Part 67
(Crenshaw 1975: 47-64).
First, everything will be clarified at the appointed time (v. 17). This solution is not unlike what we find in apocalyptic literature, especially in 4 Ezra, where Ezra's persistent questioning about the justice of God's dealing with Israel is overcome by a series of eschatological visions that shift the focus from past and present to future. But unlike the apocalyptic visionaries Sirach projects no eschatological scenario to silence the critics. The notion of the appointed time, however, is common to sapiential and apocalyptic writings (von Rad 1972: 263—83). So also is the notion of God's synoptic view of history as a unity (v. 20), but again Sirach differs from the apocalypses by not attempting to describe history from a revealed perspective. Sirach would probably agree with Eccl 3:11 that such comprehensive knowledge is not accessible to humanity, but he is content that God knows even if we do not.
Sir 40:18—27 provides relief from contemplating the misery of life by listing ten things that are surpassingly good. There is a traditional proverbial form, which asserts that one thing is better than another (Ogden 1977: 489—505). Examples can be found in the Egyptian Instructions ofKagemni and Amen-emope as well as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Within Sirach cf. 10:27; 2O:3I; 41:15. The present passage modifies the form by listing two things that are good, and a third that is better. So a good wife is preferred to cattle and orchards (v. 19) and also to friends and companions (v. 23). In passing, Sirach shows appreciation for wine, music, and beauty (w. 20-2). Characteristically, Sirach concludes with the superiority of the fear of the Lord. 40:28—30 contains a sharp critique of begging. The crucial point is the shame and loss of self-respect that it entails; cf. Sir 29:21-8. 41:1-4 is Sirach's most definitive statement on the finality of death, and leaves no room for resurrection or a blessed afterlife. Sirach's views on this subject are no different than those of Ecclesiastes, except that he holds
Second, everything has been created for a purpose (v. 21). This idea reflects the influence of Stoic philosophy. So Chrysippus is said to have taught that bed-bugs are useful for waking us and that mice encourage us to be tidy (Plutarch,
On Stoic Self-Contradictions, 10440). Carneades (mid-2nd cent. BCE) taught that everything is benefited when it attains the end for which it was born. So the pig fulfils its purpose
693 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
Indeed, Sirach's view of daughters is entirely clouded by the danger of incurring shame. Hence the extraordinary preference for the wickedness of a man over the goodness of a woman (42:14). Contrast the more affectionate picture of family life in Tobit. Despite the fact that Sarah's first seven husbands died on their wedding night, the concern of the parents is simply that God give her joy instead of sorrow (Tob 7:16).
them with resignation. The attractiveness of death in certain circumstances received classic expression in the Egyptian Dispute of a Man with his Ba about 2,000 BCE. Such sentiments are not common in the HB but cf. Sir 30:17 and the references cited at SIR ibid. Closer to the spirit of Sirach here is Epicurus (Ep. Men. 124—7; Long and Sedley 1987: 149): death is sometimes a release from the evils of life. Sirach adds that it is the common lot of humanity and it is the good pleasure of the Lord. The denial of judgement after death in this context is also reminiscent of Epicurus. There is no reason to fear death. Neither Sirach nor Epicurus inferred that one could live a life of licentiousness with impunity. Contrast Wis 2:1-20. The denunciation of the children of sinners (41:5-10) resembles Wis 3:13—19, but Sirach carries no implication that childlessness is virtuous in itself. Cf. Sir 23:25. This passage concludes with another consideration mitigating the fear of death. A good name can provide a measure of immortality; cf. Sir 37:26. The same hope is professed in the Instruction ofPhibis, 20:1 (J. T Sanders 1983: 84-5).
The theme of anxiety in v. 9 must be seen in the context of Sirach's generally anxious view of life (40:1—11). The 'fear that she may be disliked' is really that she may be divorced. (The verb 'hate', s-n-', clearly has the sense of 'repudiate' in the Elephantine papyri. Cf. Deut 24:3.) Concern for the virginity of unmarried girls is ubiquitous in the ancient world, but especially in Hellenistic Judaism. The draconian laws of the Pentateuch that required the death penalty for a woman who was found not to be a virgin at marriage (Deut 22:20-1; cf. Gen 38:24) were not enforced, but a woman who was not a virgin would be difficult to give in marriage. Ps. Phoc. 215-16 advises that virgins be locked up and not seen outside the house until their wedding day (see van der Horst 1978: 251; Archer 1990: 101—22 for other references to the confinement of Jewish virgins). A lattice (v. n) offered an opportunity to look out on passers-by (cf. Prov 7:6) but Sirach's main concern is that the young woman not be seen. Most remarkable is the advice that a daughter should not associate with married women. (The Heb. 'in the house (byt) of the women' is probably a mistake for 'among' (byri), Smend 1906: 394.) From the context, it would seem that Sirach's fear is that the young woman may become aware of her sexuality (Trenchard 1982: 158).
(41:14—42:8) On Shame Hebrew MS B gives this section the title 'Instruction about Shame'. Honour and shame were pivotal values in Greek society. Homer's epics are dominated by the warrior's search for honour. In the Hellenistic world people gained honour by their benefactions to their cities. Honour and shame were very much at issue in sexual relations. A male was shamed by the loss of chastity on the part of a woman under his control. The pursuit of honour was sometimes criticized by Hellenistic philosophers, especially Epicureans and Cynics. (For a concise summary of current scholarship on this issue see Moxnes 1993.) The categories of honour and shame are much more prominent in Sirach than in earlier books of the HB (Camp 1991: 4-6). The subject of honour and shame has appeared several times in Ben Sira (3:1-16; 4:20-31; 10:19-25; 20:21-3). m
(42:15—43:33) Hymn to the Creator This section of Sirach concludes with a long hymn to the creator. 42:15—20 praises the omniscience of God. 42:21—43:26 lists the works of creation. 43:27-33 concludes the hymn with a call to praise. The praises of nature in ch. 43 recalls Job 28, 38-41, but also Ps 104, 148, and the Song of the Three Jews in the Greek additions to Daniel. It has been argued that the Egyptian genre of onomasticon, which compiled lists of various phenomena as an aid to the scribes, lies behind such passages as Job 38 (von Rad 1966). A more immediate Egyptian parallel to Sirach is found in the 24th instruction in the wisdom book of Phibis (J. T. Sanders 1983: 78-9). Cf. also the praise of God as creator in the hymns of Qumran (e.g. iQH 9:10-14, formerly iQH i).
general, he seeks to retain the category, but also to modify it in accordance with his religious criteria. There is no place for false modesty with respect to wisdom (41:14-15, repeated from 20:30-1; cf. Mk 4:21-5; Lk 8:16-19). Th£ catalogue of things of which one should be ashamed gives considerable prominence to sexual offences, even when they only involve gazing (cf. 9:1-9). All forms of lawbreaking are disapproved, but shame also extends to bad manners at table and lack of graciousness (41:19). Not surprisingly, the Torah heads the list of things of which one should not be ashamed. But Sirach also recommends keeping accounts in dealings with a companion, strict discipline for children and slaves, and even locking up an unreliable wife. Sirach here inclines to the practical, hard-headed side of traditional wisdom that has little place for trust (cf. 6:7; 11:29-12:18). While Sirach diverges from Hellenistic mores in his insistence on the honour of the Torah, he retains a quite conventional code of patriarchal control.
The praise of God's omniscience in 42:15—20 is replete with biblical echoes. Onv. 150, cf. Ps 77:11; on v. 15/7, cf. Job 15:17. On creation by the word, cf. Ps 33:6; Wis 9:1. The NRSV reading of v. 15^ relies on the Syriac version. On God's knowledge of past and future, cf. Isa 41:22—3; 44:7. God's ability to reveal hidden things is also emphasized in Dan 2:22. The introduction to God's works in 42:22-5, however, introduces some nonbiblical concepts, v. 230 expresses the teleological, Stoic, view that all things are created to meet a need (cf. 39:21 and SIR ibid.), v. 24 articulates the idea of complementary opposites, which also has its roots in Stoic philosophy (cf. SIR 33:14-15). The praise of nature in ch. 43 envisages the sun as a charioteer racing his steeds (Heb. 'abbirim, see Skehan and
(42:9—14) On Daughters Patriarchal control is very much in evidence in Sirach's treatise on daughters (cf. 7:24-5; 22:3-5; 26:10-12). In part, his worries have an economic base. The father has to provide a dowry for his daughter, and if she is divorced it is to his house that she returns. The greater concern for Sirach, however, is the threat of disgrace.
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 694
subsequent chapters, is noticeably absent here. These people have acquired a qualified immortality in either of two ways, either by leaving behind a name or by the continuity and loyalty of their descendants. In the end, their honour is ratified by the congregation.
DiLella 1987: 488). The horses and chariots of the sun were familiar in ancient Israel, but were destroyed in Josiah's reform (2 Kings 23:11). The image of the solar charioteer was standard in Greece, and this may have led to its rehabilitation here. The Greek translator (followed by NRSV) missed the reference. In i Enoch 72:5, the wind blows the chariots on which the sun ascends. Sir 49:7 is often taken to indicate that
(44:i6-23e) Enoch to Abraham The initial mention of Enoch is textually suspect. It is not found in the Masada M S or in the Syriac, although it is in the Greek and Hebrew MS B. Here he walks with the Lord, rather than with 'elohim, God (or angels) as in Genesis. In the Hebrew he is a sign of knowledge, because of his knowledge of the heavenly world. The Greek makes him a symbol of repentance, probably under the influence of Philo, Abr. 17. Sirach shows no awareness of the story of Enoch as amplified in i Enoch. Noah was probably the first name on the list because he was the recipient of the first covenant. In some apocalyptic texts the deliverance of Noah serves as a paradigm for the end-time (i Enoch, 93:4). Abraham's covenant is also emphasized. Abraham is said to have kept the law of the Most High, even though it was not yet revealed to Moses. This may indicate that Sirach associated the law with creation (cf. 17:11; 24:1-7), or it may reflect a tendency that we find in Jubilees to retroject the observance of the law back to the beginnings, v. 2od is a passing reference to the sacrifice of Isaac, seen purely as a test of Abraham. No mention is made of Jacob's trickery. Isaac and Jacob are significant as links in the transmission of the blessings.
Sirach observed a lunar calendar, presumably the one that later became standard in rabbinic Judaism. Calendars were very much in dispute in Hellenistic Judea. A solar calendar of 364 days was advocated by the Astronomical Book of Enoch (i Enoch, 73-82), Jubilees (esp. 6:32-8), and the Qumran sect. It is possible that Sirach is referring only to the observance of specific lunar festivals such as the new moon (cf. i Sam 20:5; Am 8:5). The Hebrew MS B reads 'by them is the appointed time...' which implies that both sun and moon had a part in determining the festal calendar. The creator's control of the calendar is also noted by Phibis (]. T Sanders 1983: 79). On the permanence of the astral world cf. i Enoch, 75:1, but i Enoch, 80, anticipates that the order will be disrupted in 'the days of the sinners'. The rainbow is praised for its beauty, but no reference is made to its role as a sign of the covenant of Noah (Gen 9:13—17). The description of lightning and thunder has overtones of the traditional language of theophany (cf. Ps 18:7-15). w. 23-6 refer to God's mastery over the deep and its monsters (cf. Job 41:1—11). It is possible that the word rabba, great, in the Hebrew of w. 23, 25, should be emended to Rahab, a traditional name for the sea-monster (Job 26:12; Isa 51:9).
(44:23/-45:26) Moses, Aaron, Phinehas Moses, predictably, is praised as the recipient of the Torah. In contrast to some Hellenistic Jewish writers, such as Philo, Sirach does not call Moses a lawgiver, and does not attribute any creativity to him. He makes him equal in glory to the angels (holy ones), whereas Philo, following Ex 7:1, makes him a god (Vit. Mas. 1.155—8). For'the law of life and knowledge'cf. 17:11. foi^'.yf, cf. Ps 147:19. The most striking thing about the praise of Moses, however, is that it is less than half as long as the praise of Aaron.
The most remarkable statement in this hymn, however, comes in 43:27: 'He is the all.' This formulation evokes the pantheism of the Stoics, as we find, e.g. in Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus (Hengel 1974: i. 148; Marbock 1971: 170). Ben Sira is no pantheist, however. His use of the phrase is hyperbolic, and should probably be understood as equivalent to 'God of all' (SIR 36:1). It is likely, however, that his formulation here has been influenced by Stoic notions, even if they were imperfectly grasped. The hymn concludes by emphasizing its own inadequacy.
Sirach does not acknowledge the priesthood of Moses (contrast Ps 99:6). Rather he follows the Priestly source in emphasizing the eternal covenant of priesthood with Aaron, but he ignores Zadok, and does not refer to the sons of Zadok
(44:1—50:29) The Praise of the Fathers
(44:1—15) Introduction The last major section of the book bears the title 'Praise of the Fathers of Old' in the Hebrew and 'Hymn of the Fathers' in the Greek. The long review singles out individuals as examples to be praised, but presents no continuous historical narrative. There is no real parallel to this kind of review of history in the HB. The closest parallels are found in other books of the Apocrypha, i Mace 2:51-60; 4 Mace 16:20-3; 18:11-19. Cf. also Heb n. There are ample Hellenistic precedents, however, for the listing of examples. The genre of the Praise of the Fathers has also been related to the Greek encomium (Lee 1986; Mack 1985: 136 implausibly designates it an epic).
(Olyan 1987: 261—86). We can scarcely infer, however, that he was polemicizing against the restriction of the priesthood to the Zadokites. He may have regarded them as the only legitimate Aaronides. The only individual who receives treatment of comparable length is the Zadokite high priest Simon II in ch. 50. The covenant with Aaron, however, extends to all the priesthood, not just the high priest. On the high priest's robe, cf. Wis 18:24, which claims that the whole world and the glories of the ancestors were engraved on it. Sirach touches only briefly on Aaron's role in offering sacrifices, and gives equal time to his teaching authority (cf. Deut 33:10; the teaching role of the eschatological priest is illustrated in 4Qj4i). Sirach's interest in sacrifices does not match his interest in the priesthood. In the Hellenistic period, the high priest also wielded political power in Jerusalem, and could be a powerful patron for a scribe such as Sirach. Sirach notes how rebellion against Aaron was put down by God. The implications for his own day were obvious. On 45:22, cf. Num 18:20.
w. 1—15 are an introductory section. Sirach lists the kind of people he is about to praise. These reflect major categories of the Hebrew scriptures: kings and rulers, prophets and sages. Those who composed musical tunes (v. 5) may be the psalmists. In v. 6, the Hebrew 'stalwart men' is rendered somewhat tendentiously as 'wealthy men' in the Greek and NRSV. One category, the priesthood, that figures prominently in the
695 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
lasting kingship was promised to David. While the word translated 'covenant' in 47:nc is hoq (statute) rather than the usual word for covenant (berit), the latter word is used in 45:25, and so there can be no doubt that Sirach affirmed a Davidic covenant. The perpetuity ofthe line is also affirmed in 47:22. In short, Sirach acknowledged the promise, but it was far from the centre of his own devotion. He attached far greater importance to the high-priesthood, the actual seat of authority in his time. On the issue of messianic expectation, see further the psalm found between Sir 51:12 and 13 in the Hebrew text.
Phinehas is third in the priestly line, after Aaron and Eleazar (v. 23). In i Mace 2:26, Phinehas is cited as the model for the violent action of Mattathias. Sirach's interest is in the covenant he receives. It is clear from v. 25 that this is not conceived as a separate covenant but is part of the heritage of Aaron, v. 25^ should read 'so the heritage of Aaron is for all his descendants' (so Heb.; Gk. reads 'also for his descendants'). The contrast with the Davidic covenant (read: 'the inheritance of a man for his son alone', Skehan and DiLella 1987: 510) also implies the superiority of the more inclusive priestly covenant. It does not, however, imply that the priesthood has inherited the promise to David (pace Stadelmann 1980: 157). This section ends with a benediction addressed to the priesthood; cf 50:22—4.
The Greek translation says that Solomon's security was because of David, but this connection is not made in the Hebrew. Solomon is praised as the one who built the temple and, inevitably, for his wisdom. For the image of overflowing like the Nile, cf. 24:27, 30. But Solomon also illustrates a favourite theme of Sirach, the danger of women. The Hebrew of 47:19/7 reads 'and you let them rule over your body'. Cf. Prov 31:3; Sir 9:2, and the fear that a woman can trample a man's strength. Sirach makes Solomon's sexual transgressions rather than idolatry responsible for the division ofthe kingship (cf. i Kings 11:11—13, 33)- He none the less affirms the enduring validity ofthe promise to David. While Solomon's record is mixed, Rehoboam and Jeroboam are the only figures in the review who are entirely negative. Sirach follows the standard Deuteronomic line in making the sin of Jeroboam responsible for the exile of northern Israel.
(46:1—20) Joshua to Samuel The extensive praise of Joshua is initially surprising, since there is little militancy in Sirach apart from the disputed prayer in ch. 36. Even more surprising is the statement that he was an aide (Heb.; Gk.: successor) to Moses in the prophetic office (neither Moses nor Joshua is said to have delivered oracles). Of primary importance to Sirach is the glory enjoyed by Joshua. In this respect he resembles the high priest Simon (cf. 46:2 with 50:5). He also resembles the priesthood in his role as intercessor (v. 5) although this role might also be deemed prophetic (Josh 10:6; cf. Moses in Num 14:13—19). The decisive role ofthe hailstones in the battle is already noted in Josh 10:11. Finally, Joshua and Caleb are praised for loyalty, a virtue already commended by Sirach (6:14—17; 26:19—26).
The prayer for the judges in 46:11-12, that their bones sprout from their place, is not found in the Hebrew, but appears apropos ofthe minor prophets in 49:10. The new life envisaged by Sirach is the immortality of their names in their children.
(48:1—15^) Elijah and Elisha The treatment of Elijah dwells on the miraculous and therefore glorious aspects of his career. Cf. the passage on Joshua in ch. 46. His ascent in a chariot of fire (v. 9) fits this theme and is already found in 2 Kings 3:11. Sir 48:10, however, is exceptional in Ben Sira in citing a prophecy as eschatological prediction. The prophecy in question is Mai 3:23-4, supplemented by Isa 49:10. Because there is so little eschatological interest in Sirach, some scholars argue that this verse must be secondary (Middendorp 1973: 134; Mack 1985: 200). But Sirach here is only affirming what he found in the older scripture. There is no implication of imminent expectation. Like the promise to David, Elijah's return was part ofthe tradition, even if it had little importance for Sirach's overall scheme. The idea of an appointed time is reminiscent of Dan 10:14; II:29» 4°. etc., but is quite compatible with the wisdom tradition (von Rad 1972: 263-83). Sir 48:11 is much more difficult. The Greek reads: 'Blessed are those who saw you and have fallen asleep in love, for we also shall certainly live.' The Hebrew (M S B) is fragmentary at this point. The first half of the verse reads 'Blessed is he who sees you and dies' (i.e. sees you before he dies). The second half has been restored, plausibly, to read 'for you give life, and he will live' (Puech 1990: 81-90). While granting that Sirach did not believe in a general resurrection, Puech thinks he anticipated a limited resurrection at the return of Elijah. The prophet is often associated with the eschatological resurrection in later tradition (m. Sola, 9:15; Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, 763). In view of Sirach's emphatic insistence on the finality of death elsewhere, however, it is easier to suppose that this verse is a later addition (cf. Sir 14:11-19; 38:21-2; 41:4). If the
Samuel is characterized primarily as a prophet, by anointing rulers, judging in the light ofthe law, and being a trustworthy seer. He is also admired for offering sacrifice (without consideration of his priestly rank), and for his profession of innocence. His apparition to Saul (46:20; cf. i Sam 28:19) adds to his glory, with no hint of disapproval ofthe consultation. Rather it shows how the glory of Samuel transcended his death.
(47:1—25) Nathan to Jeroboam After a brief mention of Nathan, ch. 47 deals with the early kings. David is glorified for his early exploits, with some elaboration. Where i Sam 17:34—5 has David rescue animals from lions and bears, Sirach has him play with lions and bears as if they were lambs and kids. Cf. the idyllic scene in Isa 11:6-9, but contrast the more subdued portrayal of David's youth in Ps 151 (nQjxxviii); Sir 47:8 reflects David's reputation as author ofthe psalms. Cf. the list of David's compositions in nQPsalms (nQj xxvii). w. 9-10 reflect the portrayal of David in i Chr 15-26. The most controversial statement about David is found in 47:11, which says that God exalted his 'horn' or strength forever.
Some scholars see here an expression of messianic hope (Smend 1906: 452; Skehan and DiLella 1987: 526; Olyan 1987: 282-3), while others disagree (Caquot 1966; Pomykala 1995:145). Sirach does not cite Nathan's oracle, and expresses no hope or expectation for the restoration ofthe Davidic line. He does, however, acknowledge the biblical record that ever-
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH 696
Another early reference to the glory of Adam is found in CD 3:20.
Hebrew text is original, it must have meant something less than eschatological resurrection.
The praise of Elisha is in a similar vein to that of Elijah. The reference in 48:13-14 is to 2 Kings 13:21. As in the case of Samuel, Sirach is interested in the continuing power of the prophet after death, but there is no implication of a lasting resurrection. This passage ends by attributing the fall of the northern kingdom to the lack of repentance.
(50:1—28) The High Priest Simon Even though 49:14—16 seems to conclude the praise of the ancestors, the passage on Simon is the culmination of all that has gone before. Simon II was high priest 219—196 BCE. He was presumably dead when Ben Sira wrote (cf. 50:1). Under his leadership, Jerusalem welcomed Antiochus III of Syria, and assisted him in besieging the garrison of the Egyptian general Scopas (Jos. Ant. 12.129—53). Antiochus, in return, assisted in the restoration of the temple. Sirach does not mention the support of the foreign king, but he takes evident pride in the renewed splendour of the temple. Sirach had already noted building projects under Solomon, Hezekiah, Zerubbabel and Joshua, and Nehemiah. w. 5—21 describe the splendour of the high priest performing his functions. The curtain in v. 5 paroket normally refers to the veil at the entrance to the Holy of Holies (e.g. Ex 36:31—5; the Greek katapetasma can also refer to the outer curtain, between the temple and the forecourt). It is likely, then, that the occasion is the Day of Atonement, the only day the high priest entered the Holy of Holies (but see O'Fearghail (1978), who argues that the reference is to the daily offering). Cf. the account of Aaron's splendour in 45:6-13. A comparable account of the splendour of the high priest is found in the Epistle ofAristeas, 96-9. All the sons of Aaron share in the splendour. The recollection of the blessing pronounced by Simon (w. 20—1) leads into the benediction in w. 22—4. The Hebrew (MS B) reads 'God of Israel' instead of 'God of all'. It also includes in v. 23 a prayer for Simon, that God fulfil for him the covenant with Phinehas forever. In fact, the line came to an end in the next generation, in the reign of Antiochus IV. Simon's son Onias III was murdered in 172 BCE
(48:17-49:16) Kings and Prophets Sirach repeats the Deuteronomic judgement on the kings of Judah (49:4; cf. 2 Kings 18:3; 23:25), using observance of the Torah as his criterion. He emphasizes the miraculous in the accounts of Hezekiah and Isaiah (cf. 2 Kings 20:8-11; Isa 38:7-8). The Hebrew of 48:21 attributes the destruction of the Assyrians to a plague. The Greek substitutes the angel of the Lord, in conformity to the biblical text (2 Kings 19:35; Isa 37:36). It is clear from
Sir 48:24—5 that Sirach attributed the whole book of Isaiah to the eighth-century prophet, who is credited with foretelling the future return from the Exile. Cf. the theme of consolation in Isa 40:1—2; for the revelation of hidden things cf. Isa 42:9. The notion that Isaiah had predicted what would happen 'forever' (48:250) may reflect such passages as Isa 65:17—25, but without any note of imminent expectation.
Jeremiah is credited with foretelling the destruction. Ezekiel is remembered only for his vision, which was influential in apocalyptic circles (e.g. Dan 10) and was also elaborated in 4QPseudoEzekiel (4(3385). Job is mentioned between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. It is possible that Josephus also included Job among the prophets when he said that they wrote the history from Moses to Artaxerxes in thirteen books
(Ag. Ap. 40). The order of the biblical books was not set in the time of Sirach. The Minor Prophets are treated as one book, and are understood to convey a message of hope rather than doom. There is no reference to Daniel, which was presumably not yet composed. There is no mention of Esther, which is also absent from the Qumran scrolls, and may not have been known in Jerusalem at this time. Sirach also ignores Ruth, and fails to single out a single woman for praise. Most striking, however, is the omission of Ezra, especially in view of the inclusion of Nehemiah. It would be rash to conclude that the book of Ezra was not yet written. There is no apparent ideological reason for the omission. The most plausible explanation offered to date is that Sirach preferred Nehemiah because his building activity offered a precedent to that of
(2 Mace 4:34) and his son Onias IV fled to Egypt and founded a temple at Leontopolis. We cannot know whether Ben Sira had an inkling of impending problems when he prayed for the preservation of the line. The Greek translator dropped the prayer for Simon and substituted a prayer that God redeem Israel 'in our days'.
It is quite possible that the benediction in 50:22—4 was the conclusion of Sirach's book, except for the subscription in w. 27-8. The numerical proverb in w. 25-6 has no relation to the context, and could easily have been added by a scribe. The Edomites of Seir and the Philistines were old enemies of Israel. The thrust of the proverb is to express dislike for the Samaritans. There was conflict between Samaritans and Jews in the time of Ezra (Ezra 4). The books of Maccabees imply that the Samaritans were sympathetic to Antiochus Epiphanes in his suppression of Judaism (i Mace 3:10; 2 Mace 4:2). At the end of the second century BCE, Shechem was sacked and the temple on Mt. Gerizim razed by John Hyrcanus. We have no evidence for Jewish—Samaritan relations in Sirach's time.
Simon II (Begg 1988). Cf. the emphasis on the building activities of Hezekiah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high priest.
49:14—16 concludes the review of the ancient past. Except for the questionable reference to Enoch in 44:16, none of those extolled here has been mentioned in Praise of the Fathers. Only Adam has figured in the rest of Sirach's book. All except Joseph are antediluvian. (Shem is son of Noah; Gen 6:10.) The authenticity ofthis passage has been questioned, as it does not fit any pattern of characterization in Sirach (Mack 1985: 201) but this is not necessarily a cogent objection to a concluding stanza. If the passage goes back to Sirach, it represents the earliest reference to the splendour of Adam. This motif was later elaborated (e.g. Philo, Opif. 136-41).
For Sirach's self-characterization as one who poured forth wisdom, cf. 24:30-4; 39:12.
(51:1—30) Appended poems Ch. 51 contains three poetic compositions, of which the middle one is found only in Hebrew M S B. It is generally admitted that this Hebrew psalm was not composed by Sirach, but many scholars defend the authenticity of the other two poems, despite the apparent finality of
697 THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
50:27-8 (Smend 1906: 495; Skehan and DiLella 1987: 563). The Greek MSS have the heading 'Prayer of Jesus Son of
overtones of this verse. This is also true of v. 19 where both Hebrew texts have readings that indicate desire, but the Greek has 'grappled'. Hebrew v. ige, 'my hand opened her gate' may be an allusion to Song 5:4, and v. 21, which even in Greek reads 'insides' rather than 'heart' (NRSV), recalls the same verse ('my inmost being yearned for him'). The teacher in v. 17 is God.
Sirach', but the attribution is none the less doubtful. We know that prayers were added secondarily to other books
(Esther, Daniel). The wisdom poem in w. 13-30, which is closest to the style of Sirach, is found independently at Qumran.
Sir 51:1-12 is a thanksgiving psalm, analogous to Ps 30 or Jonah 2:2-9 (Gerstenberger 1988: 15-16) and to the thanksgiving hymns from Qumran (e.g. iQH 10 (formerly 2)). The psalmist begins by declaring thanks, and goes on to give his reasons. The Hebrew speaks of deliverance from death, the pit, and Sheol (v. 2). Cf. Ps 30:3; Jon 2:2, 6; iQH 11:19). Th£
The 'house of instruction' (v. 23) is usually taken to refer to an actual school, but the expression could be metaphorical (Wischmeyer 1995: 176; cf. Prov 9:1). There can be no doubt, however, that wisdom is construed as a medium of education, whatever the institutional setting. The Hebrew (MS B) has a reference to 'my yeshivah' in v. 29 (see Smend 1906: 494), which the Greek converts into a reference to God's mercy. For w. 24—5 cf. Isa 55:1. For the image of the yoke, cf. Sir 6:30; Mt 11:28-30, and m. 'Abot, 3:5. The idea that God will give one's reward in due time is not eschatological in the context of Sirach, who consistently affirms this-worldly retribution. The Hebrew M S B has a second subscription at the end of ch. 51. In both cases, the sage's name is given incorrectly as Simon, son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sira. Simon is presumably introduced by mistake from ch. 50.
slanderous tongue is an object of frequent complaint in the Psalms (e.g. Ps 69:4—5, 11—12) and in the Qumran thanksgiving hymns (iQH 10:10-17; 13:22-5). The most noteworthy feature of this hymn is the direct address to God as father in v. 10, which echoes Ps 89:27. See SIR 23:1, and Strotmann
(1991: 87). The Greek rendering lord, father of my lord' is confused. The Hebrew of Sir 51:1 refers either to 'God, my father', or more probably 'God of my father', but this reading is not supported by the Greek.
The Hebrew psalm inserted between w. 12 and 13 is modelled on Ps 136 in so far as it has the refrain 'for his mercy endures forever'. Two features of the psalm are noteworthy. First, line 9 of the hymn must be understood as expressing hope for a Davidic messiah; cf. iQSb 5:26. While Sir 47:11 affirmed the covenant with David, it showed no such messianic hope. Second, line 10 affirms the priesthood of the sons of Zadok. Since messianic expectation was conspicuously lacking even in the Maccabean period, it is unlikely that this combination of Davidic hope and Zadokite priesthood dates from pre-Hasmonean times. It is more likely that this psalm originated in the Qumran community, which was staunchly pro-Zadokite and had lively messianic expectations. DiLella suggests that the Hebrew M S B from the Cairo Geniza was one of the documents found by the Qaraites in a cave near Jericho about 800 CE, and had originated at Qumran (Skehan and DiLella 1987: 569).
Archer, L. J. (1990), Her Price is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in
Graeco-Roman Palestine (Sheffield: JSOT). Baillet, M., Milik, J. T., and de Vaux, R. (1962), Les 'Petites Grottes' de
Qumran, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon). Balch, D. L. (1988), 'Household Codes', in D. E. Aune, Greco-Roman
Literature and the New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press), 25—50. Beentjes, P. (1997), The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (Leiden: Brill). Begg, C. (1988), 'Ben Sirach's Non-mention of Ezra', BN 42:14-18. Bohlen, R. (1991), Die Ehrungder Eltern bei Ben Sira (Trier: Paulinus). Box, G. H., and Oesterley, W. O. E. (1913), 'Sirach', in R. H. Charles
(ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon), i. 268—517. Camp, C. V. (1991), 'Understanding Patriarchy: Women in Second
Century Jerusalem through the Eyes of Ben Sira'. in A.-J. Levine (ed.), Women Like Us: New Perspectives on Women in the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Scholars Press), 1-39. Caquot, A. (1966), 'Ben Sira et le Messianisme', Semitica, 16: 43-68. Collins, J. J. (1995), "The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and
The wisdom poem in w. 13-28 is also found in nQPsa, between Ps 138 and the Apostrophe to Zion. (Only w. 11-17 and the last two words of the poem are preserved.) Like Prov 31:10—31, it is in the form of an acrostic, w. 13—22 use the language of love to describe the sage's pursuit of wisdom. Cf. Sir 14:20-7. J. A. Sanders, editor of nQPss (1965: 7985), has argued for a highly erotic interpretation of the poem, but even those critical of Sanders' interpretation recognize that love imagery is intrinsic to the poem (Muraoka 1979: 167-78). The second half of the poem is an exhortation to the student to submit to the yoke of wisdom; cf. Sir 6:23-37. The themes and language of the poem all have close affinities with other material in Sirach, but it is not certain whether this reflects common authorship or a common tradition of wisdom poetry (cf. in part 4Qj2j).
the Dead Sea Scrolls', in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Paris
(Leiden: Brill).
(19970), 'Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism', in L. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins, and C. Meyers Families in Ancient Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox), 104-62. (1997!?), Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox). Conzelmann, H. (1971), 'The Mother of Wisdom', in J. Robinson (ed.),
The Future of Our Religious Past (New York: Harper & Row), 230—43. Corley, K. (1993), Private Women: Public Meals (Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson). Crenshaw, J. L. (1975), "The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On
Human Bondage', JBL 94: 47—64. DiLella, A. A. (1966), The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and
We have three recensions of this poem, in the Qumran text, the Geniza text, and the Greek translation. The reference to travel in v. 13 is reflected in the Qumran text ('before I wandered'; Skehan and DiLella take it as 'while I was innocent'); cf. Sir 34:9—13; 39:4. v. 14 of the nQ text reads 'she came to me in her beauty'. The Greek, and NRSV, eliminated the erotic
Historical Study (The Hague: Mouton). Elgvin, T. (1994), 'Admonition Texts from Qumran Cave 4', in M. O.
Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Qumran Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site (New York: New York Academy of Sciences), 179—94.
THE WISDOM OF JESUS SON OF SIRACH
Garcia Martinez, F. (1994), The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden:
Pomykala, K. E. (1995), The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism.
Brill). Gerstenberger, E. S. (1988), Psalms with an Introduction to Cultic
Its History and Significance for Messianism (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Puech, E. (1990), 'Ben Sira 8:11 et la Resurrection', in H. W. Attridgeet
Poetry, Forms of Old Testament Literature, 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Gilbert, M. (1984), 'Wisdom Literature', in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish
al. (eds.), Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamentaljudaism and Christian Origins (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America), 81-90. Rad, G. von (1964), 'Life and Death in the OT, TDNTii. 843-9.
Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress), 283-324. Harrington, D. J. (1994), 'Wisdom at Qumran', in E. Ulrich and J. C.
(1966), 'Job XXXVIII and Ancient Egyptian Wisdom', in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGrawHill), 281-91.
VanderKam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame), 137—52. Haspecker, J. (1967), Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach (Rome: Pontifical
(1972), Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon). Rickenbacher, O. (1973), Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (Gottingen:
Biblical Institute). Hengel, M. (1974), Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fort-
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Roth, W. M. (1965), Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament (Leiden:
ress). Horst, P. van der (1978), The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Leiden:
Brill).
(1980), The Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach', Semeia, 17: 35—79. Sanders, J. A. (1965), The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave n (nQpsa),
Brill).
(1991), Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Kampen: KokPharos). Jeremias, J. (1967), The Prayers of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress). Kieweler, H.V. (1992), Ben Sirazwischen Judentumund Hellenismus
DJD4 (Oxford: Clarendon). Sanders, J. T. (1983), Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (Chico, Calif:
(Frankfurt am Main: Lang). Koch, K. (1955) 'Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alien Testament?',
Scholars Press). Schechter, S. (1890-1), The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbi-
ZTK 52: 1-42. ET: 'Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?', in J. L. Crenshaw (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament
nic Literature', JQR 3: 682-706. Schechter, S., and Taylor, C. (1899), The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 57-87. Lefkowitz, M. R., and Fant, M. B. (1982), Women's Life in Greece and
the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schnabel, E. J. (1985), Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (Tubin-
Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Lee, T. R. (1986), Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press). Leiman, S. Z. (1976), The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (Hamden,
gen: Mohr). Schuller, E. M. (1990), '4(3372 i: A Text about Joseph', RevQ 14:
Conn.: Archon). Levison, J. (1985), 'Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach
349-76. Segal, M. H. (1972), Seper ben Sira hassalem, 2nd edn. (Jerusalem:
25:24', CBQ47: 617-23. Lewis, N. (1989), The Documents from the Ear-Kokhba Period in the Cave
Bialik). Sheppard, G. T. (1980), Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct (Berlin:
of the Letters (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Long, A. A., and Sedley, D. N. (1987), The Hellenistic Philosophers (2
de Gruyter). Skehan, P. W. (1971), The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13-30', HTR 64:
vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Mack, B. L. (1973), Logos und Sophia (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
387-400. Skehan, P. W, and DiLella, A. A. (1987), The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39
Ruprecht).
(New York: Doubleday). Smend, R. (1906), Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklart (Berlin: Reimer). Smith, D. E., and Taussig, H. (1990), Many Tables: The Eucharist in the
(1985), Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Marbock, J. (1971), Weisheit im Wandel (Bonn: Hanstein). Meyers, C. (1988), Discovering Eve (New York: Oxford University
New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadelphia: Trinity). Snaith, J. G. (1974), Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Press). Middendorp, Th. (1973), Die Stellungjesu Ben Siraszwischenjudentum
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Stadelmann, H. (1980), Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (Tubingen: Mohr). Strotmann, A. (1991), 'Mein Vater Bist Du!' (Sir 51,10) (Frankfurt am
und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill). Moxnes, H. (1993), 'Honor and Shame', BTB 23:167-76. Muraoka, T. (1979), 'Sir 51:13-30: An Erotic Hymn to Wisdom?', JSJ
Main: Knecht). Tcherikover, V. (1970), Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York:
10:166-78. Ogden, G. S. (1977), 'The "Better"-Proverb (Tob-Spruch), Rhetorical
Atheneum). Trenchard, W. C. (1982), Ben Sira's View of Women: A Literary Analysis
Criticism, and Qoheleth', JBL 96: 489-505. O'Fearghail, F. (1978), 'Sir 50, 5-21: Yom Kippur or The Daily Whole
(Chico, Calif: Scholars Press). Urbach, E. E. (1975), The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.;
Offering?', Bib 59: 301-16. Olyan, S. M. (1987), 'Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood', HTR
Jerusalem: Magnes). Wischmeyer, O. (1995), Die Kultur des Buches Jesu Sirachs (Berlin: de
80:261-86. Pautrel, R. (1963), 'Ben Sira et le stoicisme', RSR 51: 535-49. Perdue, L. G. (1977), Wisdom and Cult (Missoula, Mont: Scholars
Gruyter). Yadin, Y. (1965), The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel
Press). Peters, N. (1913), Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (Miinster:
Exploration Society). Ziegler, J. (1965), Sapientia Jesu Filii Sirach (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
Aschendorff).
& Ruprecht).
45Baruch ALISON SALVESEN
and 2:3 the Syriac translation of Origen's Hexapla notes in the margin that a certain phrase is not found 'in the Hebrew', this must refer back to the biblical sources Baruch is quoting, not to a Hebrew version of Baruch itself. However, there are occasional phrases that must arise from a mistranslation of a Semitic original. For instance, at 3:4 the strange expression in the Greek text, 'hear then the prayer ofthe dead of Israel' must arise from a misreading of the Hebrew mete yisra'el '(people of Israel) as mete yisra'el' (dead of Israel) (vowels were not represented in ancient Heb. script). Such mistranslations occur mainly in the first part ofthe book (1:1—3:8). The second and third parts are more generally thought to have been written in Greek (but see Burke 1982).
A. Title. 1. The book is known in Greek tradition as Baruch or the Epistle of Baruch. The name means 'blessed' in Hebrew, and is a shortened form of Berechyahu, 'the Lord blesses'. According to the book of Jeremiah, Baruch was Jeremiah's secretary. He recorded the Lord's words at Jeremiah's dictation, read them out to the people in the temple, was taken to Tahpanes in Egypt along with Jeremiah, and was given a promise from the Lord that his life would be spared wherever he went (Jer 32:12—16; 36:4—32; 43:3—6; 45:1—5). Baruch himselfwas a historical figure, and a clay seal impression ofthe late seventh century bears his name, patronymic, and profession: 'Berechyahu, son of Neryahu, the scribe' (Avigad 1986: 28—9).
2. 2 Baruch (Syriac) and 3 Baruch (Greek) are later compositions, also pseudonymous.
2. However, there are a number of circumstances that make it very unlikely that this Baruch was the author ofthe book of Baruch. Given that Baruch was a close associate of Jeremiah and may even have been responsible for parts ofthe Jeremiah tradition, it is odd that the first part of Baruch does not tie in more closely with statements in Jeremiah: e.g. Baruch's presence in Babylon in Bar 1:1, the return ofthe temple vessels in Bar 1:9, and the imprecise dating in Bar 1:2. Baruch is a compilation of three very different parts, only the first of which explicitly has to do with the figure of Baruch. There are many similarities of thought and expression between Baruch and works known to date from the Hellenistic period such as Daniel (£.164 BCE), Sirach (mid-2nd cent. BCE) and the Psalms of Solomon (probably mid-ist cent. BCE). While it is conceivable that these depend on Baruch, the nature ofthe book is fundamentally derivative, a 'mosaic of Biblical passages' (Tov 1976: in). Baruch is more likely to be dependent on them or to have originated in a common milieu. Finally, Baruch was not accepted as canonical by the rabbis, and was never cited by them, as if the the book's pedigree were suspect at an early stage.
C. Subject-Matter and Literary Genre. 1. Baruch is composed of three principal parts, one in prose (1:1-3:8) and two poetic (3:9-4:4, 4:5-5:9), reflecting the separate documents that were combined by a later editor. The first part describes Baruch's reading of a book to the exiles in Babylon, to which they respond by sending money, the looted temple vessels, and a communal confession and prayer to Jerusalem. The second part, which is not obviously connected with the first, is a eulogy of Wisdom and has affinities with sapiential literature in both Hebrew and Greek. The third part consists of Zion's consolation ofthe exiles and an exhortation to Jerusalem in the manner of Isa 40—66, and to some extent at least answers the concerns ofthe first part.
2. Thackeray (1923) suggested that Baruch was a compilation that served a liturgical function in a diaspora Jewish community, and he linked it to the seven sabbaths around the ninth of Ab, the fast on which the destruction of the temple was commemorated. While few scholars have accepted his theory, it does at least attempt to explain the association of three such disparate documents. In addition, the first part explicitly provides a communal confession to be read in the temple on behalf of diaspora Jewry, a reversal ofthe situation in 2 Mace 2:16, where the Judean Jews instruct the Jews of Alexandria to keep the Feast of Dedication.
3. So why was the name Baruch attached to the book? Baruch as a whole is concerned with problems of faith during the Diaspora, and the outlook of the first part is strongly influenced by the book of Jeremiah. As recorder ofthe prophet's words, Baruch was no doubt accorded quasi-prophetic status by Jews in the Second Temple period and, later, by Christians. Thus a book bearing his name would have enjoyed a certain prestige. One can compare the high position accorded to Ezra as a scribe of the law in the Second Temple period and the pseudepigraphical works consequently ascribed to him.
D. The Religious Teaching. The theology ofthe book varies according to the section. The first part is strongly influenced by Deuteronomistic thinking, that the Diaspora is caused by Israel's sin and is something to be borne until God brings it to an end. The second part identifies Torah with Wisdom. The third part is close to the mood of Deutero-Isaiah. Interestingly, there are no references to messianism, angelology, or the resurrection, which are themes of some other Jewish literature of the period and might have seemed appropriate in this text also.
B. Text and Language. 1. No fragments of Baruch in any language were found at Qumran, nor does the NT cite it. The earliest preserved text ofthe book is in Greek: it exists in the Septuagint M S S Alexandrinus and Vaticanus: it may have been part of the missing portion of Sinaiticus. The Latin,
E. Date and Place of Composition. 1. The question ofthe date of Baruch is unusually difficult, partly because it is a compilation of three quite different compositions. However, a time in the second century BCE seems likely for the earliest material, the
Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, Bohairic, and Ethiopic versions of Baruch are all translated from the Greek. As for the original language ofthe book, Origen knew of no Hebrew text of Baruch in the mid-third century CE. Although at Bar 1:17
BARUCH 700
latest possible date for the work in its present state being within a few years of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
problems surrounding the events and circumstances as described here.
(1:1) 'these are the words of the book': there are four main theories as to what is meant, (i) It is generally thought that the book of Baruch itself is meant, and that Baruch is envisaged as reading aloud either the whole composition or the first part (1:15/7—3:8). However, this would give the response of the hearers to the book (1:5) before the reader knows its contents, which are revealed when the exiles send back the scroll in 1:10 for recitation in the temple. Such a device is far from impossible, and is upheld by Steck (1993: 5—60), who sees 1.1—150 as the introduction which attributes the book as a whole to Baruch. (2) Whitehouse (1913) considered that 1:1, 3 prefaced 3:9-4:4, while 1:2, 3/7-3:8 and 3:9-5:9 formed separate documents. (3) Another solution would be to suppose that the order of the biblical books was Jeremiah—Lamentations—Baruch. Thus, 'these are the words' would refer to the book of Lamentations, a response to the fall of Jerusalem written by Baruch in Babylon to be repeated in front of the Jews there. The order Jeremiah—Lamentations—Baruch is not generally found in the Septuagint MSS, though it may have existed in the original form of Codex Sinaiticus (now truncated), and Epiphanius is the only commentator on the canon of Scripture to list the books in this order. But it would explain the response of the exiles and their dispatching of a prayer to be said on their behalf by their fellow Jews in Jerusalem. We would then have a lament sent from Jerusalem to Babylon
2. Tov (1976: 165) argues convincingly that the distinctive revision of the Septuagint of Jer 29-52 also covered Bar 1:1—3:8. Since Sirach's grandson knows the Prophets in Greek in 116 BCE (Sir, Prologue) and quotes from the revised Greek Jeremiah, the first part of Baruch in Greek must have been in existence by that date. The Hebrew original would of course be older.
3. Baruch's assumption that it was still possible to make offerings at the temple in Jerusalem (Bar 1:8-10) may also point to a period before 70 CE, though we cannot be certain to what degree the story reflects the actual historical circumstances of the writer. Another feature which may be consistent with a pre-7O date is the generally positive attitude of the first part towards foreign rulers, especially Nebuchadnezzar, who in rabbinic literature became the archetypal enemy of the Jewish people and was also regarded as the forerunner of the Emperor Vespasian in his destruction of Jerusalem.
4. The book is not attested until the time of the Church Fathers, being cited first by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 5. 35), then Athenagoras (Apologia, 69), in the lyos CE.
5. The provenance of the book is as uncertain as its date (Tov 1976: 160). The first part is written very much from the perspective of the diaspora Jews looking towards Jerusalem, but it is possible that this is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer in order to encourage exiled Jews to regard Jerusalem as their cultic centre. Certainly, if the original language of Baruch was Hebrew, Judea is the most obvious place of composition.
(Lamentations), and its counterpart of a confession and petition sent back to Jerusalem from Babylon (Bar 1:15/7-3:8):
The structure of the book according to this hypothesis would be:
(a. Lamentations sent from Jerusalem to Babylon) b. Response of exiles: prayer and confession sent from Baby-
F. Canonicity. 1. If there was a Hebrew original of Baruch, there is no evidence that it ever formed part of the Hebrew canon of the Jews. The Greek and Latin versions of Baruch, along with the Letter of Jeremiah, were generally regarded as part of the book of Jeremiah, and were thus treated as canonical in the early Christian church. The attribution to Baruch, who plays an important role in Jeremiah, also contributed to the book's acceptance in the Christian community. Only Jerome rejected Baruch, since it was not included in the Jewish canon.
lon to Jerusalem (Bar 1:1-3:8) c. Hymn to Wisdom (3:9—4:4) a'. Zion's exhortation of the exiles (4:5—29) b'. Consolation of Jerusalem (4:30-5:5).
(4) An alternative explanation of the opening words is that they may somehow refer to the book of Jeremiah (the normal order in LXX MSS is Jeremiah-Baruch-Lamentations), or to Jeremiah's letter sent to the exiles after Jeconiah's deportation, as described in Jer 29:1—28 (LXX 36:1—28). Jer 29 does not mention Baruch as either the scribe or the messenger of the letter, but it does begin in Greek in exactly the same way as Baruch: 'these are the words' (LXX 36:1). It also counsels the exiles to settle down in Babylon and pray for its welfare. This is exactly the response we find in Bar 1:11-12. On this interpretation, the structure of the whole book would not be very different from that described above, in (3).
2. Today, Baruch is regarded as canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as part of the Apocrypha by Protestants, and is disregarded by Jews.
G. Outline. Narrative Introduction (1:1-14) Confession and Prayer (1:15—3:8) Eulogy of Wisdom (3:9—4:4) Address to Israel (4:5-90) Zion's consolation of her children in the Diaspora (4:9/7-29),
'Book' is the Greek biblion, here and in 1:30, 10. The same word is used for the scroll dictated by Jeremiah to Baruch in Jer 36:8, 10, n, 18 (LXX ch. 43). A slightly different word, biblos, is used in Bar 1:3/7 for what Baruch recites, and in Jer 29:1 for Jeremiah's letter to the exiles (LXX 36:1). The difference is not significant: Jer 29:29 (LXX 36:29) uses biblion for a letter. 'Baruch son of Neriah son of Mahseiah son of Zedekiah son of Hasadiah son of Hilkiah': the patronymic 'son of Neriah son of Mahseiah' is found in Jer 32:12, but the other names are unattested as ancestors of Baruch.
and a corresponding exhortation of Jerusalem (4:30—5:9). There is no formal conclusion to the book.
Narrative Introduction (1:1-14)
The structure and mood of this introduction are strongly influenced by Jer 29:1-2 and Jer 36. There are many historical
701 BARUCH
Zedekiah son of Josiah... had made': according to 2 Kings 24:13 and 25:14—15 all the temple vessels were removed by the Babylonians (in 597 and 586 BCE), and they were not brought back until the end ofthe Exile (Ezra 1:7-8): Jer 27:22 certainly does not envisage an early return. Zedekiah is not known to have made anything for the temple, so perhaps this is an invention on the part ofthe writer of Baruch, to explain how an offering could be made in Jerusalem while the vessels were still in Babylon. The 'Lord': throughout the first part of Baruch, the Deity is referred to as 'the Lord' (kurios) in contrast to the second and third parts of Baruch, where 'Lord' never appears. The second part uses theos (God), and the third part ho aionios (the Eternal). 1.9, some MSS and versions add 'and the craftsmen' after 'the prisoners'. The Hebrew word for 'prison' is identical to that for 'smith', masger. The same double translation is found in LXX Jer 24:1 and 36:2 (Eng. versions 29:2).
'Babylon' refers to the region, and not just the city. According to Jeremiah, Baruch was taken only to Egypt (43:7), but both the book of Baruch and rabbinic tradition say that Baruch went to Babylon. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud improbably states that Baruch taught Ezra there (b. Megi6b)! It is possible that a combination of the Lord's promise to spare his life wherever he went (Jer 45:5), Jeremiah's letter to the Babylonian exiles in Jer 29, and the presence of Seraiah, Baruch's brother, in Babylon (Jer 51:59-64) suggest that Baruch journeyed there. Bar 1:8 may imply that Baruch returned to Jerusalem.
The Syriac version of Baruch says that Baruch sent the book to Babylon, but this may be a later change in order to avoid the problem of an unattested journey to Babylon. On the other hand, it may represent an attempt to harmonize Bar 1:1 with 2 Apoc. Bar. 77:19, where Baruch is said to send two letters to Babylon.
(1:2—9) <m me fifth year, on the seventh day of the month', the chronology of v. 2 is unclear, particularly as the month is not specified. The original reading was perhaps 'the fifth year, on the seventh day of the fifth month', the second 'fifth' having dropped out in the copying process. The fifth month was Ab (August), and the date is that of the burning of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan, according to 2 Kings 25:8—9. So Baruch is depicted as writing the book as Jerusalem is being destroyed (586 BCE). But then there remains the problem of which 'fifth year' is meant. It may be an echo of Jer 36:9, where Baruch reads out Jeremiah's words before the people in the temple. Or it may refer to the fifth year after the capture of Jerusalem, which would be 581 BCE. The 'Chaldeans' are the Babylonians, v. 3, for similar public readings, see 2 Kings 23:1—2 (= 2 Chr 34:30), and Neh 8:1-8. 'Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim' (v. 3) is also known as Jehoiachin and Coniah (see 2 Kings 24:8-17, 25:27-30; Jer 22:2430). According to Jer 52:31, he was in prison for 37 years, rather than dwelling among the other exiles. He is certainly not mentioned in Ezek 8:1.
(1:10—14) vIO> 'grain-offerings' is Greek manna, an error for manaa, the transliteration of Hebrew minhd (offering), a further indication of a Semitic original for the first part of Baruch. '[Ojffer them on the altar': in spite ofthe burning of the temple, it seems from Jer 41:5 and Lam 1:4 that the temple cult continued in some form. The instruction to 'pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar' is an unusual sentiment, particularly in later Judaism where Nebuchadnezzar was regarded as the archetype of the evil ruler, and forerunner of Vespasian and Titus who destroyed the second temple. But cf. Jer 29:7, where Jeremiah tells the Jews taken to Babylon in the first captivity to pray for the land in which they are exiles; cf. also i Tim 2:1—3. m fac^ Belshazzar is not Nebuchadnezzar's son, as Baruch supposes, but the son of Nabonidus (555—538 BCE) whom Cyrus overthrew. The same error occurs in Dan 5:2, n, 13, 18, 22, which has led some to date Baruch after Daniel (167—164 BCE). However, the error may be due to dependence on a common source and have no bearing on the dating. Some scholars identify Baruch's Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar with Antiochus IV (£.175-164 BCE) and his son Antiochus V Eupator (164—162 BCE) after the desecration and rededication of the Temple, or with Vespasian and Titus in the years just prior to or immediately after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), and date Baruch accordingly. There is no convincing evidence for either identification.
v. 4, 'the princes', the Greek 'sons ofthe king'. Jer 22:30 says that Jeconiah will be childless, but i Chr 3:17 and Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions (AN£T3o8) saythathehad sons. 'The river Sud': there is a reference in the Dead Sea scrolls (4QpJer) to a river Sur in the context ofthe Exile. The Hebrew letters r and d are very similar in form, and the Greek translator may have misread Sud for Sur. v. 5, 'they wept, and fasted': For a similar response, see Neh 8:9; 9:1, similarly followed by a prayer of national confession (Neh 9:6-37). v. 6, 'the highpriest Jehoiakim son ofHilkiah son of Shallum' is constructed from
v. 14, 'and you shall read aloud' is cited by some in support of a liturgical origin for Baruch. Cf. 2 Mace 1:1-2:18. In 'to make your confession', 'your' is not in the Greek text, which has merely 'to make confession'. The 'days ofthe festivals': the oldest Greek M S has 'day of festival'. It is not at all clear which, if any, specific festival the writer had in mind. Some have suggested the eight-day Feast of Tabernacles, held in the early autumn (Lev 23:33—6), while Thackeray (1923: 93) prefers a period in the summer, leading up to the ninth of Ab, when the burning ofthe temple was commemorated.
several biblical genealogies: J(eh)oiakim is a priest in Jerusalem much later, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 12:10, 12, 26, cf Jos. Ant. 11.5.1); the high priest Hilkiah discovered the book ofthe law in the temple (2 Kings 22:8), and Hilkiah son of Shallum is a progenitor of Ezra in Ezra 7:1. According to 2 Kings 25:18-21, the high priest at the time ofthe Exile was Seraiah, who was taken to Babylon and executed. It is possible that Jehoiakim is to be understood as a deputy who remained in Jerusalem.
Confession and Prayer (1:15-3:8)
This section is a pastiche of biblical citations. The main parallels are with Dan 9:4—19 and there are many references to Jeremiah. Tov (1975) gives a full list. From 1:13-150, it seems that the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem are to pray the following
v. 8, Sivan is the third month, corresponding to May-June, evidently in the year following Baruch's reading ofthe book: 'the vessels ofthe house ofthe Lord... the silver vessels that
BARUCH 702
words on behalf of those in the Diaspora. Nickelsburg (1984) suggests that the Jerusalem Jews make their own confession in 1:15/7—2:5, and then pray on behalf of the Jews in the Diaspora in 2:6-10, but there is no real sign of a change in speaker, and it is easier to assume that 1:15/7-3:8 is all part of the prayer sent by the exiles to be recited by the Jews of Jerusalem for the Jewish people as a whole. (1:20) 'the curse that the Lord declared... through Moses: see Lev 26:14-39, Deut 28-31. (2:1-2) 'against our judges ... under the whole heaven'... is based on Dan 9:12—13.
intended. The first must refer to Teman of Edom, which was proverbial for wisdom in the Bible, hence Jer 49:7, Ob 8—9. Job's friend Eliphaz was a Temanite (Job 2:11). The second Teman is Tema of Arabia (Job 6:19, Isa 21:14, Jer 25:23)- Merran is more puzzling, but may be due to a misreading of Hebrew Midian or Medan (Gen 25:2) by the translator: rand d were often confused (see BAR 1:4). Those who travelled widely were thought to gain much wisdom (Sir 34:9-12; 39:4), hence the association of the desert traders of Midian/ Medan, Tema, and the descendants of Hagar with wisdom, v. 24, cf. Isa 66:1. (3:26) 'The giants', a reference to Gen 6:4. There was much speculation in the intertestamental period concerning these giants: see Wis 14:6; Sir 16:7; Jub. 7:22-3; and especially i Enoch 6—7.
(2:3) 'Some of us ate the flesh of their sons'... is a reference to Lev 26:29, Deut 28:53, an(^ Jer J9:9> which with Bar 2:3 was the origin of the frequent anti-Jewish jibe in early Christian writers that the Jews had eaten their own children. Josephus
(3:33—5) For similar concepts to w. 33—4 see Job 38:7; Isa 40:26; Sir 43:9—10. v. 35, 'This is our God': comparable expressions can be found in Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 25:9; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:18; Jer 10:6; Ps 48:14.
(J.W. 6.3.4) describes one such incident during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
(2:17—18) 'the dead who are in Hades ... will not ascribe glory' is a common theme: cf Ps 6:5; 30:9; 88:10-12; 115:17; Isa 38:18; Sir 17:27-8. For 'the person who is deeply grieved... with failing eyes' see Deut 28:65.
(3:37) 'she appeared on earth and lived with humankind', or, 'was seen on earth and moved among humankind'. The personal pronoun 'she' is not represented in Greek and the verb qftl (appeared), is not gender-specific. Therefore some early Christian exegetes took the subject to be God, following w. 35— 6, and understood v. 37 to be a proof-text for the incarnation. Some modern scholars have dismissed the whole of v. 37 as a Christian interpolation, but Bar 3:8-4:4 is not the most obvious place to insert a Christological text, and it is much easier to understand the verse as original to its setting, describing how the inaccessible divine Wisdom (3:15, 29-31) was given as Torah to Israel and came to dwell on earth (3:36-4:1). (4:1-4) v. i, the explicit identification of Wisdom with Torah is also found in 8^24:23. v. 3, 'Do not give your glory to another', cf. Isa 48:11. v. 4, 'Happy are we', literally, 'blessed (makarioi), are we, Israel, for the things that are pleasing to God are known by us', in the form of a beatitude resembling those in Ps 1:1 and Mt 5:3—11.
(2:21—6) 'as you declared by your servants the prophets': in fact, the references are all to Jeremiah: 26:5, 27:9; 7:34; 48:9; 36:30; 16:4; 32:36; 11:17. (2:29-35) a reworking of several passages, principally from Jeremiah (42:2; 24:7; 25:5; 30:3; 29:6; 32:40; 31:33), along with Lev 26:39, 45> Deut 30:1—10. w. 34—5, there is no explicit request for a return from exile, but the prayer repeats God's promise to end the Dispersion. The wording is based on Jer 30:3; 32:40; 31:33; i Kings 14:15. (3:1-8) a heartfelt plea for mercy ends this first section of Baruch. Although the people of Judah have turned in repentance, they are still suffering the punishment incurred by their ancestors.
The Eulogy of Wisdom (3.'9-4:4 J
The second section of Baruch commences without preamble, and with no obvious connection with the preceding section. The poem shows indebtedness to the style and ideas of Deut 30:15-19; Prov 1-9; Job 28:12-28; Sir 24.
Address to Israel (4:5-5:9)
This section consists of encouragement of Israel (4:5—90), followed by Zion's exhortation of her children (4:9/7—29), answered by prophetic words of comfort addressed to Jerusalem (4:30-5:9). The words 'take courage' in 4:5 are repeated in Zion's speech at 4:21, 27, and mark the start of the message of consolation at 4:30. A prominent feature of the third part of Baruch is the personification of Zion as a mother. This is an idea found in the source for much of this section, DeuteroIsaiah (e.g. 13349:20—1; 50:1; 54:1—8), and also explicitly in the peculiar LXX reading of Ps 87 (86):5, 'Mother Zion'. Zion is depicted as calling to her female neighbours, paroikoi, in 4:9, 14, 24. These seem to be witnesses of the exile of the citizens and of Zion's grief, and perhaps refer to other Judean cities, since they are portrayed as passive, not hostile, onlookers.
(3:9) 'Hear the commandments of life, O Israel', or, 'Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life', is deliberate verbal echo of Deut 6:4, 'Hear, O Israel...', the Shema, the 'creed' of Judaism, a feature cited as part of the evidence of a liturgical origin for Baruch. The identification of Torah with Wisdom is common in the late-biblical and intertestamental periods, the central text being Prov 1:7, and the idea is developed in Sir i and 24. (3:10-14) Cf. Jer 9:12-16, which says that the wise can discern the reason for the Exile: disobedience to God.
(3:12) The 'fountain of wisdom', i.e. its source, is God: see Jer 2:13; Ps 36:8-9; Sir 1:1-20. (3:15-16) Cf. v. 15 with Job 28:12, 20. v. 16, 'who lorded it over the animals on earth', is possibly an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. Jer 27:6; 28:14; Dan 2:38.
(4:7—8) 'to demons and not to God,' see Deut 32:16—17; Ps 106:37; 9^5 (LXX), i Cor 10:20. v. 8, 'You forgot the everlasting God,' see BAR 1:8; 'who brought you up', literally, 'who nursed you' or 'suckled you', a very maternal image of God, cf. Hos 11:4.
(3:22—4) the repetition of Teman in two different geographical contexts indicates that two locations were originally
7°3 BARUCH
(4:15) See Deut 28:49-50.
Isa 52:1. The idea in 5:4 of the renaming of Jerusalem in the eschatological future is also found in Isa 1:26; 60:14; 62:4; Jer 33:16; Ezek 48:35. For 5:5 see Isa 51:17; 60:1,4. 5:7 is close to Isa 40:4. 5:9, cf. Isa 52:12; 58:8; Ex 13:21. The book has no formal conclusion, but ends on a note of promise and hope.
(4:23) 'I sent you out with sorrow and weeping, but...', cf. Isa 62:3.
(4:35—5:9) A prophetic message of consolation, largely based on Isa 40-66. The wording of Bar 4:37-5:8 is also very close to that of Pss. Sol. 11:3-7. 4:35> f°r Babylon's punishment, see Isa 13:21—2; Jer 51:37, 58. 4:36—7, cf. Isa 49:18; 60:4. For 5:1 see
The Letter of Jeremiah
134:15—17; Isa 44:9—20; 46:5—7; Jer 10:1—16, the very passages from which the Letter drew its inspiration.
A. Title. The KJV and Vulgate treat the Letter of Jeremiah as ch. 6 of Baruch. The Septuagint places Lamentations between the two works. The work purports to be a letter sent by Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon, on the precedent of Jer 29, but is quite different stylistically from the work of the prophet, and must be pseudepigraphical.
2. The Letter of Jeremiah once circulated among Jewish communities, witness its presence at Qumran and the allusion to it in 2 Maccabees, but it was not recognized later by the rabbis.
F. Outline. There is no obvious structure to the work, merely the association of ideas.
B. Text and Language. Although the letter exists only in Greek and in versions based on LXX (Syriac, Sahidic, and Latin), there is linguistic evidence to support a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Crudely put, the Greek is often incoherent, and must indicate an imperfectly understood Semitic base text. Some examples are given in the Commentary below.
Introduction (6:1) Address to the exiles in Babylon; prophecy of their long stay
there and eventual return (6:2-3) Warning to avoid idols in Babylon and to maintain faith with
the Lord (6:4-7) Satirical denunciation of idols, focusing on their utter impo-
C. Subject-Matter and Literary Genre. The Letter is a heavyhanded prose satire on idolatry, rather in the manner of Bel and the Dragon, but it is cruder and less entertaining.
tence and the tainted service offered by their worshippers
(6:8-72) Conclusion, reiterating the warning to keep away from idol-
atry (6:73)
D. Date and Place of Composition. 1. There are several indications of the date of the Letter in Greek (any Semitic original would of course be rather older than the Greek text). There is an allusion to it in 2 Mace 2:1—3, a work composed some time in the second century BCE. The language of the Letter is koine Greek, which again supports a date from the second century BCE onwards. Finally, a fragment covering w. 43-4 was found at Qumran (7(3486: DJD 3:143 and pi. xxx), and dated to c.ioo BCE on the basis of the writing.
(6:1) Introduction 'A copy of a letter that Jeremiah sent', cf. Jer 2 9. The Greek word used here, however, is epistole (see BAR i: i).