CHAPTER II.

SIRACH’S TEACHING (_continued_). HIS PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT.

Passing now from Sirach’s moral statements to those which are concerned with doctrine, an honest critic must admit that the author is here even less progressive. The Messianic hope, in the strict sense of the word, has faded away.[268] In xlv. 25 (comp. xlviii. 15) the ‘covenant with David’ is described as being ‘that the inheritance of the king should be only from father to son;’ similarly in xlvii. 22 the ‘root of David’ denotes Rehoboam and his descendants. But this want of a definite Messianic hope is characteristic of the age; it is no special defect of Sirach. But what shall we say of another charge brought against our author, viz. that he has unbiblical conceptions of the Divine nature? One of these (xi. 16; see A.V.) may be dismissed at once, the passage having insufficient critical authority. Another—

We may speak much and not attain; indeed to sum up, He is all (xliii. 27)—

has been misapprehended. The _Bereshith Rabba_ says (c. 68), ‘Why is the Holy One also called _Mākōm_ (place)? Because He is the place of the world; His world is not His place.’ This is all that Sirach means, and Philo, too, who uses similar words, accused by Keerl of heresy, and adds, ἅτε εἶς καὶ τὸ πᾶν αὐτὸς ὤν.

The doctrines of the Satan and the Resurrection, which Sirach probably regarded somewhat as we regard the ‘developments’ of the Papal Church, he appears studiously to ignore[269]—more especially the latter—and he thereby puts himself into direct opposition to the newer popular orthodoxy. For though not the invention (as M. Renan regards it) of the Maccabean period, there can be no doubt that the doctrine of the Resurrection became then for the first time an article of the popular creed. Instead of the ‘awakening to everlasting life’ (Dan. xii. 2), it is the peaceful but hopeless life of the spirits in Sheól to which he resignedly looks forward.

Weep for the dead, for he hath lost the light, and weep for the fool, for he wanteth understanding: make little weeping for the dead, for he is at rest, but the life of the fool is worse than death.[270]

This, however orthodox (as former generations had counted orthodoxy), was rank Sadduceanism, and hence (for how otherwise to interpret the glosses of the Greek and Syriac versions of xlviii. 11_b_[271] it is difficult to see) very early readers of Sirach, especially perhaps well-meaning but unscrupulous Christian readers, effected an entrance for their cherished beliefs by violence.

Another point on which Sirach is equally—shall we say orthodox, or reactionary?—is the connection between piety and temporal prosperity. He really seems to be no more troubled by doubts on this ancient doctrine than the author of the beautiful, but in this respect naïvely simple, introduction to the Book of Proverbs. This perhaps was strange under Sirach’s circumstances. How striking and even painful is the contrast between Josephus’ vivid and truthful comparison of Judæa at this period to ‘a ship in a storm, tossed by the waves on both sides,’[272] and that proverb of Sirach, worthy, considering the times, of the ‘miserable comforters’ of Job—

The gift of the Lord remains with the godly, and his favour brings prosperity for ever.[273]

In short, Sirach represents the reconciliation between the practical ethics of the inspired ‘wise men’ of old and the all-embracing demands of the Law. Himself only in a comparatively low sense inspired—for we should not hastily reject his claim to a ‘tongue’ from above—he did nothing, on the ethical side, but repeat the old truths in their old forms, though one gladly admits that he shows a genuine and unassumed interest in the varieties of human character. But on the religious side he is really in a certain sense original, in so far as he combines the traditional ‘wisdom’ with a heartfelt regard for the established forms of religion, such as the older ‘wise men’ scarcely possessed. On the latter point he would sympathise with the author of Ps. cxix. Unlike the older proverb-writers, he recommends the punctual observance of rites and ceremonies. These however are to be penetrated by a moral spirit; hence he says,

Do not [seek to] corrupt [the Lord] with gifts, for he receives them not; and trust not to unrighteous sacrifices. He who serves acceptably shall be received, and his prayer shall reach unto the clouds (xxxv. 12, 16).

By Greek philosophy Sirach, as far as we can see, was wholly uninfluenced.

And yet Sirach cannot have been entirely unacquainted with Greek culture, in the more general sense of the word. One striking proof of this is his attitude towards medical science,[274] which is exactly the opposite of the Chronicler’s (2 Chr. xvi. 12). It seems as if the older generation were offended by human interference with the course of nature, appealing perhaps to Ex. xv. 26; a curious Talmudic tradition ascribes a similar view to Hezekiah and his wise men. Sirach, however, appealing to the passage preceding that referred to above (see Ex. xv. 23-25), seeks to reconcile the opposing parties (xxxviii. 1-15). No doubt he had learned this at Alexandria: he tells us himself that he had travelled and learned many things (xxxiv. 9-11), and from xxxix. 4 we may even infer that he had appeared at court, where probably his life was endangered by calumnious accusations (li. 6). There, perhaps, he acquired his taste for the Greek style of banquet, with its airy talk and accompaniment of music, a taste which seems to have inspired a piquant piece of advice to the kill-joys of his time, who insisted on talking business out of season (xxxii. 3-5)—

Speak, O elder, with accurate knowledge, for it beseemeth thee, but be not a hindrance to music.[275] When playing is going on, do not pour out talk; and show not thyself inopportunely wise. A seal-ring of carbuncle set in gold, [such is] a concert at a banquet of wine.

In a similar mood he writes (xiv. 14)—

Defraud not thyself of a joyous day, and let not a share of a lawful pleasure escape thee.

But his tone is commonly more serious. Though no ascetic, he cautions his readers against the unrestrained manners which had invaded Judæa, especially against consorting with the singing and dancing girls (μετὰ ψαλλούσης, ix. 4, includes both; Vulg. _cum saltatrice_), and draws a picture of the daughters of Israel (xlii. 9, 10) which forms a melancholy contrast with the Old Testament ideal. His prayer to be guarded from the infection of lust (xxiii. 4, 5) finds its commentary in the story already mentioned of Joseph the tax-farmer. He notes with observant eye the strife of classes. What bitter sighs must have prompted a saying like this (xiii. 2, 3)—

A burden that is too heavy for thee take not up, and have no fellowship with one that is stronger and richer than thyself: For what fellowship hath the kettle with the earthen pot? this will smite, and that will be broken. The rich man doth wrong, and _he_ snorteth with anger, the poor man is wronged, and _he_ entreateth withal.

And again (xiii. 18)—

What peace hath the hyæna with the dog? and what peace hath the rich man with the poor?

He is painfully conscious of the deserved humiliation of his country, and the only reason which he can urge why God should interpose is the assured prophetic word (xxxvi. 15, 16 = 20, 21). Elsewhere he ascribes all the evil of his time to the neglect of the Law (xli. 8), which, by a strong hyperbole, he almost identifies with personified Divine Wisdom (xxiv. 23; see above on Prov. viii.) Not however without a noble introduction leading up to and justifying this identification. In the true _māshāl_-style he describes how Wisdom wandered through the world seeking a resting-place,—

Then the Creator of all gave me a commandment, and he that made me caused my tent to rest, and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thine inheritance in Israel (xxiv. 8).

And after a series of wondrous images, all glorifying the Wisdom enthroned in Jerusalem, he declares—

All this [is made good in] the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the Law which Moses commanded us as a heritage unto the congregations of Jacob (xxiv. 23).

This remarkable chapter deserves to be studied by itself; it is most carefully composed in 72 στίχοι. Lowth and Wessely[276] have with unequal success retranslated it into Hebrew. I have already spoken (on Proverbs) of its interest for the student of doctrine; it has indeed been thought to show clear traces of Alexandrinism, but this is improbable and unproved.

It remains to notice the author’s interest in nature and history. The hymn of praise for the works of creation (xlii. 15-xliii. 32) is only poor if compared with parts of the Book of Job. But perhaps more interesting is the panegyric of ‘famous men’ (xliv.-l.), from Enoch the patriarch to Simeon the Righteous, whose imposing appearance and beneficent rule are described with the enthusiasm of a contemporary.[277] It is worth the student’s while to examine the contents of this roll of honour. A few corrections of the text may be noticed as a preliminary. At xlviii. 11_b_, the Greek has ‘for we shall surely live (again).’ But the Latin has, ‘nam nos vitâ vivimus tantum, post mortem autem non erit tale nomen nostrum.’ There is good reason in this instance, as we shall see presently, to prefer the reading of the Latin to that of the Greek. At l. 1, after ‘son of Onias,’ it is well to remove the abruptness of the transition by inserting from the Syriac, ‘was the greatest of his brethren and the crown of his people.’ At l. 26 (27), for ‘Samaria’ we should probably read ‘Seir’ (else how will there be three nations?), and for ‘foolish,’ ‘Amoritish’ (with the Ethiopic version and Ewald, comp. Ezek. xvi. 3). Turning to the names of the heroes commemorated, it is startling to find no mention made of Ezra, the second founder of Jewish religion. Aaron, on the other hand, is celebrated in no fewer than seventeen verses. This cannot be a mere accident, for the veneration of the later Jews for Ezra was hardly less than that which they entertained for Moses. Notice, however, that Moses himself is only praised in five verses. It seems as if Aaron better than Moses symbolised those ritual observances in which Sirach perhaps took a special delight. The name of Ezra, too, may have had its symbolic meaning to the author. He may have had deficient sympathy with those elaborators of minute legal precepts, who took Ezra as their pattern. Not that he disbelieved in the continuity of inspiration—for in some sense he claims it for himself (e.g. xxiv. 33), but that he did not fully recognise the workings of the spirit in the ‘fence about the Law.’ Other names which he passes over in silence are Daniel and Mordecai. Does this mean that he was unacquainted with the Books of Daniel and Esther? Whatever be the date of these books, so much as this is at least a probable inference.

The panegyric seems to have originally closed with the ancient liturgical formula in verses 22-24. But the writer could not resist the temptation of giving a side-blow to the hated Samaritans (those ‘half-Jews,’ as Josephus the historian calls them), called forth perhaps by the dispute respecting the rival temples held at Alexandria before Ptolemy Philometor.[278] The last chapter of all (chap. li.) contains the aged author’s final leave-taking. It is a prayer of touching sincerity and much biographical interest. The immediateness of the religious sentiment is certainly greater in this late ‘gatherer’ than in many of the earlier proverb-writers.

Enough has been said of the contents of the book to give a general idea of its moral and religious position. Let us now consider its outward form. The work, as we have seen, was originally written in Hebrew. This indeed was to have been expected. For although the influence of the Seleucidæ had greatly strengthened the hold of Aramaic on the Jewish population of Palestine, Hebrew was still, and for a long time afterwards remained, the language of scholars and _littérateurs_. The author of the ‘Wisdom of Sirach’ was both. He was thoroughly penetrated with the spirit and style of the Scriptures, especially of those of the _Khokma_, and he would have thought it as much a descent to lavish his great powers on Aramaic as Dante did at first to write in Italian. Is this Hebrew original still extant? Alas! no; Hebrew literature, so scantily represented for this period, has to mourn this great loss. A page of fragments, gathered from the Talmud and the Midrāshīm,[279] is all that we can, with some occasional hesitation, plausibly regard as genuine. There is indeed a small work, called the Alphabet of Ben Sira, consisting of two series of proverbs, one in Aramaic, and one in Hebrew. But no significance can be attached to this. The genuineness of many of the Hebrew proverbs is guaranteed by their occurrence in the Talmud, but the form in which the alphabetist quotes them is often evidently less authentic than that in the Talmud. The original work must have been lost since the time of Jerome, if we may trust his assurance[280] that he had found it in Hebrew, and that it bore the name ‘Parables’ (_m’shālīm_). Of the ancient versions, the Syriac and the Old Latin are (after the Greek) the most important; the former is from the Hebrew, the latter from a very early form of the Greek text. Neither of them is always in accordance with the Greek as we have it, but such differences are often of use in restoring the original text. All the versions appear to contain alterations of the text, dictated by a too anxious orthodoxy, and in these the one may be a check upon the other. Bickell indeed goes further than this, and states that an accurate text of Sirach can only be had by combining the data of the Greek and the Syriac. Lowth, in his 24th Lecture, strongly urges the retranslation of Sirach into Hebrew. Such an undertaking would be premature, if Bickell’s judgment be correct that the book consists of seven-syllabled verses or στίχοι, grouped in distichs,[281] except in the alphabetic poem on wisdom (li. 13-20). The latter, consisting of 22 στίχοι, he has translated into German from his own corrected text, dividing it into four-lined strophes, as also the preceding, ‘alphabetising’ poem, consisting of 22 distichs (li. 1-12), in the _Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie_, 1882, pp. 326-332.

We must reserve our opinion on Bickell’s theory till the appearance of a complete edition from his pen. Meantime three passages (xxiv. 27, xxv. 15, xlvi. 18) may be referred to as giving striking proof of the Hebrew original of the work. In xxiv. 27 the translator seems to have found in his Hebrew copy כאר, i.e. properly כַּיְאׂר ‘as the Nile’ (the weak letter י being elided in pronunciation as in כאר, Am. viii. 8), but as he supposed כָּאוׂר ‘as the light.’ In xxv. 15, he found ראשׁ, which in the context can only mean ‘poison,’ but which he inappropriately rendered ‘head.’ In xlvi. 18, the Hebrew had צרים, i.e. צָרִים ‘enemies,’ but, according to the translator, צֹרִים ‘Tyrians.’ Compare also in this connection the allusions to the meanings of Hebrew words in vi. 22 (‘wisdom’) and xliii. 8 (‘the month’). There are still questions to be decided which can only be adverted to briefly here. Did the translator make use of the Septuagint, and more particularly of the portion containing the prophets? He certainly refers to a translation of the Scriptures in his preface, but Frankel thinks that a Targum may be meant, and even doubts the genuineness of the passage; he explains the points of contact with the Septuagint which are sometimes so interesting[282] in the Greek version of Sirach by _Ueberarbeitung_, i.e. the ‘working over’ of the version by later hands.[283] This seems to me a forced view. It is more probable that a Greek version is meant, or perhaps we may say Greek _versions_; no special honour is given to any one translation. Next, as to the position accorded to the Wisdom of Sirach. It is often cited in the Talmud with formulæ which belong elsewhere to the Scriptures, and was therefore certainly regarded by many as worthy to be canonical (see Appendix). In strict theory, this was wrong. According to the _Tosephta Yadayim_, c. 2, the book of Ben Sira, though much esteemed, stood on the border between the canonical and extraneous or non-canonical books. Such books might be read cursorily, but were not to be studied too much.[284] Sirach neither claimed the authorship of a hero of antiquity, nor was it, according to the rising Pharisaic school, orthodox; thus perhaps we may best account for the fact that a work, regarded in itself in no way inferior to the Book of Proverbs, was left outside the sacred canon.

No certain allusions to our book are traceable in the New Testament; the nearest approach to a quotation is James i. 19; comp. Ecclus. v. 13. Clement of Alexandria is the first Christian writer who quotes directly from Sirach. From its large use in the services of the Church the book received the name Ecclesiasticus, to distinguish it perhaps from the canonical book which was also often called ‘Wisdom.’ In later times, it half attracted, but—owing to the corrupt state of the text—half repelled, the great Hellenist Camerarius, the friend of Melancthon, who published a separate edition of Sirach (the first) at Basle in 1551. It appears from his preface that it was highly valued by the reformers from an educational point of view. Bullinger proposes it as a less dangerous text book of moral philosophy than the works of Plato and Aristotle, and Luther admits it to be a good household book, admired however too much by the world, which ‘sleepily passes by the great majestic word of Christ concerning the victory over death, sin, and hell.’

No impartial critic will place the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach on the same literary eminence with the so-called Wisdom of Solomon. It is only from its greater fidelity to the Old Testament standard, or at least to a portion of this standard, that it can claim a qualified superiority. A few noble passages of continuous rhetoric it no doubt contains, especially the noble Hymn of Praise on the works of creation (xxxix. 16-xliii. 33); and a few small but exquisite gems especially the sayings on friendship (counterbalanced, I admit by those on the treatment of one’s enemies, xii. 10-12, xxv. 7, xxx. 6), e.g.—

Forsake not an old friend, for the new is not comparable to him. A new friend is as new wine, when it is old, thou wilt drink it with pleasure (ix. 10),

with which we may bracket the noble passage on the treatment of a friend’s trespass (xix. 13-17). One of the fine religious passages has been quoted already (xliii. 27; comp. Job xxvi. 14); we may couple this[285] with it—

As a drop from the sea, and a grain of sand, so are a few years in the day of eternity (xviii. 9).

Still the chief value of the book is, historically, to fill out the picture of a little known period, and doctrinally, to show the inadequacy of the old forms of religious belief, and the moral distress from which the Christ was a deliverer.

Footnote 268:

Ewald (_History_, v. 263, n. 3) refers to iv. 15, x. 13-17, xi. 5 sq., xxxii. 17-19, xxxiii. 1-12, xxxvi. 11-17, xxxvii. 25, xxxix. 23, xlviii. 10 sq., but only for a vague Messianism (in the last passage the Greek seems to be interpolated). I would add xxxv. 17-19, xxxvi. 1-10.

Footnote 269:

True, the Greek version of Sirach has, at xxi. 27, the words, ‘When the ungodly curseth the Satan, he curseth his own soul;’ but ‘the Satan’ may here be synonymous with the depraved will, the _yéçer rā_ (this seems to have Talmudic authority; see Weber, _System der altsynag. pal. Theol._, pp. 228-9). In _Baba bathra_, 15_a_, Satan is not distinguished from the _yéçer rā_.

Footnote 270:

Chap. xxii. 11. Comp. xiv. 11-19 (correcting by the help of the Syriac), xvii. 27, 28, 30. Contrast the glowing language of the ‘Wisdom of Solomon,’ iii. 1-4.

Footnote 271:

The Syriac has, ‘Nevertheless he dieth not, but liveth indeed.’ The Greek version I have quoted farther on. Also the Latin, which probably corresponds most to the original. See Geiger, _Zeitschr. d. d. morg. Ges._, xii. 536. The false reading κεκοιμημένοι, adopted by A.V., for κεκοσμημένοι, in xlviii. 11a, is due to the same theological motive.

Footnote 272:

_Antiquities_, xii. 3, 3.

Footnote 273:

Ch. xi. 17; comp. ii. 7 &c.; xvi. 6 &c.; xl. 13, 14. There are, however, passages in which Sirach betrays some little feeling of the practical difficulties of the older form of the doctrine of retribution: see xxxv. 18 [xxxii. 18].

Footnote 274:

See Dukes, _Rabbinische Blumenlese_, pp. 29, 30; Grätz, _Schir ha-schirim_, p. 86. Grotius even supposed the author to be a physician.

Footnote 275:

καὶ μὴ ἐμποδίσῃς μουσικά. So xlix. 1. ὡς μουσικὰ ἐν συμποσίῳ οἴνου; comp. Ex. xxxii. 18 Sept. That Greek music was known in Palestine _very shortly afterwards_ may be inferred from the Greek names of musical instruments in the Book of Daniel.

Footnote 276:

Wessely was one of the most eminent fellow-workers of the great Moses Mendelssohn. See Wogue, _Histoire de la Bible et de l’exégèse biblique_ (1881), pp. 334-337.

Footnote 277:

The Mussaph prayer in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (German ritual) contains a striking imitation of Sirach’s eloquent description of the high priest (see Delitzsch, _Gesch. der jüd. Poesie_, p. 21), every verse of which closes with the refrain _mar’eh kōhēn_ ‘the appearance of the priest;’ Meshullam bar-Kleonymos is known to be the author.

Footnote 278:

Jos., _Ant._, xiii. 3, 4.

Footnote 279:

See Zunz, _Gottesdienstliche Vorträge_, p. 102; Delitzsch, _Zur Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie_, p. 204 (comp. p. 20, note 5); Dukes, _Rabbinische Blumenlese_, p. 67 &c. It should be noticed that among these Talmudic _m’shālīm_ there are some, and even long ones, which do not occur in the Greek Sirach.

Footnote 280:

_Præf. in libr. Sal._ ‘Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius ψευδεπίγραφος liber .... Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi, non Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos, sed _parabolas_ prænotatum, cui juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum canticorum.’ Nowhere since has Sirach been found in this position, nor with this title.

Footnote 281:

But is not a strophic division sometimes visible, e.g. ii. 7-17? See Seligmann, _Das Buch der Weisheit des J. S._, &c., p. 34.

Footnote 282:

See especially xlvi. 19, with which comp. the Septuagint of 1 Sam. xii. 3.

Footnote 283:

_Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta_ (1841), p. 21, note _w_.

Footnote 284:

Wright, _Koheleth_, p. 48 n.; Strack, art. ‘Kanon des A. T.’ in Herzog-Plitt, _Realencyclopädie_, vii. 430, 431; Gratz, _Kohelet_, p. 48.

Footnote 285:

Bishop Butler, who is fond of Sirach, quotes this saying in his 4th sermon.

AIDS TO THE STUDENT.

Besides the commentaries of Bretschneider (1806), Fritzsche (1859), and Bissell (in the American edition of Lange), see Gfrörer, _Philo_, ii. (1831), pp. 18-52; Dähne, _Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdischalexandrin. Religionsphilosophie_, ii. (1834), pp. 126-150; Zunz, _Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden_ (1832), pp. 100-105; Ewald, _Jahrbücher der bibl. Wissenschaft_, iii. (1851), pp. 125-140; _History of Israel_, v. 262 &c.; Jost, _Gesch. des Judenthums_, i. (1857), p. 310 &c.; Herzfeld, _Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael_, iii. (1863), see Index; Horowitz, _Das Buch Jesus Sirach_ (1865); Dyserinck, _De Spreuken van Jesus den zoon van Sirach vertaald_ (1870); Grätz, _Monatsschrift_ for 1872, pp. 49 &c., 97 &c.; Seligmann, _Das Buch der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach_ (1883); Fritzsche, art. in Schenkel’s _Bibellexikon_, iii. 252 &c.; Stanley, _Jewish Church_, vol. iii. (see Index); Westcott, art. ‘Ecclesiasticus’ in Smith’s _Bible Dictionary_; Deane, ‘The Book of Ecclesiasticus: its Contents and Character,’ _The Expositor_, Nov. 1883; Wright, _The Book of Koheleth_, 1883, chap. ii. (decides, perhaps, too hastily that Sirach in many passages imitates Koheleth).

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH; OR, ECCLESIASTES.