Part 66
Sir 23:27 brings this section to a conclusion by making the disgrace of the adulteress into a moral lesson that it is better to keep the law. It is noteworthy that his discussion of the punishment of the adulteress does not call for literal fulfilment of the law. Sirach's concern is with conformity to the tradition in principle, with the attitude of reverence rather than with legal details. The second Greek redactor adds a gloss
(v. 28), which promises great glory and length of days to one who follows after God. In accordance with the usual theology of this redaction, 'length of days' probably means eternal life
(so Skehan and DiLella 1987: 326).
Sirach does not specify how the adulterer will be punished. Proverbs implies that the adulterer will be beaten up by the wronged husband and publicly disgraced and that he will have to pay a heavy fine (Prov 6:31-5: 'sevenfold', 'all the goods of his house'). Sirach evidently envisages public disgrace. Neither Proverbs nor Sirach make any mention of the death penalty for the adulterer prescribed by biblical law (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22).
(24:1—33) The Praises of Wisdom The great hymn to wisdom in ch. 24 may be regarded as the centrepiece of the book. It is often regarded as the introduction to the second part of the book (e.g. Segal 1972; Roth 1980; Skehan and DiLella 1987), with a view to finding a symmetrical structure in the book as a whole. Since each of the wisdom poems in 1:1—10, 4:11—19, 6:18-37, and 14:20-15:10, introduces a section, so it is argued does ch. 24. Against this, however, the second half of the book is not punctuated by wisdom poems as the first had been. The only true wisdom poem in the remainder of the book is found in 51:13-30, which serves as a conclusion, and maybe added as an epilogue. That passage is cast as a personal declaration by Ben Sira; w. 30—4 are also a personal declaration. It seems better then to see ch. 24 as the conclusion of the first part of the book (Marbock 1971: 41-3). It sums up the theme of wisdom that has been treated intermittently in chs. 1-23, and will be paralleled by the concluding poem on wisdom in ch. 51.
The treatment of the adulteress differs from that of the adulterer in several respects. Her sin is said to be threefold—the offence against God and her husband and the fact that she produced children by another man. Sirach implies that the adulterer sins against God (v. 18), although he does not say so directly. There is no implication, however, that the adulterer sins against his wife. The imbalance in this regard reflects the common ancient tendency to group the wife with the possessions of her husband (see SIR 7:22-6). The sin against the husband is that she has violated his rights and his honour. The production of children by adultery is considered a separate offence. Sir 23:23 does not imply that the woman's adultery was prompted by the desire to have a child (against Trenchard 1982: 99). Neither is there any reason to think that the woman acts out of economic necessity (so Camp 1991: 27-8). If an adulterous affair ended in pregnancy, the woman would have little choice but to try to pass the child off as her husband's offspring. One of the main reasons for prohibiting adultery was to guarantee the legitimacy of a man's children. At issue here is the right of inheritance, and
Ch. 24 differs from other wisdom poems in Sirach in so far as w. 3-22 constitute a declaration by Wisdom in the first person. As such, it is most accurately designated as an aretalogy, and is properly compared to the aretalogies of the Egyptian goddess Isis (Marbock 1971: 47-54). There is an obvious biblical precedent in Prov 8, which may itself be influenced by Egyptian prototypes. The argument that Sirach drew directly on the aretalogies of Isis has been made especially by Conzelmann (1971: 230-43). In addition to the
683 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
divine, but it appears to be the instrument of God's presence and agency. The quest for a resting place has been compared to the wandering of Israel in the wilderness (Sheppard 1980: 39). Ben Sira however shows no interest in the historical process by which Israel settled in its land. Wisdom's quest for a resting place completes the process of creation. There is an enigmatic passage in i Enoch, 42:1—2, that dramatically reverses Sirach's account: Wisdom found no place to dwell and so withdrew to heaven.
formal similarity, there are also thematic parallels. Both Wisdom and I sis are of primeval origin, exercise cosmological functions, and claim dominion over the whole earth. Isis claims to have established law for humanity, v. 23, which stands outside the first-person aretalogy, equates wisdom with the law of the Lord. It is quite likely then that the concept of Wisdom singing her own praises, in both Sirach and Proverbs, is indebted to the Egyptian Isis hymns. Sirach, however, also draws heavily on biblical phraseology, and so adapts the aretalogy form for his own purpose (Sheppard 1980: 19-71). w. 1-2 provide the setting for Wisdom's speech, v. 2 clearly locates her in the heavenly council (cf. Ps 82:1), with the implication that she is imagined as a heavenly, angelic being. It is possible that 'her people' in v. i refers to this heavenly assembly (so Smend 1906: 216), but it is more likely to refer to Israel, among whom Wisdom settles in w. 8-12. She speaks, then, on both earthly and heavenly levels simultaneously, w. 3—7 describe the origin and nature of Wisdom. The firstperson pronoun (Gk. ego) is especially characteristic of the Isis aretalogies, but cf. also Prov 8:12; 17. Even though the Hebrew text is not extant, the original Hebrew is clearly reflected in the idiom of v. i, lit. 'Wisdom praises her soul'. The divine origin of Wisdom is also stressed in Prov 8:21 and
w. 8—12 describe how Wisdom settles in Israel. The command to settle in Israel may be compared to the command given to Israel to seek out the designated place of worship in Deut 12 (Sheppard 1980:42). But Sirach implies that Wisdom had settled in Israel before Israel settled in its land. So Wisdom ministered already in the tabernacle, the tent-shrine of the wilderness (Ex 25:8-9). v. 9 suggests that the association of Wisdom with Israel is primordial. The most apt parallel to this passage in Sirach is found in Deut 32:8—9, which says that when God divided the nations among the 'sons of God' he took Israel as his own portion. Sirach has God exercise the election of Israel through Wisdom. The passage is remarkable, however, for its cultic emphasis. Wisdom finds expression in the cult of the Jerusalem temple. This idea is exceptional in the wisdom tradition, but it accords with Sirach's high esteem for the priesthood (cf. 44:6-26; 50:1-21). The notion of Wisdom making its dwelling in Israel is picked up in Jn 1:14, where the Word comes to dwell with humankind.
Sir 1:1. The idea that Wisdom proceeds from the mouth of God may be suggested by Prov 2:6 ('For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding'). This motif lays the foundation for the identification of Wisdom with the word of God, which also proceeds from the mouth
w. 13-17 compare Wisdom to the luxuriant growth of various trees and plants. Such imagery is not found in Prov 8, but is familiar from other parts of the HB. Cf. Ps i, which compares the righteous man to a tree planted by water, and in general Num 24:6; Hos 14:5-7. The cedar of Lebanon is the most celebrated tree in the Bible (Ps 92:12; Song 5:15). v. 15 changes the imagery to perfumes, and again evokes the cult by mentioning the incense in the tabernacle, w. 19-22 compare Wisdom to food and drink. Cf. John 6:35, where Jesus says that whoever eats of him will never hunger and whoever drinks of him will never thirst.
(cf. Isa 45:23; 48:3; 25:11). The identification is clear in Wis 9:1—2. The Greek word logos, however, had far-reaching connotations in Greek, especially Stoic, philosophy, where it referred to the rational spirit that pervades the universe. This concept was also developed by the Jewish philosopher Philo (Mack 1973). The fusion of the Jewish wisdom tradition and Greek philosophy on this point is essential background to the use of the Logos/Word in Jn 1:1. The notion that Wisdom proceeds from the mouth also invites association with the spirit/breath of God (Gk. pneuma) which had similar philosophic connotations in Stoic philosophy (cf. the use of pneuma in Wis 1:7). The association with the spirit is suggested here in the statement that Wisdom covered the earth like a mist, which recalls Gen 1:2, although the allusion is not precise.
v. 23 introduces a short commentary on the words of Wisdom, drawn in part from Deut 33:4. The word 'inheritance' also picks up a motif from w. 8,12. The fact that the verse has three cola is exceptional in Ben Sira, and has led to the suggestion that the first colon, which refers explicitly to the book and which is not paralleled in Deut 33:4, is a secondary addition, influenced by Bar 4:1 (Rickenbacher 1973: 125—7). Sirach was certainly familiar with the Torah in its written form (cf. 38:34), but this is the only passage that identifies wisdom specifically with the book. The identification of wisdom with the law is implied again in the hymn at the end of Sirach, by the metaphor of the yoke in 51:26. The repeated association of wisdom with the Torah is one of the principal ways in which Ben Sira modifies the wisdom tradition he had received. It has its basis in Deut 4:6, but is never hinted at in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes. Yet for Sirach, in contrast to Deuteronomy, wisdom is the primary category which is the subject of hymnic praise. The Torah is mentioned secondarily, by way of clarification. Wisdom is older than Moses, having been created 'in the beginning'. Later, rabbinic authorities would claim that the Torah too was created before the world, and was even the
The statement that Wisdom lived 'in the heights' is suggested by Prov 8:2, but here, unlike Proverbs, the heights should be understood as heavenly. What is most striking about the following verses is how language used of God in the HB is now applied to Wisdom. The pillar of cloud of the Exodus (Ex 13:21; 33:9—10) is also identified with the Logos by Philo (Quis Heres, 203—6) and Wisdom is given a key role in the Exodus in Wis 10. Here, however, it is removed from the Exodus context, and associated with the primordial enthronement of Wisdom. While Prov 8:27 says that Wisdom was there when God established the heavens, Sir 24:5 has Wisdom circle the vault of heaven alone. Cf. rather Job 9:8, where God alone stretched out the heavens. In Job 38:16 God challenges Job whether he 'has walked in the recesses of the deep'. Rule over the sea is a divine prerogative in the HB
(Ps 65:8; 89:10; 93:3-4, etc.). Wisdom is never said to be
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 684
the theme of 23:27. Fear of the Lord was similarly emphasized at the beginning of Part I in 1:11—21, 28—30. The distinction implied here between wisdom and fear of the Lord recalls the contrast of true and false wisdom in 19:20-5, especially 19:24, which prefers the God-fearing who lack understanding to the clever who transgress the law.
instrument with which the world was created (Urbach 1975: i. 287). On this understanding, the law revealed to Moses was implicit in creation from the beginning (Marbock 1971: 93-4; for a contrary interpretation see Schnabel 1985). Cf. Rom 1:20, although Paul evidently did not regard all details of the law as part of the law of creation. Sirach also ignores most of the levitical laws, and does not address the question whether the whole law was implied in Wisdom from the beginning.
(25:13-26:27) Wives, Bad and Good This passage is Sirach's most sustained treatment of marriage, or rather of the good and bad wife from the husband's point of view. The bad wife receives more than twice as many verses as the good. The first stanza (w. 13-15) sets the tone by comparing a woman's anger to a snake's venom. Smend (1906: 229) suggested that 'those who hate' and 'enemies' in v. 14 are mistakes by the Greek translator. (The Heb. is not extant.) The original would have read feminine forms, 'hated' (i.e. repudiated, divorced) and 'rival', and so the woman's anger would arise from a situation of either polygamy or divorce. The subject of rivalry between women is explicit in 26:6 and 37:11.
Sirach proceeds to compare Wisdom/Torah to the four rivers associated with Eden in Gen 2, and also to the Nile and the Jordan. The comparison with foreign rivers may be significant. Wisdom was always an international phenomenon, and its character is not changed in that respect by the identification with the Jewish law. The reason that the first man did not know wisdom fully (v. 28) is not because it was not yet revealed (so Skehan and DiLella 1987: 337). Sir 17:7 claims that when God created humanity he filled them with knowledge and understanding and gave them knowledge of good and evil. Besides, the last man is no wiser
The contentious or nagging wife is a common subject of complaint in folklore, and appears also in Proverbs (21:19; 25:24; 27:15). Sirach's comparisons are more violent. Even if we make allowance for Semitic hyperbole, the statement that any iniquity is small compared to that of a woman (v. 19) is exceptional. This sentiment is developed further in 42:14, which says that the wickedness of a man is better than the goodness of a woman! There is an extreme quality to these sayings that cannot be dismissed as simply part of the culture of the time. (A character in Eur. Phoen. 805, refers to women as the wildest evil (Middendorp 1973: 21), but the playwright does not necessarily endorse the view.) The wish that a sinner's lot befall her may mean that a sinner should marry her; cf. Eccl 7:26. w. 2i—2 warn against marrying a woman for either her beauty or her wealth. The deceptiveness of beauty was noted in Prov 31:30. The wealth of a wife might prevent a man from seeking divorce, since the woman could take her own possessions with her. The same sentiment is found in Ps.-Phoc. 199—200; Eur. Melannipus, frag. 502 (Middendorp 1973: 21). No verse in Ben Sira is more pregnant with implications or more controversial in a modern context than v. 24. The notion that the 'strange woman' can lead a man to sin and death is developed in Prov 7, and finds colourful development in 4Qi§4 (The Wiles of the Wicked Woman). The Qumran text has been adduced as a parallel to v. 24 because it says that 'she is the start of all the ways of wickedness' (4(3:18.4:8; Levison 1985: 622). Ben Sira, however, is not concerned only with the strange or loose woman. (It is clear from the parallels with Prov 7 that this is the figure envisaged in the fragmentary 4(^184.) Sirach does not only speak of the death of the sinner, but why we all die. There can be no doubt that v. 24 represents an interpretation of Gen 3, and that it is the earliest extant witness to the view that Eve was responsible for the introduction of sin and death (Meyers 1988: 75, pace Levison 1985: 617-23, who argues that the woman in question is the bad wife). Even the view that Adam was the source of sin and death only emerges in literature of the first century CE (Rom 5:12—21; i Cor 15:22; Wis 2:23-414 Ezra 4:30; 7:116-21; 2 Bar 17:3; 48:45-6. 2 Bar 54:19, however, contends that Adam is only responsible for
(25:28). No human being can fully comprehend Wisdom (cf Job 28, which has a decidedly more negative view of human wisdom).
The chapter closes with a stanza in which Sirach compares himself to an offshoot of the great river of Wisdom. For the metaphor of light, cf. Prov 6:3. He also compares his teaching to prophecy, without claiming to be a prophet. Sirach views prophecy as part of the textual lore to be studied by the sage (39:1). It is not apparent that he recognized any active prophets in his own time. The specific point of comparison with prophecy here is that it remains for future generations.
Sirach concludes with a protestation of disinterestedness. He has not laboured for himself alone. Cf. 51:25, where he invites the uneducated to acquire learning without money.
Part II. Chs. 25-51 (25:1-33:19)
(25:1—12) Sources of Happiness The three poems in this section are only loosely connected. The first and third are numerical sayings. The first contrasts three kinds of people of whom Sirach approves with three of whom he does not. Harmony among friends finds its classic expression in Ps 133. v. id, on the harmony of husband and wife, is an important corrective to some of Ben Sira's more patriarchal pronouncements on marriage. The adulterous old man is universally despised. Cf. the elders in the story of Susanna. Mention of the adulterous old man leads to a brief encomium on the wisdom appropriate to old age. In the third poem, Sirach lists ten beatitudes; see SIR 14:20. The makarisms here concern very practical matters that are typical of the instruction of Sirach. The joy of a sensible wife is reiterated in 26:1, and contrasts with the bitter denunciations of an 'evil' wife in 25:16-26. All of these sayings on marriage are formulated from the point of view of the husband. Ploughing with an ox and ass together is explicitly forbidden in Deut 22:10. Here it appears to be a matter of wisdom rather than of law. In the context, it may be a metaphor for polygamy (cf. 26:6; 37:11). The blessing of one who finds wisdom (v. 10) is paralleled in 4(^525 2 ii 3—4. The affirmation of the superiority of the fear of the Lord resumes
685 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
26:5—9 repeats the thought of 25:13—20. The jealousy of a wife for her rivaJ raises the question of polygamy. While polygamy is never forbidden by biblical law and is still permitted by the Mishnah (m. Ketub. 10:5; m. Ker. 3:7), it has often been thought to have died out by the Hellenistic period, except for people in high places such as the sons of Herod. This common assumption has been put in doubt, however, by the Babatha archive from the early second century CE (Lewis 1989: 19—22). Babatha was an illiterate woman from the region of the Dead Sea, who, after her husband's death, was involved in a dispute with another woman who claimed to be his wife, and whose claim is not disputed. While Babatha was not a poor person, she was far removed from the social class of the Herodian family. Polygamy may not have been as exceptional in the Hellenistic and Roman periods as was previously thought.
himself). Sir 17, which clearly reflects Gen 2-3, contains no mention of an original sin. In the apocalyptic literature roughly contemporary with Sirach the origin of evil was attributed to fallen angels (i Enoch, 6-n) or to God's design at creation (iQS 3). Sirach elsewhere insists that death is simply the decree of the Lord, with no implication that it is a punishment (41:3—4). None the less, this verse is extant in Hebrew and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. Sirach's inconsistency on this matter shows only that his argumentation was influenced by the immediate context in which an issue is raised.
There is no precedent in Hebrew tradition for the view that woman is the source of all evil, but there is a clear Greek precedent in the story of Pandora's box (Hes. Op. 42—105; Middendorp 1973: 21; Kieweler 1992: 115 insists on the differences in context, but the parallel is none the less significant). It would be too simple to ascribe the misogynist aspects of Ben Sira's thought to Hellenistic influence. Ps.-Phocylides represents a more heavily Hellenized form of Judaism but does not pick up these elements. There is undoubtedly Greek influence here, but Ben Sira's personality also played a part in his selective use of Greek culture.
The Egyptian Instruction of Phibis refers to an otherwise unknown book 'Faults of Women' (Phibis, 8:10; J. T. Sanders 1983: 86), so we should assume that passages such as this were a topos of Near-Eastern wisdom in the Hellenistic period. On the eyelashes of the adulterous woman cf. Prov 6:25, where they appear to be instruments of seduction. The point here is that a woman intent on adultery makes up her eyeJids, whiJe the faithful wife has no reason to do so. On the making up of the eyelids cf. 2 Kings 9:30 (Jezebel); Jer 4:30; Ezek 23:40. In i Enoch, 8:1, the art of making up the eyes is taught to human beings by the fallen angel Azazel.
Ch. 25 concludes with the rather brutal advice that a wife who is outspoken and not compliant should be cut off or divorced. Contrast the advice not to divorce a good wife in Sir 7:26. The Hebrew verb fe-r-t, cut off, gives rise to the standard word for divorce, krytwt (Deut 24:1). Deuteronomy allowed that a man could divorce his wife if she did not please him because he found something objectionable ('envoi dabar) about her. This text was invoked in a famous debate between the houses of Shammai and Hillel in the first century BCE. The Shammaites tried to restrict its application to cases of adultery. Hillel ruled that a man was justified in divorcing 'even if she spoiled a dish for him' (m. Git. 9:10). Rabbi Akiba went further, saying that it sufficed if he found another woman who was fairer (Archer 1990: 219). The Mishnah also provides that a woman could be sent away without her ketubd (the mohar or bride-price owed by the husband) if she transgressed the law of Moses or violated Jewish custom, even by going out with her hair unbound, spinning in the street, or speaking with a man (m. Ketub. 7:6). R. Tarfon also permitted this in the case of a scolding woman, who spoke inside her house so that a neighbour could hear. Ben Sira does not suggest that the dowry can be retained in this case. Smend (1906: 233) explains the expression 'from your flesh' by suggesting that the financial settlement involved would be as painful as cutting off a piece of flesh. It is more likely, however, that the phrase reflects Gen 2:24 (man and wife are 'one flesh' while they are married). The woman had no corresponding right to divorce in Mishnaic law
The warning about a headstrong daughter in 26:10 will be taken up at length in 42:9-14; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 215-16. Several Hellenistic Jewish texts indicate that virgin girls were confined to the home (Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.169; Flacc. 89; 2 Mace 3:19; 3 Mace 1:18; 4 Mace 18:7; see further Archer 1990: 11315). Sir 26:12 recalls Ezek 16:23-5 in its obscene portrayal of the promiscuous woman, but Sirach attributes this behaviour not to an exceptional individual but to a daughter who is not held in check. The tent-peg and arrow are phallic symbols
(Smend 1906: 236; Peters 1913: 217).
Sir 26:13—18 is more explicit than earlier passages on the attributes of the good wife. Although she puts flesh on her husband's bones, this is not the capable wife of Prov 31, who can buy a field and deal with merchants. Sirach's ideal wife is a homebody, characterized by silence, modesty, and chastity. In part, the difference in perspective reflects the transition from a rural to an urban culture. The wife of a scribe in Jerusalem has no occasion to buy a field, and her labour is not needed outside the house. Instead she is portrayed as an ornament in his home. This is the only passage where Ben Sira shows an appreciation of physical beauty (contrast 25:21). It is characteristic of ancient Near-Eastern love poetry to single out parts of the body for praise. Cf. Song 4:1—7; iQapGen 20:2--7. The description of Sarah in the latter passage comments on the perfection of her legs. Ben Sira differs from the other passages however in drawing his analogies from the furnishings of the temple, and thereby projecting a sense of admiration rather than physical desire.
(m. Yebam. 14:1).
Sir 26:1-4 turns briefly to the joys of a good wife. She is considered solely in terms of her effect on her husband. The point of this stanza is the converse of 25:19. As the sinner deserves a bad wife, the one who fears the Lord deserves a good one. The good wife here seems to exist to reward the deserving man rather than having a value in her own right. The value of a good wife for a wise man is also noted in the late-Egyptian Instruction of Phibis, 8:5 (J. T Sanders 1983: 86).
26:19-27 are found in the second Greek recension and are not extant in Hebrew. They are usually regarded as secondary, but Peters (1913: 218) and Skehan and DiLella (1987: 351) regard them as authentic. They add little to the foregoing discussion, v. 26c, d repeats 26:10, b. The advice in w. 19-22
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 686
forgiveness: cf. 7:36; 8:7; 14:12; 18:24; 38:20. The point is that everyone is subject to divine judgement in the end, on the basis of the commandments. We have no secure place from which to pass judgement on others (cf. Mt 7:1). (28:12-26) On Slander The discourse on slander has no real parallel in the earlier wisdom tradition, but cf. the discussion of gossip in 19:7—12. On the ambivalence of speech (v. 12), cf. Jas 3:10. The expression translated as 'slander' in the NRSV is literally 'third tongue', so called because it comes between the subject of the slander and the hearer. So b. 'Arafc. I5b: 'The third tongue kills three' (the subject, the speaker, and the hearer). In the case of virtuous women (v. 15), slander could lead to divorce and loss of the marriage settlement, v. 17/7 echoes Prov 25:15/7, but the context in Proverbs concerns persuasion. This section ends by reiterating the need for caution in speech, which is typical of ancient wisdom; cf. 20:18-19; 23:7-8. (29:1-20) Loans, Alms, and Surety This section combines three poems on related themes: loans (w. 1—7), alms (w. 8— 13), and providing surety or collateral for another (w. 14—20). There is some tension in Ben Sira's advice on loans. The Torah requires that one help an indigent neighbour, and not exact interest (Ex 22:24; Lev 25:36—7; Deut 15:7—11; 23:19—20). Sirach endorses the commandment. No mention is made of interest. He also urges rectitude in repaying loans, thereby implying that even a scribe or an educated person may need a loan on occasion. The need to repay promptly is also emphasized in 4QSapiential Work A (40^17 i i 21—3). But much of the passage dwells on the difficulty of recovering a loan. Cf. Ps 37:21: the wicked do not pay back, the righteous keep giving. So in v. 7 Sirach shows considerable sympathy for those who refuse to lend because of fear of being cheated. On this issue, he is at odds with the spirit of the Gospels. Contrast Lk 6:34-5: if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is there for that? Sirach abides by the letter of the commandment, but his pragmatic wisdom favours a more cautious course of action.
is closely parallel to Prov 5:7-14. The concern in sexual activity is to propagate a line of offspring. Relations with a prostitute are wasted, v. 23 recapitulates 25:19 and 26:3. Some of the analogies in this passage are very crude: a prostitute is like spittle and a headstrong wife is like a dog. (26:28-27:29) Miscellaneous Maxims The extended discourse on women is followed by a string of short units on traditional wisdom themes, punctuated by pronouncements on the inevitability of retribution (26:28c; 27:3, 29). 26:28 is a numerical proverb, which ends with the condemnation of the relapsed sinner. 28c should read 'wealthy man' (Syriac) rather than 'warrior' (Gk.)—the Greektranslator evidently misunderstood the Hebrew 'is hayil, which can mean either man of valour or man of wealth (Smendi9o6: 240). For the wise man despised, cf. Job 29:2—30:10. If we allow that the wise man was not always despised (cf. Job), then in each case the person has lost something that he or she had for a time. On the relapsed sinner, cf. Ezek 18:24.
26:29—27:3 gives a remarkably sceptical view of commerce. Traditional wisdom denounced cheating and the use of false scales, which was evidently widespread in the ancient world (Prov 11:1; 20:10), but Sirach goes further in suggesting that dishonesty is inherent in the pursuit ofwealth. Cf. Mt 19:23—4 on the difficulty of a rich person entering heaven. This saying is probably a comment on the increase of commerce in Judea in the Hellenistic period. The Tobiads come to mind as the paradigmatic profiteers of the era. According to 2 Mace 3:4, a dispute over the city market was the initial cause of friction that initiated the chain of events that led to the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt. 27:3 is typical of Sirach's rather naive view that sinners suffer retribution in this life.
27:4-7 emphasizes the importance of speech as the reflection of a person's character; cf. 20:5-8. The 'refuse' in v. 4 refers to the dung of the oxen mixed in with the straw. For the comparison with the fruit of a tree, cf. Mt 7:16—19; 12:33. This theme is illustrated in w. 11-15. Th£ intervening w. 8-10 emphasize the inevitability of the link of act and consequence, which is typical of ancient Near-Eastern wisdom (Koch 1955), cf. Am 3:3—8. This theme is further developed in w. 22—9, and is the underpinning of Sirach's belief in the inevitability of retribution. 27:16-21 on the betrayal of secrets illustrates another aspect of indiscreet speech, and is a traditional concern of wisdom literature. Cf. Prov 20:19; 25:9Finally, the sage turns to hypocrisy and mischief-making. Here again there is a parallel in Prov 6:12-19. Cf. also Theognis, 93-6. 27:25 is a variant of Prov 26:27/7, while Prov 26:270 is reproduced exactly in Sir 27:260. The unit ends with an affirmation of retribution in this life. (27:30-28:11) Anger, Vengeance, and Strife Mention of the Lord's vengeance recalls Deut 32:35-6. The Qumran Rule of the Community also eschews vengeance for the present, but only defers it until the day of wrath (iQS 10:17—20). Sirach here is closer in spirit to the Gospels, especially in linking forgiveness to prayer (Mt 6:12, 14-15; 18:32-5; Mk 11:25; Lk 11:4). Similar sentiments are found in T. Gad, 6:3—7; ^™- ZebuIon, 5:3, but these passages are of uncertain provenance. In a later Jewish context, cf. b. Ros Has. 173; b. Meg. 283. Characteristic of Sirach is the reminder of death as an argument for
In the case of almsgiving, there is no expectation of repayment. Sirach has already treated this subject in 3:30—1. The NRSV translation of 9:11 ('Lay up your treasure...') is unduly influenced by the Gospel parallel (Mt 6:10 11 Luke 12:33-4: 'Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven'). The point here is rather 'dispose of your treasure in accordance with the commandments of the Most High' (cf. Skehan and DiLella 1987: 368). The parallel with the NT holds, however, as Sirach goes on to say 'store up almsgiving in your treasury'. Good deeds earn credit with the Lord. Cf. Tob 4:8-9: Tf you have many possessions make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a treasure for yourself against the day of necessity.'
Pss. Sol. 9:5 speaks of laying up treasure with the Lord by doing righteousness. 2 Bar 24:1 speaks of treasuries where the merits of the righteous are stored until the day of judgement. The notion that hoarded wealth rusts (Sir 29:10) parallels the thought of Mt 6:20 on the perishability ofwealth. Cf. also Jas 5:2—3.
Proverbs uniformly counsels against going surety for another (Prov 6:1-5; II:I5; I7:I8; 20:16; 22:26-7; 27:I3)- Sirach appreciates the helpfulness implied, but he also dwells on the
687 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
in passing in v. igc, which implies that a person in bad health is being punished by the Lord. Compare the theology ofthe friends of Job, and the assumption ofthe disciples in Jn 9:2. This line is not found in the Hebrew, which refers instead to 'one who has wealth'. The Greek verse may have resulted from an attempt to make sense of corrupt Hebrew (Smend 1906: 270). The theological position it reflects was widespread, but not explicitly endorsed by Ben Sira. v. 20 is also corrupt. The eunuch embracing a virgin, and the comparison with one who acts under compulsion are imported here from Sir 20:4. (The reference to the eunuch was apt enough in the context of ch. 30.) The thought of v. 23 is more typical of Ecclesiastes than of Sirach. Cf. Eccl 9:7-10; 11:9, but cf. also Sir 14:11—19 and the comments above. Modern medicine has come to appreciate the wisdom ofthe sentiment in v. 24.
pitfalls. He also includes a warning for the sinner, who tries to take advantage of such a situation, that lawsuits will follow. Retribution is not left entirely in the hands of God! He concludes with a typical middle way: help your neighbour if you can, but be prudent. The theme of surety also appears in 4QSapiential Work A (4(3416 7) but the passage is obscure (Harrington 1994: 147). (29:21-8) On Self-Sufficiency The theme of self-sufficiency is illustrated by the misery of one who depends on others for lodging. A longer list of the necessities of life is given in 39:26. Ben Sira's concern is with honour and the lack thereof, the indignity of depending on others; cf. the critique of begging in 40:28-30. Self-sufficiency was widely entertained as an ideal in Greek philosophy, especially by the Stoics (Middendorp 1973: 30), but Prov 12:9 appreciates the advantage of working for oneself (reading fobed 16 rather than febed 16). See further Sir 31:19. Sirach warns, however, against inappropriate selfsufficiency (11:22).
(31:1—11) Attitude to Wealth The order of chapters in Greek and Hebrew diverges at this point (Gk. ch. 31 = Heb. ch. 34). w. 1-2 are hopelessly corrupt in the Hebrew, and 30:2 is also corrupt in Greek. The general idea is that a person devoted to the pursuit of wealth suffers insomnia. According to 40:1—11, troubled sleep is an affliction of humankind in general, but sinners are afflicted more than others. Insomnia in itself is not necessarily a moral indictment. The statements in w. 2-3 are neutral, simple observations of fact. Cf. 13:21—3. Proverbs is similarly realistic on the question of wealth and poverty (Prov 10:15; 18:23; I9:4» 6).
(30:1—13) On Sons The education of sons, which is treated in scattered proverbs in Proverbs, is expanded into a section of 13 verses here. Phibis also devotes a whole instruction (the tenth, Papyrus Insinger 8:21-9:20) to the subject. Both rely heavily on physical punishment, as also does Proverbs (13:24; 22:15; 23:13—14; 29:15). Cf. also the Sayings ofAhiqar, Syriac version: 'My son, withhold notyour son from stripes, forthe beating of a child is like manure to the garden, or like rope to an ass, or like a tether on the foot of an ass' (Skehan and DiLella 1987: 377). The goal is to instil discipline, but also to produce a copy of the father (v. 4; cf. Tob 9:6). The emphasis is on conformity, with little or no place for creativity. A very different emphasis is found in Ps.-Phoc. 207-9: 'Be not harsh with your children but be gentle, and if a child sins against you, let the mother cut her son down to size, or else the elders of the family or the chiefs ofthe people.' (This passage is based on Deut 21:18-21, but transforms the biblical text into a plea for paternal leniency.) Cf. also Col. 3:21: 'Fathers, do not provoke your children'. Sirach seems to have belonged to the 'old school' in the matter of family discipline. (30:14-25) Food and Health The value of good health is universally appreciated. The sentiment that death is preferable to life in some circumstances is also found in Tob 3:6, 10, 13 in the prayers of Tobit and Sarah. Cf. also i Kings 19:4 (Elijah), Jon 4:3; Job 3:11, 13, 17; Eccl 4:2. Sirach, however, does not speak out of personal misery, nor is he a sceptic like Ecclesiastes. His observation is all the more remarkable for its dispassionate objectivity; cf. Theog. 181—2. Death is characterized as 'endless sleep' in the Greek text. (The corresponding Heb. has 'to go down to Sheol'.) The repose of the dead is commonly called sleep in Jewish epitaphs ofthe Hellenistic and Roman periods (van der Horst 1991: 114—17) but so also Job 3:13.
w. 4-11 move on to moral judgement, v. 5 echoes 27:1 in condemning the inordinate pursuit of wealth. Yet v. 8 suggests Sirach's ideal: a rich person who is found blameless. Such a person may be hard to find, but not impossible. Wealth was traditionally regarded as a reward of wisdom. Sirach was aware that this view was problematic, but he had not given up on it entirely. In defence of his admiration for the blameless rich person, he points out that he had the power to sin, but refrained. Sirach's confidence in the security ofthe wealth of the righteous person, however, might have been dispelled by a reading ofthe book of Job.
(31:12-32:13) Eating and Drinking at Banquets Behaviour at banquets is a theme of Egyptian literature from an early time and is treated in the Instruction ofPtah-hotep, the Instruction of Kagemni, and the Instruction of Amen-em-ope (J. T Sanders 1983: 67). The latter work was probably the source for Prov 23:1—3. Sirach's instruction follows the same pattern. (Cf. also 13:8—13.) The advice is directed towards someone who is inexperienced in such matters, and is likely to be excited by the abundance of food. Sirach counsels moderation, and this is in accordance both with age-old Near-Eastern wisdom and with Hellenistic philosophy (cf. Ps.-Phoc. 69 and the Greek parallels cited by van der Horst 1978: 160-1). w. 19-20 note the beneficial effects of moderation. The advice on vomiting in v. 21 does not imply the Roman custom of using an emetic so that one could then eat more, but is simply practical advice to relieve distress. The need for such advice, however, is not reflected in the older wisdom literature.
Greek MSS variously insert the heading 'About Foods' before v. 16 or v. 18. In either case, the heading is inappropriate. Food is introduced in v. 18 only to illustrate the frustration of sickness. Offerings placed on a grave are viewed as futile here, and are disapproved in Deut 26:14, but aPPear to be approved in Tob 4:17. See also the comment on Sir 7:33 above. The futility of offering food to idols is the theme of the satirical story of Bel and the Dragon. An ominous note is struck
w. 23—4 shift the focus away from the inexperienced diner to the host of the banquet. Dinner parties were much more common in the Hellenistic world than they had been in the ancient Near East (cf. the passing reference to banquets in 2
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 688
The first of these emphasizes observance of the Torah and fear of the Lord, which appear to be interchangeable here. Seeking God here is equivalent to seeking wisdom in other passages (14:22-5; 51:15-22). Those who seek the law are those who genuinely want to conform to it. The sinner who shuns reproof bends it to his own liking. Ben Sira here seems to have in mind people who pick and choose among the stipulations of the law. In contrast, i Enoch, 99:2, speaks of people who 'alter the words of truth' and seem to undertake a more serious revision or reinterpretation of the Torah. w. 19—22 dwell on the need for caution. This too leads to keeping the commandments. Sirach recommends conformity to the Torah as the surest means of self-preservation. The comparison with a divine oracle (33:3) only concerns dependability. Sirach is not suggesting that the Torah be treated as prophecy, w. 4-6 are traditional sayings, only loosely related to the rest of the poem by their characterization of the fool.
Mace 2:27, which assumes familiarity with the practice). They were also a source of prestige for the hosts. The NRSV rendering of v. 24, 'the city complains', reflects the idiom of the Greek translator. The Hebrew speaks of murmuring in the gate, the traditional place of congregation in the Near-Eastern city.
In the Hellenistic banquet, the main course was followed by wine-drinking and entertainment, but this was also the custom in the ancient Near East (cf. Esth 5:6; Dan 5:1-2, which are set in the Persian and Babylonian periods, but, at least in the case of Dan 5, date from the Hellenistic). The eighth-century prophet Amos castigates those who lounge on couches while eating lambs from the flock, and then sing idle songs while drinking wine from bowls (Am 6:4—6. On the Greek banquet see Smith and Taussig 1990: 21—35). Wine-drinking was a problem long before the Hellenistic period. Isaiah taunts those who are 'heroes in drinking wine and valiant in mixing drink' (Isa 5:22) and Amos complains of the drinking of the women of Samaria (Am 4:1). Proverbs paints an amusing picture of drunkenness (23:29-35), but is invariably negative on the subject (cf. also 20:1; 31:4-5). Sirach is more positive, and proclaims wine to be 'life'to humans. Cf. Ps. 104:15;! Tim 5:23. He is no less cautionary than Proverbs on the danger of excess, but he recognizes the inadvisability of reproaching a person who is inebriated. The dangers of intoxication at a banquet are vividly illustrated in i Mace 16:15—16 and Jdt 13:2-8. In 32:1-13, Sirach addresses in turn the conduct appropriate to the banquet master, the elder guests, and the younger guests. The position of banquet master or symposiarch reflects the Hellenistic context of this discussion. This person had the responsibility of arranging seating and ensuring good service. Since this was an honorary position, there was danger of self-importance (32:1). The Hebrew of 32:2 is corrupt. Smend (1906: 286) argues that the Greek 'crown' renders Hebrew 'glory' (kabod), adding a distinctively Hellenistic nuance. Sirach acknowledges that older guests have the right to speak but he urges moderation. He discourages speechmaking by the younger guests. His preference is that people simply enjoy the music. Cf. Am 6:5. In Plato's Symposium, 1761, the flute-girl is dismissed so that the company can concentrate on philosophical discussion. The Greek text of Sir 9:14—16 (but not the Heb.) seems to imply that the righteous should discuss the Torah on such occasions, but ch. 31 envisages a social situation where all the company is not necessarily righteous. The well-educated person should also know how to behave in an urbane manner in such a setting. A fictional account of after-dinner conversation in a Jewish work can be found in the Epistle ofAristeas, 187-294, but this is exceptional as it is a royal banquet and the king questions the guests. Cf. however Sir 13:11, where Sirach warns that a powerful person may test a guest by prolonged conversation. Sirach, characteristically, concludes the section with an exhortation to piety. It was also customary at Greek banquets to pour a libation and sing a chant to the gods (Plato,
(33:7—19) Variety in Creation The final poem in this section addresses the question of theodicy. Why do things turn out differently from one case to another? Sirach takes his cue from the variation between ordinary time and holy days, which he attributes to divine decree. The idea that God controls the times for all things occurs frequently in the apocalyptic literature of the time (Dan 2:21; i Enoch, 92:2; von Rad 1972: 266-9). So also with humanity. Nothing is said here of Adam's (or Eve's!) sin as a cause for distinctions between people. Rather, God appointed their different ways. The illustration of this principle in v. 12 contrasts the election of Israel with the dispossession of the Canaanites, but both are taken by way of example. The idea that God makes people walk in their different paths sounds remarkably close to the deterministic view of the Qumran Rule of the Community (iQS 3:15-16), and is at odds with Sirach's vigorous defence of human responsibility in 15:11-20; 17:1-20. Sirach's thought on the subject seems to be influenced by the focus of his question. In chs. 15 and 17 he was primarily concerned with human behaviour. In ch. 33 he considers the question from the viewpoint of the order of creation, and the problem of theodicy or the justice of God. His solution is to assert that all God's works are in pairs. This notion is very probably influenced by Stoic philosophy (Pautrel 1963; Middendorp 1973: 29). Chrysippus (late 3rd cent. BCE) taught that nothing could be more inept than the people who suppose that good could have existed without the existence of evil, because antithetical concepts must exist in opposition to each other (frag. 1169; the contrast of opposites is also found in Pythagoras and Heraclitus). This doctrine is different from the systematic dualism of the Qumran Rule of the Community, which is probably indebted to Zoroastrian dualism. Sirach is not claiming that all things are divided between good and bad, light and darkness, only that everything must have its opposite. He was not a rigorous enough philosopher, however, to try to reconcile this doctrine with his other theological beliefs.
This section ends with an autobiographical passage in which Ben Sira protests his selflessness and asserts his authority as a teacher of wisdom. The image of the gleaner emphasizes his dependence on tradition. This passage is a counterpart to Sir 24:30—4, which concluded Part I of the
Symp. 176). (32:14-33:6) Prudence and the Law The long section 25:133:19, which is mainly taken up with practical advice, concludes with two theological poems (32:14—33:6 and 33:7—19).
689 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
is widely accepted in rabbinic literature (Box and Oesterley 1913: 433). The dismissal of dreams is followed by two short affirmative poems. First, Sirach stresses the importance of experience and travel, a point reiterated in 39:4. It is unfortunate that he gives no details of his travels. Travel was dangerous in the ancient world. Cf. Paul's litany of dangers in 2 Cor 11:25-6. Second, Sirach balances his acknowledgement of experiential wisdom with an encomium of the fear of the Lord. For the image of God as shelter, cf. Isa 4:6; 25:4—5; Ps 121:5-6.
book. Sir 51:13-30, which concludes the entire book, strikes similar notes. The suspicion arises, therefore, that 24:30—4 and 33:16—19 may have marked the conclusion of the book in earlier stages of its composition. (33:20-39:11) (33:20-33) Property and Slaves w. 20-4 warn against handing over one's property prematurely. This advice accords with Ben Sira's general preference for self-sufficiency. It also protects the honour and dignity of the parent. Ben Sira does not seem to envisage the possibility of making a will in advance that would only come into effect at the time of death. The literary form of testament, as found in the Testaments of the
(34:21—35:26) On Sacrifices Ben Sira is exceptional among the wisdom books of the HB and the Apocrypha in devoting a lengthy treatise to cult and sacrifices (Perdue 1977). The first part of this treatise, 34:21-31, is a critique of the abuse of the cult, in the spirit of the prophets. Especially striking are w. 24—7, which equate social injustice with murder. Cf. Isa 65:3, which can be read as equating sacrifice with murder, although the text is ambiguous. Sirach is quite clear that the problem is not with sacrifice as such but with the abuse of the poor, but sacrifice cannot compensate for social injustice. Sirach may be commenting on contemporary abuses here, or he may be simply reflecting the teaching of the prophets (cf. Am 5:21-7; 8:4-8). In 34:25, Skehan and DiLella (1987) read 'bread of charity' (reading hesed, with the Syriac; the Gk. presupposes heser, 'want/need'). If this is correct, almsgiving is not optional. To withhold it in some cases would be tantamount to murder, w. 28—31 build an argument against superficial repentance, w. 28—9 are examples of mutually negating behaviour. The person who fasts and sins again is selfnegating. For purification after touching a corpse, see Num 19:9—12. In 35:1—5 Sirach addresses those things that are most pleasing to the Lord, and insists that the ethical demands of the law are more important than sacrifices. The point of 35:1 is not that the law requires many sacrifices (a point that Sirach would also grant) but that observance is the equivalent of many sacrifices. Sirach displays his familiarity with the different kinds of sacrifice, but the point is that kindness and almsgiving are as effective as sacrifice in pleasing God. This kind of spiritualizing of the cult is found already in the HB, e.g. Ps 51:17. In the Qumran Rule of the Community (iQS 8:1-4) righteousness serves as a substitute for the cult. Hellenistic Jews such as Philo also placed their primary stress on the spiritual, symbolic meaning of sacrifice. Ben Sira, however, goes on to say that one should also observe the literal commandments in this respect. Cf. Sir 7:31. The language of the Torah (Ex 23:14; 34:20; Deut 16:16) is echoed by 35:6. This is in accordance with Ben Sira's general insistence on the fulfilment of the law, and also with his criticism of miserliness (14:3-19). Sirach does not, however, attach value to the sacrificial cult in itself, except in so far as it is required by the fulfilment of the law. (For an argument that Sirach attached greater importance to the sacrificial cult, see Stadelmann 1980: 40-138.) 35:14—26 is a poem on the justice of God, related to the preceding passages bythe shared theme of prayer. God cannot be bribed by sacrifice to overlook the injustice of the worshipper. The Hebrew of 35:15/7 reads 'for he is a God of justice'
Twelve Patriarchs, imagines the father on his deathbed.
The existence of slaves was taken for granted throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. Ben Sira's advice on their treatment vacillates. First, he advocates harsh treatment, comparing the slave to a beast of burden. A slave who is underworked will seek liberty, and idleness creates mischief. This advice is in line with Prov 29:19, 21 and is also paralleled in Phibis (Papyrus Insinger, 14:6—11; J. T Sanders 1983: 95). This advice, however, is severely qualified, if not undercut, by 33:30^ d, which warns against overbearing behaviour towards anyone. Here Sirach is probably influenced by the Torah, which granted slaves limited but important rights (Ex 21:1— n, 20-1, 26-7; Lev 25:39-55; Deut 15:12-18; 23:16-17). Lev 25:39, 46, permits the acquisition of Gentiles as slaves but says that Israelites who are forced into debt slavery should be treated as hired servants. The Hellenistic Jewish Ps.-Phocylides, 223-6, advocates humane treatment for slaves, as does
Sirach also in 7:20-1 and 33:31. Finally Ben Sira takes his characteristic line of self-interest. A slave who is ill-treated will run away. According to Deut 23:15—16, it was forbidden to return a runaway slave to the owner. The need to take good care of a slave is especially acute if there is only one. It seems then that Ben Sira is transmitting a traditional hard line on the treatment of slaves, but recognizes that gentler treatment is more practical.
(34:1—20) On Dreams Dreams were a respected means of revelation in the ancient world, and so also in Genesis (e.g. Jacob's dream in Gen 28; the Joseph story). Close to the time of Sirach, Daniel was honoured as interpreter of the dreams of a foreign king, and received his own revelation in a dream (Dan 7:1). Deuteronomy, however, views dreams with suspicion and groups them with portents and omens (Deut 13:1—5). Jeremiah is derisive towards prophets who rely on dreams (Jer 23:23—40). Proverbs pays no attention to dreams, but Eliphaz in Job reports 'visions of the night' (Job 4:13). Sirach stands in the tradition of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah on this issue. He does not rule out entirely the possibility of revelation through dreams (34:6) but he emphasizes their deceptiveness. His debt to Deuteronomy is evident in 34:8: dreams are not necessary for keeping the law (cf Deut 30:11-14). This passage shows clearly the gulf that separates Ben Sira from the roughly contemporary apocalyptic writers of i Enoch and Daniel. In the apocalyptic writings, some form of additional revelation, over and above the law, is essential. In fact, Sirach's sweeping rejection of dreams is exceptional in ancient Judaism. Josephus often introduces references to dreams where there were none in the biblical text, and the efficacy of dreams
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 690
goes on to pray for the gathering of the tribes in v. 13, the display of holiness to the nations probably lies in the punishment of Israel. Sirach asks in effect that the nations be brought low just as Israel was. The goal of the knowledge of God is also characteristic of Ezekiel (cf. Ezek 6:7, 14; 7:28, etc.). Insistence on monotheism is characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism. Cf. Sib. Or. 3:11; Wis 13:10—19; Ep. Arist. 135—8; Philo, Dec. 76-80. The signs and wonders of v. 6 evoke the Exodus (Ex 7:3).
echoing Isa 30:18. (The Gk. reads: 'for the Lord is the judge'.) Concern for the widow and the orphan is a commonplace of ancient Near-Eastern wisdom. Deut 10:18 says that the Lord executes justice for the orphan and the widow. According to Ps 68:5, he is their father; in Prov 23:10-11 he is their redeemer. Cf also Ex 3:9, where God hears the cry of the oppressed Israelites. The imagery of God as Divine Warrior, coming to wreak vengeance on his enemies, is widespread in the HB; cf. especially Deut 32:35-6. Typically in the HB, the Lord comes to vindicate his people, Israel. This biblical language is borrowed in v. 25, but in the context 'his people' are the poor rather than ethnic Israel. (36:1-22) A Prayer for Deliverance This is the main passage in Sirach whose authenticity is disputed. Nowhere else in the book does Sirach express antagonism towards foreign nations. If this prayer was composed by Ben Sira, the hostile rulers would have to be the Seleucids, who ruled Palestine from 198 BCE. But Josephus reports that Seleucid rule was initially welcomed by the Jews, and that Antiochus III (the Great) helped restore the city and supported the temple cult (Ant. 12.129-53). The high priest of the day was Simon II (the Just), who is eulogized in Sir 50:1-21. The restoration of temple and city are listed as his outstanding achievements. It is scarcely conceivable, then, that Sirach would have viewed Antiochus III as a hostile ruler, or asked God to crush his head. In fact, such sentiments only make sense in or after the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and there is no other reflection of that reign in Sirach's book (Middendorp 1973: 125).
The notion that God determines the times has been encountered already in Sir 33:7-9. In v. 10, NRSV 'day' corresponds to Hebrew 'end' (qes), which the Greek renders as kairos, time. There is some tension in 36:10 between the belief that God can hasten the day of vengeance and the belief that the time is appointed and God need only remember it. The linking of the terms 'end' and 'appointed time' derives from Hab 2:3, and is reflected several times in Daniel (10:14; II:27> 35)> where it invariably implies that the time is fixed. The idea that God can hasten the end arises from the urgency of prayer, v. n calls for complete destruction of the enemy leaving no survivors. For the crushing of the heads of the enemy, cf. Num 24:18; Ps 110:6. The boast of the enemy is taken from Isa 47:8. For Israel as God's firstborn, cf. Ex 4:22; for Jerusalem as the place of God's dwelling, Ps 132:13. Especially noteworthy is the emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy in w. 20—1. While Sirach's sage studies prophecies (39:1) we do not get the sense that he expects them to be fulfilled. The fulfilment of prophecy is of urgent concern in Daniel (cf. Dan 9) and in the Dead Sea scrolls (e.g. the pesher on Habakkuk). The Apostrophe to Zion from Qumran (nQPs 22:5—6, 13—14) also recalls the visions of the prophets for the restoration of Zion. The final appellation, God of the ages, harks back to the divine title El Olam in Genesis (Gen 21:33).
(The possibility that the poem was composed before the Syrian take-over, and regards the Ptolemies as the enemy, is unsatisfactory because of the generic denunciation of foreign nations.) The likelihood that this prayer is a secondary addition to the book is overwhelming. It is true that 35:21-6 provides a lead into the prayer (Skehan and DiLella 1987: 420). This explains why the prayer was inserted at this particular point. But the passage in ch. 35 is concerned with the universal judgement of God on the unrighteous, whereby 'he repays mortals according to their deeds' (35:24). The prayer in ch. 36 calls for a highly particular judgement on the enemies of Israel.
(36:23—37:15) Discrimination and Friendship The theme of this section concerns the need for discrimination in choosing friends and companions. 36:23 sets the tone by distinguishing between what is tolerable and what is preferred. The pattern is repeated in 36:26, 37:1, and 37:7. In each case Sirach makes a statement about a class (food, men, friends, counsellors) and then says that some members of that class are preferable to others. 36:26 stands out as an exception. Instead of moving from 'any man' (will a woman accept) to 'some men are preferable', he says 'one girl is preferable to another'. It is likely that Sirach has modified a traditional statement, so as to impose a male instead of a female point of view (Trenchard 1982: 20). The woman's willingness to accept any man does not imply promiscuity. It simply reflects the social practice whereby the woman had little choice. Girls were given in marriage by their fathers (cf. Tob 7:10-14; in Gen 24:57—8, Rebekah is consulted as a courtesy, but she has already been given, v. 51). The marriage contract was an agreement between the groom and the bride's father. Moreover, women had little security in life outside marriage (Archer 1990: 125—6). 36:27—8 notes some of the things that make a woman attractive: beauty, kindness, and humility. The following verses digress on the advisability of marriage. Sirach borrows the phrase of Gen 2:18, 20 to refer to the help a wife can give
In the canonical psalter, communal prayers for deliverance are usually embedded in psalms of complaint, which include some description of the abject state of the community (Ps 44; 74; 79—80; 83; Gerstenberger 1988: 14). Comparable prayers from the Second Temple period also typically include a confession of sin (Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 9:6-37; Dan 9:4-19; Song of Thr (Prayer of Azariah); Bar 2:11—26; 4QDibHam—Words of the Luminaries). There is no confession of sin in Sir 36, and the distress of Jerusalem is only hinted at. Instead it is a direct appeal for divine intervention.
The expression 'God of all' in v. i recurs in ^y.zy (Heb. only) and 50:220 (Gk. only; Heb. reads 'God of Israel'). Sir 43:27 goes further, saying that he is the all. The fear of God among the nations recalls the original conquest of Canaan. Cf. Ex 15:15—16. The language of manifesting holiness is especially characteristic of Ezekiel. Cf. Ezek 20:41; 28:25; 39:27> where God manifests his holiness in gathering Israel from among the nations. (In Ezek 38:23, the reference is to the judgement on Gog.) Since Sirach
691 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
statement that God created medicine (38:4) is paralleled in Phibis (Papyrus Insinger, 32:12; J. T Sanders 1983: 75). Ex 15:23-5 is taken as an illustration of the use of a balm, since wood was thrown in the water to sweeten it. Contrast the negative view of 'roots', which are taken to be part of the revelation of the fallen angels in the roughly contemporary Book of the Watchers (i Enoch, 8:3).
her husband. Moreover, she can give him a 'nest' and prevent him from wandering. Sirach implies that the unattached man cannot be trusted (cf the language applied to Cain in Gen 4:12). A wife is necessary for social respectability. Most revealing of Sirach's attitude on marriage, however, is the statement that a wife is a man's best possession (v. 29); cf. SIR 7:26. Even while Sirach expresses the high value he places on a wife, he still regards her as a possession of her husband. The patriarchal quality of this statement is not negated by the fact that the language recalls Prov 8:22, which says that the Lord acquired (or created qand), wisdom as the beginning of his way.
None the less, Sirach does not rely completely on the ways of medicine. He also advocates prayer and sacrifice. He implies that illness is due to sin (38:10; cf. Deut 28:21—9; J°b 4:7> Jn 9:2), which must be cleansed before the physician can be effective. The physician too prays for divine assistance (v. 14). The Greek and one Hebrew reading of v. 15 say that the sinner will be delivered into the hand of the physician, and this reading is preferred by some authorities (Smend 1906: 343; Peters 1913: 311). Yet the negative implication about the physician goes against the thrust of the passage. The reading of NRSV is supported by another Hebrew MS and makes better sense (Skehan and DiLella 1987: 443).
The subject of friends has been treated at length in 6:5-17 and 12:8—13:23, and touched upon in several places. The reference to the evil inclination (cf. 15:14 above) seems to have arisen from a translator's mistake. The Hebrew reads 'alas for the friend who says "why were you fashioned so?" ' (Skehan and DiLella 1987: 428).
37:7—15 reviews some of the pitfalls involved in seeking advice; v. n probably refers to a polygamous situation, cf 26:6. Characteristically, Sirach concludes the discussion of friends and associates by recommending the company of those who keep the law. Cf. 6:16—17; 12:13—15; 13:1.
w. 16-23 treat ^e subject of mourning for the dead and counsel moderation. On the one hand, custom should be properly observed. The importance of burial is amply illustrated in Tob 1:17-18; 4:3-4; 6:15; 12:12; 14:12-13. Mourning was often performed by wailing women (cf. Jer 9:16-19).
(37:16—31) True and False Friends The theme of true and false wisdom was treated in 19:20—30 in religious terms, emphasizing that the wicked are not truly wise. w. 16-26 make the contrast in practical terms. A person who is intelligent and a good speaker, but derives no personal benefit from this wisdom, is deficient. Wisdom entails enlightened self-interest, w. 23-6, however, put the individual in a communal context. The people, Israel, transcends the individuals, whose days are limited, v. 26 expresses one of Sirach's major goals in life: honour among the people and immortality through reputation. This ideal is repeated in 39:9-11; 41:11-13, and 44:13-15. Contrast the pessimistic view of Ecclesiastes that there is no remembrance of wise or fool (Eccl 2:16).
Sirach's counsel of moderation is paralleled in Ps.-Phoc. 978, and in several Greek authors (e.g. Soph. El. 140—2. See van der Horst 1978: 179). Sirach uses the occasion to remind the reader of the inevitability of death, including one's own. The practical tone here is typical of biblical wisdom: what matters is not the intention but the result. In this case, mourning does not help the dead and may injure the living.
(38:24—39:11) The Scribal Profession The contrast between the scribe and various professional artisans bears an obvious analogy to an Egyptian composition called the 'Satire on the Trades', the Instruction ofKheti, Son ofDuauf, composed in the early second millennium, but copied repeatedly over several centuries (ANET 432—4). It is derisive towards all kinds of manual work: the building contractor is dirtier than pigs; the embalmer smells of corpses; the metal worker stinks more than fish. Writing some 1500 years later, Ben Sira is much more diplomatic. He acknowledges that every city needs craftsmen, and that they are worthy of respect. None the less, his tone is condescending and his goal is to proclaim the superiority of his own profession. This superiority is reflected in the positions of honour listed in w. 32—3, which are beyond the capacity of an artisan, but for which a scribe is well qualified.
The brief stanza on moderation recapitulates a theme treated at greater length in 31:12-31.
(38:1-23) Attitudes to Physicians and Death The two instructions in this section are related by the themes of sickness and death, w. 1—15 recommend respect for physicians. In the HB, physicians are rarely mentioned, and regarded as unreliable. King Asa of Israel is condemned because he sought healing from physicians rather than from God (2 Chr 16:12). Job derides his friends as 'worthless physicians' (Job 13:4). Jeremiah points to the uselessness of medicine for certain problems (Jer 8:22-9:6; 46:11; 51:8) but he at least shows familiarity with the practice of seeking balm from Gilead. In view of the Chronicler's comment on Asa, it seems safe to infer that some people in ancient Judaism had a negative view of physicians for religious reasons, and that Sirach's advocacy of the profession is in some part directed against such people. In contrast, Greece had a flourishing medical tradition, associated with the fifth-century figure of Hippocrates, and there was also a venerable medical tradition in Egypt.
The Greek of 38:240 preserves the better reading, as is shown by the parallelism with 24/7. The Hebrew ('the wisdom of the scribe increases wisdom') is obviously corrupt. Sirach makes no apology for belonging to a leisured class. How else could he pursue wisdom?
The positive characterization of the scribe begins in 38:34. Pride of place is given to the study of the Torah. Ezra might be considered the prototype here, since he is described as a scribe well-versed in the law of Moses (Ezra 7:6) but Ben Sira singularly fails to acknowledge Ezra in the Praise of the Fathers
Sirach argues that the healing power of God is mediated indirectly by physicians working with balms and herbs. The
(chs. 24—50). Unlike Ezra, moreover, Sirach's sage is concerned with the wisdom of all the ancients. His concern for
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 692
when it is slaughtered and eaten (Porphyry, On Abstinence, 3.20.1, 3). The Stoics also conceded that the usefulness of some plants and animals remains to be discovered (Lactantius, On the Anger of God, 13.9-10; for the debates about teleology in antiquity see Long and Sedley 1987: 58—65; 121— 2; 323—33). Sirach's elaboration of this notion, however, is somewhat confusing. All God's works are good (w. 16, 33) but for sinners good things and bad were created (v. 25), or the same things are good for the righteous but bad for sinners (v. 27). In part, the confusion lies in the ambiguity of the term 'bad'. What is bad for sinners is really good. This ambiguity is also in evidence in the doctrine of pairs (33:14-15; 42:24-5). But there is also a reluctance on the part of Ben Sira to admit that bad things can happen to good people. The idea that nature discriminates between the righteous and the wicked is also found in Wis 19:6.
prophecy has been the source of some debate (Stadelmann 1980: 216—46). Despite occasional flourishes, such as his critique of false worship in ch. 35, Sirach breathes little of the prophetic spirit. Apart from the prayer in ch. 36, whose authenticity we have questioned, he is not concerned with predictions of national restoration or doom. For him, the books of the prophets are a source of wisdom just as Proverbs is. His hermeneutic of prophecy appears most clearly in chs. 48-9. The aspiration of the sage to serve before rulers is corroborated by the stories of Joseph, Daniel, and Ahiqar. On foreign travel, cf Sirach's own claim in 34:12. The sage evidently has other sources of wisdom besides the Law and the Prophets. Sirach concludes, however, by emphasizing his piety. For prayer of petition, he could point to the precedent of Solomon in i Kings 3, but Sirach puts the stress on prayer for forgiveness. For the spirit of understanding, cf. Isa 11:2. For the imagery of pouring forth words, cf. Sir 24:30-4. The reward of wisdom is enduring fame, but Sirach also expresses resignation in the face of death.
The language of this hymn has occasional biblical overtones, v. 17 alludes to the Exodus; v. 23 to the Conquest; w. 29-30 to the curses of the covenant (Lev 26:14-22; Deut 28:20-4). Sirach's concern, however, is with the universal working of nature, not with the history of a particular people.
(39:12-43:33)
(39:12—35) Praise of the Creator The first-person invitation in w. 12—15 marks the beginning of a new section. Specifically, these verses introduce the praise of God's works in 39:16-35. This is followed by various reflections on human wretchedness. The section is concluded by another, longer, hymn of praise (42:15—43:33). The Instruction ofPhibis also includes a section on the works of God in creation (24th instruction; J. T Sanders 1983: 78).
(40:1-41:13) Life in the Shadow of Death This cluster of short poems is framed by two reflections on death. Consistently in Sirach (except for 25:24!), death is viewed as the end for which humanity was created rather than as punishment for sin. Cf. 17:1-2. The language recalls Gen 3:19-20, but here the 'mother of all the living' is the earth, not Eve. The grim picture of life also accords with Genesis. Cf. Job 7:1—2; 14:1—2. The anxiety of disturbed sleep is also noted in Eccl 2:22—3; J°b 7-4The prevalence of anxiety is assumed in Mt 6:25-34; Lk 12:2231. Sirach modifies the traditional theme, however, by claiming that afflictions befall the sinner 'seven times more' (40:8). The context suggests that the wicked also suffer more from anxiety (Crenshaw 1975: 57) but this is not explicitly stated. Sir 31:1-4 also suggests that anxiety is universal. Sirach is here reiterating the point of 39:28—31, that disasters serve the purpose of punishing the wicked. 40:12—17 expresses a confidence that lawbreakers will fail that seems naive in the light of general human experience. Cf. the theology of the friends of Job (e.g. Job 8:11-15).
Sir 39:15 characterizes the following passage as a hymn of praise, and the imperative to praise is repeated in 39:35. The passage itself is made up of declarative sentences. The affirmation that the works of the Lord are all good has its biblical warrant in Gen 1:31, but Sirach is aware of the problem of evil. In this passage he offers two suggestions as to how the evil in the world can be reconciled with the goodness of creation