Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach

A. Jordan Schmidt

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783110600179
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Ancient Religion

Despite the attention that has already been paid to the theme of creation in the book of Sirach, scholarship has yet to provide a comprehensive analysis of Ben Sira's instruction regarding the cosmic order and its role in the divine bestowal of wisdom upon human beings.
This book, which consists of two parts, fills a lacuna in scholarship by offering such an analysis. The first part of this study examines Ben Sira's three main treatments of the created world, thus providing a comprehensive description and synthesis of Ben Sira's doctrine concerning the created order of the cosmos. The second part of this work analyzes the place of human beings in general, and the Jewish people in particular, within the cosmic order. This second part includes an analysis of the role of the created order in Ben Sira's wisdom instruction in 1: 1-10 and 24: 1-34 as well as an elucidation of the way in which his treatments of various kinds of people—civic leaders, wives, doctors, manual laborers, scribes, and cultic personnel—are integral to Ben Sira's doctrine of creation. This study demonstrates that the created order is a fundamental category that Ben Sira relies upon in articulating his instructions about wisdom and wise behavior.

1 Introduction

The purpose of this study is first to elucidate Ben Sira’s understanding of the created world as a well-ordered cosmos (16:24–17:14; 39:16–31; 42:15–43:33) and second to examine the way in which Ben Sira’s doctrine of the well-ordered cosmos relates to his teachings about the nature of wisdom and its acquisition by human beings (1:1–10; 24:1–34). More specifically, the present work seeks to illumine the manner in which Ben Sira’s treatments of particular human beings – from the lowly cattle herder to the magnificent high priest Simon II – depict them as acting with wisdom so as to contribute to the orderliness of the cosmos through their behavior (7:18–36; 9:17–10:5; 26:13–18; 38:1–8; 38:24–34ab; 38:34bc–39:11). In this way, it will be demonstrated that Ben Sira’s doctrine of the well-ordered cosmos is a kind of substratum to his thought through which seemingly disparate teachings may be related to one another. That is, Ben Sira’s belief in God’s creation of a well-ordered cosmos factors into his teachings about the religious traditions of Israel, such as the centrality of divine revelation, the election of Israel, and the importance of the cultus and the Law, as well as his instructions on “classic” sapiential themes like the primacy of wisdom, the necessity of attaining wisdom through study and observation, and the importance of ethical behavior in one’s daily life. As this study will show, these various instructional themes are not only compatible with one another but are also deeply integrated within the same conceptual framework.

I begin this study with a summary of what can be known about Ben Sira and his work. In the first part of this chapter I will discuss the authorship, date, historical context, social setting, textual situation, and structure of his book. In the second part of the chapter, I will provide a brief survey of previous studies about Ben Sira’s doctrine of creation as presented in Sir 16:24–17:14; 39:16–31; and 42:15–43:33 as well as a summary of existing scholarship connecting Ben Sira’s doctrine of the cosmos to his understanding of wisdom and wise behavior. I will close this chapter with a brief statement on the direction that this study will take in its subsequent analysis of Ben Sira’s understanding of the cosmos, his presentation of wisdom and its acquisition, and specific examples of human beings who contribute to the created order by acting wisely.

I Preliminary Matters

I.A Authorship and Historical Setting

I.A.1 Ben Sira the author

The main piece of evidence regarding the authorship of the book of Sirach is the author’s self-identification in Sir 50:27: while the Hebrew (MsB) reads מוסר שכל ומושל אופנים לשמעון בן ישוע בן אלעזר בן סירא (“Instruction, understanding, and fitting proverbs of Simeon son of Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sira”),3 the Greek reads: Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Σιραχ Ελεαζαρ ὁ Ἱεροσολυμίτης (“Jesus son of Sirach [son] of Eleazor, the Jerusalemite”).4 In addition, the majority of the Greek manuscript evidence attests a title for the book (ΣΟΦΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΣΙΡΑΧ, “The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach”),5 a heading for the prayer in Sirach 51 (Προσευχὴ Ἰησοῦ Υἱοῦ Σιραχ, “a prayer of Jesus son of Sirach”), and a subscript at the end of the book (σοφια ιησου υιου σ(ε)ιραχ).6 Further, in the prologue the translator refers to the author as ὁ πάππος μου Ἰησοῦς (“my grandfather Jesus,” cf. Sir prol. 7), which is translated in the Latin version as avus meus Iesus. Finally, it may be noted that in the Syriac translation no proper name is mentioned at 50:27–28 and that 51:30 reads ܐܪܝܣܐ ܪܒܕ ܐܒܬܟ ܡܠܫ (“the book of the son of Sirach is finished”), while in Latin 50:29 the text reads Iesus filius Sirach Hierosolymita and in 51:1 oratio Iesu filii Sirach.

Regarding the discrepancy between the Greek and Hebrew in Sir 50:27, i.e., the additional Hebrew name שמעון found in H, there are several proposals that scholars have put forward that can be categorized into two groups: those who regard the name as original and those who take it to be a later addition.7 Examples of the latter group include Smend, who explains it as an unintelligible addendum,8 and Schrader, who thought that it was mistakenly added by a copyist from the praise of Simon (Sir 50:1–24), which precedes the conclusion by only a few verses.9 Examples of the former position include Toy and Lévi, who argue that the Syriac supports the Hebrew,10 and Reiterer, who argues that Eleazar, not Simon, is an addition of the Greek tradition that found its way into the Hebrew, and that at some point in the transmission of the Greek the original name שמעון fell out.11 Despite these attempts to solve the problem, however, it remains an intractable one that admits of no satisfactory solution.12

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the book is also known as Ecclesiasticus in Latin, a name derived from the Greek (ἐκκλησία), meaning “churchman” or “church member” in its nominal form, and “canonical” or “belonging to the Church” in the adjectival form.13 This is the title of the book that is found in the Lav Mss, and is also employed by many Church Fathers, probably beginning with Cyprian (cf. Testimonia, II.1, III.1).14 The initial reasons for applying this name to the book remain somewhat obscure, but it is easy enough to suppose that the subsequent use of this name had to do with the influence and authority of Cyprian. Snaith has ventured the suggestion that the name Ecclesiasticus may have been given to the book “either because of its frequent use in the Christian church or because of its superficial similarity to Ecclesiastes.”15

I.A.2 The date of composition

There is a scholarly consensus that Ben Sira’s book dates from between 195 and 175 BCE. For a terminus a quo, one may look to Sirach 50, which Ben Sira writes in praise of a high priest named Simon. Most would agree that this Simon is Simon II who served as the high priest from 219–196 BCE,16 and that the wording of the praise in Sirach 50 suggests that this Simon had already died at the time Ben Sira wrote it.17 Regarding the terminus ad quem for the book, many begin with the observation that it is highly unlikely that the book of Sirach was written after 175 since it lacks any allusion to the tumultuous events of the reign of Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes who ruled from 175–164 BCE.18 It seems likely that if a reigning monarch had pursued such a vigorous and aggressive program of Hellenization as Epiphanes did, then Ben Sira would in some way have addressed this in his book.

This observation is supported by the prologue’s mention that the grandson came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of King Euergetes. As Skehan and Di Lella note, the “Eueregetes” referenced here is almost certainly Ptolemy VII Physkon Euergetes II, whose thirty-eighth regnal year would have been 132 BCE.19 As Corley has observed, the presence of “the aorist participle συγχρονίσας implies that the grandson was writing after the king’s death in 117 BCE,” which would mean that “his grandfather could have written two generations earlier, not long before 175 BCE.”20 On the basis of these considerations, it is possible to conclude that the book was completed sometime between 185–175 BCE.21

I.A.3 The imperial context of the 3rd-2nd cent. BCE

From the above observations regarding the date of the book of Sirach, it may be surmised that Ben Sira was born in the middle of the third century BCE and died around 175 BCE.22 This means that Ben Sira would likely have been an adult in the waning years of Ptolemaic rule over Palestine, and lived through the turbulent transition of power to the Seleucid empire after the Fifth Syrian War (202–199 BCE).23 There is some reason to think that many Jews, perhaps including Ben Sira himself, were in favor of such a change since it was thought that the Seleucids would adopt more favorable policies regarding taxation and local leadership.24 According to Josephus (Ant. 12.3.3 §§132–36), Jews even provided military aid to Antiochus III in his campaign against the Ptolemies, which seems to have resulted in some damage to Jerusalem and the Temple precinct.25 Antiochus is said to have rewarded their support by granting tax relief and the privilege of self-governance according to ancestral customs (Ant. 12.3.3 §§138–44).26 After the death of Antiochus III in 187 BCE, the political stability of the Seleucid empire began to decline, first with financial policies adopted by Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 BCE), and then with the usurpation of the throne by Heliodorus (175 BCE) and its recovery by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE).27 Mirroring this instability throughout the empire was the political intrigue and violent in-fighting among the leadership of the Jewish people.28

It is important to understand Ben Sira’s instruction within this imperial context, especially given the fact that its composition (ca. 185–175 BCE) occurred during a brief respite from the sufferings associated with war. Ben Sira, who likely experienced the baneful effects of the Fourth and Fifth Syrian Wars, includes in his book of instruction not only his teachings about sapiential and theological ideas but also the political realities impacting Judea. It is in this context that one needs to interpret his teachings on rulership and governance as well as the optimistic and hopeful tone that is present in his praise of Simon in Sirach 50.29 Though some have viewed Ben Sira as anti-imperial,30 it is important to realize that there are some indications in his book that Ben Sira had at least some optimism that Judea and Jerusalem might experience some peace and prosperity under Seleucid rule.31

I.B Social Setting

I.B.1 Ben Sira the scribal sage

Any portrait that one might sketch of Ben Sira must rely almost solely on what is mentioned within the book of Sirach itself since there are no extra-biblical sources of information about him from antiquity. A good place to start in this e...