect of Sir 35.22b–36.22 commends my interpretation of the function of the prayer in the book of Sirach as a whole: the Divine Warrior motif. Randal Argall has analyzed the motif of the Divine Warrior in Sir 35.22b–6 and in the prayer for deliverance and has shown how many of the motif’s traditional elements are present in these passages.138 Numerous of these elements have already been implicit in my treatment of these texts above. Most obviously, Ben Sira describes God “as a warrior” (Sir 35.22c) who will fight against the nations (Sir 35.22b–4; 36.1–12). After his successful defeat of the nations, YHWH will rescue his people (Sir 35.25–6; 36.1, 13– 19). To be sure, certain traditional elements of the Divine Warrior motif are absent. For example, nowhere does Ben Sira suggest that the Divine Warrior “sets out” or “goes down” to battle.139 Moreover, unlike the more explicit references to the storm in Sir 42.15– 43.33 (see chapter 2), in Sir 35.22b–36.22 natural elements play only a minor role in the battle. In fact, the image of the “thunderheads” in Sir 35.26b is connected not to the deity’s wrath poured out against the nations but rather to his mercy shown to Israel (Sir

———— 137

Geller, “Wisdom, Nature and Piety,” 109. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 211–20. See his useful chart (p 212), which identifies the various elements of the Divine Warrior motif in these two passages. 139 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 213. 138


229

35.26a).140 Nonetheless, the Divine Warrior motif underlies Ben Sira’s characterization of YHWH as a god of justice who requites the nations and rescues Israel. Not surprisingly, Psalm 104’s celebration of YHWH as creator also includes Divine Warrior imagery (vv 3–4). In the psalm, the Divine Warrior achieves his primordial victory over the forces of chaos: the figure who rides on the clouds in vv 3–4 also repels the waters of chaos by his divine thunder in vv 7–9. As John Day has suggested, in the worldview of some biblical passages, there is a close connection between the primordial waters and Israel’s enemies: Sometimes the chaos waters denote the hostile nations as a whole (e.g., Ps 46). It seems probable that the motif of the nations coming to attack Zion who are then miraculously defeated by YHWH constitutes a development of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea (cf. Ps 46; 48; and 76; Isaiah; and eschatologized in later proto-apocalyptic passages: Joel 4—Eng 3; Zechariah 12 and 14).141

This identification of historical enemies with primordial chaos seems also to lie behind the Divine Warrior imagery in Sir 35.22b–36.22. As I showed in chapter 2 through my analysis of the creation poem in Sir 42.15–43.33, Ben Sira evokes the motif of YHWH’s primordial battle against chaos and connects it to the Divine Warrior motif. I might add here that the address to the Divine Warrior in the opening colon of the prayer, “O God of all” (ʾlhy hkl, Sir 36.1), anticipates Ben Sira’s claim about the creator god in his hymn on creation: “He is the all” (hwʾ hkl, Sir 43.27b). The particular way in which Ben Sira develops the Chaoskampf and Divine Warrior motifs provides an important background for understanding the prayer for deliverance. Since, in Ben Sira’s formulation, the Divine Warrior’s mastery of primordial chaos is not complete, the sage understands creation as the confinement, rather than the elimination, of chaos. Ben Sira’s intermediate position on Levenson’s continuum points to the deity’s mastery over creation, but leaves open the possibility that chaos may erupt at some future point.142 Thus, the created order continues to exist as it does only so long as the Divine Warrior acts

————

Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 213–14. John Day, “Dragon and Sea, God’s Conflict with,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:230. 142 See Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 15, 27. 140 141

230

CHAPTER SIX

to keep chaos—whether envisioned as primordial waters or historical enemies—in check. In the prayer, Ben Sira’s plea to take vengeance on the nations indicates that chaos has not been eliminated once and for all; in the present moment, not all is in control. The prayer, thus, appeals to another aspect of the Chaoskampf motif: the need for YHWH’s ongoing sovereignty. Like the Baal cycle, Psalms 29; 74; and 93 associate the deity’s victory over the primordial waters of chaos with his kingship. In these texts (cf. Nah 1.4), YHWH’s mastery over the sea provides evidence for his ongoing control over the natural world.143 In the same way that the presence of sinners troubles the author of Psalm 104, the presence of foreign occupiers in Judea troubles Ben Sira. The Seleucid overlords represent the resurgence of primordial chaos, and, as such, their very existence questions the sovereignty of YHWH. This constellation of ideas—the plea for the Divine Warrior to renew his vigilance and to circumscribe once again the forces of chaos—perhaps best explains the absence of a confession in the prayer. While Ben Sira may have viewed the occupying foreigners as tools of YHWH’s judgment on Israel, it seems likely, in light of his creation theology, that punishment is not the most significant element. Rather, the foreign occupation of Jerusalem represents a momentary lapse in the activation of YHWH’s sovereignty, and the purpose of the prayer is to arouse the deity to reestablish his mastery by removing Israel’s enemies.

YHWH as Universal King or Universal God? What, then, is the result of this eschatological battle? What is the battle’s significance for my twin concerns in this chapter: the kind of piety enjoined upon the nations and the role of Israel as YHWH’s elect in bringing about the eschatological reality? One element of the Divine Warrior motif that Argall finds present in the prayer for deliverance is YHWH’s “universal kingship.” Argall points to the gathering of the dispersed tribes (v 13) and the reinheritance of the land (v 16) as examples of YHWH’s universal dominion.144 One may also read the deity’s reassumption of his throne in the Jerusalem temple (vv 18b–19b) in the same vein. Such a universal kingship would seem to cohere with the reference to YHWH as “God of all” (Sir

———— 143 144

Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 1, 57–61. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 218.


231

36.1; cf. 45.23c; 50.22a).145 If Ben Sira views YHWH as attaining a universal dominion following the eschatological battle, does this imply that all peoples should worship him just the way Jews do? This seems to be the interpretation given the epithet “God of all” (Sir 36.1) by Skehan and Di Lella: It is interesting in that [the title] does not address the Lord as God of Israel, but rather as God of all, i.e., Jews, Gentiles, the whole universe.146

Do the recognition formulas of Sir 36.5ab and 22cd, in which the nations are to “know” that YHWH is the only god, suggest that Gentiles are intended to worship Israel’s god in the same way as Jews? Is this the meaning of the “fear” ( paḥad) which is to fall upon the nations as a result of the divine rescue (Sir 36.2)? Does the nations’ recognition of YHWH as the only god suggest that ultimately fear of God—in the sense of adopting the ethical and ritual regimen of the Jews—will come to characterize the Gentiles? For several reasons, I think this not to be the case. First of all, the semantic range of ydʿ (to know) is quite broad. When the verb takes the deity as a direct object, it suggests having a relationship with YHWH or being devoted to him. For example, Job refers to persons that are faithful to YHWH’s demands as “those who know him” (Job 24.1).147 Or, when introducing Eli’s sons in 1 Sam 2.12, the narrator indicates, “They did not know ( yādəʿû) YHWH.” The issue is not that Eli’s sons were unfamiliar in the cognitive sense with Israel’s deity, but rather, as the rest of the narrative makes clear, that they did not observe the proper ethical and ritual requirements in their administration of the cult (1 Sam 2.13–25).148 In Sir 36.5 and 22cd, however, the verb ydʿ does not take the deity as a direct object. Rather, the construction in which the verb is followed by an objective

———— 145

The notion of YHWH as a universal deity may also lie behind a passage such as Sir 18.3 (GII). 146 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 421. See also Frank Moore Cross, “David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151:3–4,” BASOR 231 (1978): 69–71. 147 Reading the plural with Qere w ydʿy w; Kethib suggests the singular, w ydʿw. On the meaning of ydʿ in this verse, see Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 358. 148 Cf. Ps 79.6, where the nations who do not “know” YHWH (lōʾ-yədāʿûkā) parallel the kingdoms who do not call on YHWH’s name. See also Judg 2.10; Hos 2.22 [Eng. 20]; 5.4; 8.2; and 13.4.

232

CHAPTER SIX

clause marked by the conjunction kî 149 suggests that here yādaʿ has the meaning “to recognize a fact.” This construction occurs, for example, in Gen 12.11, when Abram says to Sarai, “I know that ( yādaʿt î  kî ) you are an attractive woman.” Abram is acknowledging that he knows the fact, or perhaps reputation, of Sarai’s physical beauty. More on point, in the Exodus narrative, YHWH predicts to Moses that, after his miraculous defeat of Pharaoh’s army at the sea, “the Egyptians will know that (wəyādəʿû mi ṣray im kî ) I am YHWH” (Exod 14.4). There is no sense in the narrative that the Egyptians are intended to convert to YHWHism. Rather, they will recognize that the deity they have been fighting is none other than YHWH. Similarly, in Ben Sira’s prayer, the use of yādaʿ plus an objective clause introduced by kî suggests that what Ben Sira has in mind is not some intimate devotion to YHWH on the part of the nations, but simply a recognition of his godhead, a fact they should already have recognized by virtue of the general wisdom they possess. Second, the “fear” that the petitioner hopes will come upon the nations is not Ben Sira’s usual term for piety, y irʾâ (see chapter 5). Rather, the author uses the term paḥad, which can have the sense of piety150 but more often suggests a literal kind of fear.151 Moreover, the Divine Warrior imagery in the prayer—in which the petitioner calls upon the deity to “crush the heads of the hostile rulers” (v 12a), for example—suggests that the kind of fear the author has in mind is fright, not Jewish piety. Third, if by “universal kingship” Argall means that Ben Sira understands YHWH to assume direct rule over all the nations, I disagree. It is true that Ben Sira’s god is universal in the sense that he possesses the ability to control international events. YHWH’s sovereignty implies that he places rulers on their thrones and also removes them, especially when they become insolent (see Sir 9.17–10.18). There is no sense in the book, however, that he rules directly over any nation but Israel. Indeed, as I observed in chapter 3, YHWH’s special relationship with Israel sets the Jews apart from other nations: Sir 17.17a

ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον

———— 149

GKC §157b. For the verbal use of pḥd as practicing piety, see Sir 7.29a; 37.12a; and 42.14b. The noun never occurs in Sirach in this sense. 151 See, for example, Sir 4.20a; 9.13b (2x); MS Bmg 31.30; 40.5a; and 41.3a. 150


b Sir 17.17a b

233

καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν For every nation he appointed a ruler, but YHWH’s portion is Israel.

Based on similar traditions found in Deut 32.8–9 and Dan 10.13–21, it seems likely that the sage understands that YHWH has appointed an angelic or semi-divine intermediary to rule over each nation, whereas Israel is ruled over directly by YHWH himself.152 Harry Orlinsky observes that Ben Sira conceives of God as the only God in the world, the God of the world, the God of the universe and everything and everyone in it. At the same time, he is the God of Israel alone, and of no other people.153

Orlinsky terms this view of God “universal-national,” which he distinguishes from “international.”154 Ben Sira’s god is universal, in the sense that his sovereignty—his control over the affairs of the world— is seemingly without geographic limit. This sovereignty flows from his role as creator, as the one who demonstrated his mastery in the primordium by defeating the forces of chaos (see chapter 2). But YHWH is not an international god, since he chooses not to rule directly over the nations. Instead, he is Israel’s national god and rules directly only over the Jews.155 To distinguish this view from that of Argall, I would say that YHWH is a universal god, but he is not a universal king. The sage’s view of YHWH as a universal god corresponds better to the metaphor of a divine emperor, whose sovereignty extends throughout the empire. In Ben Sira’s theology, the divine emperor demands recognition of his sovereignty from all his sub-

————

152 On the notion in Deut 32.8–9 that each nation possesses a divine protector, see Mayes, Deuteronomy, 384–5. On the “princes” or guardian angels of the nations in Dan 10, see Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 23 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978), 282–4. On Sir 17.17, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 283. 153 Harry M. Orlinsky, “Nationalism-Universalism and Internationalism in Ancient Israel,” in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 232–3. 154 Orlinsky, “Nationalism-Universalism,” 213. 155 In general, Orlinsky (“Nationalism-Universalism,” 231–3) interprets the theology of the Bible as a reflection of “a national-universal God,” and he understands Ben Sira’s “attitude toward the Gentiles [to be] a direct continuation of the nationalism-universalism of his predecessors.”

234

CHAPTER SIX

jects. But because he appoints intermediaries to govern the affairs of the nations, YHWH demands the particularities of Jewish piety from Israel alone.156 In light of Sir 17.17, then, it seems that Ben Sira’s eschatology does not involve the conversion of non-Jews to a Jewish piety. The evidence suggests that, in the sage’s view, the nations are not intended to worship YHWH the way Jews do. Rather, the goal of the dramatic rescue is that the nations recognize his supreme power, a fact that should be clear to the nations after YHWH has defeated their rulers.157 As a result of this recognition of YHWH as the sovereign of the universe, Ben Sira’s teleological goal is for the nations to practice a piety that includes awe before the creator and the performance of traditional wisdom. This is the fear of YHWH in its general sense, which I discussed in chapter 5. Ben Sira does not, however, suggest that the nations should follow the ethical and ritual commandments of the Torah. The nations are never intended, for example, to sacri-

————

156 In this respect, Ben Sira’s theology corresponds well with the view of divinity developed by some Israelites in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. There, in the face of the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian empires, the notion of a local or national god modeled on kingship became obsolete. See Peter Machinist, “The Fall of Assyria in Comparative Ancient Perspective,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, ed. Simo Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 184. As Mark S. Smith puts it, “The rise of supra-national empires suggested the model of the super-national god” (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 165; cf. idem, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004], 120). Israel also modeled its understanding of YHWH on the notion of a “supergod” or emperor. As Smith points out, in contrast to Ashur and Marduk in Assyria and Babylonia, respectively, whose power was viewed as proportional to that of the human emperor, in Israel YHWH’s power was viewed as inversely proportional to that of its own nation. Ben Sira’s second-century political-historical context mirrors that of the 7th and 6th centuries, in the sense that Judea’s political power is at a low point. On the connection between the god Ashur and Assyria’s imperial policy, see Steven W. Holloway, Aššur Is

King! Aššur Is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 157

In this sense, Ben Sira’s view of YHWH as a divine emperor mirrors the Assyrian view of Ashur. As Bustenay Oded observes, “To bring the world under the sway of the god Ashur did not require enforcement of the cult of Ashur but submission to sovereignty [sic] of Ashur’s representative and being aware of Ashur” (War, Peace, and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions [Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1992], 187).


235

fice at the Jerusalem temple. The fear of YHWH in the Jewish sense is meant for Israel alone. CONCLUSION: ELECTION AND ESCHATOLOGY Finally, I come to the question of Israel’s role as the elect in bringing about the reality of Ben Sira’s eschatological vision. In chapter 5, I noted several features inherent in Ben Sira’s notion of Jewish piety that suggest an instrumental function of Israel’s election. In the maintenance of the cult and the actualization of wisdom in the performance of the ritual and ethical commandments of the Torah, Israel’s election achieves a greater goal. Israel’s election is instrumental in that its practice of a Jewish piety sustains and renews the created order. So here too, in its divine rescue, Israel’s election has an instrumental function. The nations should be capable of recognizing YHWH by virtue of the gift of general wisdom bestowed upon all human beings through creation. But if the nations do not acknowledge YHWH as a result of the general outpouring of divine wisdom over all creation, the dramatic rescue of Israel becomes necessary, in order to demonstrate to the nations that there is no god but YHWH. Thus, as the divinely elected people, Israel plays a distinctive role in facilitating the nations’ recognition of YHWH and their attainment of a universal piety. An interesting contrast can be drawn between the instrumental functions of Israel’s election as I described them in this chapter and in chapter 5. In chapter 5, for Israel’s election to serve its instrumental function, Jews have to act. In order for the benefits of election to spread beyond the covenant community, Israel must actively maintain the ethical and ritual requirements of the Torah, especially with respect to the cosmos-sustaining operation of the temple cult. In contrast, what I have observed in this chapter only requires a passive role on the part of the Jews. The instrumental aspect of their election functions through their passive reception of divine rescue. All they must do is petition the deity in order to arouse his sense of justice and initiate the dramatic intervention. This passive element raises other questions. Just how instrumental is Israel’s election? Does the achievement of the larger goals of Israel’s election depend entirely upon the Jews? What happens if

236

CHAPTER SIX

Israel fails to live up to her special role? If the Jews founder, will their God dispense with them and start over with another group of people?158 Behind Ben Sira’s instruction in Sir 2.1–18 lies the assumption that YHWH will not abandon those who trust in him. But what if Israel forsakes YHWH? An admittedly late insertion into the book in GII suggests that YHWH does not give up on Israel. Sir 17.18a b

ὃν πρωτόγονον ὄντα τιθηνεῖ παιδείᾳ καὶ μερίζων φῶς ἀγαπήσεως οὐκ ἀνίησιν αὐτόν

Sir 17.18a b

[Israel]159 as his firstborn he cares for with discipline;160 distributing the light of his affection, he does not grieve him.

James Kugel no doubt interprets this passage correctly when he says, “despite Israel’s frowardness,” YHWH does not abandon her.161 From his predecessors in the wisdom tradition, Ben Sira inherited the notion of sagely teaching which passes from father to son. Note, for example, how the instruction in Sir 2.1–18 cited above addresses “my son” (Sir 2.1a). Ben Sira imagines that YHWH maintains a similar paternal relationship to Israel. The deity trains Israel, his “firstborn,” through instruction or discipline (παιδεία), which includes occasional rebuke. Yet like a father who refuses to abandon his child no matter how rebellious, YHWH sticks with Israel, even through its insubordination.162 Thus, because the success of YHWH’s larger purposes does not depend entirely upon Israel, the election of the Jews is not purely instrumental. Surely, for Ben Sira, Israel exists not solely for its own sake, but to bring to fruition the divine hope for the nations, indeed the entire cosmos. Nonetheless, at the same time, Israel’s continued existence depends on more than its role as YHWH’s instrument. Israel exists because its divine father cares for his children, even though sometimes paternal affection expresses itself as tough love.

———— 158

Levenson (“The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism,” 154–6) poses similar queries in his treatment of election in the Hebrew Bible. 159 The antecedent of the relative pronoun ὃν is found at the end of v 17. 160 Cf. Prov 3.11. 161 Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 703. Also, cf. Sir 17.21 (GII), which suggests that YHWH does not abandon his chosen ones. 162 See James L. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” DSD 5 (1998): 119–43, for a discussion of the connection between Israel’s status as firstborn and the notion that God chastises Israel, as a father corrects a son.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION: BEN SIRA AND THE ELECTION OF ISRAEL I began my study with the observation that Ben Sira’s correlation of Wisdom and Torah represents an attempt to relate the universal and the particular. Most scholars suggest that Ben Sira “equates” Wisdom and Torah. If Wisdom and Torah are essentially the same thing, then Ben Sira’s correlation of the two amounts to either a universalization of Torah or a nationalization of Wisdom. But as I have shown, Ben Sira’s understanding of the relation between Wisdom and Torah is more subtle than the asyndetic juxtaposition of the two terms initially suggests. Ben Sira does not nationalize wisdom, because he believes that all humans partake in a general wisdom that YHWH poured out upon the natural world. Neither does the sage universalize Torah, for Torah represents the special wisdom bequeathed to the elect people of Israel alone. Thus, the relation between Torah and Wisdom, in Ben Sira’s mind, is more complex than the notions of “identity” or “equality” allow. Like his predecessors in the Israelite Wisdom tradition, Ben Sira distinguishes between two classes of human beings. Older wisdom tended to refer to two categories of humans: wise and foolish, or righteous and wicked. Ben Sira also uses these terms. But the nature of the distinction between the two groups in the book of Sirach is not opposition, as many scholars have assumed. Rather, Ben Sira distinguishes his two groups of human beings based on the notion of election. According to the sage, YHWH “set apart” one group of human beings from all the rest, in order to confer on them a special wisdom. The chosen group consists in Israel and the special wisdom amounts to the Torah. Ben Sira derives this anthropological classification of the elect and the non-elect from a cosmological observation about the respective functions of the sun and the moon in marking profane and sacred time. Moreover, he alludes to biblical texts that describe the election of Abram from the nations and the choosing of priests from among the Israelites. This suggests that Ben Sira’s un-

238

CHAPTER SEVEN

derstanding of election also represents an appropriation of the doctrine from the biblical tradition. It is Ben Sira’s appropriation of the doctrine of election, I maintain, that makes sense of his relation of the universal and the particular. In his understanding of election, a part is distinguished from the whole. Although the chosen entity is set apart from the whole, it nonetheless maintains a basic connection to the whole. In the same way that sacred days distinguished by the moon share with profane days the light of the one sun, so also the elect Israelites share with the non-elect the fact of their creation from the dust of the earth. Similarly, the Torah as Israel’s special wisdom partakes in the general wisdom bestowed upon all human beings. The Torah as Israel’s inheritance consists in a subset—a root, if you will—of general wisdom that has been set apart for YHWH’s elect. Ben Sira’s notion of election extends beyond the mere idea that YHWH distinguishes a part from the whole. The divine act of distinguishing one particular people and one portion of universal wisdom furthers a purpose. For example, Ben Sira understands the Torah to be Israel’s book of sapiential instruction given by the divine sage YHWH. In the same way that the older Wisdom tradition viewed performance of wisdom instruction (torah) as the means to bring one’s life into harmony with the cosmic order, so also performance of the ritual and ethical commandments of the Torah brings the Israelite’s life into harmony with the covenantal order. Moreover, Ben Sira’s association of wisdom with the Jerusalem temple indicates that he views participation in the cult as having the effect of sustaining and renewing the cosmic order upon which the world is founded. In this sense, the “election” of the Torah and the election of Israel as the people obliged to practice a Torah piety serve purposes beyond the confines of the covenantal community. Torah observance benefits all humankind, indeed the entire created world. Moreover, Israel is not the only people with obligations. In Ben Sira’s view, all peoples ought to observe the instruction (torah) of the international wisdom tradition and practice a general piety. This general fear of YHWH involves the expression of awe at his creation and acknowledgment of him as the creator of the world. By virtue of the general wisdom available to them as creatures, all humans are capable of this general piety. Nonetheless, the nations do not always fulfill their duty to fear YHWH in the general sense. If the nations

BEN SIRA AND THE ELECTION OF ISRAEL

239

fail to express the proper fear of the creator and oppress his elect people, YHWH rescues Israel and uses the opportunity to demonstrate his “shock and awe” to the nations. Thus, the election of Israel also serves the larger divine purpose of bringing about an eschatological reality in which the nations practice a proper fear of YHWH. This purposeful election of the part from the whole structures numerous elements in the book of Sirach. YHWH bestows general wisdom upon all humanity, including upon Israel, and he additionally bequeaths a special wisdom to Israel. General wisdom is codified in the instruction (torah) of the sages, which all humans are obligated to follow, including the Jews, while Israel’s special wisdom is codified in the Torah, the observance of which is enjoined upon Israel alone. The nations are obligated to practice a general piety of awe, while Israel additionally must practice the particularities of a Jewish piety. In each of these cases, it is impossible to say that wisdom, instruction, and piety are wholly universal or wholly particular. Rather, Ben Sira maintains the universality of the international wisdom tradition while, at the same time, he portrays the distinctive features of Israel’s historical traditions as a kind of particular wisdom. Israel’s wisdom, instruction, and piety represent particular subsets of the universal wisdom, instruction, and piety accessible to the nations. The notion of election as the purposeful distinction of a part from the whole allows Ben Sira to hold in tension the universal wisdom tradition and the particular national traditions of Israel. Moreover, the notion of election provides a justification for maintaining an interest in the universal and the particular, and a means for relating the two: the particular serves to enhance the universal. Ben Sira’s appropriation of Israel’s election represents an astonishing transformation of the Jewish Wisdom tradition. The motif of election is at best nascent in the portrait of Job as a favored patriarch or in proverbial statements that God favors the upright.1 Older Israelite wisdom literature betrayed little interest in the historical traditions of ancient Israel. As a result, the outlook of books such as Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet tended to be universal. Anyone, regardless of national identity or religious practice, could perform the in-

————

1 See Prov 3.34; 8.35; 12.2; 14.9; and 18.22. Cf. the portrait of Job in the prologue (Job 1–2) and epilogue (Job 42.7–17), especially the statement of the Satan, who suggests that YHWH has protected and blessed Job (Job 1.9–10).

240

CHAPTER SEVEN

struction of the sage and pursue wisdom. As a corollary, the specific Jewish customs of Torah and cult, for example, seemed to matter very little to these authors. Ben Sira alters immeasurably this worldview of traditional wisdom. By incorporating the particular customs of Israel and relating them to the international wisdom tradition through the notion of election, the sage created a new synthesis between universal wisdom and the particular traditions of ancient Israel. Moreover, the sage’s location of his doctrine of Israel’s election in his theology of creation represents a remarkable development in the biblical traditions concerning election. In general, the Hebrew Bible portrays YHWH’s election of an individual or of Israel as a whole as a historical event. In contrast, Ben Sira suggests that Israel’s election results from a primordial divine act. The difference between the two models of election perhaps finds an analogy in the different motivations given to Sabbath observance in the versions of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy and Exodus. Deuteronomy provides a historical motivation for Sabbath observance, citing YHWH’s rescue of Israel from Egyptian slavery (Deut 5.15). The Exodus version, in contrast, grounds observance of the Sabbath in a creation myth similar to Gen 1.1–2.4a, in which the deity rested on the seventh day (Exod 20.11). While Ben Sira considers Israel’s election to be the result of a primordial decision, he nonetheless sees it as a drama unfolding in history. Thus, in the same way that the biblical tradition preserved both cosmological as well as historical motivations for observing the Sabbath, Ben Sira blends cosmological and historical aspects of Israel’s election. The sage develops the biblical tradition by elevating election over the historical to the cosmological realm while at the same time retaining its rootedness in history.2 Thus, Ben Sira’s understanding of Israel’s election influences his view of “history” from beginning to end. In the past, Israel’s election originated in a primordial decision. In the present, Israel’s separateness influences how they are to behave: they must observe the ritual and ethical requirements of the Torah, as well as the sapiential instruction. In the future, their election plays an important role in his eschatological vision for bringing the nations to a proper fear of

————

Cf. the comments of Levenson (Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 82) on the etiologies for the Sabbath in Exodus and Deuteronomy. 2


241

YHWH. While Ben Sira’s grounding of election in creation represents a significant development from the biblical tradition, such a move is not without parallel in the Second Temple period, as I shall demonstrate. ELECTION IN OTHER SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH WORKS In order to contextualize Ben Sira’s appropriation of the doctrine of election as a means to correlate the universal and the particular, let me examine two other Jewish thinkers from the Second Temple period, the author of the Book of Jubilees and Philo of Alexandria. While my necessarily brief treatment of these two figures risks oversimplification, a comparative sketch of their understandings of election can, nonetheless, enhance one’s understanding of Ben Sira in the context of Second Temple Jewish thought.

Election in Jubilees The author of the Book of Jubilees—which can be safely dated to the period 170–150 B.C.E.3—was a younger contemporary of Ben Sira. Originally composed in Hebrew,4 the book consists in a retelling of Genesis 1–Exodus 12, in which the author presents his views by altering the biblical story.5 The views of the author of Jubilees on election are evident in his treatment of the Sabbath and intermarriage. According to Jubilees, the deity fashioned seven classes of angels on the first day of creation (Jub. 2.2). In recounting the conclusion of the creation story from Genesis 1, an angel explains to Moses

————

3 James C. VanderKam discusses the evidence for dating (The Book of Jubilees, 2 vols., CSCO 510–511 [Leuven: Peeters, 1989], 2:v–vi). For a more detailed discussion, see idem, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, HSM 14 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 207–85. On the possibility of an earlier date, see Robert Doran, “The Non-dating of Jubilees: Jub 34–38; 23:14–32 in Narrative Context,” JSJ 20 (1989): 1–11. 4 VanderKam (Book of Jubilees, 1:ix–xvi, 2:vi–xxxiv) treats the versions and textual history of Jubilees. 5 This phenomenon is usually termed “rewritten Bible.” On the use of this term, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” JJS 45 (1994): 1–27. For a useful clarification of the application of the designation, see Hindy Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies,” JSJ 30 (1999): 407–9.

242

CHAPTER SEVEN

that, at the beginning, God required the highest two classes of angels—the angels of the presence and the angels of holiness—to join him in observing the Sabbath every week (Jub. 2.17–18). The lower classes of angels are not obliged to keep the Sabbath, presumably because their jobs in maintaining the operation of the universe require them to work every day of the week. Then the deity disclosed his plan to the angels: I will now separate a people for myself from among my nations. They, too, will keep sabbath. I will sanctify the people for myself and will bless them as I sanctified the sabbath day. I will sanctify them for myself; in this way I will bless them. They will become my people and I will become their God. I have chosen the descendants of Jacob among all of those whom I have seen. I have recorded them as my first-born son and have sanctified them for myself throughout the ages of eternity. I will tell them about the sabbath days so that they may keep sabbath from all work on them. (Jub. 2.19–20)6

According to this passage, the deity elected (“sanctified”) Israel in the time of creation for the purpose of keeping the Sabbath. As James Kugel observes, the celestial nature of the Sabbath explains “why there is no universal commandment to observe the sabbath.”7 Only Israel is required to practice this particular form of Jewish piety. This fact underscores for the author Israel’s special status among the nations as God’s elect. Moreover, Israel’s special status vis-à-vis the nations finds its heavenly counterpart in the distinction between the two highest classes of angels, on the one hand, and the rest of the angels, on the other. This tradition in Jubilees shares several features with what I have observed in Sirach. First, both envision the primordial creation of a particularly Jewish piety (the Sabbath in Jubilees ; Torah observance in Sirach). Second, God elects Israel in primordial times to observe this piety.8 Third, among all the nations only Israel is required to

———— 6 7

89.

8

All translations of Jubilees are from VanderKam, Book of Jubilees. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’,” 124–5. Cf. idem, Traditions of the Bible,

Bar 3.32–4.1a may present a similar tradition that Israel was elected in the primordial time. As Kugel (Traditions of the Bible, 91) notes about this passage, which may be modeled after Sir 24.8–10: “It seems that God’s ‘finding’ the path to the Torah belongs to the same primal period, as well as His allotting her to Jacob and Israel; this happened, apparently, in heaven, since it was only afterward that she appeared on earth.” Italics in original.


243

observe this Jewish piety. Fourth, both authors appeal to a cosmological distinction (the angelic classes in Jubilees ; the respective roles of the sun and the moon in Sirach) as a basis for the election of Israel. Despite these similarities, the author of Jubilees nonetheless differs markedly from Ben Sira in his view of Israel’s election. Because he views Israel as a special people chosen to observe the Sabbath alongside the two highest classes of angels, he seems to portray Israel as a radically holy people, completely separate from other human beings.9 As a result, the author strictly forbids intermarriage between Israelites and foreigners (Jub. 25.1–12; 30.7–10). Kugel succinctly summarizes this aspect of the author’s outlook: For Jubilees, Israel’s holiness means first and foremost that Israel belongs to an order of being different from the order of being of other humans so that Israel is, in effect, wholly different, the earthly correspondent to God’s heavenly hosts. Under such circumstances, there is no possibility of Israel’s mingling or intermarrying with other peoples.10

I would characterize Jubilees ’ understanding of Israel’s election as thoroughly particularistic. The author’s view of Israel as wholly separate from all other peoples contrasts sharply with Ben Sira’s view that all human beings share a basic commonality, that is, their creation from the dust of the earth. Whereas the election of Israel in the context of Jubilees ’ particularism betrays very little interest in universal humanity, Ben Sira’s appropriation of the election tradition allows him to maintain an interest both in the particular people of Israel and in universal humanity.

Election in Philo The Jewish philosopher and exegete Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.E.–ca. 50 C.E.) wrote roughly two centuries after Ben Sira. Philo’s allegorical interpretations of Jewish scripture have often been interpreted as a universalized adaptation of Judaism.11 Other scholars

———— 9

James L. Kugel, “The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 25–7. 10 Kugel, “The Holiness of Israel and the Land,” 27. 11 See, e.g., Victor Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks, eds., Corpus papyrorum judaicorum, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 77–8; and Yehoshua

244

CHAPTER SEVEN

have argued, however, that he particularizes philosophy by defining it in terms of Jewish scriptures.12 Part of the ambiguity evident in the secondary literature stems from the complexity of Philo’s own corpus and philosophy. Both impulses—the universal and the particular—are present in Philo’s work. The universal impulse in Philo’s thought appears in his use of the collective term “Israel” (᾿Ισραήλ) as a reference to “those who see God.”13 This interpretation likely originated in a false etymology, such as ʾyš rʾh ʾl (the one who sees God).14 For Philo, Israel consists in those who pursue a relationship with God through a certain mode: the philosophical quest to see God.15 Philo does not seem to restrict membership in the category Israel to persons descended from Jews or to those who uphold the particular Jewish traditions. Theoretically, then, anyone can embark upon the quest to see God and become a member of Israel. In contrast, Philo uses the collective term “Jews” (᾿Ιουδαῖος) in a more restrictive sense to designate the people that trust in God and observe certain laws (νόμοι) and customs (ἔθη).16 Whereas membership in Israel is potentially universal, membership among the Jews is limited to those who believe in God and practice Jewish laws and customs. This would seem to indicate a more particularistic outlook on Philo’s part. But Philo also suggests that Jews will embrace anyone who is prepared to enter the covenant.17 Moreover, Philo construes these laws and customs not so much as divine commandments but, rather, as a path that leads to God. In theory, then, anyone may

————

Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 3–51. 12 David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 113–26; and Alan Mendelson, Philo’s Jewish Identity, BJS 161 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 138. 13 See, e.g., Leg. 3.186, 212; Her. 78; Abr. 57. For the texts of Philo, I used the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Digital Library, http://www.tlg.uci.edu/. 14 Whether Philo derived this etymology himself or utilized an existing tradition is debated. See Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 67–77. 15 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 5. On the subject of vision, human and divine, in Philo, see further Maren Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, TSAJ 86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 198–205. 16 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 13, 164–6, 220–4. See Spec. 2.165–7; Virt. 64–5; and Legat. 115. 17 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 13, 172. See Decal. 58; Spec. 1.16–20; and Virt. 177–9.


245

follow this path to the creator of all.18 Thus, the category Jews, like the category Israel, is potentially universal. For Philo, then, the tension between the universal and particular works itself out in his definitions of Israel and the Jews, and in the two associated modes by which one may develop a relationship with God. Like Ben Sira, Philo bases his understanding of Israel’s election, in part, on Deut 32.8–9.19 In the context of a discussion warning against altering boundaries determined by nature and by divine norm, he writes: ὁπότε ὁ θεὸς διένεμε καὶ διετείχιζε τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἔθνη τὰ ὁμόφωνα τῶν ἀλλογλώττων διιστὰϛ καὶ διοικίζων, τούς τε γῆς παῖδας ἔσπειρε καὶ ἐξετόξευσεν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, οὓς Ἀδὰμ ὠνόμασεν υἱούς, τότε τῶν ἀρετῆς ἐκγόνων τοὺς ὅρους ἔστησεν ἰσαρίθμους ἀγγέλοις· ὅσοι γὰρ θεοῦ λόγοι, τοσαῦτα ἀρετῆς ἔθνη τε καὶ εἴδη. τίνες δ’ αἱ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ λήξεις καὶ τίς ἡ τοῦ παντάρχου καὶ ἡγεμόνος ἀποκεκληρωμένη μοῖρα; τῶν μὲν οὖν ὑπηρετῶν αἱ ἐν εἴδει ἀρεταί, τοῦ δὲ ἡγεμόνος τὸ ἐπίλεκτον γένος Ἰσραήλ· ὁ γὰρ ὁρῶν τὸν θεὸν ὑπὸ ἐκπρεπεστάτου κάλλους ἀγόμενος τῷ ὁρωμένῳ προσκεκλήρωταί τε καὶ μεμέρισται. When God separated and partitioned off the nations of the soul, dividing those who speak the same language from those of a different tongue and settling them in their places; when he scattered and distanced from himself the children of the earth, those whom he calls the sons of Adam, then he established the boundaries of the offspring of virtue according to the number of angels; for there are as many nations and species of virtue as there are words of God. But what are the allotments belonging to his angels and what is the allotted portion of the ruler and sovereign of all? The specific virtues belong to the servants, but the elect class [or race] of Israel belongs to the sovereign. For the one who sees God, being led by a most extraordinary beauty, has been allotted and apportioned to the one who is seen. (Post. 91–3)

Philo employs his allegorical mode of exegesis to interpret various elements in the Deuteronomic passage: the first reference to nations indicates “the nations of the soul,” the second reference to nations

————

18 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 166. See Spec. 2.165; Virt. 64; and Legat. 115. 19 See my discussion of Sir 17.17 in chapter 5.

246

CHAPTER SEVEN

becomes “offspring of virtue,” the angels are words of God,20 and Israel symbolizes the “class” (γένος) of virtue. Whereas the portion of the angels is the particular species (“offspring”) of virtue, God acquires the class or genus of virtue itself, namely, Israel. On this figurative level of interpretation, Philo ignores altogether the unique and concrete relationship between Israel and God implied by the plain sense of Deut 32.8–9. At the same time, he seems to preserve a more tangible meaning, as he often does. Using γένος also in the sense of race, Philo describes Israel’s connection to God based upon his etymological understanding of the term: “the one who sees God (ὁ ὁρῶν τὸν θεὸν)” is apportioned to “the one who is seen (τῷ ὁρωμένῳ).”21 Regarding this connection, Ellen Birnbaum observes, “Philo’s interpretation introduces a more reciprocal aspect to the relationship than is portrayed in the Bible.”22 Thus, whereas Ben Sira’s interpretation of Deut 32.8–9 suggests divine initiative in the election of Israel, Philo sees in the passage evidence for human initiative in the relationship between the elect and their God.23 Like Ben Sira, Philo notes the universal benefits of Israel’s election. In some passages, Philo suggests that the Jewish people as a whole function as priests for all humankind. Specifically, the Jews as a priestly people offer prayers and sacrifices for the other nations.24 Moreover, Philo suggests that the Jewish high priest prays and offers sacrifices for all humanity as well as for the natural world.25 Both Philo and Ben Sira, then, associate the universal benefits of Israel’s election with the role of the Israelite high priest. Like Ben Sira, but unlike the author of Jubilees, then, it seems that Philo wrestled with the tension between the universal and the particular. In general, Philo tended toward a universal view, in

————

20 Philo, of course, uses the Septuagint. LXX Deut 32.8 reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ where MT reads bənê y i śrāʾēl. 21 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 138. In Abr. 56–9, Philo also discusses the election of Israel and the ability to see God. 22 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 138. 23 Cf. Spec. 2.166, where Philo suggests that the Jews have chosen God. There are also points in Philo’s writings where divine initiative takes precedence. See, e.g., Abr. 77–80, regarding God’s appearance to Abraham, and Praem. 37–9 for Jacob’s similar experience. 24 Spec. 2.162–7; Abr. 98; Mos. 1.149. See Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 223; Goldenberg, The Nations That Know Thee Not, 52. 25 Spec. 1.97. See Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 166; Goldenberg, The Nations That Know Thee Not, 52.


247

which anyone could develop an intimate relationship with the Jewish deity through the philosophical quest of seeing God. Nonetheless, because Philo inherited the biblical tradition of Israel’s covenant with YHWH, he also retained certain particularistic understandings.26 One could situate each of these late Second Temple authors on a continuum defined by particularism on one end and universalism on the other. Due to his portrait of Jews as different in kind—and therefore radically separate—from other human beings, I would locate the author of Jubilees near the particularist end of the continuum. Given the universalizing effects of Philo’s allegorical approach and his openness to proselytes, I would situate him somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, but more toward the universalist end. Since Ben Sira betrays no interest in having non-Jews convert to Judaism, I would place him somewhere in the middle. Ben Sira’s approach represents a via media between the extremes of universalism and particularism, even between the positions occupied by Philo and Jubilees, respectively. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY By comparing Ben Sira’s view of Israel’s election to that of Philo and the author of Jubilees, one can see that other Jewish authors in the late Second Temple period also responded to the problem of universalism and particularism. Moreover, from the range of responses observed, it is clear that in this period, various strategies existed for addressing the problem of the universal and the particular. Jubilees represents one extreme position, that of the particularist. Philo embodies an opposing position, that of the universalist. Ben Sira exemplifies an intermediate position. He recognizes the inherent tension between universalism and particularism, and adapts the ancient Israelite notion of election as a device by which to mediate between the two extremes. He affirms that Israel is a particular people with a special relationship to God but recognizes that Israel’s existence and behavior have universal implications. Why did Ben Sira choose the via media? While it is unlikely that the sage’s sociohistorical context determined his response to the problem of the universal and the particular, it nonetheless must have

———— 26

Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 6.

248

CHAPTER SEVEN

played some role in shaping his intermediate approach. Whereas the author of Jubilees may have experienced the turbulence of the Maccabean period and developed his radically particularist understandings of Israel in response to it,27 Ben Sira lived before the crisis brought on by Antiochus IV.28 Given the cosmopolitan demographic of the city of Jerusalem, resulting in part from successive foreign occupations, Ben Sira’s world confronted him with the problem of the universal and the particular. Moreover, the relative benevolence of Seleucid policy toward Jerusalem in the sage’s day lent itself to a more charitable attitude toward non-Jews.29 Ben Sira’s social location also differed from that of Philo. Whereas Philo, as part of “the rich provincial elite of the Greek East,” was active in political affairs in a largely non-Jewish city of Alexandria, indeed in the larger Roman empire,30 Ben Sira served the Jewish priestly ruling class in a predominantly Jewish Jerusalem. It seems likely that this sociohistorical world in which Ben Sira wrote formed the crucible for his revolutionary synthesis of the universal wisdom tradition and Israel’s particular customs. In this relatively tolerant milieu, Ben Sira did not take the path of the dualist, as so many modern interpreters have suggested. The dualist tends to associate good with “us” and bad with “them.” And it is easy to imagine how a synthesis between the older wisdom dichotomy of wise/foolish and righteous/wicked, on the one hand, and the biblical election tradition, on the other, could have led to a strict dualism. But in Ben Sira’s case, it did not. While Ben Sira saw the world in terms of Jew and non-Jew, he did not associate wisdom and righteousness entirely with the Jew, and folly and wickedness wholly with the non-Jew. In his work, the sage portrays both Israelites and non-Israelites as good and bad. His view that good and bad reside both within Israel and without contrasts sharply with the ac-

———— 27

Cf. the dualism of the book of Daniel. For a succinct statement of Ben Sira’s sociohistorical situation, see Jacob, “Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 251–2. 29 As Jacob (“Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” 252) notes, “The priesthood itself, under Jason and Menelaus, allowed for progressive accommodation with foreign customs instead of preserving ethnic and religious purity.” 30 For a concise description of Philo’s sociohistorical context, especially as it relates to his views on Jewish identity, see Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 5–10. The quote comes from p 8. Niehoff takes special care in her study to account for the influence of Roman rule on Philo’s views. 28


249

knowledged dualism of other late Second Temple Jewish works, such as 4QInstruction.31 And that he does not turn the good and bad within every human being into a principle of cosmic structure distinguishes his work from a text such as The Treatise of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community.32 The dualist is concerned with the well-being of a particular people alone—everyone else be damned. In contrast to the dualist, Ben Sira is concerned with the well-being of all human beings, especially with their acquisition of wisdom, which aids them in recognizing the creator and living a good life. Consequently, the widely held assumption among scholars regarding Ben Sira’s supposed dualism must be abandoned. Ben Sira’s notion of election—unlike that of Jubilees, for example—does not collapse into a dualism. Rather, election serves as a means for the sage to meaningfully relate the particularities of Israel’s existence to the universal well-being of humankind.

———— 31

On 4QInstruction’s distinction between a “spiritual people” and the “fleshly spirit,” see Goff, Wisdom of 4QInstruction, 80–126. 32 On the view of The Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS 3.13–4.26) that the deity implanted a spirit of light and a spirit of darkness in each person, see Armin Lange,

Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran, STDJ 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 121–70.

APPENDIXES In the following appendixes, I provide my own critical reconstruction of the text, as well as my translation, for four passages from Sirach that are central to the argument of the present book. While I cite piecemeal much of these passages in the chapters of the book, I hope that these appendixes will permit the reader to view each of the four passages in their entirety and thereby to comprehend better how I arrived at my interpretation of them. In the appendixes, I provide my full text-critical comments in the footnotes. When discussing these four passages in the chapters of the book, I have tried to reduce somewhat these text-critical notes. Nonetheless, I have retained in the chapters those notes that I deemed important for my argument, with the inevitable result of some duplication. A few comments about my handling of the complex textual situation of Sirach are in order. Ben Sira composed his work in Hebrew; his grandson translated it into Greek, and it is principally through the Greek tradition that his work was known to modern scholars, until the recovery of Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach, beginning at the end of the nineteenth century. Syriac (following the Heb. tradition) and Old Latin (following the Gk. tradition) manuscripts are less important witnesses to the text of the book. The Ethiopic and Coptic traditions offer some interesting readings but are ultimately dependent upon the Greek tradition. The Hebrew witnesses generally provide the best evidence for reconstructing the text of Sirach; however, only some 68 percent of the Hebrew text of the book has survived. The extant text is preserved in six manuscripts (A, B, C, D, E, F), from the Cairo Genizah; two fragments from Qumran (2Q18 and 11QPsa); and fragments forming seven columns of a manuscript from Masada (M).1 Most scholars perceive two main recensions of the Hebrew texts: HTI, the

———— 1

On the extant Hebrew texts and their recensions, see Skehan and Di Lella,

Wisdom of Ben Sira, 51–4, 57–9; and Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 1–19. For the Masada manuscript, see also Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll.

252

APPENDIXES

Hebrew original of Ben Sira; and HTII, an expansion on Ben Sira’s original. For my work with the Hebrew text, I relied primarily on the edition of Pancratius Beentjes, which presents all of the extant Hebrew manuscripts individually as well as synoptically.2 However, I also consulted the Hebrew Language Academy edition,3 and when discrepancies arose, I confirmed readings with the facsimile edition of Solomon Schechter.4 The edition of Beentjes represents an improvement over those of Francesco Vattioni5 and the Hebrew Language Academy, in that it presents the Hebrew texts in the order in which they appear in the Hebrew manuscripts. In addition, the Beentjes edition is more conservative, as it refrains from reconstructing gaps or unreadable consonants in the manuscripts. Finally, I found the concordance of Dominique Barthélemy and Otto Rickenbacher invaluable.6 While the Greek manuscripts provide the complete text of Sirach, the Greek textual tradition perplexes the text critic no less than the Hebrew. In general, there seem to be two principal Greek recensions: GI, which many scholars identify as the grandson’s translation of HTI, and GII, an expansive tradition similar to HTII.7 For my work with the Greek text, I have followed the excellent critical edition of Joseph Ziegler.8 The Syriac appears to have been translated from a Hebrew text that represented a synthesis of HTI and HTII. For this reason, it proves less valuable than HTI and GI for reconstructing the text of Sirach. Nonetheless, at times the Syriac may be used to confirm a reading where HTI and GI disagree. I consulted the new diplomatic

————

Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew. Also see his corrections in Beentjes, “Errata et Corrigenda,” 375–7. 3 Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira. 4 Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. 5 Francesco Vattioni, Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca (Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968). Vattioni’s edition nonetheless remains valuable, since it presents a synopsis of the Sirach manuscripts known at the time of publication in their respective languages. 6 Barthélemy and Rickenbacher, eds., Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach. 7 On the situation of the Greek manuscripts, see Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 7–13; and Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 55–6. 8 Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. 2

APPENDIXES

253

edition of Núria Calduch-Benages et al.,9 while heeding Alexander Di Lella’s caution regarding the presence of errors in this edition.10 The Old Latin witnesses principally to GII.11 For this reason, I rarely relied on it for my textual reconstructions. Old Latin is a significant witness, however, to the presumed original order of the text, which became muddled in the Greek versions when Sir 30.25– 33.13a and 33.13b–36.16a were mistakenly transposed. In the case of this dislocation, I follow the order of the Hebrew (and Old Latin) manuscripts and in general the verse-numbering system employed by Skehan and Di Lella. In the notes, I explain any oddities in versification. In general, I consulted the text-critical discussions of Sirach by Conleth Kearns, Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, Maurice Gilbert, and others in forming my own judgments.12

————

Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba. Alexander A. Di Lella, “Review of La sabiduría del escriba,” CBQ 66 (2004): 118–21. 11 For the Old Latin text of Sirach, see Walter Thiele, ed., Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), VL 11/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1987). 12 Conleth Kearns, “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,” in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Reginald Cuthbert Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns (London: Nelson, 1969), 541–62. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira. Maurice Gilbert, “L’Ecclésiastique: quel texte, quelle autorité?,” RB 94 (1987): 233–50. In addition, Segal’s retroversion of Greek Sirach into Hebrew offers some interesting textual reconstructions (see The Complete Book of Ben Sira). For general text-critical principles, see Tov, Textual Criticism. 9

10

APPENDIX A

OPENING POEM ON CREATION (SIR 1.1–10) Sir 1.1a b

πᾶσα σοφία παρὰ κυρίου καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

Sir 1.2a b 3a b Sir 1.4a b

ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει ὕψος οὐρανοῦ καὶ πλάτος γῆς καὶ βάθος ἀβύσσου1 τίς ἐξιχνιάσει προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος

6a b 8a b 9a b c 10a b

————

ῥίζα σοφίας τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη καὶ τὰ πανουργεύματα αὐτῆς τίς ἔγνω εἷς ἐστιν σοφός φοβερὸς σφόδρα καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ κύριος αὐτὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτὴν καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐξηρίθμησεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξέχεεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ μετὰ πάσης σαρκὸς κατὰ τὴν δόσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐχορήγησεν αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν2

Reading with Lat. (et profundum abyssi). So also Copt. and Eth. Cf. Syr. “the great abyss” (thwmʾ rbʾ) and G Sir 24.5: βάθει ἀβύσσων (depth of the abyss). The witnesses of G evidence variation at Sir 1.3b, but most Gk. MSS read “the abyss and wisdom” (ἄβυσσον καὶ σοφίαν). The reading of Lat. and similar witnesses better preserves the literary form of vv 2–3. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 137. 2 In place of “those who love him,” a few Gk. MSS (and Syr.) read φοβουμένοις αὐτόν (those who fear him). Scholars have come down on both sides of this tricky text-critical question. Smend, e.g., prefers the latter, since the topic of fearing God leads nicely into the subject of the following poem in Sir 1.11–30 (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 9). Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 137) prefer the former, suggesting that the phrase “those who love him” was in the text when the bicolon v 10cd was added to GII. For my purposes the question is moot, since, as I show in chapter 5, for Ben Sira, those who love God are those who fear him. 1

OPENING POEM ON CREATION (SIR

1.1–10)

Sir 1.1a b

All wisdom is from YHWH, and with him it remains forever.

Sir 1.2a b 3a b Sir 1.4a b

The sand of the seashores, the drops of rain, the days of eternity—who can count them? The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the depth of the abyss—who can search them out? Before all things Wisdom has been created, Prudent Understanding from eternity.

6a b 8a b 9a b c 10a b

————

255

Wisdom’s root—to whom was it revealed? Her nakedness3—who perceived it? There is one, wise, greatly awe-inspiring, seated upon his throne: YHWH. He himself created her; he saw and numbered her. He poured her out upon all his works, among all flesh according to his largess, and he lavished her upon those who love him.

Skehan and Di Lella (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 138) note that in Sir 42.18 (which they misidentify as 42.16), πανουργεύμασιν αὐτῶν translates Heb. maʿăr ûmêhem (literally “their naked things”); they translate accordingly “her subtleties.” See 2 Chr 28.15. 3

APPENDIX B

A POEM ON ELECTION (SIR 33.7–15) In general, I follow MS E, except where MS E is obviously corrupt. Then I read with G. Sir 33.7a b 8a b 9a b 10a b 11a b 12a b c d 13a b c

διὰ τί ἡμέρα ἡμέρας ὑπερέχει καὶ πᾶν φῶς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀφ᾿ ἡλίου ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς1 ‫ והקדשו‬2‫]מהם[ הרים‬ ‫ומהם שם לימי מספר‬ 3 ‫]כל אנשים כ[לי חמר‬ ‫ומן עפר נוצר אדם‬ ‫]בינ[ת ייי תבדילם‬ 4 ‫וישם אותם דרכיהם‬ 5 ‫]מהם ברך והרי[מם‬ [‫ומהם הקדיש וא]ליו הקריב‬ [‫]ומהם קלל וה[שפי]לם‬ ‫ודחפם ממעמד]יה[ם‬ ‫]כחמר בידי[ יוצר‬ 6 ‫ליצור כרצונו‬ ‫]כה אדם בידי עו[שהו‬

———— 1

MSS E and F of Sir 33.7–8 are corrupt. Thus, I follow G, as do most commentators. See Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396. 2 MS E reads “blesses” ([bē ]rak), as does Syr. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396) read “exalts” with G (ἀνύψωσεν) and note that the verb bērak belongs in v 12. 3 MS E, partially reconstructed from G: καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους. 4 Reading the marginal note drkyhm in place of MS E: dr y hʾ[rṣ]. Cf. G for v 11: ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν (In the fullness of YHWH’s knowledge, he differentiates them; he made distinct their ways). Cf. the language of G in 33.8. 5 In v 12, I follow MS E, which is reconstructed using G, with two exceptions. In 12a, I read wahăr îmām (3mp suffix) for MS E [whr y]mh. And in 12d, I read mimmaʿămaddêhem for MS E mmʿbd[..]m. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396. For the reconstruction of qll from καταράομαι, see Sir 3.16 and 4.5. 6 Following Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396), I emend MS E, which reads lʾḥwz krṣwn (to seize at will). The rationale for this emendation is Joseph Ziegler’s (ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 279) reconstruction of GI based on GII (πλάσαι αὐτὸ) and Lat. (plasmare illud ).

A POEM ON ELECTION (SIR

d 14a b c 15a b Sir 33.7a b 8a b 9a b 10a b 11a b 12a b c d 13a b c d 14a b c 15a b

————

33.7–15)

257

‫להתיצב מפניו חלק‬ ‫]נוכח רעה[ טוב‬ ‫ונוכח חיים מות‬ 7 ‫]נוכח[ איש ]טוב[ רשע‬ ‫]הבט[ אל כל מ]עשה[ אל‬ [‫כולם שנים שנים זה לעומת ]זה‬ Why is one day superior to another, when all year long the light of every day comes from the sun? By YHWH’s knowledge they were distinguished, and he differentiated seasons and festivals. [Some he ex]alted and sanctified, and some he appointed as ordinary days. [All human beings are ve]ssels of clay; for from dust Adam was formed. Yet YHWH’s [understand]ing distinguished them; he set them upon their respective paths. [Some he blessed and exal]ted, and some he sanctified and [drew near to him]self. [Some he cursed and brought] low, and drove from the[ir pl]ace. [Like clay in the hands of] a potter to be fashioned according to his will, [thus is the human being in the hands of its] maker to be rewarded according to his decision.8 [Evil contrasts with] good, and life contrasts with death, so a [good] person [contrasts] with the wicked. [Consider] every w[ork] of God; all of them come in pairs, one corresponding to [the other].

7 My reconstruction of MS E in v 14 is based on G: ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός (literally, “thus the sinner contrasts with the righteous”). MS E adds an additional colon: wnwkḥ hʾwr ḥ š k (and light contrasts with darkness). Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396) note that Syr. also contains this colon but lacks the line regarding the good and wicked persons. They suggest that MS E represents a conflation of the traditions found in G and Syr., and thus I leave off this additional colon. 8 The Hebrew given here from MS E makes little sense (“to take their stand before him, a portion”), and the versions offer divergent readings. The above translation derives from G: ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν αὐτοῦ. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396) translate κρίσις as “retribution,” suggesting that this meaning is not out of place, given 12cd. I read κρίσις here (like its correlative mi špāṭ) in its more general sense of “decision” or “deciding.”

APPENDIX C

A PRAYER FOR DELIVERANCE (SIR 36.1–22) In the Greek MSS tradition, Sir 30.25–33.13a and 33.13b–36.16a have been transposed. As a result of this transposition, the prayer in G is split, and the lines are numbered 33.1–13a and 36.16b–22. In Hebrew, the prayer occurs at 36.1–17. I have adopted the convention of Skehan and Di Lella (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 416) which situates the poem at the beginning of chapter 36, according to the Hebrew tradition, but retains the verse numbering from G. This results in the nonuse of verse numbers 14 and 15. Sir 36.1 2 3a b 4a b 5a b

‫הושיענו אלהי הכל‬ ‫ פחדך על כל הגוים‬1‫ו]ש[ים‬ ‫ על עם נכר‬2‫הניף יד‬ ‫ויראו את גבור]ת[יך‬ ‫כאשר נקדשת לעיניהם בנו‬ 3 ‫כן לעינינו הכבד בם‬ ‫וידעו כאשר ידענו‬ ‫כי אין אלהים זולתך‬

6 7 8 9 10a

‫חדש אות ושנה מופת‬ 4 ‫האדר יד זרוע ימין‬ ‫העיר אף ושפוך חמה‬ 5 ‫והכניע ]צר[ והדוף אויב‬ ‫החיש קץ ופקוד מועד‬

———— 1

G reads ἐπίβαλε (he cast). Bmg inserts yad (hand), which G and Syr. confirm. The word is missing in txt MS B . 3 Reading with MS Bmg and G. MS Btxt repeats bānû from the first half of the verse. 4 MS B reads hʾdr yd wʾmṣ zrwʿ wymyn (show the grandeur of your hand, and strengthen your arm and your right hand). G and Syr. do not attest the verb wʾmṣ. I have revised MS B in light of G: δόξασον χεῖρα καὶ βραχίονα δεξιόν. 5 Line 9 is partially damaged in MS B. Where I read ṣar, G has ἀντίδικον (adversary). Cf. Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 28; and Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫רכה‬. For the last word in the line, Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 62) mistakenly reads ʾwhb (friend). I verified the reading ʾw yb (enemy) with Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, n.p. 2

MS

A PRAYER FOR DELIVERANCE (SIR 6

b 12a b

36.1–22)

‫כי מי יאמר לך מה תעשה‬ 7 ‫השבת ראש פאתי אויב‬ ‫האומר אין זולתי‬

13 16 17a b 18a b 19a b

‫אסוף כל שבטי יעקב‬ ‫ויתנחלו כימי קדם‬ ‫רחם על עם נקרא בשמך‬ ‫ישראל בכור כיניתה‬ ‫רחם על קרית קדשך‬ ‫ירושלם מכון שבתיך‬ ‫מלא ציון את הודך‬ ‫ומכבודך את היכלך‬

20a b 21a b 22a b c d

‫תן עדות למראש מעשיך‬ ‫והקם חזון דבר בשמך‬ ‫תן את פעלת קוויך‬ ‫ונביאיך יאמינו‬ ‫תשמע תפלת עבדיך‬ ‫כרצונך על עמך‬ ‫ אפסי ארץ‬8‫וידעו ]כ[ל‬ 9 [‫כי אתה אל ]עולם‬

Sir 36.1 2 3a b 4a b 5a b 6

259

Rescue us, O God of all, and [p]ut your fright upon all the nations! Brandish your hand against the foreign people, so that they may see your migh[t]y deeds. Just as you have shown them your holiness by us, so now show us your glory by them, so that they may know, as we know, that there is no god but you. Renew a sign and repeat a wonder;

———— 6

G and Syr. include v 11: Sir 36.11a b

ἐν ὀργῇ πυρὸς καταβρωθήτω ὁ σῳζόμενος καὶ οἱ κακοῦντες τὸν λαόν σου εὕροισαν ἀπώλειαν

Sir 36.11a b

Let the survivor be devoured by fiery wrath, and let those who mistreat your people meet destruction.

While the content of the verse fits the context of the stanza, I choose to omit the bicolon, since it destroys the pattern of the prayer, which otherwise consists of four stanzas, each with four bicola. 7 Following MS Bmg. MS Btxt reads mwʾb (Moab). 8 Only the beginning (top left corner) of the k is visible in MS B. But the correctness of the reading is suggested by G πάντες. 9 The end of this line in MS B is badly damaged. The reading ʿwlm is derived from G: ὁ θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων (the God of the ages).

260

APPENDIX C

7 8 9 10a b 12a b

show the grandeur of your right hand and arm. Stir up anger and pour out wrath; subdue [the adversary] and drive out the enemy. Hasten the end; observe the appointed time! Let them recount your mighty deeds.10 Crush the hairy heads of the enemies11 who say, “There is no one but me.”

13 16 17a b 18a b 19a b

Gather all the tribes of Jacob, so that they may inherit as in the days of old. Have mercy upon the people called by your name, Israel, whom you designated your firstborn. Have mercy upon the city of your holiness, Jerusalem, the place of your throne. Fill Zion with your splendor, and from your glory (fill) your temple.

20a b 21a b 22a b c d

Give witness to your deeds of old, and bring about the vision spoken in your name. Give recompense to those who have waited for you, and let your prophets be proved trustworthy. Heed the prayer of your servants in accordance with your favor upon your people, so that [a]ll the ends of the earth may know that you are the [eternal] God.

————

10 From G: καὶ ἐκδιηγησάσθωσαν τὰ μεγαλεῖά σου. MS B (see above) reads: “For who can say to you: ‘What are you doing?’” 11 Many commentators translate this puzzling line with G (σύντριψον κεφαλὰς ἀρχόντων ἐχθρῶν), which takes paʾătê to mean “rulers.” Another possibility, suggested to me by Eugene McGarry, is that pēʾâ has the meaning “hair,” as it does in Lev 19.27. Both Ps 68.22 and Deut 32.42 suggest that God takes vengeance on the hairy heads of the enemy, a tradition Ben Sira seems to replicate here.

APPENDIX D

A HYMN ON CREATION (SIR 42.15–43.33) The translation is based primarily on MSS M and B. Emendations based on other textual witnesses are noted.

Stanza 1: Sir 42.15–25 Sir 42.15a b c d 16a b 17a b c d 18a b

————

‫אזכרה נא מעשי אל‬ ‫וזה חזיתי ואשננה‬ ‫באמר אדני מעשיו‬ 1 ‫ופעל רצונו לקחו‬ ‫שמש זהרת על כל נגלתה‬ 2 ‫וכבוד ייי מלא מעשיו‬ ‫לא הספיקו קדושי אל‬ 3 ‫לספר כל נפלאתיו‬ ‫ צבאיו‬4‫אמץ אדני‬ ‫להתחזק לפני כבודו‬ ‫תהום ולב חקר‬ ‫ובמערמיהם יתבונן‬

The Hebrew text given here follows MS M. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of MS Btxt and point as follows: wəpôʿēl rəṣôn ləqāḥô (and he accepts the one who does his will), pointing pwʿl as a participle and lqḥw as a 3ms Qal perfect with a 3ms resumptive pronominal suffix. The resulting meaning makes no sense in the context of the passage. Skehan and Di Lella offer, but do not accept, the alternative pointing adopted here, in which lqḥw is taken as a 3cp verb (they accept), which takes as its subject mʿsy w (his works) from v 15c. This reading does not require a preference for MS M over MS B. The term pwʿl in MS B is simply a plene spelling for pʿl in MS M; cf. the same phenomenon in v 15c: bʾ wmr (MS B) corresponding to bʾmr (MS M). Moreover, as Skehan and Di Lella themselves note, the alternative reading adopted here is similar to Syr.: “and all his creatures do his will.” My interpretation of this verse corresponds with the main point of this hymn’s third stanza (43.13–26), in which the elements of nature obey YHWH’s command in carrying out his purpose (see below). See especially 43.26 (MS B only): lmʿnw yṣlḥ mlʾk / wbdbr y w y pʿl rṣwn (On his account the messenger succeeds, and at his commands it accomplishes [his] will). 2 For textual variants in v 16 which are unimportant for my purposes, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 487. 3 MS M. MS Btxt reads nplʾ wt y y y (the wonders of YHWH); MS Bmg reads nplʾ wt gbwr wt y w (the wonders of his mighty deeds). 4 MS M. MS B reads ʾlhy m (God). 1

Ben Sira, 487) adopt the reading of

262

APPENDIX D

c d 19a b 20a b 21a b c d 22a b 23a b 24a b 25a b Sir 42.15a b c d 16a b 17a b c

[‫כי ידע עליון ד]עת‬ ‫]ו[מביט אתיות עולם‬ 5 ‫מחוה חליפות ונהיות‬ ‫ומגלה חקר נסתרות‬ ‫לא נעדר מפניו שכל‬ ‫ כל דבר‬6‫ול]א[ עב]ר[ו‬ ‫ חכמתו תכן‬7‫גבורות‬ ‫אחד הוא מעולם‬ ‫לא נאסף ]ו[לא נאצל‬ ‫ולא צריך לכל מבין‬ [‫הלוא כל מעשיו נחמד]ים‬ 8 ‫עדני ציץ וחזות מראה‬ ‫הכל חי וע]מד[ לעד‬ ‫ולכל צרך והכל נשמר‬ 9 ‫כלם שונים זה מזה‬ ‫ולא עשה מהם שוא‬ ‫זה על זה חלף טובם‬ ‫ומי ישבע להביט הודם‬ Let me now recall the works of God; what I have seen, I will repeat. By the Lord’s word came his works, and they accept the doing of his will. As the shining sun reveals itself to all, so the glory of YHWH fills his works. Nevertheless even God’s holy ones fail to recount all his wonders, although the Lord has strengthened his hosts

————

Reading MS Bmg wnhy wt. Cf. G καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα. MS Btxt reads nhy wt. Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 118, 169) reads ‫ א‬for ‫ ע‬here, an apparent mistake. Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 487. 7 This line can be pieced together from MS M, which preserves the first half of the line, and MS B, which preserves the second half. I have followed the reading of MS Bmg gbwrwt (mighty deeds), where MSS Btxt (reconstructed) and M attest the singular. 8 I follow the reconstruction of Strugnell, “Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” 116– 7, as do Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488. 9 My reading of this line follows MS B, in which this bicolon has been dislocated to a position between 43.1 and 43.2. Yadin (Ben Sira Scroll, 28), Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488), and Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 143) reconstruct MS M on the basis of Syr. and G as follows: 5 6

Sir 42.24a

‫כלם ]שנים שנים זה[ לעמת זה‬

Sir 42.24a

All of them come in twos, one corresponding to the other.

The strength of the versions lends credibility to this reconstruction, and I discuss this possibility in chapter 2.

A HYMN ON CREATION (SIR

d 18a b c d 19a b 20a b 21a b c d 22a b 23a b 24a b 25a b

42.15–43.33)

263

to withstand his glory. The deep and the human heart he searches out; their secrets he understands. For the Most High possesses knowledge, and sees the things that are to come forever. He declares things past and things to come, And he reveals the range of hidden things.10 Because of him no insight is lacking; nothing passes him by. The mighty deeds of his wisdom he regulates; he is one from eternity. Since nothing is removed nor withdrawn, he has no need of any teacher. Are not all his works desirable, delightful to gaze upon, and a sight to see? Everything lives and stands forever; everything has a need, and everything is preserved. All of them are different, the one from the other; yet he has not made any of them in vain. Though one surpasses the other in excellence,11 who can be sated by gazing at their splendor?

Stanza 2: Sir 43.1–12 Sir 43.1a b 2a b 3a b 4a

————

‫תאר מרום ורקיע לטהר‬ ‫עצם שמים מראה הדרו‬ ‫שמש מופי]ע[ בצאתו נכסה‬ ‫ ]ע[ליון‬12‫כלי נורא מעשה‬ ‫בהצהירו ירתיח תבל‬ ‫ולפני חרבו מי יתכלכל‬ 13 ‫כור נפוח מעשה מוצק‬

For the meaning of ḥēqer, see Job 11.7; 38.16. Wright argues that the term ni stārôt refers to the future (“Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” 210–2). 11 The exact meaning of this line is cryptic, and commentators offer various, often meaningless, translations. The verb ḥlp often is used to describe the movement of the wind, sweeping over the land (Isa 21.1; Job 4.15; Hab 1.11) or of a flood (Isa 8.8) or of God (Job 9.11; 11.10). Here I take the subject of the verb to be zeh. In this case, “this one” sweeps over that one with respect to their (relative) goodness (taking ṭôbām as adverbial accusative). That is, one surpasses the other in respect to its intrinsic value. Cf. the translation of Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 281. The meaning of the verse, then, is that although one thing is better than another, even by contemplating the splendor of either item—even the lesser of the two—one will not be satisfied. 12 MSS B and M read the plural construct mʿśy. Following Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488), I emend the text to the singular construct mʿśh. 13 In place of MS M mûṣāq (casting), MS B reads māṣûq (pillar). 10

264

APPENDIX D

b c d 5a b 6a b 7a b 8a b c d 9a b 10a b 11a b 12a b Sir 43.1a b 2a b 3a b 4a b c d 5a

‫שלוח שמש יסיק הרים‬ ‫לשון מאור תגמור נושבת‬ ‫ומנורה תכוה עין‬ ‫כי גדול ייי עשהו‬ 14 ‫ובדבריו ינצח אביריו‬ ‫וגם ירח יאריח עתות‬ ‫]מ[משלת קץ ואות עולם‬ 15 ‫לו מועד וממנו חג‬ ‫וחפץ עתה בתקופתו‬ ‫חדש כשמו הוא מתחדש‬ ‫מה נורא בהשתנותו‬ ‫כלי צבא נבלי מרום‬ ‫מרצף רקיע מזהירתו‬ ‫תואר שמים והוד כוכב‬ ‫ במרומי אל‬16‫עד ומשריק‬ ‫בדבר אדני יעמד חק‬ ‫ולא ישח באשמרתם‬ ‫ראה קשת וברך עשיה‬ 17 ‫כי מאד נהדר הודה‬ ‫חוג הקיפה בכבודה‬ ‫ויד אל נטתה בגבורה‬ The form of the heights, the clarity of the sky, heaven itself manifests his splendor.18 The sun shines its richest when it rises, an awesome instrument, the work of the Most High. When it illumines the earth, it causes it to boil; before its heat who can endure? A roaring furnace, a work for smelting, the sun’s ray burns the mountains; its shining tongue consumes the habitable land; and from its fire the eye is scorched. Great indeed is YHWH who made it,

———— 14

The text of v 5b is uncertain. MS M is illegible, and MS B makes little sense. Following Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488), I read with G ûbidbārâw (ἐν λόγοις αὐτοῦ, at his orders). Skehan and Di Lella interpret ʾabbîrâw (literally “his mighty ones”) as horses, based on this meaning in Jer 8.16; 47.3; and 50.11. 15 MS M. In place of ḥg, MS B reads zmny ḥwq (prescribed times). 16 Reading ʿd wm śr yq of MS M with Yadin (Ben Sira Scroll, 30–1) and Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 119) against Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 489), who read ʿădî ma śr îq (shining ornament). 17 Reading MS M as suggested by Strugnell, “Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” 117. 18 Following MS M, as do Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 488. Note the similarity between this verse and Exod 24.10. I understand the referent of the 3ms pronominal suffix of MS B hdr w to be God, not the plural šmy m (heavens), as some commentators do.


b 6a b 7a b 8a b c d 9a b 10a b 11a b 12a b

42.15–43.33)

265

at whose orders it urges on its steeds. And indeed the moon makes the seasons journey, ruling the times, an eternal sign. By it [is designated] the sacred season and from it the feast, a light that wanes in its circuit.19 The new moon, according to its name, renews itself; how awesome it is when it changes! An army signal for the waterskins of the heights, it paves the sky with its brightness. The form of the heavens and the splendor of the stars, testifying and beaming in the heights of God. By the Lord’s command it maintains its prescribed place and does not bow in their20 watch. Look at the rainbow, and bless the one who made it! for its splendor is indeed worthy of honor. It surrounds the celestial vault with its glory. The hand of God has extended it in might.

Stanza 3: Sir 43.13–26 Sir 43.13a b 14a b 15a b 17a 16a 16b 17b 17c

————

21

‫גערתו תתוה ברק‬ ‫ותנצח זיקות משפט‬ ‫למענו פרע אוצר‬ ‫ויעף עבים כעיט‬ ‫ ענן‬22‫גבורתו תחזק‬ ‫ותגדע ]אב[ני ברד‬ 23 ‫קול רעמו יחיל ארצו‬ ‫ובכחו יניף הרים‬ ‫אמ]רתו[ תחריף תימן‬ ‫עלעול סופה וסערה‬ ‫ שלגו‬24‫כרשף יפרח‬

19 In v 7b, MS M has a lacuna, and MS B appears corrupt. I restore the first part of MS B with the help of G (φωστὴρ μειούμενος ἐπὶ συντελείας). 20 I take the 3mp suffix as a reference to “the stars” in v 9a. 21 Reading brq with MS B, instead of brd with MS M. “Hail” receives its own mention below in v 15b. 22 Emending MS M ḥzq with Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 489. 23 The order of the cola in vv 16–17 derives from MS M, MS Bmg, and numerous G MSS (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490). The versification follows G. 24 Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 119) reads wprḥ, which he amends to yprh in his corrections (“Errata et Corrigenda,” 377). yprḥ is Yadin’s (Ben Sira Scroll, 32) reading, which appears correct to me from the image of Plate 7 printed in his text. See further the suggestions of Strugnell, “Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” 117.

266

APPENDIX D

17d 18a b 19a b 20a b c d 21a b 22a b 23a b 24a b 25a b 26a

————

‫וכארבה ישכן רדתו‬ ‫ עינים‬25‫תואר לבנו יהג‬ ‫ לבב‬26‫וממטרו יתמה‬ 27 ‫וגם כפור כמלח ישפך‬ ‫ויצמח כסנה צצים‬ ‫צינת רוח צפון ישיב‬ ‫וכרגב יקפיא מקור‬ ‫על כל מעמד מים יקרים‬ ‫וכשרין ילבש מקוה‬ ‫יבול הרים כחרב ישיק‬ ‫ונוה צמחים כלהבה‬ ‫מרפא כל מערף ענן‬ 28 ‫וטל פרוע ידשן שרב‬ 29 ‫מחשבתו משקיט רהב‬ ‫ בתהום איים‬30‫ויטע‬ ‫יורדי הים יספרו קצהו‬ ‫לשמע אזנינו נשתומם‬ ‫שם פלאות תמהי מעשהו‬ ‫מין כל חי וגבורות רהב‬ ‫למענו יצלח מלאך‬

25 Most commentators agree that the verbs in MSS B and M for this verse make no sense. MS Btxt reads yghh; MS Bmg reads yhgh; and MS M yhg. The easiest solution, taken by Strugnell (“Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” 118), Yadin (Ben Sira Scroll, 32), and Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 148), is to read with G ἐκθαυμάσει (to admire, be amazed; cf. Sir 27.23; Mark 12.17). Yadin suggests the translation “puzzle,” a meaning which corresponds to the apparently parallel verb t mh in the following colon. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) read y iqqâ (dazzles) without explanation. 26 Reading yt mh (so Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) for MS M yt myh. 27 MSS M and Bmg and G. MS Btxt reads yš kwn. 28 Emending v 22 of MS B. Following Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490), I read wṭl as the first word of 22b (in place of ṭl as the last word of 22a) and the imperfect yd šn (which equals G ἱλαρώσει) instead of the infinitive ld šn. I also emend pwrʿ from the active to the passive participle. For the passive participle of this verb, see Exod 32.25. 29 MS B reads ma ššîq rabbâ (he kisses the great thing). Above I follow the emendation of Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) based on G. Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach, 148 n 371) translates rbh in MS B as “great [waters],” noting that G reads ἄβυσσον. In the Hebrew Bible, ἄβυσσον most often translates t əhôm, as it does in Sir 42.18a (see my commentary in chapter 2). And nowhere does rabbâ by itself signify “waters.” In Argall’s favor, perhaps, are Ps 78.15, where ἀβύσσῳ πολλῇ translates t əhōmôt rabbâ, and Isa 51.10, where ἀβύσσου πλῆθος renders t əhôm rabbâ. But Argall’s interpretation requires understanding rabbâ as shorthand for the phrase t əhôm rabbâ, an unlikely possibility. It seems more plausible to postulate metathesis of the h and b, especially given the mention of rahab in MS M 43.25. 30 For MS B w yṭ. See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490.


b Sir 43.13a b 14a b 15a b 17a 16a 16b 17b 17c 17d 18a b 19a b 20a b c d 21a b 22a b 23a b 24a b 25a b 26a

————

42.15–43.33)

267

‫ובדבריו יפעל רצון‬ His rebuke marks a path for the lightning and directs meteors of judgment.31 For his own purpose he looses the storehouse and makes the clouds fly like birds of prey. His might strengthens the cloud-mass and chips off stones of hail. The sound of his thunder makes his earth writhe, and by his strength he shakes the mountains. His word causes reproach by means of the south wind, hurricane,32 whirlwind, and squall. He causes his snow to fly like birds,33 and like a locust swarm it settles in its descent. Its white form puzzles the eyes, and the mind is astonished at its falling. Even frost he pours out like salt; it shines like blackberry blossoms. The cold north wind he brings back, and he solidifies the water-spring like a clod. Over every pool of standing water he spreads a crust, and the reservoir clothes itself as though with breast armor. When he burns the mountain growth with drought and the flowering pasture as though with flame, a dripping cloud heals everything, and loosed dew fattens the parched land. He quiets Rahab by means of his plan,34 and he plants islands in the deep. Those who go down to the sea recount its extent; when our ears hear, we are astounded. Within are wonders, marvels of his handiwork, living things of every kind, and Rahab’s mighty ones. On his account the messenger succeeds,

For t əna ṣēaḥ Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 485) translate “make brilliant.” My translation (to direct) is the more common definition and fits better with the context of the stanza, in which YHWH instructs or commands elements of nature to accomplish his purpose. For zîqôt, Skehan and Di Lella translate “flashes.” The term indicates some kind of fiery projectile (see Prov 26.18; Isa 50.11). G reads ἀστραπὰς (lightnings), which parallels brq (MS B) in the previous colon. 32 ʿilʿôl does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. This late Hebrew word, derived from reduplication of the root ʿll (to drive about), occurs in Cant. Rab. to 3.4 (referring to sûpôt [storm-winds] in Isa 21.1) as well as in Qoh. Rab. to 7.1. 33 For this meaning of rešep, see Exod. Rab. sec. 12. 34 Taking mḥšbtw (his plan) as adverbial accusative. Cf. G, which uses a dative: λογισμῷ αὐτοῦ (by his plan). 31

268

APPENDIX D

b

and at his commands it accomplishes [his] will.

Stanza 4: 43.27–33 35 Sir 43.27a b 28a b 29a b 30a b c d 31a b 32a b 33a b Sir 43.27a b 28a b 29a b

————

‫עוד כאלה לא נוסף‬ ‫וקץ דבר הוא הכל‬ ‫ עוד כי לא נחקור‬36‫נגדלה‬ ‫והוא גדול מכל מעשיו‬ ‫נו]רא ייי מ[אד מאד‬ 37 ‫ונפלאת גבורתו‬ ‫ הרימו קול‬38‫מהללי ייי‬ ‫בכל תוכלו כי יש עוד‬ ‫ החליפו כח‬39‫מרוממיו‬ ‫ואל תלאו כי לא תחקרו‬ 40

‫רוב נ]פ[ל]א וחז[ק ]מ[אלה‬ ‫מעט ראיתי ממעשיו‬ […………]‫את הכל‬ [……………]

More than these we will not add; the end of the matter: he is the all. Let us magnify him the more, since we cannot fathom him; he is greater than all his works. Very awesome indeed is YHWH, and wonderful is his might.

35 On Sir 43.27–33, cf. the translation and textual notes of Calduch-Benages, “God, Creator of All,” 84–5. 36 Reading with Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫רפט‬. After a gap of about three characters (thus Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 76), MS Btxt evidences lh. MS Bmg reads nglh (let us reveal). Segal’s reconstruction matches G (δοξάζοντες) and fills in the gap better than MS Bmg. 37 For MS Btxt: wnplʾwt dbr y w. MS Bmg supplies gbwrt w (cf. G ἡ δυναστεία αὐτοῦ) for dbr y w. 38 The beginning of this line in MS B is corrupt. My reconstruction is based on G: δοξάζοντες κύριον. A l is visible a few spaces from the beginning of the line, and the Hebrew Language Academy edition (Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 52) reads a possible m at the colon’s beginning. Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490) apparently read the infinitive ləhallēl instead of the participle. According to Beentjes (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 77 n 49), “the entire text of 43,30 is written on one line.” 39 Reading with MS Bmg. MS Btxt reads mr wmy m. 40 Reconstructed according to the Hebrew Language Academy edition (Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 52). Alternatively, G reads: πολλὰ ἀπόκρυφά ἐστιν μείζονα τούτων (Many things greater than these are hidden).


30a b c d 31a b 32a b 33a b

42.15–43.33)

269

You who praise YHWH, lift up your voice as much as you are able, for there is still more. You who extol him, renew your strength and do not weary, though you cannot fathom him. Who has seen him and can describe him? Who can exalt him as he is?41 There are many things more wonderful and mightier than these; a few of his works have I seen. For YHWH made all things, and to the righteous he gave wisdom.42

———— 41

MS B omits v 31. G reads: τίς ἑόρακεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκδιηγήσεται καὶ τίς μεγαλυνεῖ αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν. 42 MS B is damaged at this point, and Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 496) reconstruct the first part of v 33b as follows: ûləʾa[nšê ḥesed], literally, “to the pious” or “to the godly.” Cf. Newsom, The Book of Job, 223. I am unable to confirm, however, any of the text used by Skehan and Di Lella. The Hebrew Language Academy edition suggests the presence of the l (Ben-Hayyim, ed., Book of Ben Sira, 52). Beentjes, however, records nothing after ʾt hkl at the beginning of v 33a (Ben Sira in Hebrew, 77). My examination of the Schechter facsimiles also does not support Skehan and Di Lella’s reconstruction (Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, n.p.). Thus, my translation is based on G. In Sirach, εὐσεβής most often corresponds to ṣaddîq (righteous); see, e.g., Sir 11.17 [= MS A 11.15], 22 [= MS A 20]; 12.2; 13.17; and 16.13. In Sir 37.12a, the term corresponds to məpaḥēd (in this case meaning “pious”).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, Peter R. “Composition of the Song of Deborah.” VT 2 (1952): 160– 2. Adams, Samuel L. Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions, JSJSup 125. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Aitken, James K. “Apocalyptic, Revelation and Early Jewish Wisdom Literature.” In New Heaven and New Earth—Prophecy and the Millennium, edited by P. J. Harland and C. T. Robert Hayward, VTSup 77, 181–93. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Albright, William Foxwell. “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus.” JBL 56 (1937): 145–76. ———. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968. Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976. Alonso Schökel, Luis. Proverbios y Eclesiástico. LiSa 8.1. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1968. ———. “The Vision of Man in Sirach 16:24–17:14.” In Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, edited by John G. Gammie, Walter A. Brueggemann, W. Lee Humphreys, and James M. Ward, 235–45. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Union Theological Seminary, 1978. Alonso Schökel, Luis, and Jose Vilchez Lindez. Proverbios, NBE, Sapienciales I. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1984. Amir, Yehoshua. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Barr, James. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Barré, Michael L. “‘Fear of God’ and the World View of Wisdom.” BTB (1981): 41–3. Barthélemy, Dominique, and Otto Rickenbacher, eds. Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Bauckmann, Ernst Gunter. “Die Proverbien und die Sprüche des Jesus Sirach.” ZAW 72 (1960): 33–63. Baumgartner, Walter. “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach.” ZAW 34 (1914): 161–98. ———. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3d ed. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All

Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira.” In “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira, CBET 43, 169–86. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. ———. “Errata et Corrigenda.” In Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, 375–7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. ———. “God’s Mercy: ‘Racham’ (pi.), ‘Rachum’, and ‘Rachamim’ in the Book of Ben Sira.” In Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, 101–17. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Begg, C. T. “The Literary Criticism of Deut 4:1–40. Contributions to a Continuing Discussion.” ETL 56 (1980): 10–55. ———. “The Significance of Numeruswechsel in Dt: The Pre-History of the Question.” ETL 55 (1979): 116–24. Ben-Hayyim, Ze'ev, ed. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Bernstein, Moshe J. “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary.” JJS 45 (1994): 1–27. Beyerlin, Walter. Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions. Translated by S. Rudman. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Bickerman, Elias. “La chaîne de la Tradition Pharisienne.” RB 59 (1952): 44– 54. ———. “La Charte séleucide de Jérusalem.” REJ 100 (1935): 4–35. ———. Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part Two. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Birnbaum, Ellen. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes, BJS 290. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. ———. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. ———. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. ———. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and G. N. Stanton. Rev. ed., OB. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990. Box, G. H., and W. O. E. Oesterley. “Sirach.” In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, edited by R. H. Charles, 2 vols., 1:268– 517. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Breasted, James Henry. The Dawn of Conscience. New York: Scribner, 1933.

272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Teresa R. “God and Men in Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50).” In Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, 214– 20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Burton, Keith W. “Ben Sira and the Judaic Doctrine of Creation.” Ph.D. diss., University of Glasgow, 1987. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Fear for the Powerful or Respect for Authority.” In Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer, 87–102. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. ———. “God, Creator of All (Sir 43:27–33).” In Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, 79–100. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba:

Edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa. Estella (Navarra):

Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003. Camp, Claudia V. Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Sheffield: Almond, 1985. ———. “Woman Wisdom and the Strange Woman: Where is Power to Be Found?” In Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies: Identity and the Book, edited by Timothy K. Beal and David M. Gunn, 85–112. London: Routledge, 1997. Clifford, Richard J. “The Community of the Book of Proverbs.” In Constituting

the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr., edited by John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell, 281–

93. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. ———. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. CBQMS 26. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994. ———. Proverbs: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. ———. The Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Clifford, Richard J., and John J. Collins. “Introduction: The Theology of Creation Traditions.” In Creation in the Biblical Traditions, edited by Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins, CBQMS 24, 1–15. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1992. Collins, John J. “The Biblical Precedent for Natural Theology.” JAAR 45 (1977): 35–67. ———. Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. FOTL 20. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984. ———. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. ———. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Coogan, Michael D. “Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah.” CBQ 40 (1978): 143–66.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Corley, Jeremy. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, 155–82. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005. ———. “Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach.” In The Septuagint and Messianism, edited by Michael A. Knibb, BETL 195, 301–12. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Cott, Jeremy. “The Biblical Problem of Election.” JES 21 (1984): 199–228. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1998. ———. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. ———. “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage.” JBL 94 (1975): 47–64. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. ———. “David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151:3–4.” BASOR 231 (1978): 69–71. ———. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1998. Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Day, John. “Dragon and Sea, God’s Conflict with.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 vols., 2:228–31. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ———. Psalms. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom.” CBQ 28 (1966): 139–54. ———. “Fear of the Lord as Wisdom: Ben Sira 1,11–30.” In The Book of Ben

Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, edited by Pan-

cratius C. Beentjes, 113–33. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. ———. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study. SCL 1. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. ———. “Review of La sabiduría del escriba.” CBQ 66 (2004): 118–21. Doran, Robert. “The Non-dating of Jubilees: Jub 34–38; 23:14–32 in Narrative Context.” JSJ 20 (1989): 1–11. Duesberg, Hilaire, and Irenee Fransen. Les scribes inspirés: Introduction aux

livres sapientiaux de la Bible: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiaste, Sagesse, Ecclésiastique. Bruges, Belgium: Beyaert, 1966.

Eaton, John H. The Circle of Creation. London: SCM, 1995. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Denn harte Knechtschaft und Schande ist es, wenn eine Frau ihren Mann ernährt’ (Sir 25,22).” In Der Einzelne und seine

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid

Krammer, 23–49. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. ———. “‘Faith in God’ Rather Than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 38, 211–26. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005. Elgvin, Torleif. “Early Essene Eschatology: Judgment and Salvation according to Sapiential Work A.” In Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks, STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Fontaine, Carole R. “The Sage in Family and Tribe.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue, 155–64. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———. “The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by Michael V. Fox, 227–39. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Fritzsche, Otto Fridolin. Die Weisheit Jesus-Sirach’s. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1859. Garbini, Giovanni. “Il cantico di Debora.” La parola del passato 178 (1978): 5– 31. Geller, Stephen A. “Wisdom, Nature and Piety in Some Biblical Psalms.” In

Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, edited by Tzvi Abusch, 101–21. Winona Lake,

Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Gera, Dov. Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B.C.E. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gilbert, Maurice. “L’Ecclésiastique: quel texte, quelle autorité?” RB 94 (1987): 233–50. Goff, Matthew J. “The Foolish Nation that Dwells in Shechem: Ben Sira on Shechem and Other Peoples in Palestine.” In The Other in Second Temple Judaism: A Festschrift in Honor of John J. Collins, edited by Matthew J. Goff, Joel Kaminsky, Karina Martin Hogan, and Dan Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming. ———. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Goldenberg, Robert. The Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes Towards Other Religions. New York: New York University Press, 1998. Golka, Friedemann W. “Die israelitische Weisheitsschule oder ‘Des Kaisers neue Kleider.’” VT 33 (1983): 257–70. ———. “Die Königs- und Hofsprüche und der Ursprung der israelitischen Weisheit.” VT 36 (1986): 13–36. ———. The Leopard’s Spots: Biblical and African Wisdom in Proverbs. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

Goodblatt, David M. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge, 2000. ———. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1995. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985. Halpern, Baruch. “The Resourceful Israelite Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography.” HTR 76 (1983): 379–401. Hanson, Paul D. Isaiah 40–66. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Harrington, Daniel J. “The rāz nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26, 4Q415–418, 423).” RevQ 17 (1996): 549–53. ———. “Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom: Sirach and Qumran Sapiential Work A.” JSP 16 (1997): 25–38. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 23. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967. Hayward, C. T. Robert. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. ———. “Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on Ben Sira’s Attitude to the Temple Service.” In Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology, edited by S. W. Sykes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Heard, R. Christopher. Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah. SemeiaSt 39. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” BSac 158 (2001): 52–74. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Henze, Matthias. “Invoking the Prophets in Zechariah and Ben Sira.” In Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak, 120–34. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Wisdom of the Scribe, the Wisdom of the Priest, and the Wisdom of the King according to Ben Sira.” In For a Later Gen-

eration: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, edited by Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and

Rodney A. Werline, 89–99. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2000.

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holloway, Steven W. Aššur Is King! Aššur Is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Leiden: Brill, 2002. 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 Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, edited by Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, SBLSymS 35, 123–45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Horsley, Richard A., and Patrick Tiller. “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple.” In Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture, edited by Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan, JSOTSup 340, 74–107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Hughes, Henry Maldwyn. The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature. London: R. Culley, 1910. Jacob, Edmond. “Wisdom and Religion in Sirach.” In Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, edited by John G. Gammie, Walter A. Brueggemann, W. Lee Humphreys, and James M. Ward, 247–60. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. Jastrow, Marcus, ed. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Judaica Press, 1971. Kaiser, Otto. “Die Begründung der Sittlichkeit im Buche Jesus Sirach.” In Der

Mensch unter dem Schicksal: Studien zur Geschichte, Theologie und Gegenwartsbedeutung der Weisheit, BZAW 161, 63–90. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter, 1985. ———. “Covenant and Law in Ben Sira.” In Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters, 235–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Kaminsky, Joel. “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?” HTR 96 (2003): 397–425. ———. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Kearns, Conleth. “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.” In A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Reginald Cuthbert Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, 541–62. London: Nelson, 1969. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Kraft, Robert A. “Scripture and Canon in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, Christian Brekelmans, and Menahem Haran, 1:199–216. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Kugel, James L. “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation.” DSD 5 (1998): 119–43. ———. “The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

Michael V. Fox, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, 21–32. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. ———. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1981. ———. “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17.” HTR 80 (1987): 43–61. ———. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. ———. “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper.” Proof 17 (1997): 9–32. Lacocque, André, and Pierre-Emmanuel Lacocque. The Jonah Complex. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Lamparter, Helmut. Die Apokryphen I: Das Buch Jesus Sirach. BAT 25. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972. Landes, George M. “The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah: The Contextual Interpretation of the Jonah Psalm.” Int 21 (1967): 3–31. Lange, Armin. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Lee, Thomas R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. SBLDS 75. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Lenski, Gerhard E. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. ———. “Response to the Papers of Stephen Geller, Neil Gillman, and David Novak.” Paper presented at the Conference on Judaism and the Natural World, Harvard Divinity School, 1998. ———. “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism.” In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, 559–74. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. “The Temple and the World.” JR 64 (1984): 275–98. ———. “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism.” In Ethnicity and the Bible, edited by Mark G. Brett, 143–69. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Levison, Jack. “Is Eve to Blame?: A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24.” CBQ 47 (1985): 617–23. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Lindars, Barnabas. Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Lindenberger, James M. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Machinist, Peter. “The Fall of Assyria in Comparative Ancient Perspective.” In

Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, edited by Simo Parpola and R. M.

Whiting, 179–95. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Magonet, Jonathan. Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah. 2d ed. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Marböck, Johannes. “Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions, Sir 36,1–22 (Gr. 33,1– 13a; 36,16b–22) im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras.” In Memoria Jerusalem: Freundesgabe Franz Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Johannes B. Baer and Johannes Marböck, 93–116. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck-Verlagsanstalt, 1977. ———. “Gesetz und Weisheit: zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Jesus ben Sira.” BZ 20 (1976): 1–21. ———. Gottes Weisheit unter Uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. ———. “Henoch—Adam—der Thronwagen.” BZ 25 (1971): 103–11. ———. Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1971. Reprinted as Weisheit im Wandel: Un-

tersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. Mit Nachwort und Bibliographie zur Neuauflage, BZAW 272. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,

1999. Marcus, Ralph. Josephus. 9 vols. Vol. 7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. McKane, William. Proverbs: A New Approach. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Mendelson, Alan. Philo’s Jewish Identity. BJS 161. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Minnette de Tillesse, G. “Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deutéronome.” VT 12 (1962): 29–87. Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. 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 Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel. JSJSup 78. Leiden:

Brill, 2003. Murphy, Roland E. “Israelite Wisdom and the Home.” In “Où demeures-tu?”

(Jn 1,38): la maison depuis le monde biblique: en hommage au professeur Guy Couturier à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans, edited by Jean

Claude Petit, André Charron, and André Myre, 199–212. Montreal: Fides, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

———. “Qohelet’s Quarrel with the Fathers.” In From Faith to Faith: Essays to Honor Donald G. Miller on His Seventieth Birthday, edited by Dikran Y. Hadidian, 235–45. Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1979. ———. “Religious Dimensions of Israelite Wisdom.” In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, 449–58. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Na'aman, Nadav. “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV–V).” VT 40 (1990): 423–36. Najman, Hindy. “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies.” JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410. Needham, Rodney. Symbolic Classification. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1979. Newman, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Newsom, Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———. “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom.” In Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies: Identity and the Book, edited by Timothy K. Beal and David M. Gunn, 116–31. London: Routledge, 1997. Niehoff, Maren. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. TSAJ 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Nissinen, Martti. “Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Scripture in Transition: Essays

on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, JSJSup 126, 513–33.

Leiden: Brill, 2008. Novak, David. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Oded, Bustenay. War, Peace, and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1992. Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86. ———. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Nationalism-Universalism and Internationalism in Ancient Israel.” In Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, edited by H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed, 206–36. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy. Translated by John W. Harvey. London: Oxford University Press, 1958.

280

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Perdue, Leo G. “Ben Sira and the Prophets.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, 132–54. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005. ———. Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. ———. 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: Scholars Press, 1977. Pfeiffer, Robert Henry. History of New Testament Times, with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. 1st ed. New York: Harper, 1949. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Purvis, James D. “Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem.” JNES 24 (1965): 88–94. ———. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. HSM 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.” In Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen, BETL 143, 91–127. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. ———. “Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira (1980–1996).” In

The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands,

edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes, 23–60. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Reynolds, Joyce, and Robert Tannenbaum. Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987. Richter, Wolfgang. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963. Roth, Wolfgang. "The Relation Between the Fear of the Lord and Wisdom." BM 25 (1980): 150–62. Rylaarsdam, John Coert. Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946. Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Sanders, Jack T. “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution.” HUCA 50 (1979): 73–106. Sasson, Jack M. Jonah. AB 24B. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach, Ben Sira: übersetzt und erklärt. ATD. Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schechter, Solomon, ed. Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew. London: Oxford University Press, 1901. Schloen, J. David. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. SAHL 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

281

Schnabel, Eckhard J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985. Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Segal, M. H. The Complete Book of Ben Sira (in Hebrew). 2d ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1–39. IBC. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993. Sheppard, Gerald T. “Wisdom and Torah: The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underlying Sirach 24:23.” In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, edited by Gary A. Tuttle, 166–76. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977. ———. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. BZAW 151. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Skehan, Patrick W. “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) from Qumran.” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–5. ———. “Staves, and Nails, and Scribal Slips (Ben Sira 44:2–5).” BASOR 200 (1970): 66–71. ———. “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 15 (1951): 153–63. ———. “They Shall Not Be Found in Parables (Sir 38,33).” CBQ 23 (1961): 40. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987. Smart, Ninian. Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Smith, Mark S. The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Snaith, J. G. “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of the Liturgy.” VT 25 (1975): 167– 74. Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum Be-

rufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum. WUNT

2/6. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1980. Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. ———. “Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel.” In The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael D. Coogan, 123– 75. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Strugnell, John. “Notes and Queries on ‘The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.’” In W. F. Albright Volume, edited by Abraham Malamat, ErIsr 9, 109–19. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Exploration Society, 1969. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987.

282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Repr. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Tcherikover, Victor, and Alexander Fuks, eds. Corpus papyrorum judaicorum. 3 vols. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. Thiele, Walter, ed. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), VL 11/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1987. Tiller, Patrick. “Sirach and the Politics of Seleucid Judea.” Paper presented at the New England Society of Biblical Literature, April 2002. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Tropper, Amram. “Tractate Avot and Early Christian Succession Lists.” In The

Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko

Reed, 159–88. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2003. ———. Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East. OOM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

van der Toorn, Karel. “Sources in Heaven: Revelation as a Scholarly Construct in Second Temple Judaism.” In Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum

Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina and Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf,

265–77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. 2 vols. CSCO 510–511. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. ———. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Vermes, Geza. “Lebanon.” In Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies, 26–39. Leiden: Brill, 1961. ———. “The Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targums: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition.” JTS 9 (1958): 1–12. Volz, Paul. Hiob und Weisheit: das Buch Hiob, Sprüche und Jesus Sirach, Prediger. 2d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Rev ed. London: SCM, 1972. ———. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by James D. Martin. London: SCM, 1972. Wahl, Harald-Martin. Der gerechte Schöpfer: Eine redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung der Elihureden-Hiob 32–37. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Repr. ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ———. “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the ‘Sitz im Leben’ of Genesis 1:1–2:3.” In Melanges bibliques et orien-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

taux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, 501–12. Kevelaer: Butzon &

Bercker, 1981. Weitzman, Steven. Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Wénin, A. “De la création à l’alliance sinaïtique.” In Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, edited by Núria CalduchBenages and Jacques Vermeylen, 147–58. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. ———. Roots of Wisdom: The Oldest Proverbs of Israel and Other Peoples. Translated by J. Daryl Charles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. ———. Wurzeln der Weisheit: Die ältesten Sprüche Israels und Anderer Völker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Whybray, R. N. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974. ———. Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Wilson, Robert R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Wolff, Hans Walter. Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. Wright, Benjamin G., III. “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship.” In Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, edited by Tess Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James K. Aitken, and Jennifer Dines, 76–91. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. ———. “Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar.” In Praise Israel for Wisdom and

Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, edited by Benjamin G. Wright III, JSJSup 131, 165–82.

Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” In Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming. ———. “Eschatology Without a Messiah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In The Septuagint and Messianism, edited by Michael A. Knibb, BETL 195, 313–23. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. ———. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” In The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research:

Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes, 189–

222. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.

284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature.” In Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, edited by Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu, 309– 32. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ———. “‘Put the Nations in Fear of You:’ Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule.” In SBLSP 38, 77–93. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. ———. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, edited by Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills, SBLSymS 35, 89–112. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Wright, Benjamin G., III, and Lawrence M. Wills, eds. Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalyptic. SBLSymS 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Yadin, Yigal. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965. Yoder, Christine Roy. Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31. BZAW 304. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. VT Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 12, 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Ziolkowski, Jan. “‘What is Philology’: Introduction.” In On Philology, edited by Jan Ziolkowski, 1–12. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, Peter R. 222 Adams, Samuel L. 35, 216 Aitken, James K. 70 Albright, William Foxwell 29, 151, 222 Allen, Leslie 221 Alonso Schökel, Luis 11–12, 44, 91, 92, 97, 117 Amir, Yehoshua 243–4 Argall, Randal A. 7, 25–7, 30, 31–3, 34, 38–9, 41, 50, 53, 71, 74–7, 204, 228, 229, 230, 232–3, 262, 266 Barr, James 46 Barré, Michael L. 133–4, 137, 138, 139 Barthélemy, Dominique 199, 252 Bauckmann, Ernst Gunter 7 Baumgartner, Walter 13, 27, 182, 223 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 17, 25, 31, 38, 141, 162, 175, 191, 200, 201, 205, 207, 208, 210–11, 251, 252, 258, 262, 264, 265, 268, 269 Begg, C. T. 170 Ben-Hayyim, Ze'ev 162, 203, 207, 252, 258, 268, 269 Berlin, Adele 23 Bernstein, Moshe J. 241 Beyerlin, Walter 62 Bickerman, Elias 106, 124 Birnbaum, Ellen 5, 6, 244–7 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 62, 117, 118, 119, 184, 218 Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. 71–2, 77 Box, G. H. 3, 32 Breasted, James Henry 3 Brown, Teresa R. 104 Burton, Keith W. 24, 25 Calduch-Benages, Núria 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 34, 45, 48, 49, 92, 137, 181, 190, 253, 268

Camp, Claudia V. 2 Clifford, Richard J. 24, 68, 107, 109, 117, 118, 119, 131, 153, 175 Collins, John J. 8, 12, 45, 66–7, 68, 70, 81, 91, 92, 106–7, 132, 138, 145–6, 153, 154, 155, 171–2, 173, 178, 179, 191, 198–9, 204, 206, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 223, 224–5 Coogan, Michael D. 112, 222 Corley, Jeremy 73, 114, 121, 134, 201 Cott, Jeremy 10 Crenshaw, James L. 10, 26, 50, 107, 109, 167, 216 Cross, Frank Moore 36, 37, 38, 40, 47, 74, 112, 144, 220, 231 Dawson, David 244 Day, John 42, 43, 225, 229, 230 Di Lella, Alexander A. 3, 7, 13, 22, 23, 29–30, 33–4, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60, 65, 73, 76, 82, 85, 86, 105, 110, 111, 115, 120, 126, 132, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141, 144, 145, 150, 160–1, 162, 167, 168, 171, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181–2, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206–7, 209, 211, 214, 216, 218, 223, 224, 231, 233, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 Doran, Robert 241 Duesberg, Hilaire 167 Eaton, John H. 226 Egger-Wenzel, Renate 24, 38, 104, 134, 190, 201 Elgvin, Torleif 70 Ferrer, Joan 181, 253

286

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Fontaine, Carole R. 109 Fox, Michael V. 1, 108–9, 113, 116, 118, 119, 132, 138, 142, 157, 158, 182, 243 Fransen, Irenee 167 Freedman, David Noel 220, 229 Fritzsche, Otto Fridolin 155 Fuks, Alexander 243 Garbini, Giovanni 222 Geller, Stephen A. 5, 35, 226, 228 Gera, Dov 215 Gilbert, Maurice 253 Goff, Matthew J. 50, 70–1, 191, 249 Goldenberg, Robert 193, 246 Golka, Friedemann W. 108 Goodblatt, David M. 124 Grabbe, Lester L. 116, 118, 119, 123–4, 125, 126, 214, 215 Greenberg, Moshe 220 Habel, Norman C. 231 Halpern, Baruch 222 Hanson, Paul D. 63, 74, 144 Harrington, Daniel J. 70 Hartman, Louis F. 233 Haspecker, Josef 130–1, 139, 140, 146, 169 Hayward, C. T. Robert 70, 123, 172, 175–8, 183, 184 Heard, R. Christopher 10, 59 Heiser, Michael S. 179 Hengel, Martin 6, 9, 104–7, 189, 190, 193 Henze, Matthias 17, 200–1 Himmelfarb, Martha 26, 114–15 Holloway, Steven W. 234 Horsley, Richard A. 114–15, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 215 Hughes, Henry Maldwyn 155–6 Jacob, Edmond 80, 81, 95, 189, 212, 220, 248 Jastrow, Marcus 60 Kaiser, Otto 2, 6–7, 83, 153, 195–6, 197 Kaminsky, Joel 57–9, 60, 189, 194 Kearns, Conleth 253 King, Philip J. 112 Kraft, Robert A. 17

Kugel, James L. 2, 16, 23, 67, 88, 145, 236, 242, 243 Lacocque, André 221 Lacocque, Pierre-Emmanuel 221 Lambert, Wilfred G. 3 Lamparter, Helmut 155 Landes, George M. 221 Lange, Armin 249 Lee, Thomas R. 29, 115 Lenski, Gerhard E. 122, 123, 125 Levenson, Jon D. 1, 5, 35, 42–4, 74, 89, 102, 144–5, 149, 184, 186, 194, 226, 229, 236, 240 Levison, Jack 87 Lichtheim, Miriam 109, 154 Liesen, Jan 181, 253 Lindars, Barnabas 222 Lindenberger, James M. 71 Machinist, Peter 234 Mack, Burton L. 82, 83, 93, 115, 122, 127, 207 Magonet, Jonathan 221 Marböck, Johannes 7, 12–13, 25–6, 34, 50, 78–9, 131, 139, 140, 169, 178, 199, 200–1, 215, 223 Marcus, Ralph 124 Mayes, A. D. H. 7, 179, 233 McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 220, 221 McKane, William 3 Mendelson, Alan 244 Middendorp, Theophil 198–200, 212, 213, 216 Miller, Patrick D. 36, 74, 144 Minnette de Tillesse, G. 170 Moran, William L. 149, 151 Mulder, Otto 191 Murphy, Roland E. 1, 26, 109, 144 Na'aman, Nadav 222 Najman, Hindy 241 Needham, Rodney 58 Newman, Judith H. 220 Newsom, Carol A. 2, 26, 109, 269 Niehoff, Maren 244, 248 Nissinen, Martti 73 Novak, David 5, 6, 8, 10, 35, 77 Oded, Bustenay 234 Oesterley, W. O. E. 3, 32

INDEX OF AUTHORS

287

Smend, Rudolf 3, 93, 139, 140, 146, 167, 168, 175, 189, 193, 254 Smith, Mark S. 234 Snaith, J. G. 167, 169 Speiser, E. A. 59, 62 Perdue, Leo G. 12, 25, 28, 30, 41, 43, Stadelmann, Helge 121, 126, 168, 171 46, 50, 52, 53, 55, 61, 73, 79–81, Stager, Lawrence E. 112 109, 169, 173, 263 Pfeiffer, Robert Henry 7–8, 155, 167 Strugnell, John 29, 38, 262, 264, 265, 266 Prato, Gian Luigi 26, 81, 216 Stuart, Douglas 221 Purvis, James D. 191 Olyan, Saul M. 55, 56–8, 121, 126, 168, 170 Orlinsky, Harry M. 233 Otto, Rudolf 40

Reiterer, Friedrich V. 25, 27 Reynolds, Joyce 140 Richter, Wolfgang 222 Rickenbacher, Otto 199, 252 Rylaarsdam, John Coert 70, 155 Saldarini, Anthony J. 116, 125 Sanders, E. P. 6 Sanders, Jack T. 153, 160–1, 162–3, 165 Sasson, Jack M. 221 Sauer, Georg 200 Schechter, Solomon 191, 203, 207, 252, 258, 269 Schloen, J. David 112 Schnabel, Eckhard J. 78 Schwartz, Regina M. 10 Segal, M. H. 65, 77, 97, 142, 150, 178, 180‐1, 183, 192, 203, 207, 253, 258, 268 Seitz, Christopher R. 173 Sheppard, Gerald T. 7, 17, 94, 95, 101, 173, 174, 177 Skehan, Patrick W. 3, 7, 13, 22, 23, 29–30, 33–4, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60, 65, 67, 73, 76, 82, 85, 86, 105, 110, 111, 115, 120, 126, 132, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141, 144, 145, 150, 160–1, 162, 167, 168, 171, 173, 177, 178, 179, 181–2, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206–7, 209, 211, 214, 216, 218, 223, 224, 231, 233, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 Smart, Ninian 40

Tannenbaum, Robert 140 Tcherikover, Victor 189–90, 193, 215, 243 Thiele, Walter 253 Tiller, Patrick 114–15, 122, 124, 125–7, 155 Tov, Emanuel 34, 179, 253 Tropper, Amram 106–7 van der Toorn, Karel 95 VanderKam, James C. 241–2 Vattioni, Francesco 252 Vermes, Geza 176 Vilchez Lindez, Jose 117 Volz, Paul 155 von Rad, Gerhard 2, 7, 11, 12, 50, 59, 63–4, 131, 184 Wahl, Harald-Martin 27 Weinfeld, Moshe 63, 118, 149, 158, 184 Weitzman, Steven 220, 221 Wénin, A. 92 Westermann, Claus 14, 62, 108, 224 Whybray, R. N. 108, 117 Wicke-Reuter, Ursel 81, 83, 92 Wills, Lawrence M. 51, 70, 215 Wilson, Robert R. 75 Wolff, Hans Walter 221 Wright, Benjamin G., III 17, 26, 30– 1, 51, 70, 73, 81, 95, 97, 111, 114, 120, 168, 171, 172, 190, 197, 200, 205, 215, 217, 218, 219, 223, 263 Yadin, Yigal 33–4, 38, 251, 262, 264, 265, 266 Yoder, Christine Roy 2

288

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Ziegler, Joseph 54, 82, 85, 100, 119, 126, 183, 252, 256 Zimmerli, Walther 74, 76–7 Ziolkowski, Jan 15

INDEX OF CITATIONS HEBREW BIBLE

Genesis

6, 59, 83, 241 226, 241 82, 83, 154 62 28, 30, 42, 240 30 45 52 178 82 177 190 82 59 60 62 14, 54, 59, 61–2 60 232 192 54 202 192 157 134, 140, 157 54 14 14 59 54 57 209 209 134 56 82 220–1

Exodus

6, 83 57

1 1–3 1–11 1.1–2.4a 1.14–19 1.26–7 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10–14 6.3 9 9.25 9.25–27 10 12.1–3 12.6–7 12.11 13.10 15.5 18.25 19.24–8 20.1–18 20.11 22.17–18 22.18 26.4 27.29 28.13–14 37.36 38.18 38.25 42.18 44.4 44.21 49

2.15–22

2.22 3.9–15 4.2 4.4 4.17 4.22 7.15 7.17 7.20 9.23 10.13 12.37 13.2 13.12 13.21 14.4 14.16 15.1–21 15.7–10 15.8 16.10 17.5 18.1 18.3 19–20 19–24 19.1 19.3–8 19.9 19.11 19.16 19.19 20.11 20.12 20.14 20.18 20.22 21.20 22.20 23.9

135 74 209 209 209 90 209 209 209 209 209 193 90 90 46 232 209 220–1 37 28, 37, 40 47 209 57 135 38 92 62 62 92 92 92 92 240 145 154 92 92 209 135 135

290 23.14–17 24.10 24.13 24.15–16 24.15–18 24.16–17 24.17 24.18 25.9 25.27 25.40 26.1 26.6–7 26.9 27.9 27.21 28.27 28.43 29.27–8 30.23 30.23–33 30.33 30.34 30.34–8 30.36 32.13 32.25 33.1–3 33.11 34.18–24 34.19 40.34–8 40.46 42.13 44.15–16 45.4

Leviticus

2.1–10 2.14–15 7.31–6 19.17 19.17–18 19.27 19.34 21.6–8 22.10 22.12 22.13 25.23 25.35

INDEX OF CITATIONS

156 30, 264 104 47 37 92 46, 80 47 173, 185 33 185 173 173 173 173 173 33 173 156 174 174 135 174 174 174 54 39, 266 60 104 156 90 37, 47 54 54 54 54 156 175 156 145, 152 91, 152, 156 208, 260 135 55 135, 154 135 135 135 135

Numbers

97 135 135 53 135 53 37, 47 57 193 193 104 53 53 55 193 193 135 101 58 135 135 156 53 98 53 53 56 142 57 57 53 53

Deuteronomy

92, 94, 97, 118, 145, 148–9, 152, 163 54 37 94 14 37 145 99 151 240 154 145 170 170 145, 151 151

1.51 3.10 3.13 3.38 8.17 9.15–23 10.29 11.1–3 11.21 11.28 15.9 15.20 16 16.1–35 16.10 17.5 18 18.1–7 18.4 18.7 18.9–20 18.19 18.20 18.24 18.26 24.13 24.20 25 31 31.28 31.52

1.10 1.33 4.1–8 4.6–7 4.9–40 4.10 4.19 5.6–10 5.15 5.18 5.29 6 6.1–5 6.2 6.4

291

INDEX OF CITATIONS

6.4–9 6.4–25 6.5 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.17 6.21 6.23 6.24 7.6–8 8.6 9.4–9 10.8 10.12–13 10.15 10.19 12 13.5 14.21 14.28–9 15.7–11 16.16–17 17.12 17.19 18.1–8 21.5 21.15–17 22.22–4 23.8 24.17–22 25.5 25.18 25.58 30 30.10–14 30.11–20 31.12 32–3 32.1–47 32.7 32.7–9 32.8 32.8–9 32.21 32.42 33.2–3 33.4 33.21

151 151 150–1, 169–70 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 145 62–3 145 62 176 149 62 135 170 145 58 156 145, 157 156 176 145 156 176 90 154 135 145 135 134, 158 145 94 95 91 145 220–1 94 67 62, 67–8 99, 101 12, 67, 179, 233, 245–6 189 208, 260 37 94, 100–1 142

33.26–9 33.28 34.1–4 34.9

37 40 60 105

Joshua

97, 163, 192 104 37

Judges

106, 115 193, 231 222 222 220–1 222, 224 37 222 57

1.1 10.11 2.10 4–5 4.21 5 5.1 5.4–5 5.27 6–7

1 Samuel 2.1–10 2.6–8 2.12 2.13–25 2.29 15.21 15.22–3 24.17 25.21

2 Samuel 1.19–27 3.33–4 8.17 20.25 22 22.8–16 23.2–7 23.5

1 Kings

3.3 3.9 4.3 5–9 5.14 7.20 8.10–13 9.3 9.7 10.1–13, 24–25

220–1 60 231 231 142 142 172 56 56 220–1 220–1 116 116 220 37 220 91 23 194 116 176 14 33 37 53 53 14

292 22.19–23

2 Kings

INDEX OF CITATIONS

74

2.1–25 12.11 17.5–23 17.24–8 18–19 18.18 18.37 19.2 22.3 22.4 22.8 22.8–10 22.12 24.1–4 25.19

105 116 219 133 206 116 116 116 116 123 123 116 116 219 116

Isaiah

63, 229 172 161 74, 75, 77, 173 46 181 263 209 209 193 209 209 73 74, 131 78 63 209 212 36, 263, 267 209 131 206 220–1 63 36, 267 40, 42 266 91 82

1.10–17 3.5 6 6.3 7.9 8.8 9.3 10.5 10.6 10.15 10.24 11.1–9 11.2 14.1 14.1–2 14.5 14.24–7 21.1 28.27 33.6 36–7 38.10–20 43.8–13 50.11 51.9–11 51.10 61.8 65

Jeremiah 1.4–10

97 74

1.5 1.7 1.9 2.8 2.21 5.22 6.16–21 7.21–6 8.16 15.11 18.20 21.10 31.35 32.40 32.42 33.21 39.16 44.27 47.3 49.35 50.11 51.36

53 73 73 91 135 42 172 172 30, 264 56 56 56 42 91 56 176 56 56 30, 264 142 30, 264 203

Ezekiel

97, 199 37 74, 77 75 75 154 91 209 142 217 217 217 154 190 218 218 217 217 91 217–18 218 218 217 176 33 176 176 176

1 1.1–3.15 3.12–15 8.1–3 16.36–40 16.60 19.14 20.40 20.41 20.42 20.43–4 23.41 24.5 28.22 28.25 28.26 36.23 37.26 38–9 38.16 39.27 39.28 40.16 40.18 40.22 40.26 41.18–20

293

INDEX OF CITATIONS

41.25 42.7 45.1 45.13 47.1–12 48.8–9 48.14 48.20

Hosea 2.22 5.4 6.4–6 8.2 13.4

Joel 4

Amos

5.21–5 6.1 6.6 9.4

Obadiah

176 33 53 53 178 53 142 53 231 231 172 231 231 229 172 142 142 56

10–14

191

Jonah

221 220–1

2.3b–10

Micah 3.2 6.6–8 6.9

Nahum 1.4

Habakkuk

56 172 131 43, 230

1.11 2.3 3.3–15 3.6 3.10

263 209–10 37 37 38

Haggai

123

Zechariah

123 135 135

3.9 4.10

8.20–3 11.1 12 14

187 176 229 229

Psalms

97, 224 82, 225, 227–8 227–8 37 144 46 40 164 43, 47, 230 38 28 42 135 60 56 60 56 135 225 164 164 212, 229 212, 229 172 172 206 41 37 37 37 40 208, 260 37 135 98 225, 227, 230 225 41–3 53 212, 229 41, 266 96 225 231 217 225

8 8.3 18.8–16 19 19.7 24.1–5 25.4 29 29.8 33.6–9 33.7–8 33.18 35.5 35.12 36.13 38.21 39.13 44 44.18 44.19 46 48 50 51 56.2 65.7–8 68.5 68.7–8 68.9 68.15 68.22 68.31–4 69.9 73.26 74 74.3–9 74.12–17 75.8 76 78.15 78.55 79–80 79.6 79.9 83

294 84.11 89 89.10–15 89.20 90 92.13–14 93 93.1–4 104 104.6–9 104.24 104.35 105.45 106.16 109.5 111.10 112 119 119.9 119.15 119.19 119.34 119.34–5 119.47–8 119.63 119.74 119.79 119.89–91 119.97 119.113 119.119 119.120 119.127 119.132 119.142 119.159 119.163 119.165 119.167 133.3 137.7 139.3 139.13 142.4

Job 1–2 1.1 1.8

INDEX OF CITATIONS

190 112 41 53 82 176 43, 230 41 225–30 41 28 225–7 163 55 56 131, 141–2, 180 144 144–5, 147, 149, 152 164 164 135 163 74 148 147 147 147 89 148 148 148 147 147, 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 40 191 164 182 164

1.9–10 1.10 2.3 4.12–21 4.15 8.13 9.11 9.13 10.12 11.7 11.10 12.13 12.19 13.27 14 18.17 19.8 24.1 24.15 26.12 28 28.12 28.13 28.21 28.23 28.28 29.2 31.2 31.9–10 33.11 34.11 36.21 38–41 38.8–11 38.16 40.25–32 42.7–17 42.15

239 61 134 73 263 164 263 42 161 81, 263 263 71 121 164 82 159 164 231 158 41 45 72 72 72 71 131, 140 161 97 154 164 164 161 45 41 81, 263 43 61, 239 97

Proverbs

x, 1, 35, 97, 188, 239 239 134 134

1–9 1.1 1.1–7 1.4 1.6

x, 1, 3, 19, 56, 97, 107, 108–10, 111, 112–13, 115, 116, 117–19, 121, 122, 123, 127, 132, 138, 142, 144–5, 154, 158, 188, 239 108 112, 113 113, 119 57 86

INDEX OF CITATIONS

1.7 1.8 1.10 1.15 1.23 1.32 2.1 2.1–8 2.6 2.8 2.11 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.11 3.12 3.16 3.19 3.21 3.26 3.34 4.1 4.1–9 4.3–4 4.4 4.6 4.10 4.18 4.20 5.1 5.20 6.1 6.3 6.20 6.22 6.24 6.32–5 7 7.1 7.5 7.7 7.16 8.5 8.13 8.15–16 8.17 8.18 8.21 8.22 8.22–3 8.22–31

131, 141–2, 180 109 108 108 120 57 108 110 71 161 161 108 164 134 108, 236 60 47 28, 43, 45 108 161 239 108 110 109 158 161 108 164 108 108 108 108 108, 161 108, 109 161 161 154 121 108 161 57 154 57 134 112, 113 61 47 61 71 182 45

8.24 8.27–29 8.29 8.30 8.35 9.6 9.10 10–29 10.1–22.16 10.5 10.7 10.13 11.14 11.27 12.2 12.4 13.3 13.14 13.21 14.2 14.3 14.9 14.18 14.19 14.28 14.32 14.35 15.9 15.11 15.19 15.22 15.33 16.10 16.12–15 16.14 16.17 17.13 17.20 18.22 19.10 19.12 19.16 19.26 19.27 20.2 20.8 20.26 20.28 21.1 21.23

295 42 42 41 28, 182 239 158 129, 131, 141–2, 180, 182–3 108 108 159 159 209 117 56 56, 239 159 158, 161 117 56 134 161 239 57 56 112 60 112 60 81 164 117 131 112 112 117 158, 161 56 56 239 112 112 158, 161 159 108 112 112 112, 113 112 112 161

296

INDEX OF CITATIONS

22.1 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.11 22.15 22.17 22.17–24.22 22.29 23.15 23.19 23.26 23.28 24.6 24.13 24.21 24.23 25–29 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.5–6 26.18 27.2 27.11 27.12 28.2 28.4 28.7 29.4 29.14 29.15 30.20 30.22 30.27 30.28 30.31 31.1 31.3–4

159 57 134 161 112 209 117 109 112 108 108 108 162 117 108 108, 112 117 108 112, 113, 118 112, 113 112 112 36, 267 135 108 57 112 117 163 112 112 159 154 112 112, 113 112, 113 112 112, 113 112

Ecclesiastes

x, 97, 118, 121 158 161 159 158 33, 56 154 56 158 117

3.12 4.17 7.1 7.12 7.14 7.26 9.2 9.9 12.9

Lamentations 3.38

Esther

56

3.15 6.12 8.14

60 60 60

Daniel

248 23 149 217 93, 99, 233 210 214 210 210 142

Ezra

97, 119, 123 126 116 116, 126 126 126 55 217 96

Nehemiah

97, 123 149 217

1 Chronicles

123 185 135

2 Chronicles

123 53 53 55 60 255 53 123 55 206 55 53

4.9 9.4 9.4–19 10.13–21 10.14 11.18 11.27 11.35 11.41 7.1–6 7.6 7.11 7.12 7.21 8.28 9.6–15 9.12 1.5 9.6–37

28.11–19 29.15 7.16 7.20 23.6 26.20 28.15 30.8 31.10 31.18 32 35.3 36.14

INDEX OF CITATIONS

297

APOCRYPHA

Baruch

2.11–26 3.9–4.4 3.32–4.1a 5.4

217 8 182, 242 140

Prayer of Azariah 217, 220 2 Esdras 3.21–2 6.55 6.59 7.11 7.118

Judith 14.10

1 Maccabees 12.6

2 Maccabees 4.49 9.16

3 Maccabees 6.30, 40 7.18

4 Maccabees 7.6 7.22 17.15

Sirach

1.1–6

87 68 68 68 87 187

1.1–10 1.2–3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8–9a 1.9 1.9b–10b 1.10 1.11–13 1.11–30

1.14 1.14–15 1.16 125 1.18 1.20 1.25–27 23 1.26 23 1.26–7 1.27 2.1 23 2.1–18 23 2.4 2.5 2.7–10 140 2.15–16 140 2.15–17 140 2.16 3.1 x–xi, 3, 7–8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 3.1–6 19, 25, 50, 63, 71, 3.12 3.12–16 78, 85, 90, 107, 114, 116, 119, 121, 3.14 122, 126, 127, 130– 3.14–15 3.16 1, 133, 134, 136, 147, 153, 160, 183, 3.17 198, 199, 200, 201, 3.21–4 213, 219, 223, 224, 3.24 225, 226, 228, 237, 4.1 4.1–10 239, 242–3, 251–2 4.2–6 72

13, 21–24, 45, 49, 65, 76, 139–40, 146, 254–5 76 27, 65, 76 28 1, 9, 76 130, 200 75, 76 27 21–24, 48, 64–5, 66, 69, 78, 83, 88, 89–90, 138–9 93, 139, 141, 147 141 49, 139–41, 146, 254 141–2 180–3, 216 141–2 141–2 141–2 140–1 22, 90, 143 143 4, 131–2 110, 146, 216, 236 139–40, 146, 236 216 216 146 139 146–7 4 110 145 110 172 4 172–3 27, 52, 256 110 190 188 110 145 157

298 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.11 4.14 4.17 4.17–18 4.20 4.27 5.9–16 5.13 6.18 6.18–37 6.23 6.32 6.32–6 6.34–6 6.35 6.37 7.4–5 7.6 7.23 7.27–30 7.29 7.29–31 7.30 7.31 7.32–5 8.1 8.2 8.6 8.8 8.8–9 8.9 8.14 9.8–9 9.13 9.15–16 9.17 9.17–10.18 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.8 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.19 10.20 10.22

INDEX OF CITATIONS

52, 256 27 115 176 176 216 72 232 115 159 188 84, 110 84 110 110 84–5 119–20 86 91, 93, 95 114 115 111 146, 149–52, 167– 70 199, 232 121, 169–71 27, 176 101, 156, 168 169 115 114 188 115, 126 85–7 103 115 154 232 143 115, 125 209, 232 115, 116, 125 115 114, 115, 125 114 114 188 27 95, 135, 144 115 135

10.24 10.28 11.1 11.4 11.6 11.10 11.15 11.18 11.20 12.2 13.8 13.8–13 13.9 13.13 13.16 13.17 14.9 14.11 14.20–15.10 15.1 15.6 15.11–16.23 15.11–18.14 15.14 15.14–20 15.15 15.19 16.1–3 16.5–14 16.5–16 16.6 16.7–9 16.8 16.9 16.12 16.13 16.17–22 16.18–19 16.24 16.24–17.14 16.24–18.14 16.25 16.28 17 17.1 17.1–2 17.1–10 17.1–14 17.1–24 17.4

115 110 115, 126 72 115 110 48, 65, 269 97, 103 48, 65, 269 48, 65, 269 161–2 160–2 115 161–3 188 48, 65, 269 97, 103 110 13, 143 91 159 135, 192 81 27, 135 24 90, 95 135 111 11 190 55, 192–3 201 189, 192 189, 192 193 48, 65, 269 81, 158 37 110 11, 24, 45 12, 88 120 28 188 83, 154, 194 88 60, 81–3, 91–2, 137, 194 81, 82, 84, 93, 207 195–6 130

INDEX OF CITATIONS

17.6–7 17.7 17.8 17.8–10 17.11 17.11–12 17.11–14 17.12–14 17.13 17.15 17.16 17.17 17.18 17.19–20 17.21 17.25 17.25–32 17.27 18.2 18.3 18.14 18.15 19.13–17 19.18 19.20 19.24 20.27 20.28 21.1 21.11 22.3 22.23 22.27–23.6 23.7 23.12 23.14 23.16–26 23.24 23.27 24 24.1 24.1–12 24.2 24.3 24.3–6 24.3–12 24.3–22 24.5 24.6

48, 194 93 130, 136, 195–6 195, 197 7, 93, 94, 96–7 94 69, 83, 91–2, 196 93 92 196 196 92, 93, 99, 115, 196, 228, 232–4 196, 236 196 196 195 195–7 195 200 231 84 110 91, 145 131 91, 143 143 115 115 110 143 111 97, 103 198–9, 224 110 188 115 154, 158 155 143, 154 3, 12, 13, 24, 69, 74–8, 173–85 77 66 74, 173 28, 29, 80 77, 178 179 77, 177 76, 254 4, 178

24.6–7 24.7 24.8 24.8–10 24.8–12 24.9 24.10 24.10–11 24.10–22 24.12 24.13 24.14 24.15 24.20 24.23 24.24 24.25–7 24.28 24.30 24.30–3 24.33 25.1–43.33 25.13–26 25.24 26.3 26.9–12 26.23 26.25 27.23 28.7 28.14 29.8–13 29.9 29.11–12 30.1–13 30.15 30.22 30.25–33.13a 31.22 31.30 32 32.1 32.9 32.13 32.21–4 32.23 32.24 33.1–3

299 99 75 27, 66, 68, 75, 77, 94, 99, 179 67, 242 178, 183, 201 65, 66, 179, 183 174, 176, 179 179 14 100 175–6 175–6 174 100, 103 4, 8, 16, 93–4, 100, 103, 145, 177 200 177 178 178 120 73 25 87 87–8 97, 103 154 131 131 38, 266 4, 94, 152, 156 115 156 157, 184 156 111 158 158 253, 258 110 232 15–16 115 115 27 162–6 4, 95 143 143

300 33.7–15 33.8 33.9 33.11 33.12 33.13 33.13b–36.16a 33.14–15 33.15 33.19 33.24 34.17–19 34.21–31 34.21–35.13 34.21–35.26 34.21–36.22 34.23 34.29 34.31 35.1 35.1–2 35.1–13 35.4 35.6–7 35.6–9 36.6–12 35.8–9 35.11 35.13 35.15 35.16 35.17 35.20 35.21 35.21–6 35.22 35.22b–6 35.22b–36.22 35.23 35.24 35.25 36.1 36.1–2 36.1–5 36.1–12

INDEX OF CITATIONS

11, 12, 24, 25, 50– 60, 64, 216, 256–7 54, 61 54, 199 61, 68 54, 59–60, 63–4, 199, 216 27 253, 258 55–6 34 115, 124 97, 103 146, 147 172 171–2 201–4, 223 201, 213 171 202 202 4 171–2, 183 172 183 156 171 207–10 171 199, 207 202 202 202 202 202 202, 213 213 115, 202, 206, 209– 10, 213, 228 203–4, 206, 209, 223, 228 228–9 202, 204, 208–9, 213, 227 188, 202, 206 188, 204, 206, 213 229, 231 136 205–7 228

36.1–22 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6–12 36.9 36.10 36.11 36.12 36.13 36.13–19 36.16 36.17 36.18–19 36.20–22 36.22 36.23–37.15 37.12 37.25 37.26 37.27 37.31 38.2 38.3 38.9 38.15 38.16 38.24 38.24–5 38.24–39.11 38.32–4 38.34 39.1 39.4 39.5 39.6 39.8 39.12–35 39.13 39.16 39.17 39.19 39.20 39.22–4

37, 43, 187–9, 198– 232, 258–60 195, 201, 206, 213, 231 189, 206 199, 215–19 136, 200, 209, 217, 231 136 208, 227 198, 208–9 205, 207, 227, 259 208–9, 214, 227, 232 189, 230 210–11 230 90, 188–9, 213 230 211–12 204, 213, 231 201 48, 136, 201, 232, 269 188 159 110 159 114 114, 115 110 27 110 117, 119 119 119, 126 119, 124 119 94 11, 60, 115, 124, 126, 194 27 73, 74 119 35 110 35 28 188 67 190–2

INDEX OF CITATIONS

39.23 39.25 39.27 39.28 39.28–31 39.29 39.31 39.33 40.1–41.13 40.5 40.28 40.28–30 41.3 41.4 41.8 41.11 41.13 41.14 41.15–42.8 41.17 41.18 42.1–8 42.2 42.3 42.5 42.10 42.11 42.14 42.15 42.15–25 42.15–43.33 42.16 42.17 42.18 42.18–19 42.21 42.22 42.22–5 42.24 42.25 43.1 43.1–12 43.2 43.3–4 43.5 43.6 43.6–7

189 35, 192 35, 192 27 35, 192 27 28 35 159 232 110 158 232 93 93 110, 159 159 110 160 115 115 111 93 97, 103 160 154 110, 159 232 27, 28, 29, 45, 79, 80, 88 29 24, 26–49, 50, 72, 79, 88, 136–7, 160, 195, 228–9, 261–9 4, 45–7, 72, 79, 80, 81, 88 72 41, 255 80–1 200 79, 88 29, 34, 45 33–4 79, 88 30 27, 29, 30, 31, 51 30, 31, 32, 44, 136 30 27, 30 31 31

43.8 43.9 43.10 43.11 43.11–12 43.13 43.13–17 43.13–26 43.15 43.16 43.16–17 43.17 43.17–22 43.22 43.23–26 43.26 43.27 43.27–33 43.28 43.29 43.30 43.31–2 43.32 43.33 44–49 44–50 44.1 44.1–15 44.2 44.3 44.4 44.6 44.8 44.10 44.11 44.14 44.17 44.21 44.23 45.3 45.5 45.6 45.6–22 45.7 45.15 45.16 45.17 45.18–19 45.20

301 31, 32, 44, 136 30 28, 31 27 31 28, 37 36, 38 29, 32, 35 37 37 28, 38 37 38–40 32 40–44 28 200, 229 29, 41, 44 27, 72, 137 130, 137 72 72 45, 49, 79, 88 27, 48–9, 64, 65–6 106–7, 201 12, 104, 114, 159, 160, 219 49, 65, 181 67 67 114 115 23 106, 159 181 97, 103, 159 159 105 14, 54, 67 97, 103 114 7, 69, 91, 122, 159 127 121 121 91, 121, 127 127, 188 122, 123, 127–8, 188 55, 193 101

302 45.22 45.23 45.23–26 45.24 45.25 45.25–6 46.1 46.6 46.8 46.9 46.11 46.12 46.13 46.18 46.20 47.2–11 47.8 47.9 47.11 47.12 47.12–22 47.13 47.14–15 47.17 47.21 47.23 48.6 48.8 48.12 48.18–21 48.23 49.1 49.4 49.5 49.14–19 49.15 49.16 50

INDEX OF CITATIONS

98 188, 231 121 121 114, 121 123 104, 188 189, 192 193 97, 103 115 105 27, 114, 115, 121 115 114 114 27 181 114 105, 111 115 114 14 86 114 111, 115 114 114 74, 105 206 114 159 93, 114 189 106 115 178 175–8, 185

50.1 50.1–21 50.1–24 50.2 50.3 50.4 50.5 50.7 50.8 50.10 50.12 50.14 50.16 50.19 50.22 50.25–6 50.27 50.28–9 50.29 51.1 51.6 51.8 51.12d 51.12i 51.12n 51.19–20 51.23 51.30

Tobit

14.6–7a

121, 123, 178 3, 122 214 123 114, 123 162 175 114 175 175 121, 175–6 176 121 176 231 189–90, 201 3 49 130, 159 114 114 67 27 121 114 72 119 3 187

Wisdom of Solomon 1.13 2.23–4 3.9 4.15 15.1–2

87 87 10 10 10

NEW TESTAMENT

Mark

12.17

38, 266

Romans 5.12

87

303

INDEX OF CITATIONS

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Ahiqar 94–95

Apoc. Mos. 14.2

71 87

Jubilees

2.2 2.17–20 25.1–12 30.7–10

241–3, 246–9 241 182, 242 243 243

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

1QS

3.13–4.26

249

2Q18

251

4QDibHam

217

4QInstruction

249

11QPsa

251

PHILO

Abr.

56–9 57 77–80 98

Decal. 58

Her. 78

Leg.

3.186 3.212

Legat. 115

Mos.

1.149

246 244 246 246 244 244 244 244 244–5 246

Post. 91–3

Praem. 37–9

QG

1.45

Spec.

1.16–20 1.97 2.162–7 2.165 2.165–7 2.166

Virt.

64 64–5 177–9

245–6 246 87 244 246 246 245 244 246 245 244 244

304

INDEX OF CITATIONS

JOSEPHUS

Ant.

12.3.3–4 13.5.8

124–6 125

C. Ap. 1.41

104

RABBINIC SOURCES ʾAbot 1.1–18 1.2 5.6

Baba Qamma 1.1

Canticles Rabbah 3.4

Exodus Rabbah 12

106–7 104 185 106

Lamentations Rabbah

2.9

Qohelet Rabbah 7.1

202

y. Yoma

36, 267

b. Yoma

6.3

39b

78

36, 267 176 176

39, 267

APOSTOLIC FATHERS

Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.30.1–34.18

104

9.39.2–5

104

EGYPTIAN TEXTS

Instr. Ankhsheshonq 6.2 17.26

Instr. Any 2.14–15 3.13–17 8.10–14

Instr. Ptahhotep 277–90

159 159

109 154 109 154

Pap. Insinger 2.12 3.3 7.20–8.20 9.7–8 9.12–13 9.23 13.4 15.7 15.13 16.9 27.23

159 159 154 159 159 159 159 159 159 159 159

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1 Enoch 31 4QInstruction 50, 70, 249 586 B.C.E. 191 Aaron 55, 98, 114, 121, 122, 127, 128 Abimelech 106 Abraham 14, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 157, 232, 237, 246 abyss 22, 76, 77, 178, 254, 255 Achior the Ammonite 187 Adam 52, 83, 87, 92, 178, 245, 257 adultery 153, 154, 155, 156, 158 Akkadian 133 Alexandria 241, 243, 244, 248 allegorical exegesis 243, 245, 247 allusion 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 59, 80, 83, 92, 95, 151, 169, 170, 192, 193, 196, 199, 212, 226 Amalek 157 Amalekites 57 Amenemope 109 amplification 15, 29, 40, 48, 136 analogy 15, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 79, 81, 118, 224, 240 ancient Near East x, 2, 70, 71, 127, 133, 137, 138, 139, 153, 184 angel 3, 60, 72, 93, 99, 179, 214, 233, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246 Ankhsheshonq 159 anthropology 21, 50, 53, 237 Antiochus III 214, 215, 219 Antiochus III, decree of 124, 125, 126 Antiochus IV 3, 17, 214, 248 Any 109, 154 apkallu 107 apocalyptic 70, 71, 229 appointed time 198, 208, 209, 214, 260 Apsu 43 Arabic 105 Aramaic 71, 105, 133 Aramaic Levi 31 Ashur 234

assembly 74, 77, 120, 124, 126, 154, 155, 173 Assyria 133, 191, 193, 212, 234 asyndetic 8, 16, 129, 130, 131, 165, 237 awe 19, 20, 29, 32, 40, 48, 75, 136, 137, 143, 186, 195, 197, 234, 238, 239, 255 Baal 37, 42, 43, 47, 215, 230 Babylonia 189 Babylonian exile 63, 78 Barak 221, 224 binary oppositions 56, 57, 58 Cairo Genizah 251 calendar 30, 51 Canaan 1, 18, 59, 97, 101, 102, 103, 151, 192, 193, 222 Canaanites 12, 36, 42, 57, 60, 189, 192, 194 capital punishment 154 cassia 174 caution, as motivation 160, 161, 163, 165, 253 chaos, confinement of 18, 43, 229 chaos, eradication of 40, 42, 43, 229 chaos, primordial 18, 40, 43, 44, 48, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 233 Chaoskampf 40, 42, 43, 48, 226, 229 charity 153, 156, 157, 169, 171, 184, 185, 201 chiasm 15, 18, 65, 66, 86, 141, 163, 165, 168, 203, 209, 211 children, training of 160 chosen people 6, 9, 178, 198 Chronicler 185 cinnamon 174 commandments 4, 9, 16, 19, 22, 79, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 110, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 172, 177, 183, 184, 185, 187, 196, 201, 234, 235, 238, 242, 244

306

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

commandments, ethical 19, 83, 96, 130, 134, 138, 143, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 177, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 201, 231, 234, 235, 238, 240 commandments, ritual 19, 96, 130, 133, 134, 145, 167, 171, 172, 177, 184, 185, 187, 201, 231, 234, 235, 238, 240 confession of sin 217, 219, 223, 224, 225, 230 Coptic 22, 76, 251, 254 cosmogony 68 cosmology 21, 53, 237, 240, 243 covenant 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 20, 62, 63, 83, 91, 92, 93, 94, 114, 121, 130, 134, 138, 139, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 177, 185, 187, 196, 207, 235, 238, 244, 247 covenant stipulations 19, 138, 145, 146, 149, 152, 166, 185 Covenant, Book of the 94, 95, 100 covenant, Davidic 91, 114 covenant, new 91 covenant, Sinaitic 91 creation 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, 52, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 79, 80, 81, 83, 87, 88, 91, 92, 96, 102, 129, 130, 132, 136, 137, 139, 160, 167, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 194, 197, 199, 200, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243 creator 1, 9, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 44, 45, 48, 49, 66, 72, 77, 81, 83, 92, 99, 102, 136, 137, 151, 168, 179, 186, 194, 197, 226, 229, 233, 234, 238, 245, 249, 268 cultic requirements 19, 152, 167, 171, 185 David 53, 105, 111, 114, 121, 181, 191, 221, 222, 231 Deborah 221, 222, 224 Decalogue 145, 151, 240 deed-consequence nexus 35

demythologization 38, 40, 42 Deuteronomic 12, 95, 114, 145, 146, 148, 149, 151, 169, 170, 179, 245 Deuteronomist 62, 68, 149, 157 Deuteronomistic History 23, 37, 97, 104, 114, 219 Diodorus Siculus 215 divine council 74, 75, 173 divine determinism 11, 12, 25, 63, 64 divine favor 56, 216 divine retribution 157 divine sovereignty 25, 35, 40, 45, 226, 228 Divine Warrior 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 48, 187, 203, 206, 228, 229, 230, 232 doctrine of opposites 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 50 doublets 162 dualism xi, 11, 12, 13, 18, 50, 53, 71, 248, 249 dyads 56, 57, 58, 59, 64 Ea 43 earth 14, 18, 22, 30, 36, 37, 46, 52, 54, 55, 62, 67, 76, 77, 81, 82, 88, 99, 101, 102, 178, 182, 192, 211, 225, 238, 242, 243, 245, 255, 260, 264, 267 Edom 190, 191, 194 Egypt x, 1, 2, 3, 62, 118, 193 Egyptians 232 election x, xi, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 33, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 77, 78, 79, 89, 90, 96, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 127, 128, 129, 130, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 152, 153, 166, 178, 179, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 194, 198, 216, 230, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248 election, anti-elect 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 194 election, as self-sufficient 194 election, elect 57, 58, 60 election, instrumental 186, 235, 236 election, non-elect 18, 49, 57, 58, 60, 166, 187, 237, 238 election, un-elect 58, 59, 60

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Eli 231 Elijah 74, 105, 106 Elisha 74, 105, 106 Elohist source 38, 157 Elymais 215 Elyon 67, 68, 160 emperor 20, 114, 233, 234 encomium 115, 121 enemies 37, 40, 57, 59, 60, 111, 191, 192, 198, 201, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 214, 219, 227, 228, 229, 230, 258, 260 Enuma elish 42, 43 eschatology 17, 20, 70, 186, 187, 188, 198, 199, 204, 205, 212, 224, 230, 231, 234, 235, 239, 240 ethics 153, 155, 156, 161, 162, 165, 171, 172 Ethiopic 22, 76, 251, 254 eudaemonism 155, 160 Euphrates 177, 192 Eupolemus 104 Eve 87, 92 evil 11, 12, 26, 34, 35, 50, 56, 60, 82, 83, 87, 134, 156, 194, 202, 204, 207, 226, 228 exodus 1, 42, 46, 151, 232 fall, doctrine of 63, 87, 88, 219, 231 family xiv, 19, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 119, 122 father v, 4, 14, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 145, 150, 159, 169, 172, 173, 215, 236 father, honor of 172, 173 fear of YHWH 4, 16, 19, 20, 32, 49, 90, 91, 121, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 157, 158, 167, 173, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 195, 197, 198, 231, 234, 238, 239, 254 fear of YHWH, nomistic conception of 144, 145, 147, 149, 152, 158, 170, 172 firstborn, Israel as YHWH’s 53, 90, 210, 211, 236, 242, 260 fleshly spirit 249 folly 115, 248 foolish 21, 24, 56, 57, 111, 189, 190, 237, 248

307

foolishness 11 foreigners 190, 193, 194, 209, 211, 218, 228, 230, 243 frankincense 174 fright 19, 40, 134, 136, 137, 143, 186, 195, 197, 205, 206, 207, 232, 259 galbanum 174 Garden of Eden 87, 177, 178, 184 Gentiles 20, 60, 78, 166, 189, 194, 197, 231, 233 GI 82, 139, 195, 196, 200, 252, 256 Gideon 106 Gihon 177 GII 28, 82, 131, 139, 195, 196, 200, 231, 236, 252, 253, 254, 256 God of Israel 3, 4, 6, 9, 187, 193, 210, 231, 233 godless 171, 192 Gog 217 good 3, 11, 26, 35, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 64, 82, 83, 97, 107, 138, 158, 192, 194, 201, 202, 248, 257 Greek 3, 4, 15, 21, 22, 33, 41, 54, 76, 84, 96, 97, 100, 110, 113, 114, 115, 121, 130, 131, 135, 139, 140, 181, 189, 190, 191, 197, 205, 248, 251, 252, 253, 254, 258 Haran 63 heaven 22, 30, 40, 76, 178, 185, 242, 255, 264 Hebrew xiv, 3, 14, 15, 16, 23, 28, 32, 42, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 67, 77, 84, 85, 86, 90, 97, 103, 105, 107, 110, 113, 115, 118, 121, 124, 126, 133, 134, 135, 142, 168, 180, 181, 185, 192, 199, 202, 203, 205, 216, 220, 240, 241, 251, 252, 253, 255, 257, 258, 261 Hellenism 106, 114, 140, 189, 190, 193 hereditary land 98, 99 Hermon 175 Hezekiah 113, 114, 118 Hezekiah’s men 118 Hiram, King of Tyre 176 history 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 21, 25, 55, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 71, 77, 91, 96, 104, 106, 107, 118, 122, 124, 189, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197,

308

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

214, 215, 220, 223, 228, 229, 230, 234, 239, 240, 241 holiness 46, 55, 127, 205, 210, 211, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 242, 243, 259, 260 homoioarchton 135, 144, 150 HTI 251, 252 HTII 252 hubris 209 human beings 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 35, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59, 61, 64, 68, 69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 102, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 158, 166, 167, 180, 181, 185, 187, 188, 194, 195, 196, 197, 202, 204, 206, 207, 216, 226, 227, 235, 237, 238, 239, 243, 246, 247, 249, 257 hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old 10, 29, 49, 55, 65, 67, 104, 106, 111, 114, 121, 160, 178, 219 hypostasis 149 image, divine 45 immortality 87 incense 157, 174, 175 inheritance xi, 4, 12, 14, 18, 19, 62, 66, 69, 75, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 128, 159, 179, 188, 210, 230, 238, 260 Insinger 154, 159 Instruction Concerning Shame 160 instruction, father-son 108, 109, 110, 111 instructions, Egyptian 109 intermarriage 97, 241, 243 intermediary 74, 75, 93, 99, 233 Isaac 62 Israel x, xi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 35, 36, 37, 40, 49, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142, 145, 147, 148,

149, 151, 153, 155, 159, 163, 166, 167, 170, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 198, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 260 Israel, as one who sees God 244, 245, 246 Israelites 3, 46, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 80, 98, 99, 128, 135, 145, 151, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 218, 234, 237, 238, 243, 248 Jacob 4, 62, 66, 75, 97, 99, 100, 179, 188, 210, 211, 220, 225, 242, 246, 260 Jason 248 Jericho 175 Jerusalem 17, 19, 75, 115, 122, 125, 126, 138, 151, 173, 175, 176, 177, 183, 184, 188, 206, 210, 211, 212, 215, 217, 225, 230, 235, 238, 248, 260, 271 Jerusalem temple 177, 179, 183, 185 Jews x, 4, 11, 17, 19, 20, 87, 96, 99, 101, 102, 128, 130, 134, 136, 137, 138, 143, 152, 157, 166, 167, 173, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 244, 246, 247, 248 Job 239 Jochanan 178 Jonathan 125, 221, 222 Jordan River 177 Josephus 104, 124, 126 Joshua 97, 104, 163, 192 Josiah 114 Jubilees 20, 183, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 249 Judah 63, 118, 123, 124, 190 Judaism x, xv, 5, 6, 70, 190, 243, 247 judges 105, 106, 113, 115, 157, 193, 202 justice 26, 34, 35, 112, 153, 167, 202, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 229, 235

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Justin 215 juxtaposition xi, 4, 6, 8, 16, 23, 33, 61, 66, 69, 78, 165, 227, 237 kābôd 4, 31, 46, 47, 67, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 88, 92, 134, 205, 210, 216, 218, 225, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265 king 14, 19, 23, 26, 53, 74, 105, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 127, 133, 149, 233 kingship 26, 43, 112, 113, 114, 116, 123, 127, 230, 232, 234 knowledge 6, 10, 21, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 93, 94, 120, 140, 161, 190, 194, 256, 257, 263 Korah 193 Korahite-Aaronide controversy 54, 55, 193 Latin 15, 22, 76, 95, 119, 251, 253, 254, 256 law 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 78, 91, 92, 93, 119, 133, 140, 145, 147, 149, 153, 154, 155, 158, 171, 195 Lebanon 175, 176 lectio brevior 34 Lemuel 113 Leviathan 43, 226 Levites 54, 55, 58, 59, 121 life, as motivation 158 Lot 189 love of YHWH 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 139, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 254, 255 Maccabees 198, 214, 223, 248 Magnesia 215 Marduk 42, 43, 234 marriage 2, 154 Masada scroll 251 Menelaus 248 mercy 63, 84, 193, 202, 204, 210, 211, 213, 228, 260 Mesopotamia x, 2, 107, 118 metaphor xi, 9, 12, 15, 18, 28, 69, 80, 90, 101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 110, 165, 233 Michael 99 Midianites 57 monotheism 200

309

moon 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 49, 51, 53, 54, 61, 62, 64, 237, 238, 243, 265 mortality 88, 154 Moses 4, 6, 55, 69, 92, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 121, 145, 151, 159, 185, 193, 232, 241 Most High 4, 28, 67, 74, 75, 77, 80, 91, 93, 94, 100, 145, 152, 154, 160, 172, 173, 177, 195, 206, 263, 264 mother v, 109, 145, 150, 169 motif xi, 37, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 107, 153, 173, 195, 206, 228, 229, 230, 239 mouth of God 28, 29, 66, 74, 75, 77, 80, 110 myrrh 174 naïve person 56, 57 name, as motivation 159 Nash Papyrus 151 nations, the 9, 14, 18, 20, 43, 49, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 89, 92, 93, 96, 99, 102, 129, 130, 133, 136, 138, 179, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 245, 246, 259 natural law 89 natural religion 5 natural theology 81 nature, observation of 1, 13, 21, 26, 45, 49, 50, 53, 61, 64, 70, 79, 81, 84, 88, 89, 90, 137, 197, 237 Nile River 177, 191 Noah 105 non-Jews 11, 20, 134, 136, 137, 139, 143, 186, 187, 188, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 207, 247 nonpossession 75 numerical proverb 189 numerical saying 190 ocular perception 45, 79 olive oil 174 Onias III 215 onycha 174 orphan 202, 204 Palestine 17, 219

310

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

parallelism 15, 16, 23, 66, 85, 86, 91, 93, 112, 124, 143, 147, 151, 152, 163, 164, 168, 202, 203, 207, 209 particular xi, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 29, 33, 38, 40, 53, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 72, 77, 78, 83, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 116, 117, 129, 130, 133, 134, 139, 143, 155, 156, 157, 158, 165, 166, 167, 177, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 195, 213, 220, 223, 229, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 paterfamilias 112 Pentateuch 62, 95, 101, 146, 152, 154, 155, 165, 184, 191 Persian empire 123 Pharaoh 232 Philistia 189, 190 Philistines 157, 191, 194 Philo 20, 87, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248 philology 15 piety 17, 19, 20, 49, 82, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 147, 151, 153, 159, 167, 173, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 195, 197, 198, 201, 226, 230, 232, 234, 235, 238, 239, 242 piety, Jewish 17, 19, 20, 68, 91, 128, 130, 136, 139, 140, 142, 143, 147, 152, 159, 168, 173, 185, 186, 187, 188, 196, 197, 207, 232, 234, 235, 239, 242 piety, universal 129, 137, 186, 187 pious, the 6, 19, 32, 90, 152, 159, 166, 167, 180, 181, 182, 183, 216, 231, 269 Pishon 177 portion 62, 67, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103 prayer 43, 73, 136, 157, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 246, 258, 259, 260 prayer for deliverance 43, 136, 187, 188, 198, 199, 201, 204, 205, 206,

207, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 232, 258 prayer, penitential 221 prayer, petitionary 157, 198, 202, 203, 205, 217, 220, 222, 223, 224, 235 priest 3, 17, 19, 54, 55, 58, 59, 98, 99, 100, 101, 107, 115, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 150, 156, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 184, 185, 214, 215, 237, 246, 248 priest, the high 3, 122, 123, 125, 127, 246 priestly aristocracy 115, 122, 124, 125 Priestly source 28, 37, 42, 46, 47, 53, 79, 80, 99, 123, 174, 184 primordial 4, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 25, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 129, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 226, 228, 229, 233, 240, 242 princes 86, 112, 113, 115, 126, 233 prophecy 70, 73, 74, 172, 206 prophet 53, 63, 74, 106, 148, 210, 217 prophetic commissioning scene 74, 75, 76 providence, divine 25, 63, 64 psalms of complaint 225 Ptahhotep 154 Ptolemies 114, 125, 197, 214, 215 punishment 38, 154, 155, 157, 158, 186, 193, 202, 206, 212, 217, 218, 219, 230 Qohelet 1, 117, 144, 188, 239 Qumran 70, 73, 251 Rahab 41, 42, 43, 226, 266, 267 rainbow 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 265 reason, human capacity for 1, 13, 16, 24, 45, 70, 78, 137, 155, 172, 183, 195, 201, 212, 252, 253 recognition formula 231 Rehoboam 111, 115 retainer class 122, 125, 126, 128, 129 retribution, doctrine of 216

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

revelation 5, 8, 9, 10, 18, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 96, 102, 129 revelation, general 5, 69, 81, 87, 88, 96, 130, 194 revelation, special 5, 8, 10, 14, 69, 79, 87, 88, 92, 96, 102 rewritten Bible 241 righteous 12, 24, 35, 48, 49, 55, 56, 65, 66, 171, 176, 192, 203, 237, 248, 257, 269 righteousness 164, 168, 248 Roman empire 215, 248 Romans, the 215 royal court 112, 113, 116, 117, 119 royal ideology 112 Rule of the Community 249 rulers 86, 112, 113, 115, 123, 126, 149, 208, 209, 214, 215, 217, 232, 234, 260 ruling class 116, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 248 Sabbath 240, 241, 242, 243 sacrifice 121, 133, 168, 170, 171, 172, 176, 183, 246 sacrificial cult 151, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 183, 184, 185 Samaria 133 Samaritans 191, 194 sapiential instruction 56, 73, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 103, 109, 110, 111, 113, 119, 120, 153, 155, 158, 163, 165, 166, 167, 176, 184, 186, 236, 238, 239, 240 Sarah 157, 232 Satan, the 239 Saul 56, 170, 191, 221, 222 Schechter facsimiles 269 scribe 3, 16, 17, 19, 107, 109, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 126, 150 Second Temple period 20, 70, 71, 72, 122, 123, 124, 127, 241, 247 Seir 189, 190 Seleucids 17, 114, 122, 155, 197, 200, 214, 215, 219, 227, 230, 248 Seleucus IV Philopator 219 self-protection 162, 163, 165 Sennacherib 206 Septuagint 14, 96, 101, 135, 141, 142, 154, 174, 178, 220, 221, 246 shame, avoidance of 159

311

Shechem 189, 190, 191 Shema 150, 151, 169, 170 Sidon 218 simile 73 Simon II 3, 115, 122, 123, 175, 176, 177, 178, 191, 214, 215 sin 4, 87, 158, 160, 172, 173, 195, 202, 216, 217, 218, 223, 226 Sinai 1, 38, 46, 47, 62, 63, 69, 80, 83, 92, 93, 94, 196 society, Judean 115 Sodom and Gomorrah 189, 192, 194 Solomon 14, 23, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 118 Song of Deborah 222 Song of Hannah 221 sons of God 67 sovereignty, divine 12, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 40, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 61, 187, 225, 226, 227, 230, 232, 233, 234, 245 spirit 73, 74, 75, 105, 120, 156, 190 spirit of darkness 249 spirit of light 249 spiritual people 249 stacte 174 storm god 35, 37, 40, 47, 48 succession, chain of 104, 105, 106, 107 sun 4, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 61, 64, 79, 81, 88, 158, 237, 238, 243, 257, 262, 264 supergod 20, 234 suzerain-vassal treaties 63, 149 Syriac 15, 21, 22, 33, 34, 51, 54, 55, 76, 93, 95, 98, 105, 111, 120, 126, 139, 146, 175, 181, 192, 202, 204, 205, 207, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262 Syria-Palestine 2 t əhôm 41, 42, 266 Taberah 193 tabernacle 47, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179 targum 176 tautology 16, 132 temple 4, 53, 54, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 138, 151, 156, 167, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 183,

312

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

184, 185, 210, 211, 215, 219, 225, 230, 235, 238, 260 temple-state 115 text-criticism 3, 15, 26, 34, 48, 110, 111, 115, 139, 147, 179, 195, 227, 251, 253, 254 theodicy 35 theophany 1, 36, 37, 38, 40, 47, 80, 92, 196 Tiamat 42, 43 Tigris 177 time, profane 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 237, 238, 257 time, sacred 32, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 237, 257 torah 79, 84, 85, 89, 94, 95, 153, 154, 163, 165, 166, 186, 238, 239 Torah xi, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, 67, 69, 71, 78, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 119, 122, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 143, 145, 146, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 171, 177, 178, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 194, 196, 201, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242 Torah, oral 104 Torah, the book of 94 Torah, universalization of 237 trades 119 triads 57, 58, 59 tribes of Israel 98, 99 typology 21 Tyre 176 ummānu 107 universal xi, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 45, 46, 49, 62, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 96, 101, 102, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 137, 153, 159, 166, 178, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 197, 198, 207, 213, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 249 vengeance 43, 202, 203, 206, 208, 209, 213, 227, 230, 260 wicked 24, 35, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 64, 192, 193, 196, 203, 204, 225, 226, 227, 237, 248, 257 widow 202, 204

Wisdom and Torah xi, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 69, 71, 78, 90, 94, 100, 237 wisdom discourse 87, 223, 224 Wisdom literature x, 1, 2, 3, 5, 35, 46, 56, 57, 70, 86, 97, 107, 153, 154, 158, 161, 239 wisdom tradition xi, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 21, 45, 46, 48, 60, 70, 71, 73, 79, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 110, 112, 129, 131, 153, 158, 159, 161, 166, 170, 189, 226, 236, 238, 239, 240, 248 wisdom, as propaedeutic 142, 197 Wisdom, as prophetic figure 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78 Wisdom, autobiography of 66, 78, 99 wisdom, beginning of 141, 142, 180, 181, 182, 183 wisdom, general 5, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 69, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 102, 129, 130, 132, 140, 141, 166, 187, 194, 197, 232, 235, 237, 238, 239 wisdom, nationalization of 237 Wisdom, personification of 4, 47, 66, 71, 78, 79, 103, 113, 120, 173, 175, 176, 185 wisdom, practical 153 wisdom, root of 1, 9, 90, 141, 238, 255 wisdom, social location of 108, 113, 248 wisdom, special 5, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 22, 69, 79, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 155, 166, 173, 184, 185, 187, 237, 238, 239 wisdom, transmission of xi, 17, 19, 72, 100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 153, 177 wisdom, two apportionments of 9, 10, 18, 21, 22, 24, 48, 49, 68, 69, 78, 79, 83, 89, 90, 93, 96, 99, 103, 129, 138, 139, 140 wise xiv, 18, 21, 23, 24, 34, 56, 57, 75, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 111,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 127, 161, 162, 165, 201, 237, 248, 255 women 2, 159 word, divine 28, 29, 31, 44, 80 worship 133, 176, 187, 191, 194, 231, 234 Yahwist source 46, 61, 62

313

yām 41, 42 Zion 173, 177, 210, 211, 212, 217, 229, 260 βουλή 124 γερουσία 124, 125, 126, 155 συνέδριον 124

Wisdom's Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel

The Wisdom of Ben Sira

The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People

The Root Of Ampoi

Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

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

Root

Root

The Originality of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira in the Light of the Vocabulary and the Versions

THE ROOT AND THE FLOWER

The Root and the Ring

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

The Square Root of Murder

Timeless Wisdoms (Volume 1)

The Future of Election Studies

The Last Election

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

The Square Root of Murder

The Root of All Disease

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

The Square Root of Murder

The Square Root of Murder

The Square Root of 2

Wisdom's Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel

The Wisdom of Ben Sira

The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People

The Root Of Ampoi

Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

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

Root

Root

The Originality of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira in the Light of the Vocabulary and the Versions

THE ROOT AND THE FLOWER

The Root and the Ring

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

The Square Root of Murder

Timeless Wisdoms (Volume 1)

The Future of Election Studies

The Last Election

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Revealed

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

The Square Root of Murder

The Root of All Disease

Ruso and the Root of All Evils

The Square Root of Murder

The Square Root of Murder

The Square Root of 2

Recommend Documents