Scribal Culture in Ben Sira (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism) 9004372857, 9789004372856

Citation preview

Scribal Culture in Ben Sira

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Editors René Bloch (Institut für Judaistik, Universität Bern) Karina Martin Hogan (Department of Theology, Fordham University) Associate Editors Hindy Najman (Theology & Religion Faculty, University of Oxford) Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven) Benjamin G. Wright, III (Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University) Advisory Board A.M. Berlin – K. Berthelot – J.J. Collins – Benedikt Eckhardt Y. Furstenberg – S. Kattan Gribetz – S. Mason – Françoise Mirguet J.H. Newman – A.K. Petersen – M. Popović – I. Rosen-Zvi J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten – M. Segal – J. Sievers – W. Smelik – G. Stemberger L.T. Stuckenbruck – Lieve Teugels – J.C. de Vos

VOLUME 184

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jsjs

Scribal Culture in Ben Sira By

Lindsey A. Askin

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Askin, Lindsey A., author. Title: Scribal culture in Ben Sira / by Lindsey A. Askin. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2018] | Series: Supplements to the  Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384–2161 ; volume 184 | Includes  bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018023333 (print) | LCCN 2018026698 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004372863 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004372856 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Ecclesiasticus—Criticism, interpretation, etc. |  Bible. Ecclesiasticus—Comparative studies. Classification: LCC BS1765.52 (ebook) | LCC BS1765.52 .A85 2018 (print) | DDC  229/.406—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018023333

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1384-2161 isbn 978-90-04-37285-6 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-37286-3 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgements vii Abbreviations viii Introduction 1 1 Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture: Materiality and Physicality of Reading and Writing 21 2 Noah and Phinehas: Originality and Textual Reuse 32 3 Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah: Multiple Source Handling and Harmonization 77 4 On Weather: Nature-Lists and Ben Sira’s Use of Psalms and Job 111 5 Death and the Body: Echoes of Job, Qohelet, and Ancient Perspectives 143 6 The Physician and Piety: Textual Reuse and Perspectives on Medicine 186 Conclusions 232 Editions and Translations Used 239 Bibliography 243 Index of Subjects 282 Index of Ancient Sources 291

Acknowledgements This book is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation, which I completed at the University of Cambridge, Queens’ College, from 2012 to 2016. I am indebted most of all to my supervisor Dr James K. Aitken. Thanks are due also to Drs Jeremy Corley and Nathan MacDonald, my doctoral examiners; Dr Katharine Dell, who kindly acted as my interim supervisor; the Israel Antiquities Authority; and Dr Noam Mizrahi for visiting the Ben Sira manuscript witnesses there with me. I am grateful, as well, to Professor Robert Hayward for his teaching and guidance during my Masters studies at Durham. Thanks are due to Professor Benjamin G. Wright for his feedback on this book as (former) series editor. I am grateful for the feedback and encouragement of the current series editors Professors René Bloch and Karina Martin Hogan, and associate editors Professors Hindy Najman and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. Thanks, as well, to my husband Alexander Davidson, for standing on Masada and Qumran with me in 40C weather, and to my sister Kristen and parents Dean and Erika, who unfailingly put the cats on Skype.

Abbreviations AB Anchor Yale Bible Commentary AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity ALD Aramaic Levi Document AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AJS Association for Jewish Studies BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BNZW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie BEAT Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums BVC Bible et vie crétienne BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bib Biblica BN Biblische Notizen Bidr Bidradgen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie BDB  The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Edited by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996 BAR British Archaeological Reports BAJS British Association for Jewish Studies BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BHM Bulletin of the History of Medicine BIOSCS  Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies CBAA Catholic Biblical Association of America CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CIJ  Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Frey. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1936–1952 DCH  The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J.A. Clines. 8 vols. + Index. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2011 DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan EJL Early Judaism and its Literature ESV English Standard Version

Abbreviations EstBib FAT HTR HALOT

ix

Estudios bíblicos Forschungen zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Rev. ed. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994. HAR Hebrew Annual Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HBS Herders biblische Studien HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible IAA Israel Antiquities Authority Jastrow  A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Edited by Marcus Jastrow. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1943 JIGRE  William Horbury and David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JAJ Journal of Ancient Judaism JAJSup Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement Series JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JHebS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JSJ  Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of Old Testament Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies KJV King James Version LBH Late Biblical Hebrew LDAB Leuven Database of Ancient Books LSTS Library of the Second Temple Studies LXX Septuagint (Rahlfs-Hanhart) MT Masoretic Text (BHS)

x

Abbreviations

MPI Monographs of the Peshitta Institute NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint OTL Old Testament Library OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly QH Qumran Hebrew REJ Revue des études juives RevQ Revue de Qumran RSV Revised Standard Version SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha SAM Studies in Ancient Medicine SSLL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah ST Studia Theologica TSAJ Texts and Studies on Ancient Judaism TU Texte und Untersuchungen TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TVZ Theologischer Verlag Zürich VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WAW Writings from the Ancient World ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik B Manuscript B Btext Manuscript B main body text Bmg Manuscript B marginalia l. line(s) Mas1h Masada Scroll of Ben Sira ms(s) manuscript(s) r. recto v. verso

Introduction This book explores how Ben Sira wrote his book of wisdom, and what insights scribal culture might bring to our understanding of his individual compositional techniques, particularly the physical handling of texts. The Book of Ben Sira, also known as Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, or the Wisdom of Ben Sira, was written in Hebrew sometime between 198 and 175 bce, probably in Jerusalem.1 As a wisdom text containing many quotations and allusions to other texts, the physicality and mechanics of how the Book of Ben Sira was written deserve renewed analysis in light of scribal culture. This book asks whether Ben Sira’s compositional techniques make his text particularly original or imitative (or both) when placed in the context of scribal practices of reading, note-taking, drafting, and writing. Are there better ways of understanding how an ancient Jewish scribe such as Ben Sira composed his text, besides the anachronistic and somehow disappointing image of a solitary scribe copying words and phrases from numerous scrolls open directly in front of him? In order to examine Ben Sira’s compositional techniques in his historical and literary context, it is necessary to investigate the mechanics of how such textual quotations and allusions would be incorporated physically into writing. The aim is to explore the textual and sociocultural boundaries behind, and beyond, the recognizability of quotations, to see how presentation of text reflects upon Ben Sira as author. By approaching the physicality and materiality of scribal culture, we might better appreciate the extent to which quotations and allusions in Second Temple literature, as cultural markers, demonstrate literary dexterity, as well as expose the literary importance of certain recognizable texts to a receptive audience. To examine how Ben Sira wrote his book, and the creative operations involved in crafting such a book, I have analyzed characteristics and features of his individual scribalism, that is, his personal compositional techniques, as witnessed by his surviving Hebrew text. This investigation focuses in particular on how Ben Sira uses (or does not use) other texts and existing literary genres, and offers an analysis of what such textual choices might signal to his reader. One of the aims of this exercise is to avoid beginning with 1  The Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50) might have been written before 195 bce, as will be argued in a future study based on a recent conference paper. Lindsey A. Askin, “Beyond Encomium or Eulogy: Simon the High Priest as Patron of Ben Sira,” presented at the British Association for Jewish Studies Annual Conference 2016, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 11 July 2016.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_002

2

Introduction

generalizations about scribes and instead focus on the primary data of scribal culture itself. Defined simply, scribal culture is the evidence of reading and writing left behind by material culture and textual data from societies with manuscript traditions and a scribal profession.2 In a manuscript society, the creators and copyists of texts are usually (but not exclusively) scribes, although it should be noted that not all scribes are copyists; they are also record-keepers, secretaries, accountants, and administrators, among other bureaucratic roles that require contact with writing.3 However, scribes are also individuals with different levels of training, agendas, and sociocultural environments. The evidence of scribal patterns of textual transmission and composition can allow us to appreciate how ancient texts were put down in writing, and how they might have been read by others over time. Analyzing characteristics of Ben Sira’s individual scribalism will tell us more about his sociocultural concerns, background, education, and the texts with which he was familiar. The role of scribal culture in this inquiry is to advance current discussions of Ben Sira’s text and its place in Second Temple literature, and to present new insights into how Jewish texts in the Second Temple period were composed. Going beyond the study of his textual interpretation and exegesis, this book proposes that Ben Sira’s textual reuse might be understood better as a powerful expression of exemplary literary style itself, and that his references to texts are expected to resonate with a receptive literary audience. In light of scribal culture, Ben Sira’s textual reuse becomes a conscious performance of textual dexterity and strategy, not simply creativity or originality. Recently, biblical scholarship has taken a renewed interest in scribal culture, which is due partly to text-critical attempts to understand the apparent layers of editing and re-writing that characterize much of the Hebrew Bible, facilitated greatly in the twentieth century by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Today scholars are now turning increasingly towards material culture to make sense of ancient composition and copying practices, considering different technologies, tools, and education. However, one challenge in approaching issues such as education, memory, or scribal practices is that we unintentionally build theories about textual formation that are difficult to reconcile with material culture and physicality of textual handling. If we understand more about who scribes are and what they do, the mechanics and techniques of how 2  Material culture is defined as the physical objects left by people of the past. 3  Note that scribal culture is also left behind by educated people who were not professional scribes. See discussion below on different types of literacies.

Introduction

3

they worked, and their values and education, then we will learn more about how ancient Jewish literature was composed and understood in its own physical environment.4 For example, the evidence of scribal culture might help to account for variants and errors in manuscripts when we consider attitudes towards memory and the physicality of copying practices, such as bodily positions, reading techniques, and technology. Scholarship on Ben Sira has long been interested in his social location. This interest originates from his advice and autobiographical comments on the scribal profession and on the importance of a lasting name. He has been called the first extant Jewish author to assign his own name to his text. However, it may be argued that Ben Sira is not the first Jewish author, only first extant Jewish writer writing in Hebrew to assign his own work. Moreover, the sentiment of Ben Sira as the first Jewish author still somehow neglects the surviving fragments of Greek-Jewish literature in Egypt, some of which predate Ben Sira. The names of Ezekiel the Tragedian, Theodotus, Eupolemus, Artapanus, and other Greek-Jewish authors were evidently known to Alexander Polyhistor, who preserved fragments of their writing, which were then transmitted by Eusebius of Caesarea.5 Nevertheless Ben Sira is interesting for his conscientious, high style of writing and the enduring popularity of his book in ancient times, and later. The fact that we know the name of Ben Sira is far from the most interesting piece of information about him as an author. More recently, there is also a deeper question of whether Ben Sira’s reuse of other texts is an expression of originality. Broadly speaking, studies on Ben Sira have concentrated on two issues: his sociocultural background and his interpretation of other texts. These areas of discussion make Ben Sira an excellent case study for scribalism during the Second Temple period.

4  Eva Mroczek explores Second Temple Jewish literature as texts that are actively situating themselves within their own existing literary traditions. Methodologically, Mroczek argues that we should interpret Second Temple literature on its own terms and not solely in relation to the Hebrew Bible. Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (Oxford University Press, 2016). 5  Ben Sira was just before Aristobulus in Alexandria (175–170 bce) and possibly contemporary with earlier Hellenistic Jewish authors writing in Greek in Ptolemaic Egypt and Palestine, and we must acknowledge the possibility that the Greek-Jewish fragmentary authors signed their own works if their names are known to Eusebius of Caesarea, in whose work they survive as citations. Date of Aristobulus: Hengel, Judaism, 1:164. For the fragmentary GreekJewish authors, Carl R. Holladay, ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 4 vols., Texts and translations, Pseudepigrapha series 20 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983).

4

Introduction

Scholarship on Ben Sira

The textual history of Ben Sira is complex. Originally, five medieval manuscripts of Hebrew Ben Sira were found in the genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo in 1896 by Solomon Schechter.6 A large portion of ms B (Sir 40:9–49:11) was found and identified by Adolf Neubauer and A.E. Cowley. In total, five manuscripts were identified (mss A–E). These findings revealed the long-lost Hebrew of Ben Sira. Over the next few decades new leaves of the Hebrew of Ben Sira continued to be brought to light through the Taylor-Schechter collection, the collection of Moses Gaster, and the work of Israel Lévi.7 Ancient Hebrew witnesses were found with the discovery of 11QPsa, which includes Sir 51:13–30, and the Masada Scroll of Ben Sira (Mas1h) found in 1964 by Yigael Yadin.8 Other discoveries have been made since the 1960s: new leaves in the Taylor-Schechter collection at Cambridge,9 a sixth manuscript (ms F),10 two new leaves of ms C 6  Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor, eds., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899). Solomon Schechter, “A Fragment of the Original Text of Ecclesiasticus,” Expositor 5:4 (1896): 1–15. A.E. Cowley and Adolf Neubauer, eds., The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897). 7  Moses Gaster, “A New Fragment of Ben Sira [Parts of Chaps. 18, 19, and 20],” JQR 12 (1899–1900): 688–702. Israel Lévi, “Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscrits hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique,” REJ 40 (1900): 1–30. The manuscript findings from Schechter and Taylor, Gaster, and Lévi were included in Schechter, ed., Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901). See also Lévi, L’Écclesiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira, 2 vols. (Paris: Leroux, 1898– 1901); Lévi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, Semitic Study Series 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1904). 8  DJD 4. 11QPsa dates to between 30–50 ce. Mas1h dates to between the first century bce and first century ce. Yigael Yadin, Elisha Qimron, and Florentino García Martínez, Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965: Final Reports (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999). Qimron incorporated many of Strugnell’s notes on Mas1h into the final report, Masada VI. John Strugnell, “Notes and Queries on The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” in W.F. Albright Volume, ed. Avraham Malamat, Eretz Israel 9 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969), 109–19. For an early analysis of the text of Mas1h, see Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Some Notes on the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” JQR 58.4 (1968): 323–27. 9  T-S 12.867. Jefim Schirmann, “‫[ דף חדש מתוך ספר בן־סירא העברי‬New Page from the Hebrew Book of Ben Sira],” Tarbiz 27:4 (1958): 440–43; Schirmann, “‫דפים נוספים מתוך‬ ”‫[ ספר “בן־סירא‬Additional Pages from the Book of Ben Sira]” Tarbiz 29:2 (1960): 125–34. 10  ms F (T-S AS 213.4). Alexander Scheiber, “A New Leaf of the Fourth [sic; read Sixth] Manuscripts of the Ben Sira from the Geniza,” Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 179–85;

Introduction

5

found in 2007,11 a new fragment of ms D,12 and an imprint of Sir 1 identified by Eric Reymond in 2014.13 New readings of the extant Ben Sira witnesses are still made.14 Altogether, two-thirds of the Hebrew survives today. Because of the incomplete survival of the Hebrew and the differences between the ancient and medieval manuscripts, the Hebrew must be constantly compared to the other ancient versions where possible: the Greek, Latin, and Syriac. The Greek version (Sirach), written by Ben Sira’s grandson, is an important early witness to the Hebrew. A Syriac version was translated from the Hebrew, probably around the third century CE.15 The Latin version is dependent on the Greek, and therefore it is an important witness for the transmission of the Greek.16 In Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza,” Bib 69 (1988): 226–38. Pancratius C. Beentjes, “A Closer Look at the Newly Discovered Sixth Hebrew Manuscript (Ms. F) of Ben Sira,” EstBib 51 (1993): 171–86. 11  In 2007, several leaves from the Genizah were put on public auction through Quaritch, after almost a century in a private collection in Aachen since 1898. Two of these leaves Shulamit Elizur identified as part of Manuscript C. The purchaser and current owner Gifford Combs allowed the Cambridge University Library to scan them for research purposes and Elizur to publish her findings. Shulamit Elizur, “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira,” DSD 17:1 (2010): 13–29. Manuscript C is unique in that it is a florilegia collection of Ben Sira’s sayings in a different order, and being made sometimes in the tenth to eleventh centuries CE, MS C is our oldest medieval witness of Hebrew Ben Sira. Elizur’s discovery is also momentous because we now have eight continuous leaves of ms C. See Elizur, “Two New Leaves,” 17. 12  Shulamit Elizur and Michael Rand, “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira,” DSD 18:2 (2011): 200–5. 13  Eric D. Reymond, “New Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Chapter 1 in ms A (T-S 12.863) (1),” RevQ 105/26 (2015): 1–16. 14  Eric D. Reymond, Jean-Sébastien Rey, and Jan Joosten, “A New Hebrew Word in Ben Sira 40:4 (MS B IX Verso, Line 12 = Or. 1102): ‫סיגה‬,” RevBib 1 (2017): 103–110. 15  Núria Calduch-Benages, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen, La Sabiduría del Escriba (Estella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 2003), 40. Michael M. Winter, “The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac,” VT 27 (1977): 237–53; 494–507; 1. Robert J. Owens, “The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat,” JSS 34.1 (1989): 39–75; “Interlopers Reunited: The Early Translators of Ben Sira,” JBL 131 (2012): 251–69. Willem (Wido) T. van Peursen, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, MPI 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), argues for a Jewish background of the author of the Syriac. 16  By the Latin version (Ecclesiasticus), it is meant the Vetus Latina. The Vetus Latina itself only survives up to Sir 19, but the rest of the Vetus Latina Ecclesiasticus is preserved through the Vulgate, since Jerome did not re-translate Ben Sira but incorporated the Vetus Latina. B.F. Osb et al., Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem II Proverbia-Apocalypsis (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969). Ecclesiasticus will be abbreviated as Sir not Ecclus. On the Vetus Latina see Maurice Gilbert, “The Vetus Latina of Ecclesiasticus,”

6

Introduction

order to remain as close as possible to Ben Sira’s Hebrew text, the five textual portions examined in this volume come from the Hebrew witnesses. Modern Ben Sira scholarship began with Solomon Schechter, who argued that Ben Sira had little creativity since his text was saturated with quotations from the Hebrew Bible.17 Schechter and Rudolf Smend saw Ben Sira’s late biblical Hebrew and Aramaic words as diminishing the quality of its high literary style.18 Later in the 1960s scholars such as John G. Snaith, Alexander Di Lella, and Patrick W. Skehan explored the quotations in Ben Sira as interpretation.19 These scholars showed how Ben Sira’s contemporary views were illuminated by the biblical texts he reused in his text. Snaith examined how Ben Sira’s quotations of Hebrew texts revealed the centrality of social ethics to Ben Sira.20 Scholarship continues to be interested in Ben Sira’s interpretations of his sources and questions of non-Jewish literature and ideas in his text, as well as problems of canon. It is a problem, however, to speak of Ben Sira as drawing upon the Hebrew Bible long before the formation of the Hebrew Bible as a canon of texts, because a canon can be equated with a closed body of literature thought of in some way as a whole.21 We cannot be certain of the status of Ben Sira’s sources during his lifetime, and whether he had an idea of authoritative texts, or an in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–9. There is also a Coptic version of Ben Sira dating at least to the 7th century ce and translated from a Greek version, for which see a helpful introduction in Frank Feder, “The Coptic Version(s) of the Book of Jesus Sirach,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 11–20. There are also Ethiopic, Slavonic, Georgian, and Armenian witnesses of Ben Sira. There are also two forthcoming Deuterocanonical volumes of the Textual History of the Bible project, which includes articles on all available textual versions and witnesses of Ben Sira, by Benjamin G. Wright. Armin Lange, and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Hebrew Bible, vol. 2A and 2B, Textual History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 17  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 8–9; 32–34. 18  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 32–34. Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), xlii–vi. 19  John G. Snaith, “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus,” JTS 18:1 (1967): 1–12. John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Alexander A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study (The Hague: Mouton, 1966). Patrick W. Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (Washington: CBAA, 1971). See also a much earlier form-critical discussion, W. Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach,” ZAW 34:3 (1914): 161–98. 20  John G. Snaith, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy,” VT 25 (1975): 167–74. 21  See discussion below.

Introduction

7

early conception of the tri-partite Hebrew Bible, as some have argued that his grandson might have been aware of himself.22 It is limiting to view cognate early Jewish texts simply in terms of their relationship to the literature that became the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, effort is made in this book to refer to texts discretely, rather than categorizing Ben Sira’s textual reuse into “biblical” and “non-biblical.” While the category of biblical literature can be useful at times to avoid cumbersome expression, and to refer to modern studies, it can also constrain how we visualize the process by Ben Sira read, referred to, and understood the books which became what we call the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. Since the 1980s, the focus of most research is Ben Sira’s quotations and interpretation methods. Pancratius Beentjes examines Ben Sira’s strategies of textual quotation as originality.23 He categorizes Ben Sira’s textual reuse as a structural use of scripture or “structural style,” the planned use of scattered quotation to overlay verses on a topic.24 Other scholars look for information about Ben Sira’s sociocultural concerns through his textual reuse. In particular, Benjamin G. Wright and James K. Aitken examine Ben Sira’s relationship to Hellenistic administration. Aitken analyzes Ben Sira’s historical context, arguing that Ben Sira approved of Seleucid political rule since he praised Simon II’s infrastructure projects, necessarily funded by Seleucid tax revenue.25 By contrast, Wright sees Ben Sira as subtly subversive against earthly kingship in

22  Sirach Prologue. 23  Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern [Sir 46:19],” Bib 63 (1982): 506–23. Benjamin G. Wright, “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s ‘Praise of the Ancestors,’ ” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 183–207; “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 363–88. 24  Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira 44:19–23—The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 209–26. 25  James K. Aitken, “Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto: Ben Sira in His Seleucid Setting,” JJS 41 (2000): 202; 207 (191–208). For treatments of the Seleucid economic administration throughout their empire, the following can be a start: Gerassimos George Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). For how Judea fared under the Seleucids see Elias J. Bickerman, “The Seleucid Charter of Jerusalem,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees, ed. Amram D. Tropper, vol. 1, 2 vols., AJEC 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 315–56.

8

Introduction

response to Ptolemaic ruler-cults.26 As shown in these studies, Ben Sira’s political and sociocultural concerns are in one way distinct from the sphere of direct textual reuse, although they plainly interact with the textual sphere through the selection of source material. At this stage, it becomes clear that identifying and analysing Ben Sira’s interpretation of his sources can elucidate his attitudes and historical context, but these approaches cannot tell us the mechanics of how that textual reuse happens in the composition process. Text-critical analysis of the use of texts by other texts must be informed by evidence of how texts were physically handled in the ancient world. Therefore, the mechanics of Ben Sira’s textual reuse must be informed by sources of scribal culture as well as furniture, objects, and technologies relevant to reading and writing practices. Scholars also debate Ben Sira’s attitudes to the Hellenistic world.27 In response to Hans Conzelmann, who found parallels with Egyptian and Greek literature, Theophil Middendorp determined that Ben Sira did not quote from such texts, since he believed that Ben Sira was opposed to Hellenistic culture.28 Other scholars gravitated towards a middle ground, for example Martin Hengel, Jack T. Sanders, and Victor Tcherikover, who saw Ben Sira as clearly part of the Mediterranean world while remaining a pious Jewish sage.29 In particular, Hengel identified potential quotes from Homer and Heraclitus.30 Sanders

26  Benjamin G. Wright, “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship,” in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, eds. Tessa Rajak et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 76–91. However, the sharp rise in cases of deification after Alexander was in fact for all humans such as heroes and benefactors, not just kings, as pointed out by David Potter, “Hellenistic Religion,” in A Companion to the Hellenistic World, ed. Andrew Erskine (London: Blackwell, 2003), 416–19 (415–30). 27  The Mediterranean world ruled by Alexander’s successors from 323–31 bce. 28  Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973). Hans Conzelmann, “Die Mutter der Weisheit,” in Zeit und Geschichte, ed. Erich Dinkler (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 225–34. 29  Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols., trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1974), 1:152, however, he interprets ‫ בני אדם‬in Sir 3:24 as the Greeks (citing Smend, Weisheit, 31), arguing that Ben Sira is criticizing Greek and Hellenistic learning (Hengel, Judaism, 1:139). Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum (New York: Atheneum, 1977), 148 (117–51). 30  Hengel, Judaism, 1:148. See Chapter Five for the likelihood of a Homer quote in Ben Sira. Also discussed in Benjamin G. Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek,” in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism, eds. Hindy Najman, Jean-Sébastien Rey, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup 174 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 71–88.

Introduction

9

compared Ben Sira to the Demotic wisdom text P. Insinger and Theognis.31 Recently, Matthew Goff has argued that P. Insinger and Ben Sira drew from a similar contemporary pool of wisdom traditions.32 Following the findings of Hengel and Sanders, Skehan and Di Lella argued that Ben Sira disagreed with the Hellenization of Jews though they did not think he was actively antiHellenistic.33 Thomas R. Lee compared Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50) to a Greek encomium. By contrast, Christopher A. Rollston later emphasized differences between Sir 44–50 and encomia.34 H.V. Kieweler argued that Ben Sira was familiar with Greek literature but refrained from making use of that knowledge for the sake of his students.35 Wright recently argued that of course Hellenistic culture affected Ben Sira, and might have attracted his attention, but that any use of Greek literature seems to be in service of Ben Sira’s own national literature.36 Indeed, Ben Sira’s use or lack of use of Greek literature does not indicate by itself his attitude towards Hellenism, and his use of Greek literature should be seen in its own respect. One pitfall in earlier studies on Ben Sira and Hellenism is the conflation of parallel traditions and direct textual dependence. Today in biblical scholarship, scholars such as Martti Nissinen and Stuart Weeks view overlapping parallels of Near Eastern or Egyptian texts as examples of broader scribal practices and common literary conventions, traditions common to ancient manuscript societies rather than direct dependence.37 The same must be done with Ben 31  Jack T. Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). However, Lichtheim dates P. Insinger to the late Ptolemaic period. Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 3:184. For the limited audiences of Theognis and P. Insinger, see Chapter Five. 32  Matthew J. Goff, “Hellenistic Instruction in Palestine and Egypt: Ben Sira and Papyrus Insinger,” JSJ 36.2 (2005): 147–72. 33  Patrick W. Skehan, and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (London: Doubleday, 1987), 16. 34  Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Christopher A. Rollston, “The Non-Encomiastic Features of Ben Sira 44–50” (M.A. Thesis; Emmanuel School of Religion: 1992). Rollston, “Non-Encomiastic,” 40–60, stresses how encomia refer to their contemporary subjects throughout. 35  H.V. Kieweler, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, BEAT 30 (Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1992), 37–47. 36  Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek.” 37  Martti Nissinen, with contributions by C.L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, WAW 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Stuart Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism (New York: T&T Clark, 2012). Goff, likewise, argues for a common stream of traditions drawn upon by Ben Sira and P. Insinger each in their own way. Goff, “Hellenistic Instruction.”

10

Introduction

Sira, but it should be emphasized that material culture and evidence of the physical handling of texts should also help complete the picture. Without material culture, we risk misinterpreting the mechanics of how ancient texts were handled. Over time, the debate on Ben Sira’s relationship with the Mediterranean world has also become problematic due to wider debates about Hellenism and Jewish identity. Much of the debate stems from the search for the beginnings of anti-Hellenistic sentiment, which was claimed to have led to the Maccabean Revolt. Scholarship today now increasingly interprets the Maccabean Revolt as a political feud of warring priestly families, or a political-economic conflict, although this theory might be as reductionist as that of a purely religious revolt against Hellenization.38 The term “Hellenistic” and its related terms have become less helpful over time with associations of Greek colonial influence rather than local cultural synthesis. Although the chronological Hellenistic period (323–31 bce) is not in question, effort is made in this book to avoid the cultural term “Hellenism” in favour of “Mediterranean” culture, as defined by Seth Schwartz,39 who identifies the overall sociocultural concerns of Ben Sira as glory, honour, and reciprocity. By contrast, past studies have presented Ben Sira’s attitudes towards certain contemporary ideas as indications of his anti-Hellenism or pro-Hellenism. However, Schwartz depicts the picture as more endemic in nature: that Ben Sira, as well as wider ancient Jewish society, can be thought of as culturally Mediterranean even in his critique of nominally Hellenistic ideas.40 In other words, by criticizing Hellenistic society Ben Sira reveals his own firm place within it. Regardless of his attitude towards Hellenistic ideas, Ben Sira was inextricably a part of wider contemporary currents of thought within Mediterranean society as a whole. Schwartz’s model of Mediterraneanism is a useful way to approach the classic question of Ben Sira’s relationship to Hellenism. On the other hand, some reservations must be laid in suspicion of ignoring the possibility of contemporary Near Eastern ideas in favour of a Western-oriented view of influences on Second Temple Judaism. Future studies of foreign influences on Ben Sira might be more opportune to look East instead of West; the role of Babylonian texts and ideas in the wisdom

38  For Hellenism as a problematic term in general, see Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 12, against Tcherikover, Hellenistic, 348–56. 39  Seth Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 21–25; 30. 40  Schwartz, Mediterranean, 46–79.

Introduction

11

of Ben Sira has been eclipsed by the long-running conversation about Ben Sira and his attitudes to the Greek Mediterranean. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore whether Ben Sira has a negative view of Hellenistic literature by showing how he does or does not make extensive use of Theognis or other Greek writers: such an argument would simply continue the older scholarly framework of dichotomizing Jewish attitudes to Hellenism as presented in 2 Maccabees. More pressing than the unanswerable question of Ben Sira’s knowledge of Greek, the more pertinent issue is his handling of textual sources. Does Ben Sira’s use or lack of use of Theognis and other Greek writers make a point about what he is doing with his text? It is clear that he had a positive attitude towards foreign travel (Sir 39:4) and the Greek Mediterranean world. However, he rather limits any recognizable references to Greek literature, a problem that will be explored throughout this book. A recent treatment of Ben Sira’s knowledge of Greek is found in Wright, who argues that Greek, while not dominant, was commonly in use in the late third and early second centuries bce, and that Ben Sira would have been familiar with the language as a well-educated sage.41 If Ben Sira did know Greek texts, his achievement is not disclosed through his text, which is rather surprising in a text that advertises its author as wise and cultured. Ben Sira’s place in Second Temple literature and language has also drawn scholarly attention. In recent years, several linguistic studies have explored Ben Sira’s Hebrew in comparison with Qumran Hebrew (QH) or Late Biblical 41   Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek.” For treatments of the Mediterranean phenomenon of bilingualism and multilingualism, see J.N. Adams, Mark Janse, and Simon Swain, eds., Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), and Dorothy J. Thompson, “The Multilingual Environment of Persian and Ptolemaic Egypt: Egyptian, Aramaic, and Greek Documentation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. Roger Bagnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 395–417. For the use of Greek by scribes in Judea and elsewhere, see James K. Aitken, “The Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint: Palestine and the Diaspora,” in The Oxford Handbook to the Septuagint, eds. Alison Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). For shared translation practices specifically between Egyptian scribes and Jewish scribes, particularly in the use of second languages, see James K. Aitken, “Septuagint and Egyptian Translation Methods,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Munich, 2013, eds. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 1–26. Language use and language change during the Hellenistic period is a larger topic than space allows. For a sample of the discussion see: Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, eds. The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, Vol. 2. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

12

Introduction

Hebrew (LBH)42 and Biblical Hebrew (BH).43 Randal Argall examines the similarities and differences between Ben Sira and 1 Enoch.44 Wright compares Ben Sira to Jubilees and the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), showing how they form part of the same wisdom tradition.45 Jean-Sébastien Rey argues for a common wisdom tradition for Ben Sira and 4QInstruction.46 As George Brooke notes, 42  For Qumran Hebrew and Ben Sira, see: Avi Hurvitz, “The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, STDJ 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 72–86; J. Carmignac, “Les rapports entre l’Ecclésiastique et Qumrân,” RevQ 3 (1961–62): 209–18; James K. Aitken, “The Semantics of ‘Glory’ in Ben Sira—Traces of a Development in Post-Biblical Hebrew?” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages, eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, STDJ 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–24. 43  Joosten calls archaizing elements in Ben Sira’s Hebrew “pseudo-classicisms.” This phenomenon might be compared with Middle Egyptian or Medieval Latin, calcified as literary-only languages long after dying out as spoken language. Jan Joosten, “PseudoClassicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages, 146–59. Regarding labelling, this book prefers the term Biblical Hebrew rather than Classical Hebrew owing to the fact that our knowledge of the language is informed almost entirely by surviving texts of the Hebrew Bible. For a recent survey of the features of Qumran Hebrew, see Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). An overview of the significant changes in LBH can be found in Avi Hurvitz et al., A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 44  Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), especially 249–55. George W.E. Nickelsburg agrees with Argall generally, noting how Ben Sira is familiar with Enochic traditions of giants. Nickelsburg notes that Enochic tradition closely ties together the “prophetic and sapiential streams,” a tradition which is evident also in Wisdom of Solomon. By contrast, Ben Sira does not appear to be part of this propheticsapiential school of thought, rejecting special dream divination and eschatologies prominent in 1 Enoch. George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 59–60; 71. See also Samuel L. Adams, “Sage as Prophet? Allusion and Reconfiguration in Ben Sira and Other Second Temple Wisdom Texts,” in Tracing Sapiential, 89–105. Beentjes does not see evidence of knowledge of Enoch in Ben Sira, and argues that the reference to Enoch in Sir 44:16 is not original to the Hebrew text. Pancratius C. Beentjes, “The ‘Praise of the Famous’ and Its Prologue: Some Observations on Ben Sira 44:1–15 and the Question on Enoch in 44:16,” Bijdr 45 (1984): 374–83. 45  Benjamin G. Wright, “Jubilees, Sirach, and Sapiential Tradition,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah, eds. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 116–30. See also Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, SVTP 19 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 46  Jean-Sébastien Rey, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatologie (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 17; 20–21. Related studies: Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone, eds., Pseudepigraphical

Introduction

13

Qumran wisdom texts share features of textual interpretation and emulate texts that became biblical.47 These comparative studies illustrate the interconnectivity of Second Temple literature, holding in common techniques of writing, sociocultural perspectives, and traditions of literature. Ben Sira’s profession and social background have been debated since Schechter and Smend. Ben Sira grew up in third-century bce Judea, then part of the Ptolemaic province Syro-Phoenicia, and he wrote his text in Jerusalem sometime between 198 and 175 bce. The earliest date is not based on Simon II’s death but on the repair of the city walls by the Seleucid administration in that year (Sir 50:1).48 After four Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars, Judea became part of the Seleucid Empire in 201/200 bce, but evidence suggests Judea was largely unaffected.49 Attuned to both politics and learning, Ben Sira worked as a scribe, administrator, and advanced-level teacher.50 Scholars have proposed various Perspectives, STDJ 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements, eds., Reworking the Bible, STDJ 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 47  George J. Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society with Shrine of the Book, 2000), 60–73. See also the discussion in George J. Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, eds. Craig E. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 85–100. Brooke argues that some variants might have been created for exegetical reasons. Therefore, it might be said that not only literature but textual transmission witnesses to characteristics of textual interpretation found Second Temple texts such as Ben Sira. 48  Scholars argue unanimously that Simon II was dead at the time of writing, making the earliest date possible 195 bce, the year of his death. However, “in his day” in Sir 50:1 does not without a doubt mean he was dead. It would be more logical if Ben Sira were patronized by Simon to write his text, because it would not make much sense to waste praise (and the time and cost of writing) on a significant authority figure who was dead. The poem, furthermore, bears no statements of mortality or lamentation as a eulogy should. Askin, “Beyond Encomium.” 49  John D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Mnemosyne Supplements 320 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 44. Grainger writes that Judea was not greatly affected by this political shift because it was not on the major coastal trade route from Egypt to Syria. This coastal route was known in Roman times as the Via Maris. However, also see Aitken, “Manifesto,” 204. One way in which we can trace the gradual appearance of Hellenistic culture in Judea is through the slow adoption of more Hellenistic architecture over time. See Rami Arav, Hellenistic Palestine: Settlement Patterns and City Planning, 337–31 B.C.E., BAR International Series 485 (Oxford: BAR, 1989). 50  Probably not all roles at once as assumed by Smend, Weisheit, xiv.

14

Introduction

professions for Ben Sira. Smend51 and Hengel52 saw Ben Sira as a scribe and sage. Helge Stadelmann,53 Saul M. Olyan,54 and John F.A. Sawyer55 suggest a priestly background because of Ben Sira’s praise of Simon II and Aaron.56 Oda Wischmeyer proposes the idea of Ben Sira as physician,57 while David Carr examines Ben Sira as a priest and advanced teacher.58 The questions of Ben Sira’s background and his relationship to the Mediterranean world will be treated throughout this book.59 I have intentionally avoided referring colloquially to Ben Sira as a scribe or sage, since such a designation could imply that Ben Sira represents a typical or average scribe. Rather, he is better described as a

51  Smend, Weisheit, xiv. 52  Hengel sees Ben Sira’s political and pedagogical work as in tension with each other due to the former’s dichotomization of Hellenistic and Jewish culture during Ben Sira’s time. Hengel, Judaism, 1:132–36. 53  Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, WUNT 2.6 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980). 54  Saul M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86. 55  John F.A. Sawyer, “Was Jeshua Ben Sira a Priest?” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div. A (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982), 65–66 (65–71). 56  Otto Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, JSJSup 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). R.N. Whybray considers that Sir 50:1–24 is not historiography, but does not suggest Simon is imaginary. R.N. Whybray, “Ben Sira and History,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Festschrift M. Gilbert, eds. Núria Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen, BETL 143 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 137–45. 57  Oda Wischmeyer, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach, BZNW 77 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 47 (note 55). 58  David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 206–11. Ben Sira represents “a more widespread tendency in Israel and the Ancient Near East to house indigenous textuality and education in the temple and with the priests.” Carr, Writing, 211. 59  The spoken language of Ben Sira is another factor. Generally, scholars agree that Aramaic was spoken in Ben Sira’s time with some use of Greek, though Hurvitz says several languages could have been spoken contemporaneously. Corley sees evidence of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Jeremy Corley, “Elements of Jewish Identity in Ben Sira,” BN 164 (2015): 8 (3–19). Hurvitz maintains Qumran Hebrew was spoken but has literary elements. Avi Hurvitz, “Was QH a ‘Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments,” in Diggers at the Well, eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, STDJ 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 113 (110–14). See also Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, eds. The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, Vol. 2, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

Introduction

15

member of a literary elite: a highly-accomplished, well-connected author and scribe operating within the material framework of scribal culture.

Methodological Issues

The question of Ben Sira and scribal culture presents several problems. First, any approach focused on textual reuse must be sensitive to the differences between textual and sociocultural contexts, as well as to material and physical limitations of reading and writing in the ancient world. In other words, the study of textual reuse should appreciate the physical parameters of reading, writing, and copying within the materials, environment, and tools of the time. A scribe can be defined as a person engaged professionally in tasks of written activity. Although education served to make both literate people and scribes, scribes can be said to be engaged professionally in tasks such as copying and accounting.60 Education can be said to be scribal in the sense that it was within an operative material framework of scribal culture. One concern in this study is how to explain Ben Sira’s choice and range of quotations and allusions, and his choice of using quotation and allusion at all. As readers, we might reasonably conclude that the form that Ben Sira’s Hebrew text takes is more or less the form in which Ben Sira wished it to be seen by others. The scope of this book will therefore venture interpretations of Ben Sira’s individual scribalism on the basis that his choices of textual reuse are more or less intentional, in other words that they give some indication of his purposes in writing, and might indicate the suitability or perhaps accessibility of certain texts. Several related issues related to Ben Sira’s scribalism will also be treated where appropriate. One of these is whether there are discernible choices affecting the structure of Ben Sira’s text as a whole. Another issue is whether Ben Sira tends to echo P material of the Pentateuch, which would suggest that Ben Sira is part of a longstanding P tradition from the early post-Exilic period.61 Ben Sira favouring P would also reveal much about his social background and the reception of P in Ben Sira’s time. A final issue concerns Ben Sira’s attitudes to kingship and priests, which aids our understanding of his sociocultural location. 60  Raffaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 61  See Chapter Two.

16

Introduction

Imitation, Creativity, and Originality in Scribalism The reuse of other texts does not necessarily imply a lack of originality within an ancient context.62 Rather, innovation through the reuse of older texts seems to be central to Ben Sira in demonstrating his accomplishments. The term textual reuse emphasizes the process as creative recycling, since recycling in the modern sense implies not just using something again without change, but renewing or changing it slightly for future use. I use the terms textual reuse / reuse of texts, rather than textual use / use of texts, to emphasize the involvement of Ben Sira’s active creativity, his re-presentation of sources rather than a cut-and-paste presentation. The case may be argued that exemplifying literary accomplishment and achievement, whether for fame or teaching purposes, underlie the motivations behind Ben Sira’s demonstrations of innovation and proficiency in echoing earlier literature. By showing off his abilities as a writer, Ben Sira proves his reputation and expertise to his audience. This practice is not an end in itself, but acts as a cultural signifier to readers. Such signifiers both help carry across his creative meanings better, and demonstrate a level of bookishness or thoughtfulness in Ben Sira as an author. Carrying such references to specific texts imparts a message to his readers both of Ben Sira’s familiarity with such texts. The references also act as wider cultural markers of the importance of such texts themselves, not just in a religious sense, but in a literary sense. As Mroczek has shown, the Jewish literary imagination is rather restricted when early Jewish texts are seen only in their relationship to religious scripture without wider literary and cultural context.63 Similarly, Ruth Henderson identifies strategic literary modelling in her analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion, Tob 13:9–18, and 1 Bar 4:30–5:9, demonstrating a close affinity between genre modelling and creative expression in Second Temple psalms or songs about Zion.64 Texts in this period, including Ben Sira, certainly hint at a flourishing literary world beating in the heart of early Judaism. Creativity is the act of creating a new text or product, inclusive of manuscript copying activity. As a term in the twenty-first century, creativity is often equated with originality, innovation, or eschewing tradition. Imitation means the modelling of a new text on the literary features of older texts via textual reuse: quotation, allusion, structure, subject, expression, formula, and/or 62  Another word for textual reuse might be intertextuality, although there is a large body of scholarship on intertextuality that would make it distinct from textual reuse. 63  Mroczek, Literary Imagination. 64  Ruth Henderson, Second Temple Songs of Zion: A Literary and Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPSa Xxii 1–15); Tobit 13:9–18 and 1 Baruch 4:30–5:9. DCLS 17 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014).

Introduction

17

literary conventions. I define imitation as creative by virtue of producing a new text, such as a copy of a manuscript. Textual reuse is the direct textual recycling of other sources in a text, usually through quotation (direct, interspersed, or indirect), allusions, or other creative echoing. Another act of creativity related to textual reuse is the application of a known literary genre, seen when a text’s layout or themes are based on a particular literary genre, such as proverbial sayings. Regarding how closely we can categorize types of textual reuse, Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold provide a useful discussion of “typology of citationality,” exploring how quotation and allusion form just a small part of the wider phenomenon of intertextuality in early Jewish literature.65 They divide examples of intertextuality into two general types, explicit and implicit, but further distinction can run into problems since “citation” in early Jewish literature is fluid.66 Similarly, Devorah Dimant differentiates between expositional biblical allusion, with clear markers distinguishing biblical text, and compositional biblical allusion, which she splits into explicit and implicit quotations, allusions, and models.67 Analysis in this book focuses on the sources of quotations or allusions, the texts and ideas to which they refer, rather than on distinguishing precise sub-techniques of citation. I sometimes use “echo” and “allude” interchangeably with “quote,” simply because the way in which Ben Sira refers texts and to ideas can be rather fluid and unstructured, giving the impression of effortless dexterity, and often resisting conventional markers of genre and precise technical terms. Instead of identifying examples where Ben Sira talks about being a scribe, the direction this study takes is to look at Ben Sira’s composition in action, specifically his textual reuse, since this strategy yields information concerning how Ben Sira worked with different texts. Beginning our study with the text of Ben Sira itself, and including different genres and examples of textual reuse at work (single source, multiple sources), ensures that a range of data emerges. From this data, we can detect more comprehensive patterns of individual practices and concerns of how Ben Sira composes texts in a “scribal” framework. Applying the label of scribe to Ben Sira, without being specific about 65  Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, JAJS 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 19–29. 66  Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 27–29. 67  Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 379–419.

18

Introduction

what that entails, would confirm our conclusions before we start, constraining Ben Sira’s activity according to a predetermined view of scribal culture. Studies have shown, for example, that ancient scribes held many values and habits in common across the ancient Mediterranean and Near East. This system valued antiquity and imitation over high originality and novelty.68 This is broadly correct but must not limit our scope: within an ancient context, imitation and innovation are united. In the ancient world, good authors imitate old themes in a fresh way (innovation) or reach out for new content in an old way (accepted style), while bad authors do not satisfactorily echo or recognize existing literary traditions (neither in style nor content). The aim of this book is to determine where on this scale of ancient originality Ben Sira can be found, an answer that depends on his historical-literary context and on what Ben Sira, as an author, seeks to demonstrate to his reader through the features of his text. The Subjects of This Study: Examples Across Genres This book explores examples of textual reuse (quotation and allusion) and characteristics of Ben Sira’s individual scribalism. Characteristics will be categorized into three interacting spheres of operation: direct textual reuse,69 scribal culture, and sociocultural ideas.70 The scribal cultural sphere of operation includes education, compositional habits, and physical handling, and to some extent overlaps with textual reuse. Distinguishing these spheres of opera­ tion across different genres and themes in Ben Sira’s book will allow more precise conclusions in the process about patterns in Ben Sira’s compositional style, telling us much more about his text and about his time without conflating ideas with texts or overestimating parallels. The first chapter discusses relevant evidence of scribal culture as understood in recent scholarship, covering tools and furniture, bodily positions, and issues of transmission, literacy, memory, and education. By looking at scribal culture, we can form a mental image of the performance involved in composition and textual reuse, enabling us to appreciate the nature and skill of Ben Sira’s text. The extent to which Ben Sira encapsulates a high level of textual reuse tells us something about Ben Sira, and about cultural markers of literary accomplishment and audience expectations. 68  For Ben Sira’s literary genres, see: Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 21–30. 69  “Direct” here means not direct quotation (a further distinction) but textual reuse that directly engages with another text, not parallels. Speaking of “influence” will be avoided in favour of specific cases of textual reuse since influence as a category is too imprecise. 70  As noted above, it might be more appropriate to speak of contemporary sociocultural or Mediterranean ideas rather than Hellenistic or Greek ideas.

Introduction

19

The first textual study (Chapter Two) analyzes the issues of originality and creativity in two examples from the Praise of the Fathers, the portrayals of Noah (Sir 44:17–18) and Phinehas (Sir 45:23–26). In these passages, Ben Sira uses one major textual source in a short section of text. The relationship between use of one major source and the role of creativity and originality will be examined, and then compared with other Second Temple sources. As the use of other texts needs to be understood in light of how scribes might have worked, considering physicality, tools, and furniture, Ben Sira’s compositional style in this context (one major source used in a short passage) will finally be compared with physical use of furniture and known habits of writing. Moving on from the use of one text to the use of multiple texts, Chapter Three examines two cases where Ben Sira has clearly used multiple large sources within short sections of text, in this case his portrayals of HezekiahIsaiah (Sir 48:17–25) and Josiah (Sir 49:1–3). The expression of Ben Sira’s compositional style in this context requires consideration of how scribes physically handle multiple sources at once. Hence Ben Sira’s handling of multiple sources is compared with other Second Temple literature and placed in the context of scribal practices of dictation, memory, furniture use, and aides such as notebooks. In this context, we can begin to visualize how Ben Sira’s multiple sources come to be harmonized and paraphrased, and hence understand his compositional process. Chapter Four turns to multiple source handling in a longer section of text, where the literary model also echoes the genre of his sources, in this case, nature-lists or nature poetry. The topic is a section on weather (Sir 43:11–19), part of a longer poem on creation, commonly called the Hymn of Creation (Sir 42:15–43:32). The sources Ben Sira quotes and echoes in this part of his text are Job and Psalms. The reuse of Psalms in this poem contributes to the scholarly debate on the status and provenance of the Psalms scroll 11QPsa. Chapter Five covers one of Ben Sira’s poems on death (Sir 41:1–15), investigating problems identifying the sociocultural sphere of operation in a case of multiple sources and shared genre. Ben Sira’s attitudes towards death and the physical body are core themes. This study analyzes these themes in comparison to Job, Qohelet, and literature such as Gilgamesh, P. Insinger, the gnomic sayings of Theognis, and Epicurean philosophical texts. The main concern in the example of Sir 41:1–15 is to determine, through scribal culture, the likelihood of direct textual dependence in cases where content and concerns overlap, as opposed to simply comparing the text of Ben Sira side-by-side with other texts. I will explore the popularity and audience of Epicurean philosophical texts to test the possibility that Ben Sira might have encountered them while writing his text.

20

Introduction

The final case study, Chapter Six, brings to the fore new meanings and historical context of ancient Jewish medicine in the background of Sir 38:1–15, his poem on the physician. Scholarship has previously assumed that Ben Sira’s physician poem marks a sudden positive change in Jewish attitudes to medicine in contrast to earlier times, a turning point. This chapter explores whether wider studies on ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamian medicine might better disclose the historical context for Ben Sira’s poem, and whether they indicate an older tradition of Jewish attitudes towards, and knowledge of, medicine. I argue that Ben Sira is concerned that his audience should seek ritual purity and sacrifice before consulting the physician, and that his readers should not be automatically seen as rejecting medicine, as is usually maintained, but rather they are too trusting in medicine alone when other issues, such as iniquity, might be overlooked as a common cause of illness. As this book crosses several distinct subjects and genres, and delves into new possible meanings for Ben Sira’s text and his sources, my goal is to examine the mechanics and purposes behind textual reuse in Ben Sira across text and genre—to understand why Ben Sira is so “full of quotations,” and what this says about him as an author.

Chapter 1

Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture: Materiality and Physicality of Reading and Writing Introduction Scribal culture is the textual evidence and material culture of reading and writing left behind by societies with a tradition of manuscript production. In this book, “scribal culture” will refer specifically to that evidence of ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern societies, from the invention of writing to late antiquity. Studies on scribal culture normally explore questions concerning education, literacy and orality, how texts were handled physically by readers, what tools and furniture are associated with reading and writing, and how texts were composed, copied, and edited. The scholarly analysis of scribal culture attempts to answer questions about how texts are written and transmitted over time in a “pre-printing” environment. When it is proposed that Ben Sira was a scribe, or a product of a scribal environment, his material and environmental settings of work as a scribe become of interest, particularly when we reflect on the question of his textual reuse. Looking at the mechanics and physicalities of scribal culture undoubtedly helps to better visualize the features of, and the material boundaries surrounding, Ben Sira’s compositional techniques in practice.

The Physicality of Reading and Writing

The physicality of scribal culture implies the bodily and physical properties of actions associated with reading and writing: anything to do with the physical body or extensions of the body (including tools). Physicality includes the posture of the body, how scrolls are handled, and resulting mechanical and visual limitations imposed by the applied use of tools and furniture. The physical boundaries of scribal culture, particularly body mechanics and posture, are an area that would significantly contribute to, even alter the tone of, current debates on textual formation in biblical disciplines. Considering the issues of orality and literacy in the production and transmission of biblical texts, as well as the pervasive references to the work and habits of scribes in biblical scholarship, physicality should play a leading part, not a supporting role. While © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_003

22

Chapter 1

education and orality are important, they are in fact also conditional on the physical and mechanical features of reading and writing. The Physicality of the Use of Scrolls and Writing Tools The similarities of writing media in Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Judea allow a rather firm scope for imagining the tools and furniture available to a Jewish author such as Ben Sira. The choice of parchment and papyrus for scrolls seems to be decided upon local availability of materials. Ira Rabin et al. finds that the scribes of Qumran-based literature used what was local. Her scientific experiments on the chemical composition of the ink and parchment of Qumran scrolls indicate a high mineral content whose compounds closely resemble the unique makeup of minerals in the Dead Sea.1 George Brooke has argued that the choice to use parchment in some cases of the Dead Sea Scrolls might also have been influenced by the desire to avoid cultural association of Egyptian “hieratica” papyrus scrolls, but largely seemed to be a choice based on intertwining reasons of trade and availability as well as concerns of purity.2 This would not explain the use of papyrus for draft or personal copies of the Community Rule.3 Other reasons that Jews sometimes chose parchment over papyrus could be because of trade and periods of drought, which could affect the price of papyrus. Likewise, the use of ostraca has been found to be a choice of local availability, not cost, since papyrus could be relatively cheap for those in at least a skilled profession. A fresh roll of standard length could be bought for about four drachma, or about a day’s wages for a labourer.4 The cost of a single sheet, cut down as needed, for a letter or document, would have been even cheaper. As Emanuel Tov has noted, Jewish scribes used reed pens and inkwells and wrote on scrolls made of papyrus or parchment, writing in columns whose average number of lines varied from scroll to scroll, and making use of different

1  Ira Rabin et al., “On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayotA),” DSD 16.1 (2009): 97–106. Ira Rabin, “Archaeometry of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 20.1 (2013): 124–42. 2  George J. Brooke, “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin: Cultural Complexity and Multiple Identities in the Qumran Library,” in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World, eds. Mladen Popović, Myles Schoonover, and Marijn Vandenberghe, JSJSup 178 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 119–35. 3  George J. Brooke, “Between Scroll and Codex?: Reconsidering the Qumran Opisthographs,” in On Stone and Scroll: Studies in Honour of Graham I. Davies, eds. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and B.A. Mastin (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 133 (123–38). 4  T.C. Skeat, “Was Papyrus Regarded as « Cheap » or « Expensive » in the Ancient World?” Aegyptus 75:1/2 (1995): 75–93.

Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture

23

grades of script.5 In his work on Oxyrynchus Greek literary scrolls, William A. Johnson found that multiple copies of the same work do not follow the same column format; columns do not begin or end on the same line, nor do lines begin on the same word, not even remotely.6 The length of a scroll is cut according to the length of the text, with an average standard length of probably 9–10 meters, with some outliers of 12 meters.7 The unused remainder might be used for letters or documents. Scribes were evidently not concerned with the idea of imprinting identicality in copying a text; they began instead with the measurements of that particular scroll in their possession, given that scrolls and the width of their sheets varied considerably as handmade products. Johnson concluded that, given the variation of line beginnings and the differences in column measurements, scribes copied texts through auditory transmission. Scribes preferred to have one scribe reading, while another or several others wrote down what was said. This situation is found in countless Mesopotamian and Egyptian visual depictions of scribes, where one scribe reads aloud a text and several others write down what is said, making multiple copies at once—an example of efficiency.8 Multiple copyists would be the case particularly with official documents.9 The implications of this practice for textual transmission, and perhaps also translation, are clear. Scrolls in the ancient world seem to have been handled with two hands, restricting the ability to read while writing. The practice was for readers to put aside the scroll, if they are reading the scroll themselves and not being read to, in order to take notes using a wax tablet or papyrus notebook.10 Quintilian, in comparing wax tablets with papyrus notebooks, complains of the nuisance of reaching down to dip your pen in the inkwell, deciding that wax tablets are more convenient for this reason (Quintilian, Inst. Or. X, 3, 31.27.). The size of a 5  Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 31–55; 273–74. 6  William A. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Studies in book and print culture (Toronto; Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 39–84. 7  Johnson, Bookrolls, 147. 8  A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Rev. ed. (London; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 228–87. A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society,” Daedalus 104 (1975): 39–46. 9  Elias J. Bickerman, “The Seleucid Charter of Jerusalem,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees, ed. Amram D. Tropper, vol. 1, 2 vols., Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 315–56. 10  Adam Bülow-Jacobson, “Writing Materials in the Ancient World,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. Roger Bagnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3–29.

24

Chapter 1

modest scroll collection could take up relatively little space physically, kept safely in a chest or armoria. A scroll of only 2.5m length has a diameter of around 3.7 cm, while an extraordinarily large scroll of 20m length could have a diameter of 10.45 cm, with the majority of scrolls somewhere in between. Most scrolls possessed a height of either slightly less than 20 cm, or somewhere between 20–30 cm.11 As T.C. Skeat writes, the actual handling of a scroll is both easy and effortless when held fast in two hands working together.12 The assumption of readers in antiquity seems to be that one either reads and then can switch to writing, or one writes while someone reads to them (Pliny the Younger, Letters, 3.5.7), but not both at the same time. The preparation of significant reading and note-taking before turning to writing is accounted by Pliny the Elder (NH, Preface, 17, 21–23), Horace (Ars Poetica), Cicero (De Oratore), and Catullus (68a.33).13 Looking earlier, scholars argue that note-taking and florilegia notebooks were the origin of many collections or “miscellanies” of wisdom sayings and gnomic wisdom in Egypt and Greece.14 Posture, Body Mechanics, and Visual Implications of Scroll Use In Mesopotamia and Egypt, seated scribes reside either on the floor, reflected a wider floor culture found in domestic homes, or on benches or stools, the most common types of furniture.15 The likelihood of tables for writing activity or dining at Qumran has been a point of contention since de Vaux’s interpretations of the refectory (loci 86–89) and scriptorium (locus 30).16 However, as pointed out by Bruce M. Metzger and more recently by Jean-Baptiste Humbert, the interpretation of tables and benches at Qumran is both anachronistic and badly designed.17 Plastered benches rest against walls, but they would collapse 11  Johnson, Bookrolls, 150; 141. Very few scrolls had a height above 33 cm. 12  T.C. Skeat, “Two Notes on Papyrus,” in Scritti in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi, eds. Edda Bresciani et al. (Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice, 1981), 373–78. 13  Small, Wax Tablets, 158; 185; 209. 14  Rosalind Janssen and Jacobus J. Janssen, Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Egypt (London: The Rubicon Press, 1990), 63. For Hellenistic gnomic collections, see Teresa Morgan, Literate, 121 (120–151). 15  Aikaterini Koltsida, Social Aspects of Ancient Egyptian Domestic Architecture, BAR international series 1608 (Oxford, England: Archaeopress: Hadrian Books, 2007). 16  Roland de Vaux, “Fouilles au Khirbet Qumran: Rapport préliminaire sur la dernière campagne,” RB 61 (1954): 212 (206–33). 17  Bruce M. Metzger, “The Furniture in the Scriptorium at Qumran,” RevQ 1.4 (1959): 509–15. Jean-Baptiste Humbert, “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran,” in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor,

Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture

25

under pressure if freestanding, such as in the base of a table. If large tables at Qumran were made of wood it would be both anachronistic and an astonishingly extravagant expense for a community of modest means.18 Similarly to the Near East and Egypt, the expectation of Greek and Roman scribes and readers was to write seated on a backless stool or chair, with the scroll opened on one’s thighs, without the aide of tables.19 In Greco-Roman Egypt, the use of stools was adopted by many teachers.20 Greek readers and writers sat and read or wrote without the use of tables, which were associated with dining.21 Larger tables in the ancient world, such as bankers’ tables (trapezai) and craftsmen’s and merchants’ outdoor tables, do not seem to have been brought into the home, with the exception of decorative marble-slated tables that were collected by Roman elites.22 One fourth-century CE relief from Ostia depicts an orator speaking while two scribes seated at miniature tables write down copies of his speech in notebooks or codices.23 The use of tables for writing is otherwise not widely attested until the Middle Ages, when the size of books increased dramatically, and their extraordinary weight required the use of tables and lecterns.

Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen Zangenberg, STDJ 57 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–39. For dining, see also Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 60–61. 18  The absence of luxury goods implies a low or modest income. If the absence of luxury goods at Qumran was for religious reasons, the expense of an enormous table would have been incredible. The expense of enormous pieces of furniture was famous in the ancient world (Pliny NH 13:92). Extravagantly large and costly tables are satirized by Roman writers (Pliny the Elder, NH 13.92; Martial ii 43, 9; ix 60, 9; Juv. i 37). See Dennis Mizzi, “The Glass from Khirbet Qumran: What Does It Tell Us about the Qumran Community?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context, ed. Charlotte Hempel, STDJ 90 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 99–198. 19  Small, Wax Tablets, 153–159. G.M. Parássoglou, “A roll upon his knees,” in Papyrology, ed. N. Lewis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 273–275. 20  Cribiore, Gymnastics, 4–6. 21  Jan N. Bremmer, “Walking, Standing, and Sitting in Ancient Greek Culture,” in A Cultural History of Gesture, eds. Jan N. Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg (Oxford; Ithaca, NY: Polity Press; Cornell University Press, 1992), 15–35. 22  Croom, Ancient Furniture. Richter, Furniture, Greek version, 72; Roman popularity, 113. Images: fig. 378, 379, 573, 578. David Sider, The Library of the Villa dei Papiri (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2005), 37–41. 23  “Orator relief,” late fourth century ce, Tempio di Ercole (I, XV, 5) Museo Ostiense, Inv. 130. Image at Ostia Antica, “Orator relief: link E49915,” http://www.ostia-antica.org/vmuseum/ marble_6.htm.

26

Chapter 1

The resulting seated posture from reading or writing without a table leave little room for maneuvering between different scrolls “at a glance.” The aide of a wooden board was common to help support writing, but if handling a scroll, inkwells and notebooks would be placed nearby. The aide of notebooks is more helpful, since the collection of notes, phrases, and lines of text would be able to permit the transmission of text from scroll to composition. For example, Pliny the Elder made countless of extracts in notebooks (Pliny the Younger, Letters, 3.5.7). The process of getting the gist of a text, paraphrasing and analysing rather than regurgitating, seems to have been the aim for writers, and vast amounts of reading are cited frequently at the beginning of treatises (Jos. A.J. 1.1–2, Luke 1:3).24 The expectation of reading in order to write well seems to be embedded in literary culture (Horace, Ars Poetica; Catullus, 68a.33), and we can compare the idea of internalization of literature to the education of scribes (Prov 22:17–21).25 A reference to the extensive learning of Ben Sira is the first point made by the Greek translator (Sirach Prologue 5–14). Finally, the expectation to edit and re-draft what one has written seems to have been recognized and even encouraged (Horace, Ars Poetica; Suetonius, On Poets—Life of Vergil 22–25).26 The recensions of the Community Rule, for example, might be understood in this light; while the Rule might have been edited over a long period of time rather than once, the expectation for editing seems to have been well understood at Qumran. The question of “simultaneous use” of scrolls for textual transmission, copying, or translation as a solitary activity becomes rather difficult to maintain. The major issue of textual variants in manuscripts also becomes one of transmission through oral recitation, and visual mistakes in reading would be caused by the scribe reading aloud to a copyist. Beentjes, for example, theorizes that variant readings between the medieval manuscripts of Ben Sira might be caused by problems of dictation.27 The solitary scribe, as we imagine it, quietly copying out a text without assistance, seems to be a product of the Middle Ages. The problem of textual reuse, for a scribe such as Ben Sira, rests instead on the physical and material aspects of scribal culture: notebooks, extracts, and the paraphrase and internalization of a text after studying it. In order words, textual reuse becomes the creative performance of a well-read intellectual 24  Small, Wax Tablets, 158; 185; 209. 25  Carr, Writing. 26  Small, Wax Tablets, 206–212. 27  Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Reading the Hebrew Ben Sira Manuscripts Synoptically: A New Hypothesis,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 95–111.

Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture

27

mind. The pride with which authors and the “grandson” cite extensive reading as a requirement speaks to the degree of self-consciousness in such a textual performance. Education Many studies on scribal culture are concerned foremost with education and schools. The literary attainment and educational background of Ben Sira can be illuminated by evidence of education within a scribal tradition. Formerly, biblical scholars argued that alphabetic language enabled widespread literacy with education taking place informally in the home rather than in schools.28 Scholars also struggled to find hard evidence for formal education in Ancient Israel.29 Looking for more indirect evidence, David W. Jamieson-Drake shows that increased luxury goods and dependent cities necessitated administrative scribes in Jerusalem, while Rollston and William M. Schniedewind point to epigraphic evidence from Ancient Israel.30 Graham I. Davies similarly concludes that there is a lack of evidence for purpose-built scribal school buildings in Ancient Israel, but plenty of evidence of schools and education through analogous evidence.31 Speaking of ancient Mesopotamia and Israel, Carr argues that most schools were located in temples or private homes.32 Surveying Ptolemaic Egypt, Raffaella Cribiore shows that ancient schools were in temples, 28   William F. Albright, “Discussion,” in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Culture Development in the Ancient Near East, eds. C.H. Kraeling and R.M. Adams (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 123 (94–123). David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah, JSOTSup 109 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1991), 154–56. 29  Graham I. Davies, “Were There Schools in Ancient Israel?” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, eds. John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H.G.M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 199–211. André Lemaire, Les Écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (Fribourg, Switzerland; Göttingen: Éditions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York; London: Doubleday, 1998), 86–90. Katharine J. Dell, The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 24–50. 30  Jamieson-Drake, Scribes, 107–16; 145–57. Christopher A. Rollston, “Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence,” BASOR 344 (2006): 47–74. Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Atlanta: SBL, 2010). William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 31  Davies, “Were There Schools,” 210. 32  Carr, Writing, 52–53.

28

Chapter 1

courtyards, and patrons’ homes, never in purpose-built school buildings.33 These settings were the norm in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia since the third millennium bce, which would explain the apparent “lack” of schools in ancient Israel and Second Temple Judea.34 Not only were schools located in temples, but also large libraries.35 After the reign of Alexander, education was systematized through the Mediterranean world into three levels: elementary, intermediate, or advanced; all education cost money because of the teacher’s salary, unless the teacher was a slave working in a private household.36 The quality of rural education could often be rudimentary at best, though even some urban teachers of advanced schools were apparently of poor quality.37 Intermediate and advanced education involved pupils copying longer tracts of classical texts and often the use of florilegia or teachers’ miscellanies, though even elementary teachers were expected to own scrolls.38 Each ancient culture had its own collection of classical texts.39 These similarities allow the use of Greek scribal practices as a useful 33  Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Oxford; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 17–18; 21; 25–31. The temple at Ebla (third millennium bce) had a library and school. Lionel Casson, Libraries in the Ancient World (London: Yale University Press, 2001), 3. 34  Rosalind Janssen, and Jacobus J. Janssen, Growing up and Growing Old in Ancient Egypt (London: Rubicon, 1990), 65. 35  The location of libraries within temples was the norm until the reign of Nero. David Sider, Library of the Villa dei Papiri. George W. Houston, Inside Roman Libraries (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 238, notes that imperial libraries were extensions of philanthropic activity but mainly used by the imperial administration. See also George W. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the Roman Empire,” in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, eds. William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 233–67. 36  Cribiore, Gymnastics, 21. In the case of private education by a slave, the cost would be the expense of owning a slave. See also Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Professional apprenticeships followed school. Janssen and Janssen, Growing Up, 68. 4QInstr (4Q418) 9:13 reads, “Do not say I am poor and therefore I cannot seek knowledge.” Also Sir 51:28. 37  Cribiore, Gymnastics, 17–18; 55–61. 38  Janssen and Janssen, Growing Up, 63. Cribiore, Gymnastics, 134–38. Cribiore, Gymnastics, 131–150, referring to Plutarch, Alcibiades 7.1. For Proverbs 1–9 as a possible school text see Dell, Proverbs, 24–50. For Mesopotamian texts see Carr, Writing, 47–61. 39  Which texts were instrumental and thus classical or authoritative can be shown by the quantity of copies that survive, and quotations in epigraphy and literature. See Peter Liddel and Polly Low, eds., Inscriptions and Their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature

Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture

29

model of comparison by analogy. The consistency of these practices also indicates the level of scribal training and the expectations placed on readers to be familiar with scripts and the features of texts across the Mediterranean world, not just in their own village or region. The practiced handwriting of scribes is the direct result of an increasing standardization of educational practice and scribal technique. Having scribal techniques held in common presents a useful context in which we can analyze characteristic features of Ben Sira’s own literary techniques.

Literacy, Orality, and Memory

Scholarship is frequently concerned with the role of memory in ancient literacy.40 Recent studies have shown that it is better to speak of multiple levels of ancient literacies instead of one fixed standard of literacy, encompassing urban and rural literacies, craftsman or professional functional literacy, scribal literacy, and varying other levels of literacy for individuals with some formal education.41 It is no longer accurate to label Ancient Israel, Egypt, or Greece as purely oral cultures.42 The physicalities of ancient reading and writing show (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Teresa Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 176. See also Chapter Five. 40  Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, eds., Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, SBL Symposium Series 10 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000). Carol Bakhos, “Orality and Memory,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, ed. Catherine Hezser (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 282–502. 41  Rosalind Thomas, “Writing, Reading, Public and Private ‘Literacies,’ ” 13–45; Greg Woolf, “Literacy or Literacies in Rome?” in Ancient Literacies, 46–68; Jocelyn Penny Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind (London: Routledge, 1997). William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989). MacDonald treats this well for Ancient Israel: M.C.A. MacDonald, “Literacy in an Oral Environment,” in Writing and Ancient Near East Society, eds. P. Bienkowski, C. Mee, and E. Slater (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 49–118. By contrast, Baines and Eyre narrowly define literacy as the state of being employed in a literate profession. John Baines and Christopher Eyre, “Four Notes on Literacy,” Göttinger Miszellen 61 (1983): 65–96; also in Visual and Written Culture in Egypt, ed. John Baines (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 63–94. John Baines, “Interactions between Orality and Literacy in Ancient Egypt,” in Literacy and Society, eds. Karen Schousboe and Mogens Trolle Larsen (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989), 101–2. 42  The now-outdated Parry-Lord theory of oral composition. Carr, Writing, 104–6. Rosalind Thomas, “Literacy in Archaic and Classical Greece,” in Literacy & Power in the Ancient World, eds. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 33–50; Holt N. Parker, “Books and Reading Latin Poetry,” in Ancient Literacies,

30

Chapter 1

that memory was important during the act of composition itself—but could be supplemented by the use of notebooks, or a combination of notebooks and secretaries.43 Memorization as an ideal clearly played a large role in education, as Carr points out, but does not seem to have erased the need for writing aides and drafting through the use of notebooks.44 Besides this, we can add an argument from technology. Further evidence such as surviving writing tools, anecdotes, and visual representations, shows that ancient writers and readers worked on supporting boards or on their laps instead of on tables, making the physical use of multiple scrolls at once (a scroll required two hands) untenable.45 Moreover, re-drafted letters and reworked texts, as well as the widespread use of notebooks and wax tablets, indicate that manuscripts underwent editing and reworking as part of the writing process.46 Conclusions Ben Sira seems to place himself self-consciously within the realm of the written word, with his focus on introspection and wisdom, learning and honour, and the idea of a lasting good name that survives death. As Beentjes has argued, Ben Sira is a person who “has seriously reflected upon his own activities 193–94; 217 (186–229). See also Stuart Weeks, “Literacy, Orality, and Literature in Israel,” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, eds. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 465–478. Weeks warns how orality and literacy are too often conflated in scholarship. Carr, Writing, 7, speaks of an orality-and-literacy overlap or spectrum. 43  Cribiore, Gymnastics, 154. Bülow-Jacobson, “Writing Materials in the Ancient World.” Pliny the Elder, NH, Preface 17, 21–23. 44  Carr, Writing. 45  Small, Wax Tablets, 165. T.C. Skeat, “Two Notes.” 46  See especially Horace, Arts Poetica; Catullus (68a); Virgil (Suetonius, Poet.—Life of Vergil 22–25). Small, Wax Tablets, 158; 185; 206–212. For the re-drafting of letters by scribes: Martti Leiwo, “Scribes and Language Variation” in Grapta Poikila I, eds. Leena PietiläCastrén and Marjaana Vesterine (Helsinki: Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 2003), 5 (1–11). Compare to drafting and reworking practices found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example the Rule of the Community. See Charlotte Hempel, The Qumran Rule Texts in Context: Collected Studies, TSAJ 154 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). For the draft-like quality of many Cave 4 texts, including ten of the twelve Community Rule manuscripts, see Charlotte Hempel, “The Profile and Character of Qumran Cave 4Q: The Community Rule Manuscripts as a Test Case,” in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano 2014, ed. Marcello Fidanzio, STDJ 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 80–86.

Tools and Techniques of Scribal Culture

31

as a sage.”47 The central question in Ben Sira is not whether we can call him a sage or a scribe. At a fundamental level, the material and textual evidence of his text is the most important piece of evidence in understanding him as an author or scribe. The physicality and materiality of scribal culture outlines and delimits a clear spatial environment for the ancient writer. Reading and internalization, inspiration and reflection, can be understood as a necessary preparatory activity, supplemented by the aide of notebooks and later editing. The internalization and note-taking of texts in such an environment was a self-conscious performative aspect of writing in antiquity, respected by an audience receptive to the idea that scribes “seek out the wisdom of ancients” (Sir 39:1).

47  Pancratius C. Beentjes, “What about Apocalypticism in the Book of Ben Sira?” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. Martti Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 223 (207–27).

Chapter 2

Noah and Phinehas: Originality and Textual Reuse Introduction A longstanding question within the study of Ben Sira is how to express Ben Sira’s creativity in light of his textual reuse. Ancient scribes are often said to have aimed for close imitation of earlier texts, eschewing originality.1 The theory of scribes as imitators is partially correct in that scribes like Ben Sira wrote using established written modes of expression with textual reuse: making use of established conventions of structure and genre, and harmonizing multiple sources together. Even while patterned by established conventions, ancient composition requires a high level of individual creativity in order to produce a new text that is not a copy of another text. The aim of this chapter will be to establish the balance of textual reuse and originality in Ben Sira’s portrayals of Noah and Phinehas, and then to compare these results with other Second Temple sources and known compositional practices. The presence of quotations and allusions in the Praise of the Fathers has been demonstrated by previous scholarship, although this feature was deemed proof of Ben Sira’s avoidance of originality to the extreme. In 1899, Schechter conceded almost no originality or creativity to Ben Sira by stressing how the “biblical” text was altered and directly “transplanted.”2 Schechter concluded that Ben Sira consciously wrote without originality, “directly copying” readymade quotations conservatively.3 After Schechter and Smend, the studies of Snaith, Skehan, and Di Lella began to appreciate Ben Sira’s techniques as creative. Snaith, for example, argued that what Ben Sira does with his quotations is more important than the presence of quotations, many of which should be looked at as unconsciously

1  See Introduction for discussions of imitation, textual reuse, and creativity. 2  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 12–13; 26; 32. 3  By comparison, Robert Gordis argued that the quotations in Job and Qoheleth, which make sense of what may be construed as interpolations, are quotations which reinforce and add authority to points made in the text. Robert Gordis, “Quotations in Wisdom Literature,” JQR 30:2 (1939): 124–47.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_004

Noah and Phinehas

33

made.4 More recently, Beentjes examined inverted quotations in the Praise of the Fathers, stressing the creativity of this technique.5 Wright emphasizes Ben Sira’s creativity in the textual reuse of Genesis in Ben Sira’s Noah (Sir 44:17–18).6 He argues that Ben Sira uses textual reuse to create new interpretations.7 Wright claims that Ben Sira’s concern in writing the Praise of the Fathers “is not to reproduce the texts, but to carry out his own agendas and ideological commitments using these textual traditions as his raw material.”8 The word “creativity” in these studies is not just “originality,” but the re-presentation of old texts in new and innovative ways. For example, recent scholarship shows that Rewritten Scripture creates new meanings and interpretation, often by the synthesis of harmonization.9 The same features of harmonization are found in Ben Sira. The passages concerning Noah and Phinehas are selected because they are typical examples of Ben Sira’s textual reuse in short sections of text. The section on Noah (Sir 44:17–18) is presented as a case study of Ben Sira’s use of a single major text. By comparison, the section on Phinehas (Sir 45:23–26) shows

4  John G. Snaith, “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus,” JTS 18 (1967): 11 (1–12). Snaith, Di Lella, and Skehan produced numerous studies on Ben Sira’s textual reuse and creativity in the 1960s and 1970s. 5  With inverted quotations, reused vocabulary has a different word order from that of the original passage. Beentjes, “Inverted,” 506–23. Also explored in his doctoral thesis: Pancratius C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach: Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26 (Nieuwegein, 1981). 6  Wright, “Biblical Interpretation,” 382–84. 7  Wright, “Biblical Interpretation,” 363–88. 8  Wright, “Use and Interpretation,” 190. 9  Rewritten Scripture is defined as texts which retell biblical texts and show traces of scribal reworking of the text such as re-ordering, omission, and expansion, all of which indicate exegesis at work. Molly Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2011). George J. Brooke, “E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (London: T&T Clark, 2000), 107–22. George J. Brooke, “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible and Pesher,” DSD 17 (2010): 361–86. Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible, ed. Devorah Dimant (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014). George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, eds. Edward Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: British Library & Oak Knoll Press in Assoc. with The Scriptorium; Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002), 31–40. David Katzin, “The Use of Scripture in 4Q175,” DSD 20 (2013): 200–36. Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002).

34

Chapter 2

use of two major texts from different parts of the Hebrew Bible: Numbers and Psalms.

Introduction to Noah

In each of his three lines about Noah, Ben Sira quotes, alludes to, and harmonizes key vocabulary and phrases that appear throughout Genesis 6–9. He pays particular attention to the Flood and the covenant made with Noah. Sir 44:17–18 makes use of a single textual source, Genesis 6–9. There are a few scholarly analyses on Ben Sira’s Noah.10 Schechter, Moshe Zvi Segal, and Skehan and Di Lella all note the Genesis quotations present in Sir 44:17–18.11 Using these quotations as a starting point, Wright presents how Ben Sira incorporates reused words from Genesis 6–9 and prophetic connotations of “remnant” in order to both summarize the story and present a creative interpretation of Noah.12 As noted by Weigold, Noah marks the first covenant with God in Genesis, and is central to Ben Sira’s interpretation of Noah.13 In light of these studies, comparison with other early Jewish interpretations of Noah would help contextualize this passage. The idea of Ben Sira as coming from a priestly family may also be affected by his textual reuse of Genesis 6–9. The scholarly division of Genesis 6–9 into P and Non-P sources is relevant for this study owing to the continuing discussion over whether or not Ben Sira has a tendency towards favouring what

10  A recent study by Weigold examines Noah’s place in the Praise of the Fathers, emphasizing his role as the first patriarch with whom God makes a covenant. Matthias Weigold, “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers: The Flood Story in nuce,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 229–44. Most of the secondary literature that mentions Noah in Ben Sira is concerned with whether Sir 44:16 (Enoch) is original to the Hebrew text. The most recent and convincing of which is Winter, “Interlopers Reunited,” 251–69. See also Weigold, “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers,” 239; Argall, 1 Enoch, 10; Wright, “Sapiential Tradition,” 116–30. 11  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 21. Moshe Zvi Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא השלם‬, 2nd ed. (Jerusa­ lem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 308. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 498–99; 504–5. 12  Wright, “Biblical Interpretation,” 382–84. 13  Weigold, “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers.” John J. Collins, “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach,” in The Apocrypha, eds. Martin Goodman, John Barton, and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 106 (68–111).

Noah and Phinehas

35

is now called P in his textual reuse.14 Ben Sira favouring P sentiments would tell us two things: the possibility of a continuing tradition of P from P’s beginnings to Ben Sira, and secondly, the strength of his association with the Temple priesthood.15 Gen 9:16 is argued to be part of the P tradition, since it maintains that Noah does not cut a covenant, since it would imply sacrifice before the Temple existed.16 Scholarship on Noah focuses on two keys areas: the P and Non-P strata in Genesis 6–9, and the parallels of Noah in Ut-napištim from Gilgamesh or Atrahasis from the Atrahasis Epic.17

14  Scholars agree that J (or Non-P) is earlier than P, and most scholars argue that P is Exilic or post-Exilic (around fifth century bce). Gen 9:1–17 is agreed to be P. Baruch J. Schwartz, “Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, eds. Sarah Schectman and Joel S. Baden (Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 10 (1–12). Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans. J. Feldman and P. Rodman (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 200–12. Genesis 6–9 is traditionally divided thus: J, P, and RP (Redaction of P) in Genesis 6–8 and P or RP in Gen 9:1–20. See, for example: E.A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (London: Doubleday, 1964), 57. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 171–73. 15  Olyan, “Priesthood,” 282–86. Olyan discusses Ben Sira’s “pan-Aaronid” alignment, not a pan-Levitic supporter or Zadokite exclusivist. However, Reiterer argues the use of ‫כרת‬ in Sir 50:24 is a general statement, not a wish for an eternal priesthood. Friedrich V. Reiterer, “The Hebrew of Ben Sira Investigated on the Bases of his Use of ‫כרת‬: A Syntactic, Semantic, and Language-Historical Contribution,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages, 275 (253– 77). Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Lewis also draws attention to the seven-day P creation story in Genesis 1 as echoed clearly in Sir 24, pointing to Ben Sira’s close association to the Temple and the importance of sacrifice and the Temple in his cosmology. Crispin H.T. FletcherLewis, “The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira,” in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, ed. Craig A. Evans, 2 vols., LSTS 50 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 1:69–113. 16  Instead a covenant is “established” with Noah. 17  Gilgamesh is the standardized Babylonian version from the twelfth century bce, and the Atrahasis Epic is Assyrian seventeenth century bce. Parts of Atrahasis are quoted in Gilgamesh. Earlier versions of the myth date to southern Babylonia during the third millennium bce from the Eridu Genesis and the Sumerian King List. Gilgamesh is referred to in the Enochic Book of the Giants (4Q530 II:2 and 4Q531 17:2). For a full discussion of the Qumran references to Gilgamesh in the Qumran Book of the Giants, see Matthew Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants’ Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs,” DSD 16:2 (2009): 221–53.

36

Chapter 2

Another area of Noah scholarship concerns Near Eastern parallels. Claus Westermann, John Skinner, E.A. Speiser, and others have pointed out the similarities of concept and numerous parallels in narrative events (landing on a mountain, sending out birds, covenant and promise not to flood the earth again), arguing some form of debt and heritage but not direct textual borrowing.18 Carr sees Non-P Primeval in Genesis 6–919 as an Israelite version of Atrahasis, which also begins with creation and ends with a Flood narrative.20 Carr argues that non-P Primeval History adapted Mesopotamian material in “generic forms and thematic motifs.”21 Another view is that of Day, who argues that J knew the Flood story through Ugaritic contact, and that P independently encountered Babylonian material during the Exile.22

18  Speiser, Genesis, 44–59, esp. 55. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), 369. Skinner, Genesis, 139–81, esp. 174–77. See also John Day, “The Genesis Flood Narrative in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts,” in From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11, ed. John Day (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 98–112. 19  Carr calls the Non-P material of Genesis 1–11 Non-P Primeval History, which he dates to late pre-Exilic. David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 246, citing Jamieson-Drake, Scribes. Carr concludes there are four layers of Genesis 1–11: protoGenesis, retouching of pG, P counter version of non-P, and Rp. Carr, Fractures, 248. The versions of Genesis are charted clearly in Carr, Fractures, 339–40. 20  He terms the J (Non-P) material “non-P primeval history.” Carr, Fractures, 241–47; 268. Carr relativizes how texts can both compare and differ, arguing: “the Lagash king list offers a fundamentally reconceptualized counterversion to the Sumerian king list, so also the Israelite non-P primeval story was hardly a repetition of Atrahasis.” Carr, Fractures, 245. Carr dates P material to the Exilic period, citing thematic concerns (covenant, obedience to God) and linguistic comparisons, for example Deuteronomistic language in Gen 22:15–18; 26:3–5. Carr, Formation, 152–59; 297. 21  Carr, Formation, 464–65. 22  Day, “Genesis Flood,” 109–10. Copies of Atrahasis are attested at Ugarit. Another recent study contextualizing texts of the Hebrew Bible with Ugaritic literature is by Wikander, who similarly concludes that an earlier common tradition existed, becoming two parallel traditions, finding not enough evidence of direct textual dependence. Ola Wikander, Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014).

37

Noah and Phinehas



Primary Texts for Sir 44:17–18 Hebrew23 (7a l.1)

‫ ̇לעת כלה היה תחליף‬ ‫ ובבריתו חדל מבול׃‬ ‫ לבלתי השחית כל בשר׃‬ ‫̇ב‬

‫ [נ]ח צדיק נמצא תמים‬44:17ab cd ‫ בעבורו היה שארית‬ : ‫כרת‬ ‫נכרת עמו‬ ̊ ‫ באות עולם‬44 18ab

Translation of Hebrew24 44:17 [No]ah the Righteous was found perfect In25 the time of annihilation he was a successor For his sake he was a remnant And by His covenant the flood ceased 23  I am saddened to report that the fragment containing Sir 44:17 is no longer extant in Mas1h (as of April 2015 if not earlier) due to deterioration and possibly transportation from Shrine of the Book to storage in the IAA, a distance of around 50 meters. Such rapid deterioration is reason to be mindful of the critical importance of photography and conservation of the Scrolls, as well as a reminder that older photographs of manuscripts are not necessarily worse than more recent ones. IAA, “Infrared and Multispectral Images of Mas1h” (Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library; Israel Antiquities Authority; Photo: Shai HaLevi, Image taken 24 April 2015). This Hebrew is therefore only MS.Heb.e.62, 7a (ms B XIVr.) l.1–3, although Yadin, Masada VI, Plate 8, shows the same text except for the plene spelling of ‫נוח‬. The following images and critical editions are used throughout for all use of B in this study, except where noted otherwise. Images of MS.Heb.e.62 consulted: Friedberg Genizah Project, “Oxford MS Heb.e.62,” https://fgp .genizah.org/; Oxford Bodleian Library, “MS.Heb.e.62,” http://genizah.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/ fragment/MS_HEB_e_62/; Schechter, ed., Facsimiles. Critical editions: Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, ‫ קונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המלים‬,‫ המקור‬:‫( ספר בן סירא‬Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1973). Hereafter Ben-Ḥayyim. Martin Abegg, “Transcription of ms B XIVr.,” bensira.org. Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬. Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Smend, Weisheit; Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch (Berlin: Reimer, 1907). Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also consulted: Víctor Morla, Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira: traducción y notas, Tesis y monografías 59 (Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino, 2012); Norbert Peters, ed., Liber Jesu filii Sirach sive Ecclestiasticus hebraice (Freiburg: Herder, 1905); Norbert Peters, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus (Freiburg: Herder, 1902); Lévi, L’Écclésiastique. 24  All translations are my own unless otherwise noted as such. 25  Bmg and Greek reading used instead of Btext.

38

Chapter 2

44:18 In an everlasting sign it was cut with him So that all flesh should not be destroyed Greek26 44:17 Νωε εὐρέθη τέλειος δίκαιος· ἐν καιρῷ ὀργῆς ἐγένετο ἀντάλλαγμα· διὰ τοῦτο27 ἐγενήθη κατάλειμμα τῇ γῇ, ὅτε ἐγένετο κατακλυσμός· 44:18 διαθῆκαι αἰῶνος ἐτέθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαλειφθῇ κατακλυσμῷ πᾶσα σάρξ. Latin28 44:17 44:18 44:19

Noe inventus est perfectus iustus et in tempore iracundiae factus est reconciliatio ideo dimissum est reliquum terrae cum factum est diluvium testamenta saeculi posita sunt apud illum ne deleri possit diluvio omnis caro

26  For an English translation of the Greek, the reader can consult: Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). The following images and critical editions are used throughout for all use of the Greek Sirach in this study. Codex Sinaiticus Project, “Codex Sinaiticus,” codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx. Codex Sinaiticus has several variations ( folio 181b, Scribe A), and Sir 44:17b has a case of parablepsis: δια τουτο εγενετο κατακλυϲμοϲ· [sic without accents] with marginal addition: δια τουτο εγενηθη καταλιμμα τη γη. Critical editions: Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 299–301; Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). For a comprehensive handlist comparing the Hebrew manuscript witnesses with the Greek version, see Antonino Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide: confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico, Analecta Biblica 133 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995), 153–258. For discussion of Greek Sirach’s relationship to the Hebrew, see Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). 27  Note that Ziegler (cf. Rahlfs) emends διὰ τοῦτο (because of this) to διὰ τοῦτον (because of this man) in order to match the Hebrew. 28  Note that Jerome copied the Vetus Latina Ben Sira for the Vulgate instead of making a new translation. These critical editions are used throughout for all use of the Latin version of

39

Noah and Phinehas

Syriac29

‫ܕܛܘܦܢܐ ܗܘܬ ܚܠܦܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒܙܒܢܐ‬.‫ ܐܫܬܟܚ ܒܕܪܗ ܿܫܠܡ‬.‫ ܢܘܚ ܙܕܝܩܐ‬44:17 ܼ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܝܡܐ‬ .‫ܠܥܠܡܐ‬ ܼ ܼ .‫ܘܡܛܠܬܗ ܗܘܬ ܡܫܘܙܒܘܬܐ‬ ܼ ̈ :18  .‫ܬܘܒ ܛܘܦܢܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܡ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܘܡ‬ 44 ‫ ܕܠܐ ܢܐܒܕ ܟܠ ܿܒܣܪ܁܀‬.‫ܠܗ ܒܫܪܪܐ‬ ܼ ܼ

Textual Commentary on Noah (Sir 44:17–18)

Sir 44:17ab In Sir 44:17ab, the two attributes of Noah are ‫( צדיק‬Gen 6:9, 7:1) and ‫תמים‬ (Gen 6:9).30 Ben Sira’s syntax in the first line resembles what is found in Gen 6:9 (MT). These two passages are compared in the table below, showing how Ben Sira keeps the same word order as Gen 6:9.

Ben Sira in this study: Boniface Fischer Osb et al., Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem II Proverbia-Apocalypsis (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969). Note that the Latin follows the Greek in removing the reference to Noah’s covenant in the Hebrew Sir 44:17 (Greek Sir 44:17, Latin 44:18), and harmonizing it into διαθῆκαι and testamenta in the last verse. By comparison, the Syriac version (below) follows the Hebrew more ̈ closely with covenant ‫ ܩܝܡܐ‬for ‫ בריתו‬and oaths ‫ܡܘܡܬܐ‬ for ‫אות‬. For an English translation of the Latin of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), see Swift Edgar, ed., The Vulgate Bible, vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 2010–). 29  Syriac editions consulted throughout: Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría; Francesco Vattioni, Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versione greca, latina e siriaca, Pubblicazioni del Seminario de Semitistica 1 (Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968). Vattioni uses both the Codex Ambrosianus as well as Cod. Mus. Brit. 12142. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, xxv–xxvii. There is not yet a critical edition of the Syriac Ben Sira which compares all available manuscript witnesses. See also the following useful tools for Syriac Ben Sira: Michael M. Winter, A Concordance to the Peshitta Version of Ben Sira (Leiden: Brill, 1976); D. Barthélemy and O. Rickenbacher, Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach: mit syrisch-hebräischem Index (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973). Note that Calduch-Benages, Ferrer and Liesen, Sabiduría, contains English and Spanish translations of Syriac Ben Sira in Codex Ambrosianus and is not an edition of all Syriac witnesses. 30  The Greek version is evidence that this line originally had “righteous” in the line, and that B reversed “their glory” and “their righteousness.” However, Sir 44:13 (B) has ‫וצדקתם‬, while Mas1h reads ‫וכבודם‬, which matches the Greek.

40

Chapter 2 ‫[נ]ח צדיק נמצא תמים‬ ‫נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדרתיו‬

Sir 44:17ab (ms B) Gen 6:9 (MT)

While ‫ צדקתם‬is used of the patriarchs in Sir 44:13, only Noah is called ‫ צדיק‬in the Praise of the Fathers, although Job holds fast to the paths of ‫( צדק‬Sir 49:9).31 Yet Job receives a single line (Sir 49:9) just between Ezekiel and the Twelve, while Noah has three. This added attention may be because Noah receives a covenant, which makes him more important in the Praise of the Fathers. Ben Sira’s term to describe the Flood ‫( כלה‬noun) is never used in the Genesis account of Noah.32 Neither is this term characteristic of Ben Sira’s vocabulary, as it appears only in one other place, Sir 40:10, which also refers to the Flood: “On their [the wicked’s] account, the annihilation came.” Segal mentions Nah 1:8, which refers to God’s destruction of his adversaries via a ‫שטף עבר‬, a downpour (or flood) that carries things away. Nah 1:8–9 refers to this flood as ‫כלה‬.33 The complete phrase ‫ עת כלה‬is not found in Qumran literature or what is today called the Hebrew Bible,34 and therefore the phrase may be an innovation of Ben Sira drawn from an exegetical connection he has made between Genesis and Nahum. Sir 44:17cd In the second line, Noah is called a ‫שארית‬, which here balances ‫ תחליף‬in Sir 44:17b. Elsewhere, Jacob is given a remnant (Sir 47:22).35 The meaning of ‫ תחליף‬has come under recent discussion. Against Smend and Cowley and Neubauer’s translations, Willem van Peursen argues that the word in Sir 44:17 may best be translated in a sense of continuity as “shoot” or “renewer,” rather than “successor,” which can have a supplanting connotation.36 In earlier 31  See B. Job is also called a prophet in Sir 49:9, perhaps because he is mentioned in Ezek 14:14. Ben-Ḥayyim, 212. 32  Meaning “annihilation” or “complete end.” 33  Again meaning “annihilation.” Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 308. Euphemism remains a wellknown scribal technique in the Hebrew Bible. Stefan Schorch, Euphemismen in der Hebräischen Bibel (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000). 34  Sir 44:17 is the only occurrence, as ‫ כלה‬is regularly found. DCH 4:418–19. 35  Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 327. 36  Willem (Wido) van Peursen, “The Word ‫ תחליף‬in Ben Sira,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period, eds. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 142–47 (133–48). Van Peursen concludes that the meaning of ‫ תחליף‬in Ben Sira is complex and there is no one definitive translation possible across

Noah and Phinehas

41

Hebrew literature, the word ‫ שארית‬refers to a remnant particularly of violence or destruction (Mic 5:7–8; Isa 10:21, 11:11–12, 46:3). In CD 1:4–5; 2:14–4:12a, the “remnant of Jacob” is understood as the author’s righteous community. Jonathan Campbell argues that texts concerning the remnant of Jacob were reused in CD and interpreted for the author’s contemporary context.37 In Ben Sira, however, Noah is the ‫שארית‬, not Jacob or a descendent of Jacob, a distinction that distances Ben Sira’s interpretation from wider Second Temple literature.38 In a similar way to CD’s recontextualization of Hebrew texts for the present day, Ben Sira balances imitation and creativity with his use of interpretive terms like ‫ שארית‬and ‫ כלה‬alongside quotation.39 We would not be able to confirm whether Ben Sira himself came up with these interpretations or if they were well known in his day. Sir 44:17d states that the creation of the covenant causes the ‫ מבול‬to subside. The word ‫ מבול‬is found numerous times in Genesis 6–9 (Gen 6:17; 7:6; 7:10; 9:11; 9:28). Gen 9:11 contains God’s covenant after the Flood, and covenant is mentioned frequently in Praise of the Fathers.40 Sir 44:17cd is also the

the board. See also Weigold, “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers,” 237. See also Johannes Marböck, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch,” in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, eds. Christoph Dohmen and Erich Zenger, Quaestiones disputatae 146 (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 184 (77– 97), who argues against a reading of ‫ תחליף‬as referring to Gen 6:9, cf. Weigold, “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers,” 236. 37  CD (Zadokite Fragment or Damascus Document); 4Q266–273 (4QDa–g; 4QpapDh). Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20, BZAW 228 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1995), 86–87. 38  The possibility that it is a wider interpretation cannot be ruled out completely, but the lack of extant references to Noah as ‫ שארית‬in other Second Temple texts strongly decreases the possibility. 39  More interpretation and creativity is present in the use of ‫ חדל‬in Sir 44:17d, a word which is also not found in the Genesis account, and found only three times in Ben Sira. However, ‫ חדל‬is common in the Hebrew Bible, so might alternatively reflect creativity or development of language choice. For another example, the word ‫ לבלתי‬in Sir 44:18 is not in the Flood story, but it is found elsewhere in Genesis (Gen 18:12, 21:26, 43:3, 43:5, 47:18), and Sir 44:18 is the only occurrence of ‫ לבלתי‬in the extant Hebrew. By comparison, ‫ בשר‬is used repeatedly to describe the corrupted humankind (Gen 6:3, 12, 13, 17, 19; 7:16, 21; 8:17; 9:4, 11, 15–17). In Gen 6:12 and 9:15, both ‫ בשר‬and ‫ שחת‬are found. 40  Sir 44:17, 20, 22, 23; 45:5; 45:7; 45:15; 45:24; 45:25 and 47:11. Notably, it is like Jubilees (Jub. 1:7; 15:21) which is at pains to mention that God directly made a covenant with all three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (all three patriarchs are said to have made covenants

42

Chapter 2

only mention of the Flood as a ‫ מבול‬in the whole Hebrew text of Ben Sira.41 With all these terms, ‫ מבול‬and ‫עת כלה‬, ‫שארית‬, ‫ צדיק‬and ‫תמים‬, Ben Sira strikes a balance between imitation and creativity in his textual reuse and interpretation. With Sir 44:18, below, he continues to refer to the covenant with Noah (Gen 9:11–16).42 The covenant is a prominent feature in Ben Sira’s Noah, reflecting Ben Sira’s emphasis on covenant in the Praise of the Fathers.43 In the table below, the full speeches of Gen 9:8–17 are compared with Sir 44:17–18. This comparison shows how Ben Sira echoes certain terms (underlined below) to refer to the covenant and the eternal sign (rainbow) with which the covenant was cut. It is clear how Sir 44:17–18 imitates the order and structure of Gen 9:8–17, which begins with the covenant and then describes the “sign” of the covenant. The final phrase of the “destruction of all flesh” further echoes the vocabulary of Gen 9:8–17, which refers five times to “all flesh.” In Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, ‫ בריתי‬is found, which Ben Sira expresses as ‫ בריתו‬in Sir 44:17d. Because of the inclusion of other phrases (eternal sign, all flesh), it becomes clear that Ben Sira is directing attention towards Gen 9:8–17 more than towards Gen 6:18 (‫והקמתי‬ ‫)את־בריתי אתך‬.

with God in Exod 2:24) even though Isaac never directly makes a covenant with God in Genesis, although it was promised for the future in Gen 17:21. 41  The Greek version Sirach uses κατακλυσμός twice (once for ‫ מבול‬in 17d and in 18b instead of ‫)השחית‬, the term for the Flood in the Septuagint of Genesis 6–9. 42  Another possible translation is “by the covenant with him,” i.e. Noah. See Weigold, “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers,” 230; cf. Charles Mopsik, La sagesse de Ben Sira (Lagrasse: Verdier, 2004), 279. 43  On covenants in Sirach 44–50 see Alon Goshen-Gottstein, “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham— Ushaw College 2001, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel, BZAW 321 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 235–67. See also Burton L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); Marböck, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch.”

‫‪43‬‬

‫‪Noah and Phinehas‬‬

‫‪Gen 9:8–17 compared with Sir 44:17–18‬‬ ‫)‪Sir 44:17–18 (ms B‬‬

‫ [נ]ח צדיק נמצא תמים‬ ‫‪17ab‬‬ ‫ בעבורו היה שארית‬ ‫‪17cd‬‬ ‫כרת‬ ‫ באות עולם נכר֯ת עמו‬ ‫‪ 18ab‬‬

‫ לעת כלה היה תחליף‬

‫ב‬

‫ ובבריתו חדל מבול׃‬

‫ לבלתי השחית כל בשר׃‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫)‪Gen 9:8–17 (MT‬‬

‫‪ 8‬ויאמר אלהים אל־נח ואל־בניו אתו לאמר׃‬ ‫‪ 9‬ואני הנני מקים את־בריתי אתכם ואת־זרעכם אחריכם׃‬ ‫ ואת כל־נפש החיה אשר אתכם בעוף בבהמה ובכל־חית הארץ אתכם מכֹל יצאי התבה‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫לכֹל חית הארץ׃‬ ‫ והקמתי את־בריתי אתכם ולא־יכרת כל־בשר עוד ממי המבול ולא־יהיה עוד מבול‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫לשחת הארץ׃‬ ‫ ויאמר אלהים זאת אות־הברית אשר־אני נתן ביני וביניכם ובין כל־נפש חיה אשר אתכם‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫לדרת עולם׃‬ ‫‪ 13‬את־קשתי נתתי בענן והיתה לאות ברית ביני ובין הארץ׃‬ ‫‪ 14‬והיה בענני ענן על־הארץ ונראתה הקשת בענן׃‬ ‫ וזכרתי את־בריתי אשר ביני וביניכם ובין כל־נפש חיה בכל־בשר ולא־יהיה עוד המים‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫למבול לשחת כל־בשר׃‬ ‫ והיתה הקשת בענן וראיתיה לזכר ברית עולם בין אלהים ובין כל־נפש חיה בכל־בשר‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫אשר על־הארץ׃‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫ ויאמר אלהים אל־נח זאת אות־הברית אשר הקמתי ביני ובין כל־בשר אשר‬ ‫על־הארץ׃ פ‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪Sir 44:18‬‬ ‫‪As with the textual reuse of Gen 6:8–9 in Sir 44:17ab above, Ben Sira combines‬‬ ‫‪the “sign of the covenant” (Gen 9:12) and “eternal covenant” (Gen 9:16) with‬‬ ‫‪, marking‬ברית עולם ‪.44 Scholars recognize that P material stresses the‬אות עולם‬ ‫‪a change in understanding of covenants.45‬‬ ‫”‪44  Note that here the Greek has the plural “covenants” and the Syriac has the plural “oaths,‬‬ ‫‪while the Hebrew is singular. Wright stresses that the Greek Sir 44:18 goes further than the‬‬ ‫‪Hebrew in including κατακλυσμόν, which he argues to be a case of Old Greek influence on‬‬ ‫‪Sirach. Wright, No Small Difference, 160.‬‬ ‫‪45  Christophe Nihan, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of‬‬ ‫‪‘P,’ ” in Strata of the Priestly Writings, 99–100 (87–134).‬‬

44

Chapter 2

Concerning verb choice, Ben Sira describes making the covenant with ‫נכרת‬ in Sir 44:18a, rather than a ‫ קום‬in hiphil, or ‫נתן‬, which are preferred by P. This is an unusual choice, because the only use of ‫ כרת‬in Gen 9:8–17 is ‫ יכרת‬in reference to destroying all flesh. In Gen 9:9, it is the hiphil participle ‫ מקים‬which describes making the covenant. Elsewhere, Ben Sira balances ‫ כרת‬and the hiphil of ‫( קום‬see Sir 44:20, 24; 50:24). Yet here, the choice is made simply for ‫נכרת‬.46 P material never uses ‫ כרת‬with ‫ברית‬, while Ben Sira does: the covenant is cut through the intermediary eternal sign.47 Ben Sira’s use of ‫ כרת‬with ‫ ברית‬in reflection of a text that does not use ‫ כרת‬with ‫( ברית‬while ‫ כרת‬is present several times in reference to all flesh) indicates he does not distinguish between J and P themes or agenda: while P avoids ‫ כרת‬with covenant, here Ben Sira does not. This distinction matters because it is assumed by some that P’s avoidance of ‫ כרת‬with covenant has to do with an avoidance of sacrificial overtones in an Exilic setting;48 with Ben Sira in a post-Exilic setting close to the Temple, ‫ כרת‬is not a problem. This shows that perhaps by the time of Ben Sira, the use of ‫כרת‬ for covenant-making had ceased to be an issue within his contemporary circle. There is a sound balance between textual imitation and creativity in Sir 44:17–18, but more “original” word choices are often outweighed by the amount of textual reuse. Ben Sira interprets Noah as righteous and perfect, closely following Genesis terms. More innovatively, he interprets Noah as a “remnant” or “renewer” of the “time of annihilation,” drawn from an interpretation of Nahum. Each word choice indicates an internalized and harmonized infusion of Ben Sira’s interpretation, with the Genesis terminology. The combination of Ben Sira’s creativity and his use of Genesis (and Nahum) is best seen in light of the well-known scribal practice of composing from memory with prior reading and/or the aide of notebooks (for quotations, drafting, or both).49 46  Scholarship argues that P tended to avoid pre-Temple sacrificial overtones, for example by avoiding ‫כרת‬. For a sample discussion of why Genesis 9:11 uses ‫ מקים‬instead of ‫ כרת‬for creating the covenant see, for example, Day, “Why Does God ‘Establish’ rather than ‘Cut’ Covenant with Noah?” in From Creation to Babel, 123–36. 47  William K. Gilders, “Sacrifice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives,” in Strata of the Priestly Writings, 60 (45–72). This is a vast area of scholarship that cannot be covered within the limits of this study. 48  Scholars of this view discussed in Day, “Establish,” 129–30. 49  Small, Wax Tablets, 158; 185; 206–12. Morgan, Literate Education, 121. For recent archaeological remains of late fifth-century bce Greek notebooks, see: Martin L. West, “The Writing Tablets and Papyrus from Tomb II in Daphni,” Greek and Roman Musical Studies 1 (2013): 73–92. For notebooks of the Hellenistic period, see: Cribiore, Gymnastics, 151–59. For notebooks and quotations in antiquity, Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context, AGJU 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 35.

Noah and Phinehas

45

Ben Sira’s Noah highlights the harmonious relationship between textual imitation and originality with the creative textual reuse of a single major textual source. How textual reuse and originality in Noah compare with other early Jewish and Second Temple sources will explain more about the role of each in Ben Sira’s scribalism.

Noah and Other Sources

In other Second Temple and early Jewish texts besides Ben Sira, Noah appears in Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, 1Q19 (the Aramaic “Book of Noah”), the Sibylline Oracles, Josephus, and Philo. There have been numerous studies on the reception of Noah in the Second Temple period.50 In Jubilees, the Flood story is recounted with considerable expansion (Jub. 5:1–6:38). Noah is called righteous in Jub. 5:19. The end of the Flood is associated with Sukkot, and the rainbow plays an unimportant role compared to the calendar—the solar calendar and jubilee reckoning are critical agendas in Jubilees. The covenant with Noah is explained as the reason for the date and length of Shavuot, and the reason for its celebration as a renewal anniversary of the covenant, rather than as a remembrance of the Israelites dwelling in the wilderness (Sukkot). Jubilees expands the narrative with concerns about heavenly tablets, divine judgement, and calendrical topics: the date of each event in terms of jubilees, years, and months, the establishment of festivals (Jub. 6:15–28), and the solar calendar (Jub. 6:29–38). Genesis Apocryphon also mentions Noah’s righteousness

50  For other discussions of Noah and the Flood in Second Temple Judaism, see: Michael E. Stone, “The Book(s) Attributed to Noah,” DSD 13 (2006): 4–23; Michael E Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel, Noah and His Book(s), EJL 28 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010); Jack P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill), 1968; James C. VanderKam, “The Righteousness of Noah,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, eds. John J. Collins and George W.E. Nickelsburg, SBLSCS 12 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 13–32; Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity, EJL 26 (Atlanta: SBL, 2008); Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, eds., Interpretations of the Flood, TBN 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998). For analysis of Noah in 1QapGen and the debate about a Book of Noah, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “Noah and the Flood at Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, & Reformulated Issues, eds. D.W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 199–231. See also Bernstein’s discussion of the Qumran Flood account, 4Q252. Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Rewritten Bible to Biblical Commentary,” JJS 45 (1992): 2–29.

46

Chapter 2

(1QapGen ar vi 2–xi 14).51 While the text is too fragmentary, it does retell the story with mention of the ark and Noah’s incense offering on Mount Ararat,52 with a fragmentary survival of the covenant (1QapGen ar xi 17, “you shall eat no blood,” as in Gen 9:4). Like Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon is concerned with the geographical divisions of the earth between Noah’s sons (1QapGen ar xii–xvii; cf. Jub. 9).53 The Sibylline Oracles, which originate in Second Temple Judaism with later Christian additions, begin with the story of Noah, the Flood, and the six different races of humans who become increasingly immoral (Sib. Or. 1.65–124, 282–318). Noah in the Sibylline Oracles is called faithful and just, and the emphasis is placed on Noah’s plea to his lawless contemporaries to change their ways (Sib. Or. 1.147–198).54 Hence, the exegetical concern is upon justifying the annihilation of a stubborn, immoral humanity. In the Sibylline Oracles, remarkably, there is no mention of the sign of the covenant (the rainbow) or any sign in the heavens at all (Sib. Or. 1.125–146). Instead, the Flood itself is stressed as a sign of God’s power (Sib. Or. 1.137–146). To conclude, the rainbow is prominently absent as a symbol not just in Ben Sira but also in Jubilees and the Sibylline Oracles. All are concerned with the idea of the renewal of humankind with Noah surviving the Flood, and the sign of the rainbow is distinctly absent. Josephus comments on the Flood story with discussions of historicity in Antiquities (A.J. 1.67–108). He mentions an Armenian site where the ark landed, tells how Noah sacrificed and supplicated God not to destroy the world again, emphasizes God’s justification at length on why God was forced by human wickedness to destroy the world, and defends the longevity of antediluvian ancestors with a long list of Greek historians. Josephus clarifies the Greek version of Genesis, explaining that ἶρις (rainbow) is meant by τόξος since the rainbow was believed to be God’s archery bow (A.J. 1.103). The main issues in Josephus 51  VanderKam, “Righteousness of Noah.” For critical edition and commentary, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (Rome: Biblical Pontifical Press, 1971). 52  1QapGen ar x 12, 13, 15. 53  For a recent study of the geographical land divisions in Jubilees, see James M. Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees, JSJSup 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 54  For Greek edition and English translation, see J.L. Lightfoot, The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 272–321. It is acknowledged that the Christian additions make comparisons problematic, but the distinctive features of the Flood story in the Oracles hold much in common with other Second Temple interpretations of the Flood discussed in this section.

Noah and Phinehas

47

are the defence of the story’s historicity, the justification of world destruction, and the believability of Noah living to 950 years. While Josephus calls Noah righteous (δικαιοσύνη) (A.J. 1.75), Philo mentions the grace (χάρις) of Noah, discussing ‫ חן‬in Gen 6:8 (Deus 86). Like Josephus, Philo considers the historicity and rationality behind the Flood narrative (QG 1.87–100, 2.1–65). Philo mentions the confusion over the bow, saying that many assume it may not be the rainbow but a weather phenomenon known as Jupiter’s belt (QG 2.64). The covenant is not explicitly mentioned. In Philo and Josephus in general, historicity is their major concern, while Jubilees is focused on the Flood story’s role in establishing the correct Jewish calendar as part of its larger concerns with determinism. The Sibylline Oracles are concerned with the different races of life and the justification of the Flood, but the Oracles have little interest in the Noahide covenant. Just as in Ben Sira, both Jubilees and the Sibylline Oracles are most concerned with the Flood but not the rainbow. Yet all these Second Temple retellings of Noah are richly imaginative in their interpretations. By contrast, in Sir 44:17–18, Ben Sira remains far closer to the text, and his concerns are to maintain a close reading of Genesis: the renewal of the world through Noah as a remnant, and calling the Flood annihilation. His interpretations are very close to Genesis, not far at all from what it is possible to read in the text. It is then only in terms of textual reuse and scribal culture, not theme or agenda, that we can find a context for Ben Sira’s Noah.

Introduction to Phinehas

The second half of this chapter analyzes Phinehas in Ben Sira (Sir 45:23–26) as an example of Ben Sira’s use of multiple major sources. Beentjes shows how alternating hemistichs in Sir 45:23–24 allude to Num 25:11–13.55 To begin with, the main narrative in Numbers concerning Phinehas is the Baal Peor event (Num 25:1–15).56 The Israelites are led astray by Moabites to worshiping Baal of Peor and committing immoral acts, and during an assembly, Phinehas witnesses the Israelite man Zimri bringing a Midianite woman into the 55  Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach, Ecclesiasticus),” in Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 180 (169–86). 56  Throughout this work, possible variant readings from the MT have been consulted in: Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).

48

Chapter 2

camp. Phinehas rises with his spear and kills them both, and the Lord makes a covenant with Phinehas of an eternal priesthood with his descendants (Num 25:10–13), since through his zeal he made atonement for the sins of Israel. The Baal Peor event and Phinehas are mentioned in Ps 106:28–31, in a list of the works of the Lord in the early history of the Israelites. Phinehas is found one other time at Sir 50:24: “May his loyalty with Simon be confirmed, and may he establish with him the covenant of Phinehas.”57 By the “covenant of Phinehas,” Ben Sira alludes to Num 25:10–13. Ben Sira’s interest in Phinehas is concentrated entirely on the Baal Peor incident and the resulting covenant, as found in both Num 25:1–15 and Ps 106:28–31. Because Ben Sira alludes and quotes Numbers 25 and Psalms 106 throughout his lines on Phinehas, it is important to explore the scholarly background for these passages before exploring Ben Sira.58 Numbers 25 is considered a late P text, as argued by Nihan.59 Manuscript evidence shows minor textual variants, with one minor variant in the relevant extant material of Numbers 25.60 By comparison, Psalms still had at least two major known editions with significantly different ordering between Psalms 91–150 as late as the mid-second century bce.61 That Ben Sira knew the Book of Psalms is not the issue at hand: rather, we might find that which edition of the Psalter he was familiar with might differ slightly to that of the MT. Only the final line of Psalm 106 survives in 4QPsd, with no textual variation from the MT, and there are no traces of the psalm in 11QPsa. In 4QPsd, Psalm 147 follows Psalm 106, while in 11QPsa, 147 probably follows 104.62 57  ‫( יאמן עם שמעון חסדו ויקם לו ברית פינחס‬Sir 50:24, ms B). Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 342. 58  In the rest of the Hebrew Bible, Phinehas fights the Midianites in Num 31:6. He is sent with other chief men to the Reubenites and Gadites in Gilead in Josh 22:9–34, while his birth is mentioned in Exod 6:25 and genealogy in 1 Chr 6:4. Phinehas, one of the two sons of Eli, priest of Shiloh, is mentioned in 1 Sam 4:19; 14:3. A Phinehas is mentioned in Ezr 8:2. Another Phinehas, grandfather of another Eleazar, is mentioned in Ezr 8:3. 59  Nihan, “Priestly Covenant,” 99–100 (87–134). 60  The text of 4QNumb between Num 25:7 and 25:15b is missing, and Ps 106:23, 30 are also no longer extant. 4QNumb (cf. LXX, not in MT or SP) adds in Num 25:16 the formula: “Speak to the Israelites, saying—.” Ulrich, Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 156. 61  Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 1997). See Chapter Four for a discussion of Ben Sira’s Psalms in Sir 43:11–19. For an in-depth discussion of how Ben Sira’s Psalms use affects the Psalms Scroll debate, see Lindsey A. Askin, The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira: Considering the Evidence of Textual Reuse in Sir 43:11–19,” DSD 23:1 (2016): 27–50. 62  DJD 12; DJD 9.

49

Noah and Phinehas

The debate over Ben Sira’s tendencies towards favouring P sentiments was mentioned above in Chapter Two. Olyan argues that Sir 45:23–26 is strong evidence of Ben Sira sharing a common ideology with P: placing express value on the priesthood and cult.63

Primary Texts for Sir 45:23–26 Hebrew64 (6a l.18) 65]‫ בגבורה [נחל שלישי׃‬ (6b l.1) ‫ ויעמד בפרץ עמו׃‬

‫ וגם פינחס [ב]ן אלעזר‬ 45:23ab ‫ בקנאו לאלוהי כל‬ cd ‫ ויכפר על בני ישראל׃‬ ‫ אשר נדבו לבו‬ ef :24ab 45 ‫ ברית שלום לכלכל מקדש׃‬ ‫ לכן גם לו הקים חק‬ ‫ כהונה גדולה עד עולם׃‬ ‫ אשר תהיה לו ולזרעו‬ cd ‫ בן ישי למטה יהודה׃‬ ‫ וגם בריתו עם דוד‬ 45:25ab ‫ נחלת אהרן לכל זרעו׃‬ ‫ נחלת אש לפני כבודו‬ cd ‫ ועתה ברכו נא את ייי הטוב המעטר אתכם כבוד׃‬ ef 66‫ ויתן לכם חכמת לב׃‬ 45:26a ‫ למען לא ישכח טובכם [וגב]ורתכם לדורות עולם׃‬46:26a

Translation of Hebrew 45:23 And also Phinehas [so]n of Eleazar, On account of his might he [inherited thirdly.] When he was zealous for the God of All, He arose in the breach (against) his people. Whose heart incited him, He made atonement for the sons of Israel. 45:24 Thus also for him (God) established a statute, A covenant of peace to maintain the Sanctuary.67 63  Olyan, “Priesthood,” 272. 64  MS.Heb.e.62, 6a (ms B XVr.) l.18 to 6b (XVv.) l.1–8. 65  Smend, Hebräisch, 51, reconstructs ‫ ;נה[דר שליש]י‬Peters, Liber Iesu, 120–21, ]‫נח[ל שלישי‬ noting space in the damage does not permit adding ‫כבוד‬. Lévi, Hebrew Text, 62, reconstructs ]‫נח[ל שלישי בהוד‬. I agree with Peters on the basis of spacing. 66  Note below in the commentary on the absence of Sir 45:26b in the Hebrew. 67  That is, the tabernacle (Exod 25:8).

50

Chapter 2

That will be given to him and his descendants, A High Priesthood forever, 45:25 And also his covenant was with David Son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah. An inheritance of fire before His glory Is the inheritance of Aaron for all his descendants. And now bless the Lord, the Good One, The one who crowns you with glory, 45:26 And may He give to you skill so that He will not forget your goodness and your [mig]hty deeds throughout the generations forever. Greek 45:23 45:24 45:25 45:26

Καί Φινεες υἱὸς Ελεαζαρ τρίτος εἰς δόξαν68 ἐν τῷ ζηλῶσαι αὐτὸν ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου καὶ στῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τροπῇ λαοῦ ἐν ἀγαθότητι προθυμίας ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ∙ καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τοῦ Ισραηλ. διὰ τοῦτο ἐστάθη αὐτῷ διαθήκη εἰρήνης προστατεῖν ἁγίων καὶ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἳνα αὐτῷ ᾖ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ἱερωσύνης μεγαλεῖον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. καὶ διαθήκην τῷ Δαυιδ υἱῷ Ιεσσαι ἐκ φυλῆς Ιουδα κληρονομία βασιλέως υἱοῦ ἐξ υἱοῦ μόνου∙ κληρονομία Ααρων καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. δῴη ὑμῖν σοφίαν ἐν καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν κρίνειν τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἳνα μὴ ἀφανισθῇ τὰ ἀγαθὰ αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν.

68  Note the textual variants in the Greek: Sir 43:23a (Gr) reads only “third in glory” perhaps as a misreading of ‫ בגבורה‬for ‫בכבוד‬, another variant of which is found in 45:26d; 45:23e (Gr) “across Israel”; 43:24a διαθήκη εἰρήνης only, lacking parallel for ‫ ;הקים חק‬the significant variation in Sir 45:25cd reading that the covenant with David is “the heritage of a king through one son alone, the heritage of Aaron is for all generations.”

51

Noah and Phinehas

Latin69 45:28 Et Finees filius Eleazari tertius in Gloria in imitando ipsum in timore Domini 45:29 Et stare in reverentia gentis in bonitate et alacritate animae suae placuit de Israhel 45:30 Ideo statuit ad illum testamentum pacis principem sanctorum et gentis suae ut sit illi et semini eius sacerdotii dignitas in aeternum 45:31 Et testamentum David regi filio Iesse de tribu Iuda hereditas ipsi et semini eius ut daret sapientiam in cor nostrum iudicare gentem suam in iustitia ne abolerentur bona ipsorum et gloriam eorum in gentem ipsorum aeternam fecit Syriac .‫ܠܗ ܬܠܬܐ ܐܝܩܪܝܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܦ ܦܝܢܚܣ ܒܪ‬45:23 ܼ ‫ ܒܓܢܒܪܘܬܗ‬.‫ܐܠܝܥܙܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܢܣܒ‬ ‫ ܘܕܩܡ ܒܬܘܪܥܬܐ ܕܥܡܐ‬.‫ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܘܒܒܪ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ‬ ‫ܒܛܢܢܐ ܕܛܢ‬ ܼ ̈ ‫ܝܡܐ ܠܗ‬ .‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ ܼ ܼ̈ ‫ ܡܛܘܠ ܗܢܐ ܒܡܘܡܬܐ‬45:24  .‫ܘܒܥܐ ܥܠ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܬܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܘܠܙܪܥܗ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܖܒܬܐ ܠܥܠܡ܁܀܁‬ ܼ .‫ܕܢܒܢܐ ܠܗ ܡܕܒܚܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܕܡ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܐܦ ܕܘܝܕ ܒܪ ܐܝܫܝ܆ ܝܘܪܬܢܐ‬45:25 ‫ ܝܘܪܬܢܐ‬.‫ܠܟ ܼܐ ܒܠܚܘܕܘܗܝ ܼܝܪܬ‬ ܿ ݀ ‫ܕܝܗܒ ܠܟܘܢ‬ ܼ 45:26 ‫ ܡܟܝܠ ܒܪܟܘ ܠܐܠܗܐ‬.‫ܠܗ ܘܠܙܪܥܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܐܗܪܘܢ‬ ܿ .‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܠܐ ܢܬܛܥܐ ܛܘܒܗܘܢ‬.‫ ܠܡܕܢ ܠܥܡܗ ܒܫܡܗ‬.‫ܚܟܡܬܐ ܕܠܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܠܟܠ‬.‫ܘܫܘܠܛܢܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܖ ܼܐ ܕܥܠܡܐ܀‬

Textual Commentary on Phinehas (Sir 45:23–26)

Sir 45:23ab For ‫בגבורה‬, the clause ‫ ב‬+ noun is regularly found in Ben Sira, with ‫ ב‬in the causal meaning of “through” or “on account of.”70 Phinehas inherits not just 69  While Di Lella writes that the Latin is a witness to GII (a later Greek recension that contains extra sayings) a decision that has lost popularity among scholars, another reason the Latin witnesses to an early Greek version is in the final words aeternam fecit for the confusing Greek εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν in Sir 45:26b. Di Lella and Skehan, Ben Sira, 56. 70  The causal use of ‫ ב‬as “through” or “on account of” is rare in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 9:28; 19:16). Steven E. Fassberg, “On the Syntax of Dependent Clauses in Ben Sira,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Muraoka and Elwolde, 65 (56–72).

52

Chapter 2

because of his ‫גבורה‬, though, but primarily because of his genealogy: the third in line after Aaron. Ben Sira’s emphasis is more focused on the priestly genealogy than on Numbers 25. The title of Phinehas in Sir 45:23a is “Phinehas son of Eleazar,” while Numbers reads, “Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest” (Num 25:7, 10) and “Phinehas, son of Eleazar the priest” (Num 31:6).71 The choice is less accidental than it seems. Ben Sira directs attention to Phinehas’s elevated status as the son of Eleazar, and Ben Sira is also himself the son of an Eleazar himself (Sir 50:27). Patronyms could distinguish two people of the same name (such as Matt 10:2–3), although in the Second Temple period, it is mostly high socialstatus families that bear the “son-of” surname in epigraphy.72 If this title aimed to be merely genealogical, the full “son of Aaron” in Numbers might have been included to emphasize which Eleazar is implied, or to stress direct lineage from Aaron (as in Sir 45:23b with “inherited thirdly”). By calling Phinehas “Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron,” Ben Sira is revealing his own impressions of the high status of priestly families. The word ‫ גבורה‬is not found in any description of Phinehas in the Hebrew Bible,73 while in Numbers 25 he is described multiple times as possessing Similarly, some rare uses of ‫ ב‬have the meaning of “when” without infinitive construct. BDB, 90 (entry on ‫ב‬, 5.3). Muraoka argues that LBH also further developed the use of ‫ מ‬+ infinitive construct and sometimes ‫ל‬, whereas in Biblical Hebrew the infinitive construct is typically on its own. Here the combination is ‫ ב‬+ noun, but the development may be applicable to both. Takamitsu Muraoka, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well, 194–95 (193–214). For a detailed study of the preposition ‫ ב‬refer to Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Präpositionen: Band 1—Die Präposition Beth (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1992). 71  In an otherwise complete verse, the first line is missing a letter in the first stichometric half (Sir 45:23a) and two words missing in the second half (Sir 45:23b). Schechter, Facsimiles, xlv,5–xlv,23a; xlv,23b–xlvi,6a. Reconstructing ‫]ן‬.[ in Sir 45:23a as ‫ בן‬is not problematic. Segal reconstructs the lacuna of Sir 45:23b ]‫בגבורה נ[חל שלישי‬. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 312. It is reasonable to reconstruct ‫ שלישי‬here through comparison to the Greek and Latin. The Greek: “third in glory”; Latin: tertius in gloria. The Syriac has a different interpretation, that Phinehas receives three marks of honour for his might. 72  Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices, and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 204–19; 231. It should be noted that low social status tomb inscriptions usually bear a single name. Furthermore, the overall representation of inscriptions across total population is below 1% survival rate. See Pieter W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE), CBET 2 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991), 74. 73  The word may be safely reconstructed ‫בגבורה‬. B clearly has a ‫ ג‬at Sir 45:23b, as its distinctiveness can be discerned elsewhere in B, for instance ‫ גם‬at 45:23a. The Syriac reads

Noah and Phinehas

53

‫קנאה‬, and here Ben Sira stresses causation between Phinehas’s zeal in his actions and the subsequent eternal priestly inheritance, instead of his zeal as in Num 25:12–13.74 Alternatively, “might” could echo Isa 11:2. In Sir 45:26, the final benediction, he reminds the reader of Phinehas’s bravery with ‫[וגב]ורתכם‬. The word ‫ גבורה‬is found in Sir 44:3 describing the patriarchs,75 using a variant of ‫גבורה‬,76 and in Sir 48:24 there is God’s spirit of might. “Might” is not used to describe any other patriarch, not even Joshua. In Qumran literature ‫ גבורה‬is found normally describing God, not humans.77 And in the Hebrew Bible, God is frequently called mighty (Ps 24:8; Isa 10:21), as are warriors and mighty men in Judges as well as David (1 Sam 16:18). Finally, Phinehas is the third of the line of Aaron (Num 18:7) implicitly in the Hebrew Bible (Ezra 8:2; Exod 6:25), but made explicit in Ben Sira with ‫שלישי‬.78 Moreover, Aaron plays an important

‫“( ܒܓܢܒܪܘܬܗ‬in might”). The shift from might to glory in the Greek and Latin may be a theological change or a scribal error from the Hebrew to Greek, which suggests that the Syriac came from an earlier or different Hebrew version. Elsewhere ‫ כבוד‬is a reference to God in Bmg, but here there are no marginal notes from the copyist. It is likely an error of a scribal copyist since Ben Sira frequently uses the word ‫כבוד‬, and the common scribal confusion between ‫ ד‬and ‫ ר‬is found in ms B (Sir 32:10c, 36:8a, or 36:21a with ‫ נבד‬when it should probably read ‫)גבר‬. Such letter confusions are also found in the Qumran scrolls and in rabbinic copying and the Greek Bible, such as Isa 5:17. Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1981), 18–19. Even more common is the confusion between ‫ י‬and ‫ו‬, which is also common in ms B. In light of the traces found in B and the Syriac, the Hebrew is read here as ‫]ב[גבורה‬. 74  God is called “mighty” many times in the Hebrew Bible (BDB, 150) and by Ben Sira (Sir 15:18; 33:3 (Hebrew only); 43:12, 13, 29. Ben-Ḥayyim, 113. 75  The line in Btext reads ‫ואנשי שם בגבורתם‬, but Bmg reads ‫בגבורם‬. 76  In Sir 44:3 Ben Sira uses the related term ‫גבור‬, which is a variant use of ‫ גבורה‬as argued by John Elwolde, “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Muraoka and Elwolde, 31 (17–55). 77  Martin G. Abegg, James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2003–), 1:168–70. 78  Since the Syriac was based on an unknown Hebrew translation, the Syriac witness suggests that Segal may be accurate. Di Lella and Skehan, Ben Sira, 57. Winter, “The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac,” 237–53; 494–507. Moreover, ms B has sufficient space for ‫נחל‬ ‫ שלישי‬given the iron-ink deterioration and the average spacing of the lines. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, 247, suggests adding ‫ בהוד‬as well but there is not enough room on the line. Smend’s transcription of ‫ י‬at the end of the line should also be taken into context since often tiny detached fragments were present that were not kept with the manuscripts during photography (Smend, Hebräisch, 51; 56). See Sir 48:17–25. Finally, there is an ink mark in the deterioration that has the shape of a nun. Altogether given this evidence and that of the other translations, the reconstruction ‫ נחל שלישי‬is best.

54

Chapter 2

role in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers (Sir 45:6–22), and the lines on Phinehas begins directly after Aaron. Sir 45:23cd In Sir 45:23c, Ben Sira selects certain key words from Num 25:1–15. Beentjes demonstrates how Sir 45:23–24 allude to Num 25:23–24.79 One of the keywords ‫ קנא‬is found four times in Num 25:1–15 in relation to Phinehas, including ‫בקנאו‬ ‫ את־קנאתי‬and ‫( בקנאתי‬both in Num 25:11). Ben Sira implies both of these words with ‫גבורה‬. Elsewhere in Ben Sira ‫ קנא‬is used of Ben Sira himself in Sir 51:18 with ‫קנאתי בטוב‬.80 Since Num 25:11–15 uses the word four times, making it hardly an incidental word choice by Ben Sira. The title ‫ אלוהי כול‬is unusual here since the direct object marker ‫ ה‬is missing from ‫כול‬.81 This is interesting because in Late Biblical Hebrew the use of ‫ הכול‬as a non-construct indefinite rose in popularity, indistinguishable in use from ‫כל‬.82 The Greek adds ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου, which is notable since in the Greek κύριος is attested even where the Hebrew is ‫ אלוהים‬and not the Divine Name.83 The phrase ‫ אלוהי כל‬as a standalone phrase is not found in the Hebrew Bible; the closest title is ‫( אלוה כל בשר‬Jer 35:27) or ‫( אלהי‬Jer 32:27). However, the phrase can be found in other Second Temple literature: ‫( אדון הכול‬11Q5 28:7 [Psalm 151A]; 4Q409 1.i.8), ‫( אלוה הכול‬11Q5 28:7–8); ‫אלוהי כול קדושי קדשים‬ (4QShirShabba 1.i.2).84 Except for 4QShirShabb, all use the direct object marker ‫ה‬. Comparing these examples, Skehan suggests that the original form of the phrase ‫ אלוהי כל‬is found in Psalm 151, and that the ms B error is a case of parablepsis of the ‫ ה‬of ‫ הכול‬being mistakenly transferred to ‫ אלוהי‬and 79  Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture,” 179–80. 80  Another use of ‫ קנא‬is in Sir 45:18 to describe the Israelites’ envy against Aaron. 81  B attests to ‫אלוהי כל‬, the supralinear ‫ י‬could have been written by the original copyist or added later by another scribe, but in B corrections are normally in the margins. Above the letter (or superscript) corrections are seen in Qumran literature, Tov, Scribal Practices, 222. 82  Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky, “The Non-Construct ‫הכל‬/‫ כל‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, eds. S.E. Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher, and Ruth A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 267 (259–68). 83  William Horbury, “Deity in Ecclesiasticus,” in The God of Israel, ed. Robert Gordon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 269; 275 (267–92). The Syriac version digresses again from the Hebrew: ‫“( ܒܛܢܢܐ ܕܛܢ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܘܒܒܪ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ‬for the zeal with which he was zealous against the Midianite woman and the son of Israel”). The Syriac does not translate the phrase “God of All,” and the Greek switches to simply “Lord.” 84  Yuditsky, “Non-Construct,” 266. Note that ms B has the form ‫ אלוה‬in Sir 35:13.

Noah and Phinehas

55

dropped.85 In light of Qumran literary texts, however, it is likely the phrase was originally ‫אלוהי הכול‬.86 Sir 45:23d includes a phrase from Psalm 106, ‫עמד בפרץ‬, not found elsewhere in Ben Sira.87 Ps 106:23 reads ‫ עמד בפרץ‬pertaining to Moses. Ps 106:30 reads ‫ויעמד פינחס‬, while by contrast, Num 25:7 reads ‫ויקם‬.88 The phrase in Sir 45:23d ‫ בפרץ עמו‬is best seen in light of the phrase in Num 25:7 ‫מתוך העדה‬, a case of harmonization and perhaps synonymous quotation with Ps 106:23, 30. Synonymous quotation, a term from Emanuel Tov’s work on ancient scriptural translation,89 is defined as any phrase that has a near synonymous equivalent and close syntactic arrangement in the Hebrew Bible. Synonymous quotations are frequent in Ben Sira, and are attested in Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QRP. Why Ben Sira chose ‫ עמד‬instead of ‫ קום‬might be due to influence from Aramaic, although the two appear in parallel in Job 8:15. In LBH, ‫ עמד‬expands in usage where ‫ קום‬might have once been used.90 The phrase ‫ עמד בפרץ‬is not found elsewhere in Ben Sira, making it likely that it is a harmonization of 85  Patrick W. Skehan, “Again the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms,” CBQ 38 (1976): 147 (143–158). Other cases of parablepsis are found in the Qumran scrolls, too, as well as forgotten letters or lines inserted in margins or supralinearly. Tov, Scribal Practices, 227–29. 86  Alternatively, if ‫ אלוה‬in the rare absolute “Eloah” form was the original, the designation could be a reference to Deut 32:1–43, the Song of Moses, which refers to God as ‫ אלוה‬in Deut 32:15. The Song of Moses held special significance as early as Josephus (A.J. 4.303) and in rabbinic Judaism special blessings were attached to reading it. The blessings attached to reading Deuteronomy 32 are in Masekhet Soferim 12. R.H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 227–28. In addition, Deuteronomy 32, Exodus 15, and many psalms have stichometric layouts in certain Qumran biblical scrolls. Tov, Scribal Practices, 156–59; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 212. Having said this, in this case, the one word is not enough for a quotation of Deuteronomy 32, because the context is not directly relevant to Phinehas and the word quoted can equally be a variant or scribal error. The most likely solution is that the original read ‫ אלוה(י) הכול‬due to Late Biblical Hebrew changes noted in Yuditsky, “Non-Construct,” 259–68. 87  Ben-Ḥayyim, 244–45; 259. Even ‫ פרץ‬by itself is found only one other time in Hebrew Ben Sira. 88  In Psalm 106, both Moses and Phinehas turn away the wrath of God. Psalm 106 forms a good literary model for the Praise of the Fathers. See discussion in Chapter Four on the structure of the Hymn followed by the Praise. 89  Throughout Tov, Textual Criticism. 90  Hurvitz, “Linguistic Status of Ben Sira,” 78–83. See also: Avi Hurvitz, Leeor Gottlieb, Aaron Hornkohl, and Emmanuel Mastéy, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic

56

Chapter 2

Num 25:7 and Ps 106:23. The phrase is found once elsewhere in Second Temple texts in 4QMa.91 This suggests the importance of Psalm 106 in Second Temple Judaism. Other alternative explanations could be a case of Tov’s “synonymous readings,”92 or a textual variant of unknown origin.93 Unless we have another record of the variant in extant manuscript witness to compare, we cannot easily narrow down whether a variant is due to a lapse of memory or an alternative tradition. For example, it could be a textual variant in Ben Sira’s Hebrew sources and not on Ben Sira’s part. As discussed earlier, scribes made use of notebooks and tablets in composition, perhaps allowing “quotations” a stage of transmission through the notebook before ever reaching the drafting stage of the composition itself—this makes change and variation possible in the transmission of quotations and ideas, and the harmonization of related quotations, noted down by or for an author.94 The physical bodily position of a scribe could allow for either the handling of a scroll or a notebook and pen, but not both at the same time, allowing the further possibility of error through dictation or by memory. Drafting, however, must account for some reflection. For us to be able to show that Ben Sira’s “variant” is an alternative tradition, we would need to see that tradition in another manuscript witness, which is not the case in Numbers 25 and not feasible with Psalm 106.

Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 217–20. The verb ‫ קום‬is found later in Sir 45:24a (see below). 91  4QMa 11.2.13 instructs the reader to stand in the breach in the battle against the Kittim. DCH 6:779. 92  Tov, Textual Criticism, 260–61. Carr calls them “non-graphic memory variants.” Carr, Writing, 26–29. 93  Ulrich, Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 156; 670 (Psalm 106:23 not extant). 94  There are also two surviving examples of florilegia in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) and 4Q175 (4QTestimonia) as well as scribal exercises 4Q234 and 4Q258. See George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context, JSOTSup 29 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985). In Greece and Italy, wooden notebooks have been found with up to fifteen leaves. Adam Bülow-Jacobson, “Writing Materials in the Ancient World,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. Bagnall, 3–29. The use of papyrus notebooks is attested in Egypt, where papyrus survives. See Cribiore, Gymnastics. The use of papyrus in Judea, as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, allows the possibility that papyrus notebooks, if not also wooden notebooks, were used in Judea in Second Temple times.

Noah and Phinehas

57

Sir 45:23ef In Sir 45:23e ‫ נדבו לבו‬can be compared with the phrase ‫ נדב לב‬in Exod 25:2; 35:29,95 and the verb ‫ נדב‬in hithpael refers to military volunteering (2 Chr 17:16; Judg 5:2, 9). Ben Sira creates a play on words to emphasize the priestly atonement of sins, and perhaps even a military context. By comparison, in Qumran literature ‫ נדב‬implies offering oneself or one’s deeds or holiness to the community. The phrase is an existing idiom in the Hebrew Bible, the same as ‫ עמד בפרץ‬above. The phrase in Sir 45:23: ‫ויכפר על בני ישראל‬, a direct quotation from Num 25:13, confirms this sacrificial-liturgical meaning for ‫נדב לב‬.96 The result is that Num 25:13 is stressed: Phinehas’s slaying of the Israelite man Zimri and Midianite woman is a freewill sacrificial offering for atonement of sin. Sir 45:24ab In Sir 45:24a, Ben Sira says God established a ‫ חק‬with Phinehas, which he then describes as a ‫ ברית שלום‬for the maintenance of holiness (Sir 45:24b). The word ‫חק‬, meaning statute or law, in Sir 45:24a acts as a parallelism with ‫ברית שלום‬ in Sir 45:24b. However, ‫ חק‬might also on first inspection appear to be a synonymous quotation of the ‫ ברית שלום‬in Num 25:13. Instead it is an association of the ‫( ברית שלום‬Num 25:13; Mal 2:5)97 with the ‫ חקת עולם‬in Num 18:23 (cf. Exod 29:9), the eternal statute of the priesthood with Aaron and the tribe of Levi.98 In sum, Ben Sira may be associating all the above priestly covenants together through harmonization. 95  Segal vocalizes ‫ נדבו לבו‬in Sir 45:23e as qal with a pronominal suffix. The words ‫נדבו לבו‬ are slightly different from Exod 25:2, 35:29, which are both qal without pronominal suffix. It is reasonable to conjecture Ben Sira added a suffix because Exod 35:21 contains two very similar phrases to ‫נדבו לבו‬, which are ‫ נדבה רוחו‬and ‫נשאו לבו‬. Both cases are qal with pronominal suffix. Incidentally, Exod 35:21 is reminiscent of the Greek for Sir 45:23f, which reads ἐν ἀγαθότητι προθυμίας ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, instead of “heart.” In the LXX ψυχή corresponds to ‫נפש‬, and Exod 35:21, above, is the only biblical witness to a variation with this idiom. The Syriac digresses from Sir 45:23f, saying that Phinehas prayed, which indicates the Syriac’s post-Temple context. In the Hebrew the full effect of this line is to give a cultic interpretation which stresses Phinehas’s sacrifice performed for atonement on behalf of the Israelites, as God suggests in Num 25:13. 96  A similar phrase begun with an infinitive is used earlier of Aaron (Sir 45:16), containing a direct quotation from Lev 16:34. 97  It is the ‫ חקת עולם‬from Exod 29:9 and Num 18:23 which Mal 2:5 describes as ‫ברית אתו‬ ‫החיים ושלום‬. 98  Olyan, “Priesthood,” 270, discusses the ‫ חקת עולם‬in the context of Ben Sira’s view of the Aaronide lineage.

58

Chapter 2

Ben Sira’s use of ‫ חק‬and ‫ברית‬ Phinehas: (Sir 45:24a) ‫הקים חק‬ Aaron/Phinehas: (Sir 45:24b) ‫ברית שלום‬ Aaron/Phinehas: (Sir 45:24d) ‫כהנה גדולה עד עולם‬ Aaron: (Sir 45:6) ‫חק עולם‬ David: (Sir 47:11c) ‫חק ממלכת‬ (Sir 45:25ab) ‫בריתו עם דוד‬

Num 18:23 (cf. Exod 29:9) ‫חקת עולם‬ Mal 2:5 ‫בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשלום‬ Num 25:13 ‫ברית כהנת עולם‬ Num 18:23 (cf. Exod 29:9) ‫חקת עולם‬ 2 Sam 7:13,16 ‫ממלכתו עד עולם‬ Ezek 34:25 ‫ברית שלום‬

The comparison with David (Sir 45:25a) merits further possibilities for the harmonization of covenants. In Ezek 34:25, the ‫ ברית שלום‬comes after God’s promises to David, and 2 Sam 7:13, 16 mention the ‫ ממלכת עד עולם‬with David. These examples, especially Num 18:23, explain how ‫ חק‬as meaning covenant makes sense: Ben Sira sees the eternal priestly covenant as both a ‫ברית שלום‬ and a ‫חקת עולם‬, and further points out that a ‫ ברית שלום‬is established for David as well as for the Levite priesthood.99 Ben Sira writes of Aaron in Sir 45:6 ‫וישימהו לחק עולם‬. In the same way, ‫חק‬ is again found with David: ‫( חק ממלכת‬Sir 47:11c). These connections, tabled above for comparison, all indicate that Ben Sira is making an exegetical connection between Aaron, David, and Phinehas with the use of ‫ חק‬and ‫ברית שלום‬. In Qumran literature, ‫ חק‬refers to individual laws and statues but is never a synonym for covenant.100 In LBH and BH, ‫ חק‬often has a sense of fate, a development found in Ben Sira (for example Sir 41:3). However, ‫ חק‬as a synonym of ‫ ברית‬is not found elsewhere in extant Second Temple Hebrew texts besides Ben Sira.101 Thus, Ben Sira’s use of ‫ חק‬as “fate” demonstrates that he is aware of a developed meaning of ‫חק‬, in addition to the standard meaning of statute. In sum, however, exegesis of Num 18:23 is a stronger reason for Ben Sira’s use of ‫ חק‬with ‫ברית‬. Another likely possibility is that Ben Sira uses each word with a slightly different meaning, and thus presents two ways of interpreting the divine promise with Phinehas.

99  Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture,” 178, argues Ben Sira viewed the priesthood as taking over the promises made to the Davidic line. 100  DCH 3:299–302. For an example of ‫ קום‬and ‫חק‬: 4Q414 13:3: ‫והקם לו חוק כפור‬. 4Q417 2 i 14–16 has ‫ חוק‬of remembrance. 101  The Syriac does not include a covenant of peace, instead reading that “God swore to him with oaths” (Sir 45:24 Syr), perhaps regarding Ben Sira’s use of ‫ חק‬as different from a covenant.

Noah and Phinehas

59

The meaning of ‫ חק‬in Sir 45:24a may be further clarified by linguistic comparison with Greek and Aramaic. Aitken writes that the translator of Sirach rendered both ‫ חק‬and ‫ ברית‬as διαθήκη, much like the double meaning of ‫קימא‬ in Aramaic.102 The Aramaic might have influenced Ben Sira’s understanding of ‫חק‬, and further convinced him to read ‫ חקת עולם‬in Num 18:23 as eternal covenant and to make a connection with ‫ ברית‬in Num 25:11–13. It is certainly vital to discussion in this case if both words are translated by a single word in both Aramaic and Greek that a shared meaning is implied. These features are not positive-proof evidence of a textual quotation, since the possibility is that his use of terms originated in his knowledge of a range of Hebrew sources. What is clear is that the language Ben Sira uses does echo at least the terminology of Numbers here, and that he brings new meaning into the word “statue” by making it a synonym of “covenant.” Finally, the verb with which the ‫ חק‬is established, ‫ קום‬in hiphil, is the more common verb for creating covenants in Priestly material, as discussed above. The hiphil of ‫ קום‬for making covenants continued from Priestly material of the Torah and was carried over into Qumran literature.103 Sir 45:24cd Sir 45:24cd is a mix of Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew expressions. Biblical Hebrew words that are unusual to the rest of Ben Sira can indicate textual reuse, although they sometimes may also be the result of poetic balance in the line. Ben Sira uses ‫ לכן‬once (Sir 45:24) and once as ‫( לכם‬46:8), preferring ‫ כן‬and ‫על כן‬.104 The word ‫ לכן‬is not attested in Qumran literature. Incidentally, though, ‫ לכן‬is the first word of Num 25:12.105

102  James K. Aitken, “The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation, eds. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey, JSJSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 110 (95–126). Also see Wright, No Small Difference, 178–81, and Marko Marttila, “ ‘Statute’ or ‘Covenant’? Remarks on the Rendering of the Word ‫ חק‬in the Greek Ben Sira,” in Scripture in Transition, eds. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, JSJSup 126 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 73–87. 103  Abegg, Bowley, and Cook, Concordance, 2:651–53. DCH 7:231–35. 104  Ben-Ḥayyim, 177–78. 105  Rudolf Smend, Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebräischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Reimer, 1907), 47, lists other cases (Sir 2:13; 18:11, 12; 34:13; 39:32) where the Hebrew is not extant and the Greek is διὰ τοῦτο as it is in Sir 45:24, though other cases of διὰ τοῦτο where the Hebrew is extant are usually ‫על כן‬, ‫בעבור כן‬, or ‫למען‬. The chances are therefore slim that there are other cases of ‫ לכן‬in the non-extant Hebrew.

60

Chapter 2

The words ‫( לכלכל מקדש‬Sir 45:24b) are an unusual phrasing of Levitical priestly duty.106 The pilpel of ‫כּוּל‬, ‫כלכל‬, is found in the Hebrew Bible referring to food and households, not to priestly duties. Looking elsewhere, however, the hiphil of ‫ כּוּל‬is found in 1 Kgs 8:64, ‫מהכיל את־העלה‬, which is similar to the use of the word in Sir 45:24b.107 There is little likelihood that this is a quotation, though, since Ben Sira uses the pilpel of ‫ כּוּל‬in a wide variety of ways not found in the Hebrew Bible: remaining (Sir 6:20), withstanding (43:3), or maintaining (45:24, 49:9). The best comparison is with 4QShirShabbf (4Q405) 18.2: ‫לכלכל קדושים‬. As Ben Sira’s phrase is corroborated by first-century BCE text 4QShirShabb, “to maintain holiness” might be a Late Biblical Hebrew expression, or evidence of a LBH preference for the pilpel over the hiphil for “maintain.”108 The interspersed quotation continues with the next phrases ‫אשר תהיה לו‬ ‫( ולזרעו‬Sir 45:24c) and ‫( כהנה גדולה עד עולם‬Sir 45:24d). Both of these hemistitchs use words and phrases present almost exactly as found in Num 25:13, which reads, ‫והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם תחת אשר קנא לאלהיו ויכפר‬ ‫על־בני ישראל‬. The Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature refer to both high priests and eternal priesthoods, for example ‫ כהנת עולם‬in 1QSb 3:26, but never an eternal high priesthood as Ben Sira does.109 The phrase ‫כהנה גדולה עד‬ ‫ עולם‬seems to be Ben Sira’s own. The emphasis on the eternal high priesthood makes this statement distinct. The statement is also a confident declaration that the Aaronide priestly line will last forever.110 Mizrahi demonstrates from epigraphic, linguistic, and textual evidence that the archaic term ‫ כהן גדול‬was still used into the Hellenistic period despite the rise of the Exilic/Post-Exilic term ‫כהן הראש‬.111 The term ‫ כהן גדול‬is not in Numbers 25, but it is used in Ben Sira and on coins in the early Hasmonean 106  The Greek version adds to this line προστατεῖν ἁγίων καὶ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, maintenance of the people, a change which is reminiscent of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid policies of having native religious leaders as local administration, or the later dual priest-ruler roles of the Hasmoneans, although this political impression could also be due to the inclusion of David in Sir 45:25a. The Syriac reads instead: ‫“( ܕܢܒܢܐ ܠܗ ܡܕܢܚܐ‬that he would build an altar to Him [God]”). An altar is not mentioned in the covenant of Numbers 25 but could refer to the altar in Numbers 18, or more generally to priestly duties. 107  Meaning “to contain the offering.” 108  Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). 109  Ben Sira also mentions priests in Sir 7:29; 7:31; 50:1; 50:16. 110  See discussion in Chapter Two. 111  Noam Mizrahi, “The History and Linguistic Background of Two Hebrew Titles for the High Priest,” JBL 130:4 (2011): 687–705. The line between Ben Sira’s textual reuse and

Noah and Phinehas

61

Period, coins that incorporated paleo-Hebrew lettering as part of a patriotic agenda.112 Ben Sira’s ‫ כהנה גדולה‬strengthens Mizrahi’s argument, but Ben Sira’s use of the archaic ‫ כהן גדול‬also displays a preference for the antiquated to the new, which is appropriate for the description of a longstanding priesthood that is hoped to continue forever. A similar sentiment must have been felt by the Hasmoneans in the establishment of their legitimacy, exemplified also their case with the use of paleo-Hebrew on coins. In the case of Ben Sira and perhaps also the Hasmonean priestly rulers, ‫ כהן הראש‬might have sounded too modern by contrast, and thus ‫ כהן גדול‬could have been preferred for emphasizing a longstanding and enduring legitimacy. By comparison, in the Greek Sirach the reference to the Oniad priesthood as eternally enduring is left out, as pointed out by Tobias Funke.113 Sir 45:25ab In Sir 45:25ab, the covenant with David is mentioned (2 Sam 7:13, 16), and David is son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah.114 David’s father Jesse is from Bethlehem in Judah (Ruth 1:1; 1 Sam 17:58), and his tribal descendance from Judah son of Jacob is mentioned in 1 Chr 2:3–15.115 Blood may again be at the fore of Ben Sira’s mind since both covenants—eternal priesthood and eternal kingship— are established according to bloodlines.116 Ben Sira is the only extant ancient reference to David or Jesse belonging to the tribe of Judah, not just from Bethlehem. The puzzle, as with similar cases of interpretation in Ben Sira, is how far back the idea goes. In 4Q380–383 (the Apocryphal Psalms), the tribe of Judah is exalted (for example 4Q381 24:5), but the connection between Jesse and the tribe of Judah is not explicit as it is here in Ben Sira.

pseudo-classicism or pseudo-archaizing (as in Carr, Writing, 208) is a difference in terminology. Joosten, “Pseudo-Classicisms,” 146–59. 112  Ya’akov Meshorer, ‫( מטבעות היהודים בימי בית שני‬Tel Aviv: Am HaSefer, 1967). For Hasmonean coins as patriotic agenda, see: Lindsey A. Askin, “Jubilees’ Attitudes to Hebrew and Writing in Historical Context” (M.A. diss., Durham University, 2012). 113  Tobias Funke, “Phinehas and the Other Priests in Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, eds. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman, LHBOTS 456 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 257–76. 114  See discussion of “son-of” patronyms above in Sir 45:23a. 115  See also 4Q381 24:5. 116  Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006).

62

Chapter 2

David is mentioned elsewhere in Sir 49:4 as one of three good kings along with Hezekiah and Josiah. The “house of David” is mentioned again in Sir 48:15, 48:22, and 51:12 in the Hebrew only. The Syriac version in this passage lacks the word covenant, connecting the reference to David to the following line as found in the Greek (Sir 45:25c). Yet in the Hebrew, Ben Sira connects Davidic kingship as closely as possible with priesthood and ancestry—with both priestly and kingly lines established firmly with covenants. Sir 45:25cd In Sir 45:25c, scholarly views vary over the treatment of ‫נחלת אש‬.117 Smend, Segal, and Clines suggest that ‫ אש‬is a shortened spelling of ‫איש‬, making the phrase “inheritance of man,” especially in light of the Greek.118 Olyan leaves the issue open.119 However, as Jeremy Corley notes, Josh 13:14 clarifies why the line in Hebrew should read “fire,” not “man”: ‫רק לשבט הלוי להם נתן נחלה אשי‬ ‫( יהוה אלהי ישראל הוא נחלת כאשר דבר־לו‬Josh 13:14 MT).120 While ‫ ִא ֵשי‬is a different word from ‫ ֵאׁש‬, perhaps Ben Sira thought of them as derived from the same root. The Greek (υἱοῦ ἐξ υἱοῦ μόνου) and Syriac versions understood ‫ נחלת אש‬as a reference to kingship.121 Aitken argues that this may be the result of confusion on the part of the grandson of Ben Sira over the spelling of ‫ אש‬and a mistake of ‫ כבודו‬for ‫ לבדו‬in Sir 45:24c.122 Besides these reasons, we do not find another example of ‫ אש‬instead of ‫ איש‬in other examples of ‫ איש‬in the manuscript witnesses of Ben Sira (Sir 3:11; 8:2, 12; 9:18). The words ‫ לפני כבודו‬in Sir 45:25c refer to God as “His Glory.” While elsewhere in his exant Hebrew text, Ben Sira uses the word ‫ כבוד‬of both God and humans (for example Sir 47:20), in this case ‫ כבודו‬combined with the prepositional ‫ לפני‬recalls the presence of God in the desert Tabernacle, the Divine Presence (Deut 5:24; 1 Sam 4:21). Besides this association, there are also numerous references to the glory of God in the Hebrew Bible such as Ezek 43:2, 117  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 508; 510; 514. 118  Smend, Weisheit, 437; 335. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 316. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 510. DCH 1:401; 5:661. 119  Olyan, “Priesthood,” 285. 120  Jeremy Corley, “Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach,” in The Septuagint and Messianism, ed. M.A. Knibb (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), 309 (301–12). See also Olyan, “Priesthood,” 284–85. 121  James D. Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective,” in Crises and Perspectives, ed. A.S. van der Woude (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 113–115 (107–23). Martin favours the Hebrew over the Greek and Syriac, agreeing with Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 77–88. 122  Aitken, “Glory,” 18.

Noah and Phinehas

63

Prov 25:2, and ‫ אל־הכבוד‬in Ps 29:3. Moreover, there is evidence that “His Glory” was a standalone title or euphemism for God at least in the Qumran literature: “thrones of His Glory” (4QShirShabbd 1.1.25; 11QShirShabb 1:6), “Temples of His Glory” (11QShirShabb 1:7), “wonder of His Glory” (4QAgesb 1.2.3), and simply ‫( כבודו‬1 QS 4:18; 4Q154 1:2).123 Aitken notes that Ben Sira refers regularly to the Divine Presence as God’s glory (Sir 36:14; 42:17c–d; 42:16b).124 Finally, Aitken argues that reading ‫ כבודו‬as “His glory” further clarifies the reading of ‫ אש‬as “fire” earlier in Sir 45:24c, by revealing a more appropriate liturgical-sacrificial context for the line. Due to this liturgical context, Josh 13:14, and the manuscript evidence above, ‫ אש‬in ‫ נחלת אש‬is not a scribal error for ‫איש‬. “Inheritance of fire” and “inheritance of Aaron” in Sir 45:25cd (Num 18:7, 23–24; Josh 13:14) are another case of liturgical language and the harmonization of sources within Numbers, linking Phinehas’s covenant in Numbers 25 to that of Aaron. Sir 45:25ef The final two lines of the Phinehas section (Sir 45:25e–26) are a blessing for the priesthood that conclude both the Phinehas and Aaron sections (Sir 45:6–22).125 The other prayers in Ben Sira are Sir 22:27–23:6 (a prayer for prudence), 50:22– 24, and 51:1–12. The last two are his final prayers for Simon and for himself, respectively. Within the Praise of the Fathers, Sir 45:25e–26 is the only benediction that directly follows the description of any patriarch, except perhaps Simon (Sir 50:22–24). In this way, through benedictions, Ben Sira sets apart the priestly patriarchs from the other patriarchs. The benediction contains a number of terms often found in prayer language, but with some differences. To begin with ‫ועתה ברכו נא‬, in the Hebrew Bible ‫ נא‬does not usually follow ‫ברכו‬,126 except in one place: 1 Chr 29:20 reads ‫ ָב ְרכּו־נָ א‬. More often, though, ‫ נא‬follows ‫הנה‬, as in Gen 12:11. Elsewhere, Ben Sira uses ‫ נא‬at Sir 42:15, 44:1, and 50:22.127 The last example, Sir 50:22, is significant as it is the only other benediction in the text for a priest, making the two 123  DCH 4:353–54. 124  Aitken, “Glory,” 14–17. 125  In the Greek and Syriac versions, certain changes are made to the prayer. The Greek leaves out Sir 45:25e/f (Heb), while the Syriac reads, “Let us bless God who gave you wisdom of heart” (Sir 45:25d–26a Syr). The Syriac indicates that the Greek mss perhaps missed out the final lines of Sir 45:25. 126  The verb in Sir 45:25e is piel imperative m. plural. 127  Ben-Ḥayyim, 211.

64

Chapter 2

blessings in Ben Sira for Phinehas and Simon (Sir 45:25//50:22), both high priests.128 The word ‫ נא‬with other verbs is found in the Psalms (Ps 7:10; 50:22; 80:15; 115:2; 116:14, 18; 118:2, 3, 4, 25; 119:76, 108; 122:8; 124:1, 129:1). Forms of ‫ברך‬ including ‫ ברכו‬in piel (for example Ps 103:20) are found regularly in the Psalms. In the Qumran literature, ‫ נא‬is never found in combination with ‫ברך‬.129 In this respect, Qumran blessings share more characteristics with psalms language and Ben Sira rather than later rabbinic blessings.130 Ben Sira’s benediction formula is shaped by Late Biblical Hebrew as evidenced by 1 Chr 29:20, daily prayers which conventionally conclude with ‫ברך‬ ‫אדוני אשר‬,131 and festival prayers.132 Concluding prayers with blessings is a practice found frequently in Qumran literature.133 Ben Sira is similarly concluding Aaron and Phinehas with a blessing in Sir 45:25ef–26.134 The title of God in the blessing, ‫ייי הטוב‬, is also worth comment. The title is also found in 2 Chr 30:18 and Ps 118:1, 29, while “Bless the Lord for He is good” is sung in Ezr 3:11.135 The Greek version, however, leaves out “for He is good,” continuing instead, δῴη ὑμῖν σοφίαν ἐν καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν. Skehan argues that this means ‫ הטוב‬was an expansion in ms B, as it destroys the “balance of the poetic line.”136 Furthermore, neither is there an equivalent of ‫ הטוב‬in the Syriac, which strengthens Skehan’s argument.137 As the Greek and Syriac leave out any reference to God, there is no sure way of telling whether ‫ הטוב‬is original to the Hebrew with B as the only Hebrew witness for this line. 128  Beentjes, “The Praise of the Famous and its Prologue,” in Happy the One, 129–30 (123–33). 129  James K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (Louvain: Peeters, 2007), 99 (96–102). Abegg, Bowley, and Cook, Concordance, 1:160–63. 130  Bilha Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, trans. Jonathan Chipman (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 45. 131  Daniel Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 79–84. 132  Falk, Prayers, 183. 133  Falk, Prayers, 183. 134  Falk, Prayers, 79. 135  God is also called “good” in Ps 106:1 and 1 Chr 16:34. 136  Di Lella and Skehan, Ben Sira, 510. 137  The Divine Name as ‫ ייי‬is found throughout the Genizah Ben Sira manuscripts, and the practice is similar to ‫ יי‬in rabbinic texts, or the use of Paleo-Hebrew letters or the Tetrapuncta ···· with the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tov, Scribal Practices, 218–19). Mas1h uses ‫אדוני‬ or ‫עליון‬. Patrick W. Skehan, “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 13 (1980): 14–44. Also see James K. Aitken, “The God of the PreMaccabees: Designations of the Divine in the Early Hellenistic Period,” in The God of Israel, ed. Robert Gordon, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 246–66.

Noah and Phinehas

65

The expression ‫( המעטר אתכם כבוד‬Sir 45:25f) quotes Ps 8:6 ‫וכבוד וחדר‬ ‫תעטרהו‬. The phrase “crown of glory” is also found in 1 Pet 5:4, showing that Ben

Sira’s use of the term may indicate early significance for Psalm 8. While earlier in Sir 45:25c, “His Glory” referred to God, here Ben Sira uses the term to refer to the glory of humankind. The importance of Ps 8:6 in Second Temple Judaism may also be found from an epigraphic allusion to Ps 8:6 of “a whole people crowned in wisdom” (JIGRE 39).138 The reference in Ps 8:6 is specifically to humankind being created by God a little lower than angels and crowned in attributes of glory and honour.

Sir 45:26 In Sir 45:26 ‫ חכמת לב‬is similar to Sir 50:28 ‫ונותן על לבו יחכם‬. Sir 6:37 (A) has a similar sentiment: ‫והוא יבין לבך ׀ ואשר איותה יחכמך‬. Note that ms B does not transmit an extra line (Sir 45:26b) found in the Greek and Syriac, that echoes Ps 72:2. In the Greek and Syriac, the phrase ‫ חכמת לב‬loses any remaining craftsmanship connotation. In Exodus, Job, and Proverbs, there are many examples of “wisdom of heart” meaning craftsmanship.139 The one exception to this is in Ps 90:12: ‫לבב חכמה‬, in the context of gaining wisdom. Ben Sira uses the phrase so infrequently in a text full of wisdom sayings that it is hard not to notice his neglect of it. However, the other use of ‫ חכמת לבב‬is actually in Sir 50:23 (of Simon), which ties together the link with the priestly figures in the Praise to an even greater degree. In Sir 45:26c, ‫ לדורות עולם‬is a synonymous quotation of ‫ לזרעו … עולם‬in Num 25:13. The phrase ‫ לדורות עולם‬is also found in Gen 9:12 in the covenant with Noah. Ben Sira may have intentionally switched ‫ זרע‬for ‫ דור‬in a further echoing of Ps 106:31, where Phinehas’s deeds are reckoned to him as righteousness ‫לדר ודר עד עולם‬. On the other hand, ‫ לדורות עולם‬is found often in the Dead Sea Scrolls.140 This case then could be either a use of contemporary expression, or harmonization of Ps 106:31 and Num 25:13.141 In this line there are several

138  JIGRE 39 reads πανδήμῳ ἐθνικῇ ἐστέφετ’ ἐν σοφίᾳ. William Horbury and David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 139  See )‫ חכמת לב(ב‬in Exod 28:3, 31:6, 35:25, 35:35, 36:8; Job 9:4, 37:24; Prov 10:8, 11:29, 16:21. BDB, 315. 140  1QH 1.7.18, 6.11, 14.6; 4QBibPar 1.9; 4QpGena 1.5.4. DCH 2:428. 141  At Sir 46:26d the Greek reads καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν. The Syriac agrees with the Hebrew (“might”) here. Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 248–49. Antonino Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide, 222; 238.

66

Chapter 2

differences in the Greek and Syriac versions142 and an added hemistitch (“and govern his people in righteousness”), which has led commentators to either reconstruct a Sir 45:26b from the Greek, or transcribe the entire verse on one line.143 As mentioned in Chapter One, such echoing and evocation of wellknown passages from Hebrew texts conjures up the characteristic scribalism of Ben Sira: the recognizability of certain phrases at key points should evoke for his readers the tradition in which Ben Sira’s writing places itself as an example of good literature—tying a closer relationship between his text and the Hebrew literature he echoes. By evoking Numbers and Psalms, by drawing upon these texts in his composition—not just in general but also in language, Ben Sira signals to and exemplifies his literary accomplishment and knowledge as a scribe.

Phinehas and Other Sources

Hengel discusses the importance of the zeal of Phinehas in Second Temple literature, for example in connection with Levi in Jubilees and Aramaic Levi Document (ALD).144 2 Maccabees models Mattathias after Phinehas in 142  The Greek change (Sir 45:26cd) appears to be theological, resisting attributing these traits to humans. Moreover, in another change for the Syriac understanding of leadership, the Syriac interprets the Hebrew as “authority over all the generations forever.” Against: Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 248–49. The Syriac critical edition translates this as “of the world,” closer to the Rabbinic Hebrew definition of ‫עולם‬. There is no indication that the Hebrew or Syriac should read “world,” considering almost all other uses of ‫ ܕܥܠܡܐ‬in Ben Sira are “forever” (Barthélemy, Konkordanz, 290–91) and the Greek αὐτῶν here. The Syriac here hints that power/might is implied, since one meaning of ‫ ܫܘܠܛܢܗܘܢ‬can be “power.” The Greek reads strangely εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν, when it should probably read εἰς γενεὰς αἰώνων, suggested in Ziegler’s critical apparatus due to the Hebrew and Latin (aeternam fecit), Ziegler, Sapientia, 341. These arguments strengthen the translation of ‫( עולם‬and of ‫ )ܕܥܠܡܐ‬here as “forever” not “world.” 143  Peters (Liber Iesu, 122; Der jüngst weideraufgefundene hebräische Text, 248–249), Segal, ‫ספר בן־סירא‬, and Ben-Ḥayyim transcribe as found in B, but Lévi (Hebrew Text, 62) and Smend, Hebräisch, 51, reconstruct a Sir 45:26b. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 508; 510, add the Greek to the translation but note its absence in the Hebrew. Abegg, “MS B V verso,” and Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, transcribe as if it were one line in Hebrew. 144  Here by ALD I include the Genizah, Qumran, and Greek (parts of ALD extracted into the Testament of the Twelve Patriarches) witnesses of ALD. Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1–6. Levi is an important figure in both Jubilees and ALD, notably playing a role in the episode of his and Simon’s vengeance for Dinah (Jub. 30:5–18; ALD

Noah and Phinehas

67

d­ escribing Mattathias killing an idolatrous Israelite with zeal (1 Macc 2:24–27).145 Paul says he is zealous for God just as his audience is (Acts 22:3).146 Elsewhere Phinehas is a prophet of the judge Kenaz in Pseudo-Philo (LAB 28:1–4), mentioning his zealous actions in a speech before the battle against the Midianites (LAB 47:1–2).147 According to Josephus, Phinehas is an honourable warrior more than a priest.148 Josephus makes the idolatry and pride of Zimri more central to his sin in order to justify his death.149 Furthermore, the slaying of Zimri and Kosbah serves as the reason why Moses chose to wage war on the Midianites and why he let Phinehas lead the army (A.J. 4.156). The Baal Peor event sets the war against the Midianites into motion—the covenant with Phinehas is not mentioned in Antiquities.150 Philo’s discussion on Phinehas is concerned with why a person of great piety would slay evil people (Contempl. 1.45.300–304). When Phinehas kills Zimri, he is rewarded by Moses with an appointment to the rank of general in the war against the Midianites (Contempl. 1.45.306). That is, Phinehas is not rewarded by God with a covenant as in Numbers 25 and Ben Sira. Philo justifies Phinehas’s actions, arguing that if Zimri was not killed, the morality of the Israelite community would be put at risk through association with idolatry.151 By comparison, Ben Sira’s Phinehas is a thoroughly priestly figure. Phinehas’s actions are described in sacrificial overtones, and he is rewarded with the priestly covenant. Ben Sira’s priestly Phinehas contrasts strikingly with Philo’s justification of violence for virtue’s sake, and Josephus’s warrior-general. Ben 5:3, 6:3). Discussed in Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I Until 70 A.D., trans. David Smith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 178. 145  Hengel, Zealots, 151. For the full discussion see Hengel, Zealots, 146–79. See also J.J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence,” JBL 122 (2003): 3–21. 146  Hengel, Zealots, 177. 147  Louis H. Feldman, “The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus,” JQR 93 (2002): 315–45. 148   Josephus covers the Baal Peor event (A.J. 4.131–154), Phinehas as military general (A.J. 4.159–162), the delegation across the Jordan (A.J. 5.104–113), and Phinehas’s inheritance of the high priesthood (A.J. 5.119, 8.11). 149  Zimri’s speech declares Moses to be a tyrant more oppressive than the Egyptians (A.J. 4.147). 150  Josephus notes that the line of Zadok comes through Phinehas son of Eleazar (A.J. 7.110, 8.12). Cf. 1 Chr 24:3. 151   Philo also justifies Moses’s war against the Midianites along this same argument (Contempl. 1.45.305–314).

68

Chapter 2

Sira only briefly recalls Phinehas’s role as a military leader in the term ‫גבורה‬, preferring to emphasize his priestly identity. Not many Second Temple texts treat Phinehas, so we must look at other sources that are concerned with priestly lineage. In early Jewish literature, including early rabbinic texts, Levi is more important as a model of the priesthood.152 Ben Sira noticeably leaves out any dedicated remarks on Levi in the Praise of the Fathers, dedicating much more space to Aaron and Phinehas. In Sir 45:6 is Aaron said to be of the tribe of Levi—but Levi himself as a person receives no portrayal in the Praise of the Fathers. Ben Sira seems to have been an Aaronide supporter, rather than a pan-Levite or a Zadokite. The question of Levitical and Aaronide priestly rights is an issue beyond the scope of this present study, though a few texts can be discussed here briefly.153 Much of Chronicles is in favour of Levites, except for some places that are more Aaronide (1 Chr 15:4; 23:28; cf. 2 Chr 13:10). In other post-Exilic writings such as 1 Macc 7:14 and Tob 1:6, an Aaronide view is espoused: the priesthood is claimed by the direct line of Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. Josephus likewise traces the pre-Hasmonean priestly line through Aaron (A.J. 20.224– 241). Written during the third century bce, ALD marks trends of attitudes to the priesthood earlier than Ben Sira. Interestingly, ALD 13 bears comparisons with the wisdom sayings of Ben Sira. ALD, however, favours pan-Levite descent. Concerning Levi, ALD includes a vision of Levi in which Temple ritual laws are given and the eternal priesthood is established with Levi. Another example of priestly lineage concerns is Jubilees, as Jub. 31:13–17 adds a promise of eternal priesthood to Jacob’s blessing of Levi (cf. Gen 49:5–7) after avenging Dinah. In Jubilees, Levi has a vision about the priestly duties and lineage at Bethel (Jub. 32:1–9), which is quite similar to ALD. Both of these texts make it clear how crucial the divine establishment of the “covenant of peace” for an eternal priesthood was in the third and second centuries bce. While ALD and Jubilees focus on visions and divine messages, Ben Sira creates meaning out of Phinehas’s actions via sacrificial language and the reward of a priestly covenant which is plainly Aaronide. By comparison, Carr argues

152  Texts such as Sifre Numbers (ca. 300 ce) and Tg. Onq. Numbers (ca. 400 ce), expand on the Phinehas’s story by presenting Phinehas as a warrior. Robert Hayward, “Phinehas— The Same Is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition,” JJS 29:1 (1978): 22–34. 153  Ben Sira’s place in the disagreement between an Aaronide and pan-Levite priesthood is explored well in Olyan, “Priesthood,” 275–76; 285–86. For the topic in general see Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Noah and Phinehas

69

that Ben Sira pays attention most of all to Moses as a foil to Homer.154 In fact, however, Ben Sira gives far more space and prominence in the Praise of the Fathers to the high priests: Aaron, Phinehas, and Simon. The importance of the priests is also shown by the benedictions in Sir 45:25e–26 and Sir 50:22–24. The importance of Phinehas is, then, the importance of the Aaronide priesthood as an eternal institution, and of the divine covenant with Phinehas. In sum, priestly covenant and Aaronide lineage are central to Ben Sira in his portrayal of Phinehas.

Ben Sira’s Textual Reuse and Creativity Compared with Other Sources

Ben Sira’s textual reuse incorporates quotations and harmonizes multiple textual sources, with consistent closeness to his sources. His textual reuse through quotations, key words, and harmonization of sources is similar to other cases of textual reuse or “biblical interpretation” in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple Jewish texts discussed in the sections above. On the other hand, in contrast to other Second Temple sources, Ben Sira does not rely on expansions and anecdotal stories to reach his point (Josephus, Philo, Jubilees, ALD, etc.). By comparison, he is restrained and subtle, with few exceptions (Sir 50:25–26). There are both implicit quotations and allusions at work in his text.155 Ben Sira nevertheless shares with other early Jewish writers and pseudepigrapha strong textual reuse and harmonization of sources. One similar phenomenon identified by Wright is the presence of passages that summarize entire traditions (Sir 16:7; 45:1–5, 18–19, 23–24).156 Using multiple texts together in harmonization is reminiscent of the much later rabbinic exegetical technique of transposing two unrelated biblical passages. In Qumran literature, this exegetical technique is found in 4QRP, which

154  Carr, Writing, 212. Carr is citing Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (London: Harvard University Press, 1988), 170–74, 191. 155  As mentioned previously, Lange and Weigold define an implicit quotation (without quotation marker) as the use of four shared words, and an implicit allusion as three shared words. Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 19–29. 156  Wright, No Small Difference, 165–70. Wright finds that the translator does not always follow the Hebrew’s summarization in the same way, yet it is nevertheless interesting to note that summarizing tendencies are shared for the large part as a useful way of recalling the reader’s attention back to well-known “biblical” stories.

70

Chapter 2

sometimes transposes texts onto each other, such as Lev 11:7 onto Deut 14:8a.157 Likewise, some harmonizations in the Samaritan Pentateuch were made on the basis of nearby passages, such as changing ‫ איש ואשתו‬for ‫ זכר ונקבה‬in Gen 7:2 (cf. Gen 1:27; 6:19; 7:3, 9).158 Similar techniques are found in the Targumim159 and Qumran biblical manuscripts.160 The remaining question is how Ben Sira and other early Jewish scribes physically handled texts and sources for composition: how textual reuse was physically produced. Michael Fishbane and Tov present plenty of cases of scribal exegesis at work in Hebrew texts.161 The physicality and materiality of Ben Sira’s method of composition, discussed in Chapter One, bear upon whether the variations in his quotations (synonymous and indirect quotations) and his harmonization of sources can be solely attributed to memory error, stages of drafting and editing, the use of writing aides such as notebooks, or a combination of all three. Studies of the Mediterranean world and early Christianity have explored source-handling in ancient writing by examining the texts of Greek and Roman writers (such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Catullus, Virgil, and Pliny the Elder) and early Christian writers (for example Paul, Jerome, and Eusebius).162 These 157  Zahn, Rethinking, 168–72. On 4QRP (including 4Q364–367) see Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 39–59. 158  Tov, Textual Criticism, 86–88. 159  The same general translation and exegetical techniques as found in the Targumim are atomization, actualization (updating), doublets, and translational changes that are theologically or logic-based choices—similar to techniques in the Greek Bible. Tosef. Sanh. 7; Sifra, Introduction; Ab. R. Nathan 37. Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 225–29 (217–54). 160  Gen 25:20; Lev 4:25b. Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 83. 161  Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Tov, Textual Criticism, 258–85. Carr, Writing, 98–99 (Greece); 209 (Ben Sira), notes memory technique, but most of his evidence concerns literary expression (“hearing”) and memory as an ideal of training (Writing, 71–77; 125; 137). 162  Thomas, Orality. Thomas, “Archaic,” 33–50. Small, Wax Tablets. Inowlocki, Eusebius, especially 35. Megan Hale Williams, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 166. Williams is mistaken in her calculations because the library she imagines for Jerome would be larger than that of Julius Caesar’s father-in-law, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, found in the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum. Her estimates of book costs are also problematic, including assuming that Jerome would want to own every book he read for his writing, when book borrowing and library visiting was common (Cicero, Att. 8.11.7, 8.12.6, 9.9.2, 4.14.1, 13.31.2 [of Marcus Cato],

Noah and Phinehas

71

finds have been corroborated by material culture and the archaeological evidence of libraries and education.163 As mentioned above, studies have shown that tables or desks were not used for reading, writing, or teaching throughout the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Mediterranean civilizations.164 The earliest evidence of tables for reading or writing is late antiquity.165 Ancient writers used compositional aides such as notebooks (wax tablets, papyrus notebooks, membranae) for composition and compiling source material (for example florilegia) for all types of literature: speeches, poetry, history, and commentaries.166 Harmonization is the result of prior reading of multiple sources, even and 4.10.1). Against Williams, Jerome could have used the library of Damasus while working as his secretary, as well as those of other powerful connections later. Williams, Monk, 50–54; 63. Casson, Libraries, 27, says that in Classical Greece a cheap book was about a day’s wage for a labourer. 163  For example, the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum. Sider, Library of the Villa Dei Papiri. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence,” 233–67. 164  See T.C. Skeat for evidence about physical scroll handling, Skeat, “Two Notes,” 372–78; and the cost of papyrus, Skeat, “Was Papyrus Regarded.” Yet see also Martial 14.84, noted by Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 202–3, concerning a wooden holder that kept edges of a scroll from fraying while in use and could keep a scroll held open. Still, literary and material culture evidence, including visual depictions of reading and writing, show readers and writers without desks and tables. Lindsey A. Askin, “What Did Ben Sira’s Bible and Desk Look Like?” in Readers and Their Scriptures: Engaging the Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity, eds. John Dunne and Garrick Allen, AJEC (Leiden: Brill, 2018), discusses the size of table furniture in the ancient world, particularly the emergence of large tables in the Hellenistic world used for manual craftsmanship outdoors, which only became popular in the Roman world. These large tables were overtly associated with craftwork and not found indoors, and never found in “literary” visualizations of reading or writing. Tables in homes were used primarily for dining and kept out of the way (hence their small size) when not in use, while in banks large tables (trapezai) were used for counting coins but not for recording sums. Likewise, high and long worktables were used by some craftsmen but, for wealthier individuals these tables would have carried lower social connotations of “working-class” furniture. See: G.M.A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans (London: Phaidon, 1966), 63–72; 113; figs. 377, 379, 420. Alexandra Croom, Roman Furniture (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2007). Jean-Paul Descœudres, “History and historical sources,” in The World of Pompeii, eds. John J. Dobbins and Pedar W. Foss (London: Routledge, 2007), 12 (9–27). Small, Wax Tablets, 150–51. Only in a well-known Pompeiian relief are writing tools found on a long table (Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 201), but this is a decorative arrangement and the table seems to be long to suit the dimensions of the panel, which is rectangular. 165  Small, Wax Tablets. Cribiore, Gymnastics. Johnson and Parker, eds., Literacies. Askin, “Bible and Desk.” Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 198–200. 166  Askin, “Bible and Desk.”

72

Chapter 2

especially of already familiar sources, and often the use of notebooks, followed by composition (sometimes mental, especially for Roman writers) and editing on erasable material. This method is a consistent picture across antiquity. Even in textual transmission, that is the practice of producing new copies of the same text, scribes copied from oral recitation in a group setting, not by eyesight individually.167 In this way we can visualize the physicality and materiality of how Ben Sira handled his sources in composition. Without the use of tables as reading and writing surfaces, Ben Sira’s quotations and allusions are better understood as part of the reading and drafting processes through reading scrolls and perhaps taking notes in a notebook—leaving composition and drafting to be done at a later stage. This environment of likely furniture and technology of writing leaves little room for the popular anachronistic imagining of a “very large table” upon which Ben Sira would have necessarily opened up numerous scrolls from which to copy for inspiration, with one hand on the textual source and the other hand writing. Such a visualization, while popular in Western art as a symbol of truthful scriptural transmission, is simply not represented by practices of textual culture in antiquity. Since Ben Sira uses the same strategies of quotation and harmonization, as found in the textual analysis, and the material culture for writing and reading is almost identical, it is arguable that he too used prior study, compositional aides, editing, and perhaps mental composition in the formation of his text. This material culture of scroll handling creates the balance of textual reuse in Ben Sira, not the copying out of quotations while writing with one finger remaining on Genesis or Numbers.168 167  Johnson, Bookrolls, 39–84. When comparing both methods of copying out a text, one quickly realizes that having (or being) a secretary or amanuensis recording words spoken is much faster and yields far better results than visually copying out in a solitary mode, which is both slow and painstaking. 168  This is the picture presented still in recent scholarship, for example, Frank Ueberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). Ueberschaer’s overall assumption is that Ben Sira was working and writing with a Hebrew canon laid out visually before him. Ueberschaer examines Ben Sira’s views on education, arguing that there was no formal education in ancient Israel until Ben Sira solely on the basis of Sir 51:23 (Weisheit aus der Begegnung, 60–108), and concludes that when Ben Sira speaks of wisdom and learning he is advocating a charismatic personal encounter with Wisdom. There are many problems with this, not least of which is his assumption that there is no evidence for schools in ancient Israel and that epigraphy is not convincing evidence of education (87–104), which is different from the picture presented more recently by Carr, Writing. If Jewish education was the result of Hellenistic influence or a reaction

Noah and Phinehas

73

No strategy of textual reuse is entirely without exception. Tov acknowledges that Second Temple scribes’ copying practices are not thoroughly systematic in every single case,169 but that overall patterns suggest a common background of training in making these recurring compositional and copying choices. Joosten also suggests that the Greek translators often had their own exegetical logic, though again not entirely systematic in every single case.170 Likewise, Ben Sira’s strategies too are patterns, not rigid rules without exception. While it has been theoretically understood that Ben Sira is a scribe, the meaning of the word becomes clearer when Ben Sira’s textual interpretation is connected with his Second Temple context and the material culture of scribalism. Conclusions This chapter’s textual analysis and comparison with other relevant sources have revealed several new conclusions about Noah and Phinehas in Ben Sira. With the results found in this chapter, we can begin to produce a more solid characterization of Ben Sira’s scribalism. Summary of Textual Findings in Sir 44:17–18 and 45:23–26 The central concern in Sir 44:17–18 is the covenant of Noah. To project this theme, Ben Sira largely uses words and phrases from Genesis 6–9 with direct and synonymous quotation and allusion. This practice contrasts strongly with against it, then I would expect Ben Sira’s text to give more justification and defense of his school. However, the attention he draws to his school is nearly an afterthought. The suggestion of personal encounter as education is based on the premise that Ben Sira has some first-person perspective statements for literary effect, and seems to be a way of coping with the already problematic conclusion that there is not really a strong tradition of education in Israel for Ben Sira to call to mind. For a discussion of how archaeological evidence of trade and luxury goods indicates the presence of scribes and schools in monarchic Judah, see Jamieson-Drake, Scribes. In a similar vein, Ben Sira’s own literary accomplishments could be seen as evidence of education, as does the Hebrew literary corpus. 169  Tov, Textual Criticism, 260–85. 170  Jan Joosten, “Al tiqré as a Hermeneutical Device and the Septuagint,” in Die Septuaginta, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 389 (377–90).

74

Chapter 2

Jubilees, Philo, LAB, and Josephus. Moreover, far from Ben Sira’s concerns, in comparison to other early Jewish writers, are questions of historicity and the establishing of festivals. With Phinehas, Ben Sira stresses the priestly covenant. He harmonizes Numbers 25 and Psalm 106 and echoes the language of each text. Phinehas’s slaying of Zimri, interpreted by Ben Sira as a freewill offering, is rewarded with the covenant of eternal high priesthood, which harmonizes priestly covenants in Numbers 18 and 25. The use of Psalm 106 is notable because of the psalm’s similarity to the Praise of the Fathers. These same textual reuse techniques of textual quotation and harmonization are found throughout Ben Sira. The title of Phinehas (Sir 45:23a) and the final benediction (Sir 45:25e–26) reveal the importance of the Aaronide priestly lineage for Ben Sira. His sociocultural background is at play in this, perhaps indicating a close familiarity with priestly circles or a personal connection to priests. However, his espousal of Aaronide priestly lineage is subtle and contained when compared with espousals of pan-Levite lineage in ALD and Jubilees, for example. Ben Sira’s textual reuse is highly concentrated in these two small sections on important figures, both of which have covenants, and one of which is a high priest. It is surprising then, that his opinions are as contained as they are compared with other Second Temple sources. Ben Sira’s subtle interpretations (priesthood, renewal of the earth) have been argued to give something of Ben Sira’s primary agendas or concerns. Upon further examination, perhaps they are better seen as indicators of his attitudes towards writing in general: his textual reuse is displayed, perhaps, for the sake of expressing his skill at such a concentrated technique of composition. Conclusions for Ben Sira’s Individual Scribalism Ben Sira’s composition is chiefly characterized by recognizable textual reuse. That scribes were concerned with the recognizability of quotations is shown partly by the fact that, after learning the script, quotations were the first teaching resources encountered by young students in the form of teachers’ models: wooden boards with quotations written on them for copying.171 Another example of “quotation consciousness” is Jerome, who consciously tried to avoid the recognizable rhetorical style or Cicero and Origen, instead dressing his writing with “biblical” allusion.172 Good literature echoed well-known texts as a way of 171  Cribiore, Gymnastics, 19; 28; 31–34. Cribiore, Writing. 172  Williams, Monk, 48–49.

Noah and Phinehas

75

displaying skill. Strong textual reuse often characterizes Ben Sira’s scribalism, as in the highly concentrated textual reuse in Phinehas and Noah, displaying his knowledge as a learned scribe. After comparison with Noah and Phinehas in Josephus, Philo, Jubilees, ALD, and the early translations of the Hebrew Bible, Ben Sira’s creativity is found mainly in his skill at selecting and adapting his sources. The dramatic retelling of the story of Phinehas in Philo (Vit. Mos. 1:300–304) emphasizes the justified zeal of the hero, and the divine blessing of the eternal priesthood. By comparison, Ben Sira’s interpretations are by far more subtle than other Second Temple texts we have examined, hiding his opinions behind his textual reuse. His constant subtlety suggests that his aim is not to promote his own interpretations or to add to the stories, but simply to display his skill and education. This is especially likely since his priestly views could be understood as his historical background being from a priestly family, or close to priestly circles, and directing the reader’s attention to Simon II, an Oniad high priest.173 His proclivities towards the priesthood might be less agenda and more indicative of his personal surroundings or life-setting. That being said, it is still quite plausible that Ben Sira could have held positive views of the priesthood without being in close proximity to priestly circles. It might be claimed that Ben Sira’s creativity is insignificant if he does not have a recognizable agenda. The opposite is true, rather. We may conclude that his scribalism is of a distinct character from many other Second Temple sources due both to his period of activity (pre-Maccabean) and his social location. Ben Sira’s creativity is expressed in his selection and composition of a new text rich with quotation and allusion, with harmonization and synthesis demonstrating ease and faithfulness to the text. In sum, Ben Sira’s concentration of textual reuse in his portrayals of Noah and Phinehas point towards the argument that his “agenda” consists of the sheer display of such textual reuse in the first place. This literary display is not merely an end in itself. It exemplifies an idea of “bookishness” in Jewish literature during Ben Sira’s time.

173  Stadelman, Ben Sira, 25–26; Olyan, “Priesthood,” 285. Others doubt his priestly association: Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Aaron’s Polyvalent Role according to Ben Sira,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes, eds. Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol, DCLS 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011) 52 (27–56); Maurice Gilbert, “Ben Sira dans la tradition,” in Maurice Gilbert, Ben Sira: Recueil d’Études (Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 65 (61–84).

76

Chapter 2

In conclusion, the physicality and materiality of scribal culture demonstrate, in a practical way, the extent of literary knowledge and accomplishment performed through Ben Sira’s textual reuse. Ben Sira’s reuse of texts evokes textual performance and a solid grounding in scribal training. Furthermore, the recognizability of these texts in Ben Sira is not just an end in itself, but an indication of their importance as literary cultural markers in Ben Sira’s time.

Chapter 3

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah: Multiple Source Handling and Harmonization Introduction In the previous chapter, many direct and indirect or interspersed quotations were found in the short sections on Phinehas and Noah. To better understand Ben Sira’s scribalism and textual reuse, we turn now to two more selections also from the Praise of the Fathers: Sir 48:17–25 on Hezekiah-Isaiah and Sir 49:1–3 on Josiah, examples of his reuse of multiple sources rather than single sources. Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah would be good samples because they have more than one major textual source and Ben Sira appears to utilize both. Hezekiah is a medium-length section where there are two or even three large separate sources (Kings, Isaiah, and Chronicles). Josiah is a shorter piece of text but still contains a large amount of potential harmonization (Kings and Chronicles). In analysing them both, we might discern potential patterns of preference for one major source or another. Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah present evidence of how Ben Sira viewed rulers, what qualities he valued in them, and whether or not these values are distinct from or opposed to those he recognized in high priests. Considering this, our analysis should examine also Ben Sira’s treatment of Isaiah in the context of Second Temple Judaism and of Hezekiah and Josiah as rulers, particularly his use of metaphor in his portrayal of Josiah. We might also consider the place of the kings of Judah in the Praise of the Fathers as a whole. Wright has argued that Ben Sira’s treatment of kingship indicates a distinct preference for priests in the Praise and for espousing God as the ideal ruler, against the idea of an earthly ruler.1 Isaiah, portrayed as Hezekiah’s prophet, may also be considered to be part of Ben Sira’s perspectives on kingship. We can look at this issue in terms of how Ben Sira’s sociocultural sphere of operation affects his portrayals of Hezekiah, Isaiah, and Josiah.

1  Wright, “Kingship,” 76–91.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_005

78

Chapter 3

Introduction to Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

Ben Sira draws upon Kings, Isaiah, and Chronicles for Sir 48:17–25 and Kings and Chronicles for Sir 49:1–3. The relationship between Isaiah 36–39 and 2 Kings 18–21 is thought to be an example of text reuse of Kings or an earlier version of Kings by Isaiah.2 The complex relationship between Kings and Chronicles is still debated. The old position was that Chronicles used Kings, thus downplaying the importance of the study of Chronicles in scholarship until more recent theories emerged.3 Gary N. Knoppers points out that Chronicles is often more “primitive” than Kings at certain points, showing that Chronicles is not a simple expansive recension of Kings. He argues that both may share a common earlier source or perhaps that Chronicles used a much earlier version of Kings and that through editing, the two were thus separated by further degrees at different stages.4 Scholarship on Ben Sira’s treatment of Hezekiah, Isaiah, and Josiah highlights his use of Kings and Chronicles.5 In particular, Renate Egger-Wenzel notes how Ben Sira uses both Kings and Chronicles in his portrayal of Josiah and his prophet Jeremiah.6 Aitken considers the historical context of Ben Sira’s attitudes to infrastructure works under Seleucid Judea pre-Antiochus IV Epiphanes, showing that Ben Sira’s praise of infrastructure under Simon II— creating comparisons with Hezekiah earlier—indicate a benign relationship with Seleucid rule.7 By comparison, Wright argues that in Ben Sira’s treatment 2  Many scholars continue to date First Isaiah to the Exilic or early post-Exilic period. Kings is usually dated to the Exilic or post-Exilic period while Chronicles is considered to be later, anywhere between the fifth to mid-third centuries bce. Joseph Blekinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 73–74. Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); “Israel in Exile: The View of a Josianic Historian,” JBL 97 (1978): 40–44. Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, AB 12A (London; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 105–17. 3  For scholarship see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 66–68. 4  Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 68, uses the evidence of manuscript variation as witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. 5  For Isaiah in Sir 48 see Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 204–8. On Sir 48:1–49:16 see Ralph Hildesheim, Bis daß ein Prophet aufstand wie Feuer: Untersuchungen zum Prophetenverständnis des Ben Sira (Trier: Paulinus, 1996). On Josiah see also Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Sweet is his Memory, like Honey to the Palate: King Josiah in Ben Sira 49,1–4,” in Beentjes, Happy the One, 159–65. For Ben Sira’s elevated attitudes towards the prophets and patriarchs, see James K. Aitken, “Hebrew Study in Ben Sira’s Beth Midrash,” in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, ed. William Horbury (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 27–37. 6  Renate Egger-Wenzel, “Josiah and His Prophet(s) in Chronicles and Ben Sira: An Intertextual Comparison,” in Rewriting Biblical History, eds. Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol, 231–56. 7  Aitken, “Manifesto,” 191–208.

79

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

of kingship (including Hezekiah) responds to post-Alexander Mediterranean ruler-cults. Wright argues that Ben Sira consistently tones down his approval of kings, directing praise instead to priests and the ideal ruler, God.8 Di Lella highlights examples where Ben Sira uses 2 Kings, Isaiah, and 2 Chronicles for both Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah.9 He argues that the last lines of Hezekiah-Isaiah (Sir 48:24–25) seem to divide Isaiah into First, Second, and Third Isaiah, though he maintains that Ben Sira thought of Isaiah as a whole.10 Steve Delamarter argues that Josiah is depicted in Ben Sira in purely positive terms, a theme reflected in later Jewish literature.11

Primary Texts for Sir 48:17–25 Hebrew12









(9b, l.8)

‫ בהטות אל תוכה מים׃‬ ‫ ויחסום הרים מקוה׃‬ ‫ וישלח את רב שקה׃‬ 13‫ ויגדף אל בגאונו׃‬ ‫ ויחילו כיולדה׃‬ ‫ ויפרשו אליו כפים׃‬ ‫ ויושיעם ביד ישעיהו׃‬

‫ יחזקיהו חזק עירו‬ ‫ ויחצב כנחשת צורים‬ ‫ בימיו עלה סנחריב‬ ‫ ויט ידו על ציון‬ ‫]ונ]מוגו בגאון לבם‬14 ‫[ויקר] ֯או אל אל עליון‬15 ‫[וישמע ] ֯בקול תפלתם‬16

48:17ab cd 48:18ab cd : 48 19 48:20ab cd

8  Wright, “Kingship,” especially 77; 79–80; 86–87. Wrights asks whether Ben Sira might have been familiar with peri basileias literature (Wright, “Kingship,” 80; 88), which include benedictions to kings. This is an interesting issue worth further study because of Ben Sira’s blessings of priests: Aaron and Phinehas (Sir 45:25–26) and Simon (Sir 50:22–24). 9  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 537–38; 542–43. 10  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539. Likewise: Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 108. 11  Steve Delamarter, “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?” VT 54:1 (2004): 43 (29–60). 12  MS.Heb.e.62, 9b (ms B XVIIIr.) l.8–18 to 9a (XVIIIv.), l.1–2. My transcription is mostly in agreement with Smend, Lévi, Peters, and Beentjes except where noted. 13  Smend writes that ‫ גאונו‬could also be ‫ בגאון‬but argues it is a corruption for ‫בגבה‬. I think it could be either but have opted for how B reads (‫)גאונו‬. Smend, Hebräisch, 56. 14  See ‫ [ונ]מוגו‬in Abegg. Compare to Ben-Ḥayyim ]‫נ‬ …[; or ‫ [אז נ]מוגו‬in Segal. 15  In agreement here with Peters and Abegg. Compare Ben-Ḥayyim, Lévi, and Smend who read ‫וי[קר]או‬. Compare also Beentjes, who reads only ‫[…]ו‬. There are distinct traces of the ‫ א‬still. 16  Aligned here with transcriptions in Segal, Abegg, and Ben-Ḥayyim, but I reconstruct the space, too, since only traces of the ‫ ב‬are visible. Compare Beentjes: ‫[…]קול‬. Also compare Ben-Ḥayyim and Smend, both reading ‫וֿ יֿ ֿש[מע] ֿבקול‬. However, there is nothing left of the manuscript to the right of ‫ ֯בקול‬.

80

Chapter 3

‫ ויהמם במגפה׃‬ ‫[ויך ב] ֯מחנה אשור‬17 48:21 : ‫הטוב [ו]י֯ חזק בדרכי דוד׃‬ ֯ ‫[כי עשה יח]ז֯ קיהו את‬18 48 22ab […………….] […………….]19 cd […………….] […………….] 48:23 (9a, l.1) ‫ וינחם אבלי ציון׃‬ ‫ ברוח גבורה חזה אחרית‬ 48:24 ‫ ונסתרות לפני בואן׃‬ ‫ עד עולם הגיד נהיות‬ 48:25 Translation of Hebrew 48:17 Hezekiah fortified his city, He diverted waters towards the midst of it, And he hewed out stones like bronze; He stopped up the spring in the mountains. : 48 18 In his days Sennacherib arose, And he sent Rav-Shaqeh, And he raised his hand against Zion, And he blasphemed God in his arrogance. 48:19 [And they were melted away] in the arrogance of their hearts, And they writhed as in childbirth. : 48 20 [But they call]ed upon God the Most High, And they spread out to Him their hands. [God heard] the sound of their prayers, And He delivered them by the hand of Isaiah. 48:21 [He struck the c]amp of Assyria, And He destroyed them with a plague. 17  With the three lines containing Sir 48:20a–21, Smend and Ben-Ḥayyim transcribe fragmentary letters at the right-hand side. Smend indicates these readings are obtained from the manuscript but not in the facsimiles or photographs: Smend, Weisheit, 56. This fragment is no longer extant in the manuscript or the current digitized images. For example, on this line, the other critical editions transcribe ‫[ויך במ]חנה‬, Smend and Lévi transcribe ]‫ו[יך‬, but not Peters, who tended to be more conservative in his reconstructions. For ‫במחנה‬, looking at B, I can see traces of the ‫מ‬. Compare also Abegg, ‫[־־] [מ]חנה‬. 18  Reconstruction in agreement with Segal, Abegg, and Smend. Segal and Beentjes do not transcribe ‫ ז‬but there are traces of it in the manuscript, and likewise with ‫ ב‬in ‫הטוב‬. I do not see any more traces of the ‫ ו‬in verse 22b but the ‫ י‬is still discernible. By comparison, Abegg transcribes only: ‫[יח]ז֯ קיהו‬. Such a reconstruction would not leave room for a verb. 19  Segal reconstructs these two lines: Sir 48:22cd, as ‫[כאשר צוהו ישעיהו הנביא ׀ הגדול‬ ]‫והנאמן בחזיונו‬, while Smend reconstructs only 22c and leaves 22d blank. Segal reconstructs Sir 48:23 ]‫[בימיו עמד השמש ׀ ויוסף על חיי מלך‬, while Smend begins 23 ‫[גם בידו‬.

81

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

48:22 [For He]zekiah did what was good, And he was strong in the ways of David, [Greek: Which Isaiah the great prophet commanded Who was great and faithful in his vision.] 48:23 [Greek: In his days the sun went backward And he lengthened the life of the king.] 48:24 With a spirit of might he saw what would come after, And he comforted the mourners of Zion, : 48 25 He revealed the things that will be forever, And the hidden things before they will come. Greek 48:17 Εζεκίας ὠχύρωσεν τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσήγαγεν εἰς μέσον αὐτῆς ὕδωρ, ὤρυξεν ἐν σιδήρῳ ἀκρότομον καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν κρήνας εἰς ὕδατα. 48:18 ἐν ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἀνέβη Σενναχηριμ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν Ῥαψάκην, καὶ ἀπῆρεν· καὶ ἐπῆρεν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ Σιων καὶ ἐμεγαλαύχησεν ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ αὐτοῦ, : 48 19 τότε ἐσαλεύθησαν καρδίαι καὶ χεῖρες αὐτῶν, καὶ ὠδίνησαν ὡς αἱ τίκτουσαι· 48:20 καὶ ἐπεκαλέσαντο τὸν κύριον τὸν ἐλεήμονα ἐκπετάσαντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ταχὺ ἐπήκουσεν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς ἐν χειρὶ Ησαίου· : 48 21 ἐπάταξεν τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν Ἀσσυρίων, καὶ ἐξέτριψεν αὐτοὺς ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ. 48:22 ἐποίησεν γὰρ Εζεκίας τὸ ἀρεστὸν κυρίῳ καὶ ἐνίσχυσεν ἐν ὁδοῖς Δαυιδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἃς ἐνετείλατο Ησαίας ὁ προφήτης ὁ μέγας καὶ πιστὸς ἐν ὁράσει αὐτοῦ. 48:23 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἀνεπόδισεν ὁ ἥλιος καὶ προσέθηκεν ζωὴν βασιλεῖ. : 48 24 πνεύματι μεγάλῳ εἶδεν τὰ ἔσχατα καὶ παρεκάλεσεν τοὺς πενθοῦντας ἐν Ζιων. 48:25 ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος ὑπέδειξεν τὰ ἐσόμενα καὶ τὰ ἀπόκρυφα πρὶν ἢ παραγενέσθαι αὐτά.

82

Chapter 3

Latin 48:19 Ezechias munivit civitatem suam et induxit in medium ipsius aquam et fodit ferro rupem et aedificavit ad aquam puteum 48:20 in diebus ipsius ascendit Sennacherim et misit Rapsacen et sustulit manum suam contra illos et extulit manum suam in Sion et superbus factus est potentia sua : 48 21 tunc mota sunt corda et manus ipsorum et doluerunt quasi parturientes mulieres 48:22 et invocaverunt Dominum misericordem et patentes manus extulerunt ad caelum et sanctus Dominus Deus audivit cito vocem ipsorum 48:23 non est commemoratus peccatorum illorum neque dedit illos inimicis suis sed purgavit illos in manu Esaiae sancti prophetae 48:24 subiecit castra Assyriorum et conteruit illos angelus Dei 48:25 nam fecit Ezechias quod placuit Deo et fortiter ivit in via David patris sui quam mandavit illi Esaias propheta magnus et fidelis in conspectu Dei : 48 26 in diebus ipsius retro rediit sol et addidit regi vitam 48:27 spiritu magno vidit ultima et obsecratus est lugentes in Sion usque in sempiternum 48:28 ostendit futura et abscondita antequam evenirent Syriac20 ̈ ܿ ̈ ‫ܠܓܘܗ‬ :18  ‫ܡܝܐ܂‬ ‫ܒܝܘܡܘܗܝ ܣ ܼܠܩ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ‬48 ‫ ܘܐܥܠ‬.‫ܚܙܩܝܐ ܿܒܢܝ ܿܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬48:17 ܿ ‫ܨܗܝܘܢ܂‬ ܿ ܿ .‫ܣܢܚܪܝܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܫܕܪ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܠܪܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܓܕܦ ܒܡܪܚܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܕܗ ܥܠ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܐܪܝܡ‬.‫ܫܩܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܡܥ‬ ‫ܘܦܪܣ ܚܙܩܝܐ ܩܕܡ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܝܕܘܗܝ܄ ܘܐܦ‬48 ܼ ܼ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܒܥܓܠ‬ ܼ :20  ‫ܥܠ ܐܠܗܐ܂‬ ̈ ܿ : ‫ܘܬܒܪ ܡܫܪܝܬܐ ܕܐܬܘܖܝܐ܁‬48 21  ‫ܘܦܪܩ ܐܢܘܢ܂ ܒܝܕ ܐܫܥܝܐ ܢܒܝܐ܂‬ ܼ ‫ܨܠܘܬܗ܂‬ ܿ ‫ܘܗܠܟ‬ ‫ܕܥܒܕ ܚܙܩܝܐ ܕܛܒ܇‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬48:22  ‫ܡܚܘܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ܂‬ ‫ܘܡܚܐ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܿ ݀ : ‫ܒܐܝܕܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬48 23  ‫ܝܐ܂‬ ‫ܕܢܒ‬ ‫ܫܒܚܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܢܒܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܫܥܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܕܦܩ‬ ‫ܕ܂‬ ‫ܕܕܘܝ‬ ‫ܚܬܗ‬ ‫ܒܐܘܖ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܚܝܘܗܝ‬ ܿ ‫ܩܡ ܫܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܐ܂ ܘܐܬܬܘܣܦܘ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܓܢܒܪܘܬܐ ܼܚܙܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܪܘܚܐ‬48:24  ‫ܕܡܠܟܐ܂‬ ܼ ܼ 20  Note the Syriac version is missing Sir 48:19.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

83

̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ܂ ܼܚܙܐ‬ ‫ܘܟܕ ܒܥܠܡܐ‬48:25  ‫ܠܐܒܝܠܐ ܕܨܗܝܘܢ܂‬ ‫ܘܢܚܡ‬ ‫ܐܚܖܝܬܐ܂‬ ܼ ܼܿ ̈ ‫ܘܢܣܝܘܢܐ ܥܕ ܠܐ ܢܐܬܘܢ܁܀‬

Textual Commentary on Hezekiah-Isaiah

Sir 48:17ab The first line refers to Hezekiah’s infrastructure, recalling 2 Chr 32:2–8, 30 and 2 Kgs 20:20. In 2 Chronicles, Hezekiah’s fortification of the city is mentioned after the arrival of Sennacherib (2 Chr 32:5–8). In 2 Kgs 20:20, reference to Hezekiah’s fortifications is much shorter, in the final verse on Hezekiah. Ben Sira places the fortifications and water redirection before any mention of the Neo-Assyrian invasion that spurred their creation: placing the emphasis on Hezekiah’s civic welfare. The Neo-Assyrians are mentioned again after the siege (Sir 48:21). Perhaps this is a way of dealing with Chronicles’s order, which places the invasion (2 Chr 32:1–22) at the end of the account of Hezekiah’s reign, spanning four chapters (2 Chronicles 29–32). Ben Sira’s arrangement of events here is closer to Chronicles than to Kings. Although 2 Chr 32:3–8, 30 mentions water redirection both before and after the wall, 2 Kgs 20:20 does not mention wall fortifications at all. As these two separate texts both tell stories of the kings of Israel and Judah, this commentary will scrutinize where and how exactly Ben Sira chooses one text over the other, where and how he harmonizes the two together into one, and investigate possible reasons for these compositional choices in each example of this textual commentary. This will give greater insight into the characteristics of multiple source handling in Ben Sira. Beentjes argues that the fortification of the city should be equated with Hezekiah’s water infrastructure only, that is the Siloam Tunnel and closing of the upper outlet of the spring (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:3–5, 30).21 Beentjes’s evidence for this argument is the variation between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles mentioned above: only water is mentioned in 2 Kings. Yet Beentjes does not consider the Broad Wall, which Nahman Avigad dates to Hezekiah’s reign in the late eighth century BCE,22 which is also mentioned in Neh 3:8 and 21  Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Hezekiah and Isaiah,” in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament, ed. A.S. van der Woude (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 82 (77–88). Also argued in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 538. 22  Nahman Avigad, Archaeological Discoveries in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem: Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1976); Nahman Avigad, ‫מצבות קדומות בנחל‬ ‫ תולדות וצרות בניין‬:‫קדרון‬. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954). R. Amiran, “The Water Supply of Israelite Jerusalem,” in Jerusalem

84

Chapter 3

Isa 22:9–10. The Siloam Tunnel (or a nearby tunnel) redirected water from the underground Gihon spring before it reached the Siloam Pool (or Mamilla Pool), which lay outside David’s City.23 This blocked water from flowing into the Pool and provided Jerusalem with water during a siege, making it both a defensive and offensive strategic measure. The Siloam Tunnel is in an S-shape to reduce sound, making it less detectable during a military siege. The verb ‫נטה‬, in Sir 48:17b in the form ‫הטות‬, is seen again in qal in Sir 48:18c several lines later, ‫ויט ידו על ציון‬. There are other possible reasons why Ben Sira chose to mention the wall before the waterworks. Chronicles might have been chosen out of a preference for Chronicles overall in the story of Hezekiah (or Chronicles and Isaiah 36– 39), making Chronicles Ben Sira’s main text of choice over the others, which would be a significant claim about Ben Sira’s composition method and his textual preferences, or even the textual predilections of his day. Ben Sira would then not be handing multiple sources evenly but depending primarily on one with the other texts as supplementary; this hypothesis will be tested further, as it has effects for Ben Sira’s scribalism and his literary self-alignment. A second reason for the arrangement, however, could be that the fact the Tunnel and Wall are mentioned in other parts of the Hebrew Bible (Neh 3:8; Isa 22:9– 10), and thus Ben Sira is handling together not just the stories of Kings and Chronicles here, but also those of Nehemiah and Isaiah. A third reason Ben Sira could have chosen to mention the fortifications first (before, for instance the bronze serpent or Hezekiah’s prayer instead) is because of the wordplay possible with Hezekiah’s name, ‫יחזקיהו חזק עירו‬.24 This wordplay is also in 2 Chr 29:3 and 2 Chr 32:5 in the same context of strengthening the city. Another reason for Ben Sira’s alignment here with Chronicles’s arrangement may be because of the Praise’s dedication to Simon II and his achievements Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974, ed. Yigael Yadin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 75–78. 23  Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, “The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered,” Tel Aviv 38 (2011): 147–57. Reich and Shukron argue that owing to pottery, the Siloam tunnel is ninth century bce, pre-dating Hezekiah’s reign, and that Hezekiah’s tunnel in 2 Chr 32:30/2 Kgs 20:20 is a nearby tunnel which channels the Gihon to the Mamilla Pool, west of the City of David. The Siloam inscription does not refer to Hezekiah. Amiran, “The Water Supply,” 77. Biblical Archaeology Society, “Hezekiah’s Tunnel Revisited,” http://www.biblical archaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/hezekiahs-tunnel-revisited/. 24  The word ‫ חזק‬is also found in Sir 43:15 of the clouds in general (see Chapter Four), and in Sir 45:3 God strengthens Moses before Pharaoh. The word ‫ חזק‬is found a second time with Hezekiah in Sir 48:22 to describe how Hezekiah holds to the ways of his ancestor David.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

85

(Sir 50:1–24). The first action Ben Sira lists for Simon as priestly local ruler of Judea is that he fortified the walls and built a water cistern, a civic declaration that Aitken argues is an indirect approval of Seleucid rule because of the imperial support necessary for building works.25 By mentioning fortifications first, though, we might say that the Praise’s climactic subject is alluded to far more effectively. Another reason for the choice may be to build climax: Hezekiah’s infrastructure is placed at the start of the section in anticipation of the divine intercession that saves Jerusalem from Sennacherib’s army. As mentioned above, Wright, Aitken, and others have noted the comparisons Ben Sira makes between Hezekiah and Simon. In Sir 48:17, calling Jerusalem ‫ עירו‬for both Hezekiah and Simon (Sir 50:3, ‫ )ומחזק עירו בצר‬reminds the reader of the dual roles of Simon as both high priest and local administrative ruler under the Seleucids and earlier the Ptolemies. Wright compares Hezekiah’s waterworks with Ben Sira’s royal imagery of Simon.26 To call the HezekiahSimon comparisons royal imagery of the high priest is not the best categorization, because the Ptolemaic and Seleucid policy systematically preferred using priests as local rulers over aristocracy. Hence there is nothing unusually suggestive about Simon’s administrative role in Ben Sira’s context, where Simon is comfortably considered a benevolent ruler. In fact, by comparison to Simon’s local leadership, the idea of foreign kingly rule under the Seleucids is perhaps a distant object rather far from Ben Sira’s mind and sight.27 Sir 48:17cd In this line, the reference to hewing out stones indicates the Siloam Tunnel, which is over five hundred metres long, especially as Ben Sira compares it to bronze. Bronze in the ancient world was far more malleable than iron and was preferred even in the Iron Age for objects that needed shaping, such as pipes (Rome) or flutes (Egypt).28 Therefore the reference probably pertains more to the carving out of the tunnel than hewing stones for a wall, especially as the Broad Wall like other Near East defensive walls used stones in their natural shape with very little hewing.29 25  Aitken, “Manifesto,” 202–3. 26  Wright, “Kingship,” 96. 27  Wright, “Kingship,” argues that Ben Sira had no place for foreign rule in his idea of kingship and leadership. 28  David Sacks and Oswyn Murray, “Bronze,” in Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World (London: Constable, 1995), 48–49. 29  Note the Greek σιδήρῳ (iron) and Latin ferro. The Syriac leaves out any mention of infrastructure except the spring.

86

Chapter 3

Ben Sira’s description is idealistic, as the Siloam Tunnel is a karstic tunnel, hewed out of irregular bedrock. Hezekiah therefore carved it not at an easier natural angle but at a much more difficult (but necessary) angle. As Di Lella notes, “neither Ben Sira nor his grandson was an archaeologist,” or a labourer for that matter, as he clearly underestimates the challenges of such stonemasonry.30 Perhaps, though, he saw the achievement as rather impressive. The metaphor of bronze in this line could also allude to the cultic reforms during Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 18:4; 2 Chr 29–30), particularly when Hezekiah breaks the bronze serpent ‫ נחשתן‬worshipped by the Israelites (2 Kgs 18:4).31 Here, Ben Sira could only have used 2 Kings as a source. The religious reforms are the first story in the reign of Hezekiah in both Kings and Chronicles, but they are glossed over by Ben Sira. Since the reforms and Passover celebrations take up such a considerable amount of space in 2 Chronicles (two whole chapters), this would be the only case where a clear inexplicable preference for the other two sources is discernible. It is unusual for Ben Sira to neglect Templerelated activity, especially as Josiah’s section, following Hezekiah-Isaiah, is so focused on sacrificial metaphor and atonement. He has neglected this substantial part of 2 Chronicles either because of a preference for Kings, or perhaps because he wished to depict Hezekiah primarily as a leader in a time of war. The ‫ מקוה‬means a living water source (specifically the Gihon Spring), in agreement with its meaning in Classical Hebrew, and is not restricted to the ritual immersion bath. The word was not used to describe the ritual bath until the first century BCE—perhaps because ‫ מקות‬were normally natural water sources in areas that had them. The ‫ מקוה‬in Sir 50:3 seems to be a manmade water source, although it could also be the spring in mountains.32 What would be more recognizable for Ben Sira and his audience, however, would be Hezekiah’s construction of a recognizable water cistern within the city walls, which is easily comparable with Simon’s waterworks in Ben Sira’s day. Another example of ‫ מקוה‬as water cistern is Sir 10:13. The other extant example of ‫מקוה‬ in the Hebrew is Sir 43:20 (natural water source).

30  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 537. 31  Also called ‫( נחש נחשת‬Num 21:9), a play on serpent ‫ נחש‬and bronze ‫נחשת‬. Note Peters, Liber Iesu, 134, Lévi, Hebrew Text, 68, and Smend, Hebräisch, 56, correct ‫ כ‬to ‫ב‬. 32  I am grateful to Jeremy Corley for pointing out to me in feedback that the ‫מקוה‬, which could refer to the Gihon spring, is singular, but the mountains are plural. Corley has helpfully indicated the possibility that this could mean that Hezekiah blocked up the spring in the mountains as a defensive tactic, thus reading the line, “he blocked up water sources [collective] in the mountains [locative without preposition, cf. Ps 104:8].”

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

87

Sir 48:18 These first few lines have exhibited a lack of direct or indirect quotation and a high use of paraphrase, with no consistent preference for one major source over another. While Ben Sira possibly alludes to the bronze serpent (2 Kings only), he also mentions the wall (2 Chronicles only). In this line, the harmonization of both sources, 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, is continued with Sennacherib and Rav-Shaqeh. Rav-Shaqeh is Assyrian for “chief cup-bearer,” but in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles Rav-Shaqeh is written ‫ רב־שקה‬without a definite article. Ben Sira too writes ‫ רב־שקה‬as if it were a name, or nickname, instead of a title.33 It is with the arrival of the Assyrian army that the Isaiah narrative of Hezekiah’s reign begins (Isa 36:1–37:38; while Isa 38:1–39:8 contains Hezekiah’s illness and display of the treasury). However, earlier in the text, Isa 22:9–11 mentions the fortifications and water redirection. Scholars have argued that ‫( ויט ידו על ציון‬Sir 48:18c) is a quotation of Isa 10:32.34 Beentjes argues that the mention of Zion is connected with the quotation of Isa 61:3, since Ben Sira mentions later the ‫( אבלי ציון‬Sir 48:24b). Beentjes argues that if the line in Ben Sira were quoting Isa 10:32, a form of the verb ‫ נוף‬would be used instead of ‫ויט‬.35 On the one hand, Ben Sira does use synonymous quotation frequently in his text. On the other hand, Isa 10:32 does call Jerusalem Zion. However, the alternative, Isa 61:3, is not relevant as a passage for Ben Sira to quote, since it is part of a comfort speech to Zion, not a warning of destruction as with Isa 10:32. Finally, the phrase ‫ ויט ידו על ציון‬is a paraphrase, rather than a direct quotation. What is significant is the term Zion, which, rather than being a direct quotation of one verse or another in Isaiah, indicates that Ben Sira is thinking of Isaiah more generally, since Zion is found frequently throughout Isaiah. Furthermore, ‫ אבלי ציון‬is a phrase found numerous times in Isaiah. Since Ben Sira is conversant with poetic and psalmist literary style and Isaiah is quoted regularly throughout his text, the few occurrences of Zion in Ben Sira (four times)36 are due to content and genre and thus do not indicate quotation.37

33  For this reason, my translation of B above renders ‫ רב־שקה‬a proper noun in English. 34  Such as Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 538. Segal, 335. Smend, Weisheit, 465. 35  Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 83. Beentjes may have made a slight error since he says Isa 10:32 uses the hiphil of ‫ נוף‬when it in fact uses the polel ‫ינפף‬. 36  Sir 24:10 (Gr); 36:19 (Heb); 48:18, 24; 51:12. 37  To compare, occurrences of ‫ ירושלם‬in Ben Sira (Sir 24:11 (Gr); 36:18; 47:11; 50:27) are due to Ben Sira’s conventionality of poetic style with Isaiah and Psalms, especially Sir 24:10–11; 36:18–19.

88

Chapter 3

Ben Sira’s use of ‫ גדף‬in this line can be compared to 2 Kgs 19:6 (‫)גדפו‬.38 On Isaiah’s command to Hezekiah’s servants, compare Isa 37:6 (‫)גדפו‬.39 In 2 Kgs 19:6 (cf. Isa 37:6), Sennacherib has “reviled” the Lord. By comparison, however, the final word of the line ‫ )גאון( בגאונו‬is not found in any of the three major literary sources for Hezekiah. In Prov 8:13 and 16:18, though, the fear of the Lord is to hate ‫גאון‬. There is some alliteration between ‫ גדף‬and ‫גאון‬, which is significant since ‫ שאן‬is also found in 2 Kgs 19:28 and Isa 37:29. In this final hemistitch Sir 48:18d, then, the word choice seems to be primarily for wordplay rather than suggestive of direct quotation. Paraphrase is the key tool used again by Ben Sira in introducing Sennacherib’s arrogance. Sir 48:19 Sir 48:19 again paraphrases the story in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah. The word ‫גאון‬, not found in the Hezekiah narratives, is repeated from Sir 48:18d (‫ )בגאונו‬here as ‫בגאון‬. The phrases ‫לבם‬ … ‫ ונמוגו‬and ‫ ויחילו כיולדה‬might be considered an echo of Isa 13:7–8. The line in Isaiah reads ‫וכל־לבב אנוש ימס‬, which we can compare with ‫לבם‬ … ‫ ונמוגו‬in Ben Sira.40 Instead of using )‫ימס (מסס‬ as in Isaiah, he uses ‫)מוג( ונמוגו‬. Furthermore, ‫ בגאון לבם‬makes sense in the context of 2 Chr 32:25, when Hezekiah is proud of heart during his illness (‫)כי גבה לבו‬. Ben Sira, by emphasizing the arrogance of the Israelites, puts Hezekiah in a better light altogether. Next, a direct textual reuse in reversed order is found with ‫ויחילו כיולדה‬, which in Isa 13:8 is ‫כיולדה יחילון‬. This shows Ben Sira’s familiarity with the language of Isaiah, which he also demonstrates, for example, in Sir 43:11 (Chapter Four). The quotation of Isaiah 13, an oracle against Babylon seen by Isaiah son of Amoz, may also hint at Ben Sira’s later statement about Isaiah in Sir 48:25 that he “revealed the things that would occur” and “hidden things before they come to pass.” 38  Although Isa 37:17 and 2 Kgs 19:16, the prayer itself, both read ‫לחרף‬. 39  In addition to being in 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39, the nominal form ‫( גדפן‬blasphemer) is found a few times in Qumran literature (4Q385a 4:6; 4Q387 2.ii.8; 4Q388a 7.ii.3; 4Q389 8.ii.9) and later in Rabbinic Hebrew. Abegg, Bowley, and Cook, Concordance, 1:173, Jastrow, 214. Ben Sira does not mention ‫ גדף‬often in his text (only Sir 3:16), and by comparison neither ‫ שאנן‬or its nominal form ‫“ שאנן‬arrogant” are found in the extant Hebrew. It is very likely that Sir 22:22 “reviling, arrogance” would contain both words in Hebrew, as Sir 22:22 Gr reads ὀνειδισμοῦ καὶ ὑπερηφανίας and Sir 48:18 Gr reads ὑπερηφανίᾳ. 40  Smend, Weisheit, 466. By contrast, Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 538, and Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 334–35, mention only 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.

89

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah Isa 13:7–8 (MT)

‫על־כן כל־ידים תרפינה וכל־לבב אנוש ימס׃‬ ‫ונבהלו צירים וחבלים יאחזון כיולדה יחילון‬ ‫איש אל־רעהו יתמהו פני להבים פניהם׃‬

Sir 48:19 (B)

‫[וינ]מוגו בגאון לבם ויחילו כיולדה׃‬

Sir 48:20 Di Lella argues that the people are the subject (‫ויקראו‬, ‫ )ויפרשו‬in Sir 48:20ab. If so, this would contradict 2 Kgs 19:14–19 and Isa 37:15–20, which say that Hezekiah prays, not the people. To consider all possibilities, however, we should examine 2 Chr 32:20 in which both Hezekiah and Isaiah pray together; if this source were the aim in Ben Sira, the subject would be correctly plural as Hezekiah and Isaiah.41 However, Sennacherib earlier is called “arrogant” against the Lord (Sir 48:18d), a description that is not found in 2 Chronicles but in Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kgs 19:14–19 and Isa 37:15–20, but only alluded to in 2 Chr 32:20). Thus Ben Sira cannot be said to have preferred 2 Chronicles for the prayer that delivers Jerusalem from Sennacherib; instead he has combined the two—evidence for harmonization. It is possible that through harmonization, Ben Sira creates the impression that Hezekiah and Isaiah pray together. The praying involved includes raising their hands, a style of praying found throughout antiquity. The phrase ‫ קרא אל אל עליון‬is found in Sir 46:5, 46:16, and 47:5, while ‫אל עליון‬ as a title is found only here and at Sir 47:5, which concerns David, another of the “good” kings. However, the verb ‫ )פרש( ויפרשו‬is not found elsewhere in the extant Hebrew of Ben Sira.42 Sir 48:20cd reads that God saves the people. There is clear wordplay with the root of Isaiah’s name (‫ )ישע‬in ‫ויושיעם ביד ישעיהו‬.43 This is also significant because there is a major variant in 1QIsaa 37:20 (Col. 30, line 25), which has Hezekiah saying “I will deliver us” (‫)אושיענו‬, while the MT has Hezekiah asking 41  Others spread out their hands in prayer in Ben Sira, the ill patient (Sir 38:10) and Ben Sira himself in prayer (Sir 51:13). Ben-Ḥayyim, 179. Another option is a scribal error in the medieval manuscript of an extra ‫ ו‬making the singular plural, but this option presents numerous difficulties in the agreement of the Hebrew (Sir 48:20c ‫ תפלתם‬and 20d ‫)ויושיעם‬. Besides this the Greek, Latin and Syriac versions all have the relevant verbs and possessive adjectives consistently in third person plural. 42  In 2 Kgs 19:14 (cf. Isa 37:14), Hezekiah spreads (‫ )ויפרשהו‬the letter before the Lord’s presence, before Hezekiah’s prayer. 43  Smend, Weisheit, 466; Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 335. Not noted in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 538–39.

90

Chapter 3

God to save them (‫)הושיענו‬.44 No pre-MT witnesses for 2 Kgs 19:14–19 or 2 Chr 32:30 exist to compare whether any ancient editions of Kings or Chronicles also agreed with 1QIsaa.45 An alternative proposal is that this difference is the result of a dictation error between ‫ א‬and ‫ה‬. If it is not a dictation error, 1QIsaa 37:20 may indicate that Ben Sira knew a text of Isaiah similar to the MT, instead of 1QIsaa. Sir 48:21 Here Ben Sira leaves out the angel of the Lord (2 Kgs 19:35, cf. Isa 37:36; 2 Chr 32:20–22). He uses the same verb (‫ויך‬, from ‫ )נכה‬as 2 Kgs 19:35. Isa 37:36 reads ‫( ויכה‬also from ‫)נכה‬. The text of 2 Chr 32:21, reading ‫ ויכחד‬instead of ‫ויך‬, is markedly different from 2 Kings and Isaiah. The first half of Sir 48:21 echoes both the vocabulary of 2 Kgs 19:35 and Isa 37:36, but the second half of the line instead reads into the sources rather than reflecting what is given by the texts. Ben Sira infers a plague striking and dissolving the camp, while all three sources mention only an angel of the Lord smiting (“cut down” in 2 Chronicles) and the entire camp dying overnight, without explicitly citing a plague. The inference of a plague is implied by other uses of ‫ נכה‬and ‫ כחד‬in the Hebrew Bible, especially ‫נכה‬.46 For instance, Di Lella argues that the plague is already implied in ‫ ויך‬in 2 Kgs 19:35 and Isa 37:36.47 The inference is not too unusual an interpretation considering the words used in both of these accounts. Josephus similarly wrote that the Assyrians were struck by a plague, quoting the Greek historian Berossus, but probably reflecting a more widespread tradition of the story.48 Ben Sira forms this line with a parallelism of synonymous words with ‫ ויך‬and ‫)המם( ויהמם‬, “He [i.e. God]

44  DJD 32, 60–61. Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 327. 45  Ancient witnesses do survive of Chronicles and Kings, but not of these specific verses. DJD 14. DJD 3. 46  The form ‫ ותכחד‬is found in Exod 9:15, describing the Egyptians being “cut down from the earth” after the ten plagues (Exod 9:14) that the Lord will smite (‫ )ואך‬them with. Exod 23:23 says that an angel will cut down (‫ )והכחדתיו‬all the tribes of Canaan. The word ‫נכה‬ is more frequently used with plague (Num 14:12) and other diseases (Gen 19:11; 1 Sam 5:6; 2 Kgs 6:18; Zech 12:4; Mal 3:24) and of striking enemies or scattering them (Gen 14:5; Deut 4:45; Josh 12:7; 1 Sam 13:4, 17:9). The combination of ‫ נכה‬and ‫ מגפה‬is found in Num 14:12 and Deut 28:22. 47  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 537. 48  Josephus, A.J. 10.20. Herodotus records this event happening instead at Pelusium on the Sinai Peninsula. Herodotus, Hist. 2.141.

91

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

struck” and “He destroyed them.” The latter reflects other examples of divine deliverance.49 Sir 48:22ab Ben Sira harmonizes and paraphrases either or both 2 Kgs 18:3 and 2 Chr 29:2 with similar vocabulary in this line. While both sources describe Hezekiah’s deeds as ‫ישר‬, Ben Sira has ‫ טוב‬instead. These phrases are compared in the table below: Sir 48:22ab compared with 2 Kgs 18:3 and 2 Chr 29:2 Sir 48:22ab

‫[כי עשה יח]זקיהו את הטוב‬ ‫[ו]יחזק בדרכי דוד‬

2 Kgs 18:3

2 Chr 29:2

‫ויעש הישר בעיני יהוה ככל‬ ‫אשר־עשה דוד אביו׃‬

‫ויעש הישר בעיני יהוה ככל‬ ‫אשר־עשה דויד אביו׃‬

One reason why Ben Sira may have opted for ‫ טוב‬instead of ‫ ישר‬is the context of 2 Kgs 20:3 and Isa 38:3, in which Hezekiah says he has done what is good in the Lord’s eyes (‫ )והטוב בעיניך עשיתי‬and thus deserves healing. In the Lord’s reply through Isaiah, (2 Kgs 20:4–6; Isa 38:4–5) God is self-titled ‫אלהי דוד אביך‬ (2 Kgs 20:5; Isa 38:5). However, this does not imply that Ben Sira is conflating the words of the prayer of Hezekiah with the Sennacherib section. The use of a formula, albeit in paraphrase and with synonymous language, demonstrates instead that Ben Sira is echoing the language used in both the introductory formula and perhaps also in the prayer for Hezekiah’s illness. In this way, Ben Sira echoes language in the Hezekiah sources, that Hezekiah “did what was good” and emulated his father David.50 With ‫ויחזק‬, Ben Sira makes a repeated wordplay of Hezekiah’s name to show how Hezekiah emulated his ancestor David. In fact, this could allude to a passage close to the introductory words in 2 Kgs 18:6, ‫“( וידבק‬and he held fast” to the Lord). So Sir 48:22b might not only be wordplay but also paraphrase of either or both 2 Kgs 18:3 (cf. 2 Chr 29:2) and 2 Kgs 18:6. Moreover, 2 Chr 32:5 reads that Hezekiah strengthened (‫ )ויחזק‬the wall in the ‫עיר דויד‬. Hezekiah is 49  Josh 10:10; 1 Sam 7:10; Ps 18:15; 2 Sam 22:15 (ketiv). BDB 243. 50  Beentjes argues that Ben Sira includes this line after the divine intercession in order to emphasize that Hezekiah fully deserved God’s help since he was an exemplary king. Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 84.

92

Chapter 3

one of only three kings, with Josiah and Solomon, in Kings and Chronicles who are said to have no comparison (2 Kgs 18:5).51 Since Ben Sira clearly uses both Kings and Chronicles in Sir 48:22ab, this line may be another case of harmonization of multiple sources. Sir 48:22cd–23 These two lines, Sir 48:22cd–23, do not survive in ms B. The Greek, Latin, and Syriac agree in Sir 48:22cd.52 In light of the Greek, Segal reconstructs this line: ]‫“( [כאשר צוהו ישעיהו הנביא] | [הגדול והנאמן כחזיונו‬Which was as Isaiah the prophet commanded | Who was great, and who was truthful in his vision”).53 Ben Sira’s estimation of Isaiah: ὁ προφήτης, ὁ μέγας καὶ πιστός, is interesting from a sociocultural perspective. Beentjes writes that only in the accounts of Hezekiah is Isaiah called “Isaiah the prophet,” but the added “the great and faithful” tells us much about the popularity of Isaiah in Ben Sira’s time.54 Segal mentions the Great Isaiah Scroll in connection with this line earlier in a note on Sir 48:22, emphasizing its importance in Qumran.55 To add to Segal’s comment, there are twenty-one copies of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Additionally, ὁ μέγας καὶ πιστός shows how Ben Sira himself valued Isaiah.56 Segal reconstructs Sir 48:23 following the Syriac, reconstructing “stood still,” ]‫[בימיו עמד השמש ׀ ויוסף על חיי מלך‬. The Greek, has ἀνεπόδισεν (“went backwards”).57 Therefore it might be more appropriate to reconstruct with a word closer to “went backwards” as in the Hebrew sources (2 Kings and Isaiah have ‫ שוב‬throughout).58 In this case, the line paraphrases Isaiah 38 and 2 Kgs 20:1–11 only, as the sun miracle is not found in 2 Chr 32:24–26.59 Ben Sira must have noticed that 2 Chronicles did not include the sun miracle, but as 51  Noted in Delamarter, “Death of Josiah,” 30, citing: Gary N. Knoppers, “‘There was none like him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 (1992): 411–31. 52  These versions agreeing with each other does not mean necessarily that Segal’s reconstruction is correct, but that it is plausible and at least that there are no complex textual differences between these lines in any of the versions. 53  Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 334. 54  Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 85. 55  Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 334. 56  See section below on Hezekiah-Isaiah and other sources. ܿ ‫ܕܒܐܝܕܗ ܩܡ ܫܡ‬ ݀ 57  The Latin likewise reads retro rediit sol. The Syriac reads ‫ܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬. ܼ ܼ 58  2 Kgs 20:10–11; Isa 38:8. 59  It is interesting to note the similarities between Sir 41:1–15 (Chapter Five) and Hezekiah’s “writing” (‫ )מכתב‬after his healing (Isa 38:9–20), which laments the shortness of life, how he has become slow ‫( על־מר נפשי‬Isa 38:15), and how those in Sheol do not hope or praise God (Isa 38:18).

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

93

2 Chronicles summarizes the story instead of contradicting it, it is doubtful whether the inclusion of the sun miracle is an active neglect of 2 Chronicles as a source. Sir 48:24 Scholarship concerning this line is concerned with possible allusions to Isaiah as a whole and apocryphal literature, drawing attention to Isaiah comforting the “mourners of Zion” (Sir 48:25), a phrase found in Isa 61:3. From these passages, van Wieringen concludes that Ben Sira differentiated between First, Second and Third Isaiah.60 However, van Wieringen’s argument is problematic because the style of the poem so strongly indicates paraphrase of the Hezekiah story. Likewise, Beentjes argues that this line does not subdivide Isaiah into First, Second, and Third Isaiah but instead simply quoting Isa 56:2–3 and echoing other language in Isaiah.61 Moreover, Beentjes notes that Ben Sira never refers to the Exile in the Praise.62 Ben Sira’s attitude to pseudepigrapha and “hidden things” is also a stretch.63 This thought makes it appear that Ben Sira has finished entirely with Hezekiah’s story and moved on to Isaiah. What this thought takes for granted is that it assumes that Ben Sira neglects the final story when Hezekiah showed the treasury to Merodak-Baladon, prince of Babylon, resulting in a prophecy about the fall of Babylon (2 Kgs 20:12–19; Isa 39:1–8). It would make much more sense of textual order if Sir 48:24–25 was first and foremost alluding to the treasury story, which resulted in a prophecy about the Exile. This allusion then could simultaneously be a wider comment about Isaiah 40–55 (comfort) and 56–66 (end times), while it refers primarily to the Hezekiah sources. In all three sources, 2 Kings, Isaiah, and the brief allusion to the story in 2 Chr 32:31, the visit of Merodak-Baladon is the last of the deeds of Hezekiah mentioned. Hence, it is Ben Sira’s last note on HezekiahIsaiah. 2 Chr 32:31 gives the story in a positive light that God “tested” Hezekiah, Ben Sira similarly interprets Hezekiah in a favourable light because his sources conclude that Hezekiah “did what was good.” 60  A.L.H.M. van Wieringen, “Sirach 48:17–25 and the Isaiah-Book: Hezekiah and Isaiah in the Book of Sirach and the Reader-Oriented Perspective of the Isaiah-Book,” in Rewriting Biblical History, eds. Corley and van Grol, 191–210. 61  For example, “spirit of might” echoes Isa 11:2, while ‫ אחרית‬echoes Isa 2:1. Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 86–7. Against: Smend, Weisheit, 467; Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 334–35. 62  Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 87. 63  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539. Michael A. Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, eds. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 2:649 (633–50).

94

Chapter 3

Sir 48:25 This final line mentions the ‫( עד עולם … נהיות‬things that will be forever) and ‫( נסתרות‬hidden things).64 Scholarship has made much of Ben Sira’s attitude to the revealed and hidden, citing Sir 3:22, and Di Lella says that this sequence refers to First, Second and Third Isaiah.65 The sense of Sir 48:24–25 is that Isaiah saw things related to latter days, and that the prophet comforted and revealed hidden things. Several words, ‫אחרית‬, ‫הגיד‬, and ‫נסתרות‬, reflect and summarize Isaiah’s comparisons of the hidden and the revealed (Isa 28:17; 45:19; 48:16). Knibb and Skehan and Di Lella see in this line an echo of Isa 42:9, which has ‫ הראשנות‬and ‫חדשות‬.66 Ben Sira’s word choices span over eleven lines of harmonization and paraphrase, and thus it is not surprising that Ben Sira paraphrases rather than quoting one particular passage. This pattern of harmonization and paraphrase will continue with Josiah in the next section (Sir 49:1–3). Here, it is probably best to see Sir 48:25 as a general summation of Isaiah’s repeated references to the hidden and revealed, the end and the future. Moreover, familiarity with Isaiah’s language is not surprising in Ben Sira, either. Michael A. Knibb suggests these alternative word choices indicate apocalyptic predictions he says are absent in Isaiah. Knibb’s argument for an apocalyptic reading of this line depends upon an interpretation of the meaning of ‫ אחרית‬as the “end times,” although the word could also mean “later” or “after,” and upon a hypothesized Jewish version of the apocalyptic Ascension of Isaiah. However, Isaiah was already considered a great prophet in Second Temple times even without the Ascension of Isaiah, which should be considered a side-effect of Isaian popularity, not the cause.67 Earlier the ‫( רוח גבורה‬Sir 48:24) may be compared with Isaiah’s frequent references to the spirit of the Lord and to God as a warrior.68 Thus in referring to Isaiah’s prophecy in the Hezekiah narrative (and his prophecies in general), Ben Sira uses typical vocabulary prevalent in Isaiah. This is not unusual, as it simply suggests a strong use of “Isaian language” owing to content overlap and familiarity with prophetic literature. This shows a continued preference for paraphrase of the story. 64  The construction of ‫נהיות‬ … ‫ עד עולם‬is a use of LBH, found also in Qumran literature. For example: ‫ נהיה עולם‬in 4QInstrd 69.ii.7; ‫ נהיות עולם‬in CD 13:8; ‫ נהיי עולמים‬in 1QM 17:5; ‫ רז נהיה‬1QMyst 1.1.3; ‫ קץ נהיה‬1QS 10:5. DCH 6:305. Only in the Syriac is ‫ עד עולם‬translated “to the world,” while in the Greek and Latin the sense is of time: “at the end.” 65  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539. 66  Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions,” 649. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539. 67  Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions,” 649–50. 68  Isa 11:1–3, 61:1.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

95

Summary of Findings Ben Sira’s portrayal of Hezekiah-Isaiah does not show a strong preference for any one source alone (2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, or Isaiah). Rather, these texts are harmonized where they vary in detail or contradict each other (such as Sir 48:20cd). At certain points there is an active use of 2 Chronicles, so the argument that Ben Sira might prefer 2 Kings or Isaiah alone cannot be supported. At other points, though, the sources can equally be 2 Kings, Isaiah, or 2 Chronicles, due to similarities between these sources and the extent of paraphrase that Ben Sira employs. Indeed, paraphrase and harmonization in Sir 48:17–25 is so prevalent that it is unfair to exclude 2 Chronicles.69 His overall source handling is also limited to details offered by 2 Kings, Isaiah, and 2 Chronicles themselves, and it can be best characterized as a harmonization of all three into one inclusive narrative. Another finding affects our understanding of what Ben Sira’s sources looked like. Sir 48:20cd reads that God saved the people from Sennacherib, which aligns with the MT of Isa 37:20. The variant in 1QIsaa 37:20 says that Hezekiah saved the people. This is an example of a case where Ben Sira’s textual source is more similar to the MT instead of the edition of Isaiah represented by 1QIsaa.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Other Sources

Only three copies of Kings (4QKings; 5QKings; pap6QKings) and one copy of Chronicles (4QChr) survive from Qumran.70 In the Ascension of Isaiah, possibly an early Christian text, Hezekiah and Manasseh are contrasted as good and evil kings, respectively, drawing upon 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah 36–39.71 69  As noted above in the commentary on Sir 48:17cd, Ben Sira does leave out 2 Chronicles 29–30, which is a large portion of the story in Chronicles, but in Kings and Isaiah this story is much shorter and focused on the bronze serpent. However, the textual commentary above has shown that Ben Sira does use 2 Chronicles in his treatment of Hezekiah-Isaiah. By comparison, Knibb mentions only the use of 2 Kings and Isaiah. See Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions,” 648–50. 70  4QKings: DJD 14, 171–83. For 5QKings and 6QpapKings, see: DJD 3, 107–11; 171–72. DJD 16, 295–97. The fragment contains 2 Chr 28:27–29:3. 71  See Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions,” 644–45. George Brooke argues it might be an accident that no Jewish recension of Ascension of Isaiah survives in the Dead Sea Scrolls (however, neither was a Jewish recension of 4 Ezra found, for that matter). George J. Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, 2:609 (609–32). The text is summarized in Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions,” 638–47.

96

Chapter 3

Josephus depicts Hezekiah as an exemplary king, although he gives the king little attention and space (A.J. 9.257–10.36). Isaiah was by comparison more popular in Second Temple times. Twentyone separate copies of Isaiah were found at Qumran. Since not all of these were produced at Qumran, Tov argues that this quantity shows clearly how popular Isaiah was at large in Judea not just at Qumran.72 Isaiah’s popularity at Qumran is shown by the large number of direct and indirect quotations in the pesharim of Isaiah, which date from the first century bce,73 and the large amount of quotation from Isaiah in 1QH compared to Jeremiah and Ezekiel.74 Most interestingly, George Brooke notes that among these pesharim there is no surviving commentary or quotation of Isaiah 36–39.75 In other Second Temple literature and early Christianity, Isaiah continued to play an important role, particularly for its messianic passages.76 The prophet Isaiah seems to have been respected a great deal, which makes it interesting that only pesharim of Isaiah survive and not pseudepigraphal works, as we find with Jeremiah and Ezekiel.77 While not naming the prophet by name, Philo cites Isa 1:9, alluding to the prophet as a “disciple and friend of Moses,”78 but he did not treat either Hezekiah or Isaiah as subjects in his writings. Josephus defends the accuracy of Isaiah in Ag. Ap. 1.7 and A.J. 9.276, 10.35.79 Louis H. Feldman argues that Isaiah was less important than David in Josephus’s time, but nonetheless Josephus calls Isaiah θεῖος, “divine.”80 Where Isaiah is used, particularly as an example of a royal advisor, Josephus is both cautious 72  Tov compares the figures: there are twenty-six copies of Deuteronomy and thirty-six of Psalms, and says that the Qumran community produced their own compositions modelled on each. Emanuel Tov, “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, eds. Broyles and Evans, 2:491–92 (491–511). 73  Brooke states there may be between two and six separate pesharim on Isaiah, represented by six manuscripts. Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim,” 609. 74  There are 154 allusions to Isaiah, forty-three to Jeremiah, and twenty-six to Ezekiel. Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim,” 611. 75  Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim,” 631. 76  Knibb cites Pss. Sol. 8:14–17; 17:23–24, 29, 35–37; 18:7–8; 1 En. 46:3; 48:1–4; 62:2–3; 2 Esd 13:10; T.Levi 18:7; T.Jud. 24:5b–6a. Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions,” 633. Knibb also mentions citations of Isaiah’s name in 4 Macc 18:14. 77  Brooke mentions this as an accident of text survival. Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim,” 609. 78  Philo, QG 2.43. 79  Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Isaiah,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, eds. Broyles and Evans, 2:583; 587 (583–608). Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 585, notes that Josephus’s treatment of Isaiah has been overlooked in scholarship. 80  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 605.

97

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

and selective, attuned to his contemporary politics and audience.81 He changes major parts of the Hezekiah story in omitting Isaiah’s prophecy that Hezekiah would die of his illness (A.J. 10.35),82 and leaving out the reference to David in order to distance the two (Isa 38:5). The last change is notable because of Sir 49:4, which does in fact link Hezekiah, Josiah, and David together. Because of allusions to Isaiah in 1 Enoch and elsewhere, there are precedents for Ben Sira’s estimation of Isaiah as ὁ μέγας καὶ πιστὸς. Ben Sira’s positive treatment of Isaiah is also similar to other extant early Jewish literature. A silent issue arises from comparison of these texts, however. Ben Sira’s Isaiah, despite his unequalled popularity in the Second Temple period, receives far less space (though not less positive) than Hezekiah: a king who hardly figures at all in pseudepigrapha and whose main texts, 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, barely survive in the finds of the Dead Sea and Judean Desert. The discrepancy must be due to a motivation behind the Praise of the Fathers that dedicates far more space to rulers and priests than to prophets, even bestselling prophets such as Isaiah.

Primary Texts for Sir 49:1–3 Hebrew83



(9a l. 3)

‫ הממלח מעשה רוקח‬ ‫ וכמזמור על משתה היין‬ ‫ וישבת תועבות הבל‬ ‫ ובימי חמס עשה חסד‬

‫ שם יאשיהו כקטרת סמים‬ ‫ בחך כדבש ימתיק זכרו‬ ‫ כי נחל על משובתינו‬ ‫ ויתם אל אל לבו‬

49:1ab cd 49:2 49:3

Translation of Hebrew 49:1ab The name of Josiah is like burnt incense of odours, The salted work of a perfumer, 49:1cd On the palate like honey his memory is sweet, And as a song at a wine feast, 81  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” especially 607. 82  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 605–6. 83  MS.Heb.e.62 9a (XVIIIv.), l.3–6. There are no major transcription or reconstruction issues in these lines, as B is not damaged badly, although the ink is faint. In the manuscript, Sir 49:1b is unaligned, further to the right, the text becoming smaller and more cramped. My transcription has neatened the column width for research purposes.

98

Chapter 3

49:2 For he was grieved84 with our apostasies, And he destroyed vain abominations, : 49 3 And he perfected his heart with God,85 And in the days of violence, he practised piety. Greek 49:1 49:2 49:3

Μνημόσυνον Ιωσίου εἰς σύνθεσιν θυμιάματος ἐσκευασμένον ἔργῳ μυρεψοῦ· ἐν παντὶ στόματι ὡς μέλι γλυκανθήσεται καὶ ὡς μουσικὰ ἐν συμποσίῳ οἴνου. αὐτὸς κατευθύνθη ἐν ἐπιστροφῇ λαοῦ καὶ ἐξῆρεν βδελύγματα ἀνομίας· κατεύθυνεν πρὸς κύριον τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἡμέραις ἀνόμων κατίσχυσεν τὴν εὐσέβειαν. Latin

49:1 49:2 49:3 49:4

memoria Iosiae in conpositione odoris facti opus pigmentarii in omni ore quasi mel indulcabitur eius memoria et ut musica in convivio vini ipse est directus divinitus in paenitentia gentis et tulit abominationes impietatis et gubernavit ad Dominum cor ipsius in diebus peccatorum corroboravit pietatem Syriac

̈ ̈ ‫ܕܒܣܡܢܐ܂‬ ‫ܕܒܣܡܐ܂ ܕܚܠܝܛܝܢ ܒܣܓܝܐܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܫܝܐ ܐܝܟ ܦܝܪܡܐ‬ ‫ܫܡܗ‬49:1 ܼ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܚܡܪܐ܂‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܕܒܫܐ ܠܚܟܐ ܚ ܼܠܐ ܕܘܟܪܢܗ܂ ܘܐܝܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܥܠ ܡܫܬܝܐ‬

84  Compare to Greek (“he himself was kept straight in the conversion of the people”) and Syriac (“he hid himself”). Note that in Sir 49:2, ‫ נחל‬should be read as a defective niphal of ‫( חלה‬cf. Amos 6:6), “he was grieved.” See Hildesheim, Bis daß ein Prophet, 169; EggerWenzel, “Josiah and His Prophet(s),” 237; Beentjes, “Sweet is his Memory,” 162. 85  Compare to Latin (“he directed his heart to the Lord”) and Syriac (“he surrendered his heart”).

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

99

ܿ ‫ܘܒܛܠ‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ܢܣܝܘܢܐ܂‬ ‫ ܘܐܫܠܡ‬49:3  ‫ܕܛܠܝܘܬܐ܂‬87 ‫ܥ ̈ܒܕܐ‬ ‫ ܡܢ‬86‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܐܫܬܛܝ‬49:2 ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܒܝܘܡ ܿܝ ܚܛܗ ܼܐ ܥܒܕ ܩܘܫܬܐ܂‬ ‫ܠܐܠܗܐ ܠܒܗ܂‬

Textual Commentary on Josiah (Sir 49:1–3)

Sir 49:1ab The Josiah section is demarcated as Sir 49:1–3 by Skehan and Di Lella, Segal, and Smend, in line with Ziegler’s edition.88 However, in his article on ancient accounts of Josiah’s death, Delamarter includes Sir 49:4–7, which is interesting because if the Josiah section is Sir 49:1–7, Jeremiah becomes Josiah’s prophet just as Hezekiah is paired with Isaiah. This would make the sections HezekiahIsaiah and Josiah-Jeremiah. Di Lella notes that 49:1 begins the final twentytwo line section of the Praise of the Fathers, treating Sir 49:1–13 as one poem.89 In other ways, however, Sir 49:4–7, while it comments on Jeremiah, does not strictly tie itself in narrative to the story of Josiah—rather it comments on the Exile and the other kings who were such sinners that Ben Sira does not even mention them by name.90 Therefore, while it does add a new insight to see Josiah as Josiah-Jeremiah, Sir 49:1–3 will be considered by itself here. The comparison of Josiah’s name with burnt incense and the work of perfumers is closest to Exod 37:29. This line has been noted by Wright as evoking Exodus 30 and Temple practices, since Ben Sira elsewhere mentions incense and perfumers in the context of Temple worship.91 The word combination

86  Note the differences in the Syriac (“he hid himself”) and the Latin, et gubernavit ad Dominum (“and he was directed unto God”). Compare with the Hebrew ‫ נחל‬and the Greek κατευθύνθη (“he was wounded”). 87  Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 261, note it is preferable to read this word as ‫ܕܛܥܝܘܬܐ‬, changing ‫ ܠ‬for ‫ܥ‬. 88  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 543. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 346. Smend, Hebräisch, 88; 2:469. Ziegler, Sapientia, 354. Codex Sinaiticus (f.183b) is very faded at Sir 49:1–4, but there are no paragraph markers or other markers to separate Sir 49:3 and 49:4. 89  However, Skehan in his translation arranges no section division between Sir 49:1–3 and 49:4–8. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 540. 90  Not to mention them by name in this case should be seen as part of the Egyptian and Roman tradition of name erasure or damnatio memoriae, especially following the very positive description of Josiah’s name, ‫ שם יאשיהו כקטרת סמים‬in Sir 49:1a, and Josiah’s memory compared with honey and music in Sir 49:1cd. 91  Wright, “Biblical Interpretation,” 372. Sir 38:7 should be added to this list.

100

Chapter 3

‫ קטרת סמים‬is found in Exodus many times,92 and the context of Exodus 30

presents prescriptions for offering burnt incense in the Tabernacle, making it particularly relevant for Josiah as the reformer of the Temple. The closeness with Exod 37:29 is particularly interesting, however, as it is also found in 4QRPc (4Q365). In 4Q365 12a–b ii, line 6, the top of the second half the line is cut off but likely reads ]‫קטרת הסמים טהור מ[עש]ה [ר]וק[ח‬, which quotes Exod 37:29.93 Exod 37:29 describes how Bezalel made, last of all, the anointing oil and incense, before Exod 38:1 begins the making of the altar for burnt offerings.94 In addition, Sir 45:16 reads that God chose Aaron to offer sacrifice ‫ולהקטיר‬ ‫ריח ניחח ואזכרה‬.95 The Greek θυμιάματος (gen. of θυμίαμα) is only found here at Sir 49:1, while θυμίαμα is found at Sir 45:16.96 Thus it is likely that the hiphil verb ‫ להקטיר‬is found only at Sir 45:16 (Aaron), while the hophal verb ‫ תקטר‬occurs only at Sir 45:14 (also Aaron), and the noun ‫ קטרת‬is found only at Sir 49:1 (Josiah).97 A more likely scenario is that Ben Sira is echoing a known phrase, but as both Exod 30:34–35 and Exod 37:29 are instructions for incense offerings and have similar words, it is not pertinent to categorize the textual reuse as a kind of quotation of either. Rather, the textual reuse is probably due 92  Exod 25:6; 30:7, 34; 31:11; 35:15; 37:29; 39:38; 40:27. To burn (‫ )קטר‬spices (‫ )סמים‬is found in Leviticus and Numbers. 93  Abegg, Bowley, and Cook, Concordance, 2:654. Qimron has the same transcription and reconstruction. Elisha Qimron, ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2014), 3:118. See DJD 13, 187–194; 255–318 (especially 262; 279; Plate XXVI). DJD 13, 279, notes that the ‫ ח‬in ‫ רוקח‬may have been above the line. 4Q365 12a–b ii reworks Exod 37:29–38:7. IAA, “4Q RP C, Plate 807, Frag 19: High-Resolution Image,” http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295383. IAA, “4Q RP C, Plate 807, Frag 19: Infrared Image,” http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/ image/B-295963. 94  If more of 4Q365 survived, it would have likely contained Exod 30:34–35. See DJD 13, 275–76. 95  Clines (DCH) mentions ‫ קטרת ניחוח‬in one of the Syriac Psalms (Syriac Ps 154) of 11Q5 (11QPsa) XVIII, 9 (cf. Syr Ps 154:11). DCH 7:246. 96  Greek Sir 32(35):8 reads εὐωδίαν, and Sir 24:15 εὐωδία, so these might be ‫ ניחוח‬not ‫סמים‬. See Smend, Index, 108. 97  The word ‫( סמים‬spices or aromas) is found once in Bmg at Sir 38:4, but it is unlikely to be correct. In the Greek a probable location for ‫ סמים‬is Sir 24:15, in which Wisdom grows like certain spices and offers pleasant aromas. In the Greek, the word in Sir 24:15 is ἀρωμάτων (ἄρωμα). See Ziegler, Sapientia, 238; Smend, Index, 31. However, the Greek changes Sir 49:1 slightly so that it is not like an incense of spices/odours, but “one blended incense” (εἰς σύνθεσιν θυμιάματος). The Hebrew is likely correct (against the Greek) as the Syriac reads ̈ ‫ܕܒܣܡܐ‬ ‫ܦܝܪܡܐ‬.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

101

to Ben Sira’s familiarity with both. Both passages in Exodus appear to be set expressions. Hence, it indicates intimate familiarity with the language of Exodus. Smend translates the word ‫ הממלח‬as “well-mixed” and Skehan “made lasting,” while B.H. Parker and Martin Abegg translate this word as “infused with spices.”98 These translations resemble the Greek here ἐσκευασμένον (“prepared”). The meaning of ‫ הממלח‬should be compared with Exod 30:34–35, which uses it in the sense of seasoned or salted (Exod 30:35). Since Sir 49:1 and Exod 30:35 are in a sacrificial context in which salt plays an important role as an ingredient,99 it is best to keep the meaning of “salted” or “seasoned.”100 Thus Sir 49:1b can be translated, “The salted/seasoned work of a perfumer.”101 The cultic metaphors of incense, salt, and perfumer’s work could be construed as a priestly interpretation or overlay of Josiah over-and-against his role as king.102 Attaching Temple worship metaphors to Josiah, however, might also indicate Ben Sira’s historical context: Temple worship metaphors indicate the worldview and modes of expression with which Ben Sira is most familiar. Alternatively, making Temple worship overtones to Josiah attunes the reader to the climactic hero of the Praise of the Fathers: the High Priest Simon. Thus, strong overall overtones of Temple worship in the Praise, even in portrayals of patriarchs that are not priests, would be entirely appropriate for a poem about the High Priest. Sir 49:1cd The lasting memory of Josiah’s name, particularly in light of the unnamed wicked kings of Sir 49:4–7) may be compared to the Roman practice of damnatio memoriae in architecture and portraiture and the Egyptian practice of destroying a name from king lists and monuments, as was done with Hatshepsut.103 Ben Sira’s views are similar in that he feels that only a good 98  B.H. Parker and M.G. Abegg, “Translation of MS B XVIII Recto,” bensira.org. Smend translates “wohlgemischte,” Smend, Hebräisch, 88. 99  Lev 2:13 states that salt must accompany all Temple offerings. Num 18:19 and 2 Chr 13:5 call the covenant with Aaron a covenant of salt. 100  The form is pual. 101  Ben-Ḥayyim, 199, records this as the only occurrence of ‫ מלח‬in a verbal form, while the noun ‫ מלח‬is found in Sir 20:19, 39:23, 39:26, 43:19, and possibly Greek Sir 22:15. 102  On the place of the perfumer in the Temple, see Chapter Six on the possible Temple location of the physician and perfumer. 103   For Roman practice, see Eric R. Varner, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (Leiden: Brill, 2004). For its application to the Praise of the Ancestors see Jeremy Corley, “Sirach 44:1–15 as Introduction to the Praise

102

Chapter 3

king is deserving of a lasting name. When he turns to the bad kings of Israel and Judah (Sir 49:4–7), he does not mention any of them explicitly by name, certainly an act of damnatio memoriae. Ben Sira’s use of ‫( חך‬palate) here was changed in the Greek (στόμα) and Latin (os).104 Sir 6:5 contains another use of ‫( חך‬used only three extant times in the Hebrew), which Greek translates λάρυγξ.105 A combination of the word ‫ חך‬with both ‫ דבש‬and forms of ‫ מתק‬is in Prov 24:13.106 Prov 24:13 is significant for comparisons with Sir 24, but it is still not convincing evidence enough by itself to demonstrate a strong quotation of either text. The use of these words indicates a high familiarity with wisdom literature, and with this metaphor in particular as a conventional expression, itself found in Proverbs for both wisdom (Prov 24:13; 25:16), pleasant words or things (Prov 16:24; 25:27) and evil (Prov 5:3). There is a poetic assonance in each line of Sir 49:1. Sir 49:1a, 1b, and 1c use metaphors, each beginning ‫כ־‬. The echo of initial letters is seen at Sir 49:1b ‫ מעשה | ממלח‬and 1d ‫מזמר ׀ משתה‬. There is also an overall balance of length with these two lines (1ab, 1cd). The words ‫ משתה היין‬can be found in Isa 5:11–14, commented on in a pesher on Isaiah (4Q162).107 Isa 5:11–14 condemns those who get drunk at wine feasts. Ben Sira’s attitude to wine (in moderation) as vital to society and happiness is found throughout his text.108 The phrase ‫ משתה היין‬is found in Est 5:6. Here in Sir 49:1d, the ‫ משתה היין‬is pleasant and includes music. To further demonstrate Ben Sira’s familiarity with wisdom expression in the Hebrew Bible, in of the Ancestors,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 171n (151–81). For the Egyptian practice, see Charles F. Nims, “The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut,” ZÄS 93:1 (1966): 97–100. 104  The dependence of the Latin (in omni ore) on the Greek is clear here. At Sir 49:1a the Syriac follows the Hebrew more closely than the Greek: Μνημόσυνον Ιωσίου εἰς σύνθεσιν θυμιάματος, which the Latin follows closely; compare the Syriac ‫ܕܝܘܫܝܐ ܐܝܟ ܦܝܪܡܐ‬ ‫ܫܡܗ‬ ܼ ̈ ‫ܕܒܣܡܐ‬. These examples show the ancient translators’ difficulties with the conciseness and awkwardness of these lines in Hebrew. 105  Smend, Index, 146; Ziegler, Sapientia, 150. Ben-Ḥayyim, 140. Because of Ben Sira’s more frequent use of ‫( פה‬στόμα in the Greek), there are not many more opportunities for ‫ חך‬in the non-extant Hebrew. 106  See also Ps 19:9–10 for the Lord’s judgements being as sweet as honey. Sweetness (‫)מתק‬ and ‫ חך‬are in Cant 2:3, 5:16. Prov 24:13 cited in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 543. 107  DCH 5:567. 108  Sir 9:9–10; 34:12; 35:5; 39:26. Sir 39:26 is a list of necessities of life. He is negative about the excess of wine: Sir 19:2; 34:25–31.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

103

Sir 40:18–20 life is sweetened (‫ )מתק‬by wine and strong drink (‫)שכר‬, and wine and music are paired and compared with wisdom, which is better than both. The fact that Ben Sira mentions music at feasts is interesting for the meanings of ‫ שיר‬and ‫ מזמר‬for Ben Sira and his period. As noted in Clines, Sir 49:1 is the only case of ‫ מזמר‬outside a worship context; all other uses in Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew are for songs of praise.109 Sir 49:2 Sir 49:2 makes an allusion to 2 Kgs 22:11, as argued by Smend, Segal, and Di Lella,110 when Josiah tears his clothes after hearing the “Scroll of the Law.” Di Lella, and Segal draw comparisons with Isa 53:5, which reads ‫והוא מחלל‬ ‫“( מפשענו‬he was grieved with our transgressions”).111 Di Lella and Segal note that ‫ )משובה( משובתינו‬and ‫ הבל תועבות‬are references to idolatry in Josiah’s reign before his reforms.112 Segal, Smend, and Di Lella agree that ‫( נחל‬a defective spelling of niphal of ‫ חלה‬as in Amos 6:6) here can be compared with a similar statement by Jehoshaphat in 2 Kgs 22:11, comparable with 2 Chr 35:23,113 both using the hophal of ‫חלה‬. These two passages usually are translated as “wounded,” but they would be the only examples of this meaning. Nevertheless, Sir 49:2a could also allude to Josiah’s death, not just his grieving over idolatry.114 That being 109  See other uses of ‫ מזמר‬not attached to worship in Sir 35:4–6 (both ‫ שיר‬and ‫ מזמר‬at a ‫)משתה היין‬, 44:5, and 47:9. The word ‫ שיר‬is used in worship with Sir 40:21, 47:9, 17, 50:18. DCH 5:210; 8:339. Ben-Ḥayyim, 196; 289. 110  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 543. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 337. Smend, Weisheit, 469. 111  To help understand the meaning of ‫ חלה‬in Isaiah 53 as “grieve” not “pierced” as found in many English translations, this servant in Isa 53:3 is called ‫איש מכאבות וידוע חלי‬ (“a man of sorrows and who knows grief”). Other uses of ‫ חלה‬as “grief” are to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Smend and Segal refer to Amos 6:6 for this as a defective niphal, and Segal adds Jer 12:13. Smend, Weisheit, 469. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 337. 112  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 543. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 337. In the other versions, instead of “grieved” the Greek and Latin read “directed,” and the Syriac reads “hid himself.” Likewise the Greek “kept straight” may derive from the hophal ‫הנחה‬. Perhaps there was confusion over the root of the word ‫נחל‬, as Skehan notes. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 541. 113  Di Lella, Smend, and Parker and Abegg agree that ‫( נחל‬qal form is ‫ )חלה‬means “grieved” here. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 540; 543. Parker and Abegg, bensira.org. Smend, Hebräisch, 88, “grämte sich.” 114  It does not seem prudent that a king announce a wound on the battlefield, so perhaps a better meaning is actually a euphemistic “made weak/tired.” Egger-Wenzel and Beentjes connect this verb also to Josiah’s death in battle. So Egger-Wenzel, “Josiah and

104

Chapter 3

said, the closeness of Ben Sira’s phrase ‫ נחל על משובתינו‬to Isa 53:5 ‫מחלל מפשענו‬ points to Ben Sira’s understanding of the meaning of ‫ חלה‬as “to grieve” for Isa 53:5. Sir 49:3 Ben Sira continues the narrative chronologically. Sir 49:3a refers to 2 Kgs 22:19 and 2 Chr 34:27; the textual reuse here is again in paraphrase rather than quotation. In 2 Kgs 22:19 and 2 Chr 34:27, which share nearly the same wording, Josiah’s heart is ‫רכך( רך‬, “to be tender, penitent”). In both passages, God spares Josiah from living to see the Exile because he had torn his clothes and wept (‫נחל על משובתינו‬, Sir 49:2) after hearing from the Scroll of the Law and realizing how corrupt Israel had become. While Ben Sira does not quote directly from 2 Kgs 22:19 / 2 Chr 34:27, he paraphrases it with ‫ויתם אל אל לבו‬. The use of ‫ תמם‬with the preposition ‫ אל‬is not found in Classical or Late Biblical Hebrew, but Ben Sira writes ‫ אל אל‬in a number of places.115 Segal explains that Sir 49:3a implies that Josiah made his heart perfect with God, different from Skehan’s translation, “fixed,” and similar to the Greek.116 It is better to render ‫ יתם‬into English following the Hebrew more closely, with “he perfected his heart with God.”117 In the blessing for the priesthood in Sir 45:26, Ben Sira asks that the descendants of Aaron and Phinehas be given ‫חכמת לב‬. Earlier in Sir 45:23, Phinehas offers up his heart (‫)נדבו לבו‬. Finally in Sir 49:3b, Ben Sira uses paraphrase again to express how Josiah removed sin from Israel. For this we can compare with Sir 46:7 on Joshua. The word ‫ חסד‬in this case should mean “piety” in this case, in agreement with

His Prophet(s),” 237–38; Beentjes, “Sweet is his Memory,” 162. A connection with ‫ חלל‬is rejected by Beentjes, “Sweet is his Memory,” 161. 115  Sir 7:17; 37:15; 38:4, 9, 14; 46:5, 16; 47:15; 48:20; 49:3. Ben-Ḥayyim, 85–86. 116  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 540. Di Lella also offers the translation, “gave his heart perfectly.” See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 543. The Syriac follows the Hebrew closely with “perfected,” ‫ܘܐܫܠܡ ܠܐܠܗܐ ܠܒܗ‬, while the Greek reads κατεύθυνεν— “directed” (found also in Sir 49:2a, κατευθύνθη). Segal, Smend, and Di Lella all cite Gen 20:5 (‫ )בתם־לבבי‬for the combination of ‫ תמם‬with (‫ ;לב(ב‬Di Lella adds 1 Kgs 19:2 and Ps 101:2. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 337. Smend, Weisheit, 469. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 543. 117  Hence my translation above. It is possible that ‫ ויתם‬prepares for the cognate noun in 49:4 ‫תמם‬. Beentjes, “Sweet is his Memory,” 163.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

105

Smend, which would be more relevant to the removal of idolatry, which Ben Sira refers to with the word ‫( חמס‬violence or lawlessness).118 Summary of Findings As with Hezekiah-Isaiah, Ben Sira’s treatment of Josiah relies on textual reuse in the form of paraphrase and harmonization of sources. When Ben Sira uses words that appear closer to quotation, he draws upon the conventions and expressions of the language in Kings, Chronicles, and Isaiah, as well as psalms or wisdom language, rather than strictly from a set of key passages in either 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles. This tendency indicates paraphrase and a familiarity with the language—idioms and phrase—of his textual sources. Again, as with Hezekiah-Isaiah, there is simply no clear preference or lopsided use of one source over another. Ben Sira can be said to be rather carefully balanced and impartial in his treatments of Hezekiah and Josiah. These findings continue to reflect the physical and material limitations of textual reuse in the ancient world, a scenario in which prior research, lifelong familiarity with the texts, editing drafts, and perhaps the use of notebooks or florilegia would have been aides for Ben Sira during composition, resulting in mental harmonization of sources (assisted by transcriptions in notebooks), and in this case the significant use of paraphrase in order to retell long narratives. One theme that comes out of Ben Sira’s Josiah is the importance of Templeworship. Wright argues that Ben Sira writes regarding an ideal priestly ruler partly in response to Ptolemaic and Seleucid royal ruler-cults.119 Indeed, the only blessings that appear in the Praise of the Fathers appear with Phinehas and Aaron (Sir 45:25–26), both priests not kings. And Ben Sira does attribute qualities of piety to Josiah with the “incense” metaphors, as well as Sir 49:3, ‫עשה חסד‬. These attributions do not distinguish between kingly ruler and priestly ruler, or imply that a good king is like a priest: rather, Ben Sira values piety in rulers. For Ben Sira, the good ruler is a pious ruler actively involved with the Temple. Thus David, Hezekiah, Solomon, Josiah were good (Sir 49:4) 118  This is a difference picture to Parker and Abegg, who translate ‫ חסד‬as “kindness” (bensira.org); and Skehan, who translates it as “virtue,” interpreting ‫ עשה‬as “practise” rather than “work/make,” Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 540. For ‫עשה‬, compare Isa 45:7, ‫( עשה טוב ובורא רע‬Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 540). Smend translates “Frömmigkeit” (piety), Smend, Hebräisch, 88. 119   Wright, “Kingship,” 86–87. As mentioned, however, human deification in the Mediterranean world rose in popularity for all types of notable humans, not only kings. Potter, “Hellenistic Religion,” 416–19.

106

Chapter 3

because these kings had active roles in the building, maintenance, or restoration of the Temple and its worship. The remaining questions are why Josiah is compared to Temple incense, and why the pious acts of Israel’s kings are emphasized. Perhaps the kings in the Praise of the Fathers tend to receive “priestly” treatments because Ben Sira has dedicated the Praise to Simon II. As the local ruler and High Priest, Simon played both administrative and priestly roles.120 Simon’s primary role as High Priest is probably why Josiah is compared to sacrificial incense. Another suggestion is that a tendency towards priestly and sacrificial metaphors is predictable in Ben Sira’s work as a scribe, teacher, and administrator within the Temple of Jerusalem, as well as his potential priestly family connections or connection with Simon. Ben Sira, when using Temple-centred and worshipcentred language, is then predictably speaking from his own most easily recalled reference point of the Temple.

Josiah and Other Sources

Josiah receives little attention from Second Temple literature, except for 2 Esdras which purports to be written during the reign of Josiah. Josiah in Josephus does not receive much space either (A.J. 10.48–80). Overall, Josephus gives brief space to the minor kings of Judah. Ben Sira likewise only mentions Hezekiah, Josiah, David, and Solomon, relegating all the others into a category of wicked kings not worth mentioning by name (Sir 49:4). Josephus is writing the history of the Jewish people in Antiquities, thereby including even the wicked kings such as Manasseh (A.J. 10.36–47). By contrast, Ben Sira dedicates his Praise of the Fathers to the High Priest of his time, wanting to praise Simon as much as possible, and this seems to affect the way he treats history. As a result, Ben Sira relegates a fair amount of space to the righteous kings, David and Solomon, who receive more space due to their long narratives in the Hebrew Bible, but also to Hezekiah and Josiah, who merit inclusion due to their virtue and qualities as leaders. Hezekiah protects and improves his city, and Josiah conducts religious reforms. Both of these are good qualities to include in a poem directing attention to the deeds of Simon II. Overall, Second Temple literature gives very little attention to Hezekiah and Josiah as figures.

120  It may be that priestly-kingly qualities emerge because of Simon’s local administrative leadership, not because of messianic hope. Corley, “Messianism,” 310–11. Olyan, “Priesthood,” 284–85.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

107

Likewise, Isaiah was an important figure in Second Temple literature as shown above. Even so, it is remarkable that the space dedicated to Josiah is about the same length as the space dedicated to Isaiah, while Hezekiah is even longer than both. The Book of Isaiah’s popularity in Second Temple times is second only to Deuteronomy and Psalms. Ben Sira’s familiarity with Isaiah is demonstrated by frequent allusions and quotations of Isaiah throughout his text. So why does Isaiah not receive a longer section if he was so influential to Ben Sira’s teaching? It cannot be simply because the Hezekiah and Josiah stories are so lengthy that they require paraphrase since it seems to be instead the importance of a figure (Aaron; David; Simon) that bears weight on the length of treatment by Ben Sira. One plausible explanation of the length is that Hezekiah and Josiah—as good rulers—are worth setting space to in an historical poem dedicated to his contemporary local ruler and High Priest. Any figures which symbolize good leadership must receive extra attention, even over some prophets, who often play roles in royal service. Hence Ben Sira places emphasis upon infrastructure, religious reform, and leadership in times of turmoil. These deeds are much more stage-setting for the Praise of the Fathers, than Isaiah with his role as advisor and prophet to a king.

Ben Sira’s Multiple Source Handling Compared with Other Sources

Ben Sira’s handling of multiple sources in his portrayals of Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah bears good comparison with how Kings and Chronicles treated their sources. Both refer regularly to other writings about the kings of Israel and Judah, and treat their sources in various ways: sometimes with changes (the death of Josiah), paraphrase, or added agenda.121 The reuse of sources in Kings and Chronicles seems at times like a casual discussion rather than a systematic copy-and-paste treatment: traditions are digested and reshaped in their retelling, not just regurgitated. Yet Ben Sira does not make changes to the story, or expand it. Neither, however, does he regurgitate. Instead he harmonizes and paraphrases in order to tell a single story. As the sources of Kings and Chronicles are unknown (Chronicles may have used an earlier version of Kings), their harmonization of sources remains unknown, but plenty of examples from later Jewish (Josephus) and Classical texts can be good examples of the same strategy. Second Temple literature bears more fruitful comparison. Ben Sira’s harmonization and paraphrase fit well within one aspect of Second Temple literature: 121  Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 118.

108

Chapter 3

that early Jewish writings do not seem to try to eclipse or contradict their sources, merely complement. While texts such as Jubilees, ALD, and 1 Enoch expand the stories of the patriarchs (unlike Ben Sira), the expansions add to, rather than disagree with, the story, which indicate elevated respect for scripture and the well-known figures represented in scripture.122 Josephus, Jerome, and Luke, along with other ancient writers such as Pliny the Elder, Herodotus, or Thucydides, all read many texts before composition. Chapters One and Two discussed the ancient method of reading before composition, the use of notebooks for quotations and thoughts, and the lack of tables and desks to support reading from open scrolls while writing. Pliny the Elder is known for having had over two hundred notebooks. These physical limitations help explain why Josephus, Jerome, Paul, and the authors of the Gospels sometimes confused their sources.123 Source confusion can indicate different versions of sources used, but most often it suggests the limited manipulation of sources during the act of composition in antiquity. What is interesting is that Ben Sira could be using paraphrase because of the size of his sources compared to the few lines he wished to dedicate to Hezekiah, Isaiah, and Josiah. For the small space given to these figures, there does not seem to be much practicality in manipulating scrolls of Isaiah, Kings, and Chronicles one after another. Indeed, anecdotes of ancient writers at work do not present such a picture as a reality.124 Alternatively, or additionally, Ben Sira could also be harmonizing his sources because he is in fact aware of contradictions in the text. He might be doing both, in fact. It is unclear that Ben Sira would have seen them as contradictions at all, but it is apparent that he recognized they were long and distinct texts that needed careful treatment. The way in which he treated them as one story suggests he saw them as complementary.

122  Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 123  For example, Mark 1:2 identifying a quote as being from Isaiah when quoting Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3, mentally harmonizing the two. 124  Pliny the Elder took notes as his slaves read to him constantly. Quintilian read carefully from the great poets before composing. There are not many examples of such anecdotes of an “author’s method” earlier than this due to the rise of the author as a celebrated figure only in the Hellenistic period. For other examples see Small, Wax Tablets.

Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah

109

Conclusions Summary of Textual Findings in Sir 48:17–25 and Sir 49:1–3 Specific textual findings have shown Ben Sira’s acquaintance with a copy of Isaiah perhaps closer to the MT than the edition represented by 1QIsaa, and an even and balanced use of all three major sources for Ben Sira’s HezekiahIsaiah and Josiah due to a high proportion of paraphrase (making detecting one source over the others more difficult) and harmonization. Ben Sira has a concerted focus on Temple activities in his words on Judah’s kings. This study finds that the qualities of rulers (infrastructure, courageous leadership, piety) are emphasized because Ben Sira is directing focus on Simon the High Priest as a ruler. This lends to the argument that Simon’s praise in Sir 50 is the culmination of the Praise, and not separate from the poem. These considerations add a sociocultural sphere of operation in Ben Sira’s HezekiahIsaiah and Josiah. His political awareness of Simon’s role as a ruler and a priest turns his focus towards infrastructure (Sir 48:17) and Temple-worship metaphors (Sir 49:1ab). It is not clear that Ben Sira would have distinguished between kings and priests in terms of leadership qualities, given Simon’s leadership duties or those of his predecessors under the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Thus, Ben Sira feels comfortable including kings and attributing their virtues and piety to point towards Simon. Conclusions for Ben Sira’s Individual Scribalism In the cases of Sir 48:17–25 and Sir 49:1–3, Ben Sira harmonized and condensed long varying narratives into a short few lines. Ben Sira’s harmonization of sources is less detectable when the sources agree and have very similar passages (such as Sir 48:22ab), but is much more noticeable when they disagree (Sir 48:20cd). Since the themes of 2 Chronicles (Temple and ritual) and 2 Kings and Isaiah (Sennacherib and Hezekiah’s illness) are so distinct, these results tell us much about Ben Sira’s scribal method: that he tended towards harmonization and paraphrase as his tools of textual reuse in cases where 1) his sources were too long and large compared to the few lines he wished to dedicate to their subjects, and 2) his sources varied between each other significantly. In the second case, this use of paraphrase is needed only in one known example here (Sir 48:20cd). Both of these are predictable results of habits of composition. Thus it becomes apparent that Ben Sira readily used paraphrase and harmonization for either or both of these cases, though the exact reasons why cannot always be isolated. Ben Sira’s creativity and text reuse is primarily through these two techniques, but he does not expand or contradict his sources.

110

Chapter 3

The source handling and paraphrase evident in Ben Sira’s Hezekiah-Isaiah and Josiah is clearly not a process of writing while copying directly from multiple scrolls laid out on a table and merging them later. Rather, Ben Sira’s process requires some degree of internalization, with writing unaccompanied by scrolls during the moment of compositional activity. This process is compatible with literary and material culture evidence of ancient literacy, covered in Chapter One. The irregularity of Ben Sira’s textual reuse and the rather balanced paraphrase and harmonizations suggest an ingested internalization, note taking, and reading before composition. On the other hand, we cannot prove by harmonization alone that Ben Sira never consulted these works at any point in time before or after composition. In other words, a sole dependence on memory alone cannot be proved or disproved. Harmonization and paraphrase do not by themselves indicate a total dependence on memory. Alternatively, these strategies can still be the result of careful reading and thought prior to composition, and continue into the editing process. Like Virgil, Ben Sira may have composed freely from memory in the mornings and spent the afternoon and evening editing his drafts. Alternatively, he might have done his reading before composition like Pliny the Elder. We know that scribes did not use desks or tables, since this practice did not arrive in Western civilization until late antiquity. Thus this chapter’s findings on Ben Sira’s scribalism match what we know already about ancient composition habits.125 Either way, it does not matter for our purposes whether Ben Sira worked through memory alone or through the aide of reading beforehand and note taking. Regardless, his textual reuse serves to inspire his readers to reflect upon the sources he conjures up, and creates for the reader a resounding impression of a well-written and classically-rooted composition, placing itself in a longstanding tradition. 125  See Chapter One for discussion of scribal culture.

Chapter 4

On Weather: Nature-Lists and Ben Sira’s Use of Psalms and Job Introduction This chapter explores Sir 43:11–19, selected from Ben Sira’s Hymn to Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33). The Hymn, a psalm of nature (or creation), is worth attention since it is the second largest unit in Ben Sira besides the Praise of the Fathers. In the Hebrew Bible, poems and psalms that list God’s created works of nature (collectively termed here as nature-lists) can be found in Job 36:24–37:24; 38–41 and Psalms 104, 147, and 148.1 Previous studies have focused on the sun, moon, and stars section (Sir 43:1–10) of the Hymn.2 This chapter will direct attention to a different part of the Hymn that has not received as much scholarly attention, Ben Sira’s words on weather (Sir 43:11–19). Some scholars regard Sir 43:13–19 as a unit, or Sir 43:13–20,3 although Reymond regards Sir 43:1–26 as the main unit of the Hymn. I will pay attention to the textual reuse in Sir 43:11–19 rather than to issues of sub-division. Smend and Skehan and Di Lella each interpret Ben Sira’s weather patterns as phenomena acting directly on God’s commands, with God as ruler of nature.4 This theme is in Sir 39:12–35,5 which focuses on elements of nature as instruments of God’s wrath. Like Sir 43:11–19, Sir 39:12–35 also mentions God’s storehouse (Sir 39:30: ‫באוצרו‬, ‫ באוצר‬in Bmg) and likewise praises God’s works. 1  Calling these poems and psalms nature-lists instead of either nature psalms or nature poems prevents misclassification of poems as psalms or vice versa: psalms of nature would be sung in liturgy—and poetic writings of nature should not be confused with psalms. 2  Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 105. Collins does, however, focus attention on the scriptural allusions in Sir 42:13–43:33 on Job 26, 38–41 and Psalms 104 and 148. Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 104. Argall, 1 Enoch, 142–65, focuses discussion on whether Ben Sira also divides creation into opposites like 1 Enoch, and concludes they come from a common framework while favouring different calendars. Núria Calduch-Benages, “The Hymn to the Creation [Sir 42:15–43:33]: A Polemic Text?” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, eds. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLS 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 119–38. 3  For Sir 43:13–19 see Smend, and for Sir 43:13–20 see Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, and Eric D. Reymond, Innovations in Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism and the Poems of Sirach, Atlanta: SBL, 2004, 69–70. 4  Smend, Weisheit, 395. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 493. 5  C UL Or. 1002 (ms B, IXr.–IXv.), which is badly damaged and faded.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_006

112

Chapter 4

By comparison, however, the tone of Sir 43:11–19 draws attention to the ways in which nature speaks of God’s power of creation, like Psalm 148 or Job 37–41. Ben Sira asks the reader to “behold” nature and praise the Creator through the beauty and wonders of nature. Job 38–39 has been likened to Egyptian onomastica, or scribal lists of occupations, places, or nature.6 Much smaller nature-lists are also found in Nah 1:2–10, Isa 40:21–24, and Job 9:4–10. Small nature-lists are also in Second Temple literature, such as 1 En. 69:16–24, 2 Bar. 59:5, and 4 Ezra 4:5, 5:26.7 Lists can thus help situate Ben Sira’s place as a scribe in the ancient world, but the categorization is itself too ambiguous to tell us much more about Ben Sira’s individual method of composition. The way in which Ben Sira uses lists, though, is best seen in light of the texts he uses. Sir 43:11–19 presents a useful example of textual reuse outside the Praise of the Fathers. Di Lella has argued that Sir 43:11–19’s literary form is drawn from Psalm 29 with reference to Psalm 104 and 147, Gen 9:13, and Isa 29:6, with some similarities to Job 37–41 and P. Insinger.8 Smend directs attention mainly to Psalm 29, and to Psalm 147 only in reference to Sir 43:17–19.9 Other examples of Hebrew nature-lists are Isa 40:21–24 and Nah 1:2–10. It should be noted that the Syriac version leaves out Sir 43:11–33 entirely, so comparison can only be made with the Greek and Latin.10 The key aim of this chapter is to better understand a piece of Ben Sira’s text which has both 1) strong direct textual reuse in quotations or allusions and echoes, and 2) sustained use of a literary convention such as nature-lists as a literary model. The relationship between which texts are directly reused in quotations and allusions, and which texts are used as literary models, will be a different case from the other chapters so far. 6   Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 491, citing R.J. Williams, “Wisdom in the Ancient Near East,” IDB Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 950 (949–52). Williams also mentions Genesis 1 and Prov 30:15–16, 18–20, 24–31. 7   Michael E. Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, eds. F.M. Cross, W.E. Lemke, and P.D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 414–52. 8   Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 493–94. Sanders, Demotic, 79. Cited also in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 492–95. 9   Smend, Weisheit, 406; 408. 10  Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 240–41. Smend, Weisheit, 404. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 489.

‫‪113‬‬

‫‪On Weather‬‬

‫‪Primary Texts for Sir 43:11–19‬‬

‫‪Mas1h VI, l. 4–13a‬‬

‫‪MS.Heb.e.62b‬‬

‫‪43:11‬‬ ‫‪43:12‬‬ ‫‪43:13‬‬ ‫‪43:14‬‬ ‫‪43:15‬‬ ‫‪43:17a‬‬ ‫‪43:16a‬‬ ‫‪43:17c‬‬ ‫‪43:17d‬‬ ‫‪43:18‬‬ ‫‪43:19‬‬

‫ ‬

‫עושה‬ ‫ראה קשת וברך עושיה )‪43:11 (5b l. 13‬‬ ‫כי מאד נארדה [ ]וד׃ נהרדה‬ ‫הוד הקיפה בכבודו חוק הקיפה בכבודה׃‬ ‫‪43:12‬‬ ‫ויד אל נטתה[ ] לא‬ ‫       גבורתו תתוה ברק‬ ‫‪43:13‬‬ ‫ותנצח זיקות [   ] ] ]ת זיקים‬ ‫למענו למען ברא אוצ[ ]‬ ‫‪43:14‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ויעף [‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ ‬ ‫[‬ ‫‪43 15‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ ‬ ‫[‬ ‫‪d‬קול [ ]חול ארצו‬ ‫‪43:17a‬‬ ‫זלעפר[ ]ן סופה וסערה׃ ‪43:16a‬‬ ‫כר׳‬ ‫[ ]רשף יניף שלגו )‪43:16b (6a l. 1‬‬ ‫וכארבה ישכון דר‬ ‫‪43:b17‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪c‬‬ ‫עינים‬ ‫יגהה תואר לבנה יהגה‬ ‫‪43 17‬‬ ‫וממטרו יהמה לבב׃‬ ‫‪43:17d‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫כמלח‬ ‫ישכון ישפךוגם כפור‬ ‫‪43 18‬‬ ‫יציץ כספיר ציצים׃‬

‫‪43:19‬‬

‫ראה קשת וברך עשיה‬ ‫כי מאד נהדר[ה בהודו]‬ ‫חוג [הקיפה] בכבודה‬ ‫[ו]יד אל נטתה בג[בורה]‬ ‫גערתו [תתו]ה ברד‬ ‫ותנצח זיקות משפט‬ ‫למענו פרע אוצר‬ ‫ויעף עבים כעיט‬ ‫‪c‬גבורתו חזק ענן‬ ‫ותגדע אבני ברד‬ ‫קול רעמו יחיל ארצו‬ ‫ובכחו יניף הרים‬ ‫אמרתו תחריף תימן‬ ‫על עול סופה וסערה‬ ‫כרשף יפרח שלגו‬ ‫וכארבה ישכן רדתו‬ ‫תור לבנו יהג עינים‬ ‫וממטרו יתמיה לבב‬ ‫[וגם] כפור כמלח ישפך‬ ‫ויצמח כסנה צצים‬

‫(‪)l VI. 4‬‬

‫–‪a Images of Mas1h: IAA, “Images of Mas1h”; IAA, “Mas VI,” bensira.org. Yadin, Masada VI, 206‬‬ ‫‪7; 222–23.‬‬ ‫‪b MS.Heb.e.62, 5b (MS B XIIv.) l. 13–18 to 6a (XIIIr.), l. 1–3.‬‬ ‫‪ should be here, as in Greek and Latin, so that verb and noun are both‬ב ‪c A preposition‬‬ ‫‪masculine.‬‬ ‫קול רעמו יחיל ארחו | ובכוחו יזעים הרים ׃ | אימות תהרף תימין | ‪d Bmg on three vertical lines:‬‬ ‫‪.‬על עול סופה וסערה ׃‬

114

Chapter 4

Translation of Mas1h 43:11 43:12 43:13 43:14 43:15 43:17a–16a 43:16b–17b 43:17cd 43:18 43:19

Behold the rainbow and bless its Maker For it is exceedingly majest[ic in His grandeur]11 The sphere (of the sky) [it encompasses] in its glory, [And] the hand of God extends her in p[ower]. His rebuke mark[s out] the hail, And makes bright the flashes of (His) judgement. For His purpose he lets loose the storehouse,12 And he causes the dark-clouds to fly about like birds of prey. (By) His might he strengthens rain-clouds, And He hews hailstones. The sound of His thunder anguishes His earth, And with His power He agitates the mountains.13 His word causes the south wind to be angry, Against injustice: the storm-wind and the tempest. Like sparks His snow scatters, And like locusts it settles (in) its descent; The beauty of its whiteness makes the eyes amazed, And its raining causes the heart to be astounded. [And also] the hoarfrost He pours like salt, And it sprouts like a thorny-bush of blossoms. Greek

43:11 43:12

ἰδὲ τόξον καὶ εὐλόγησον τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὸ σφόδρα ὡραῖον ἐν τῷ αὐγάσματι αὐτοῦ∙ ἐγύρωσεν οὐρανὸν ἐν κυκλώσει δόξης, χεῖρες ὑψίστου ἐτάνυσαν αὐτό.

11  I have reconstructed the Hebrew here as ‫( בהודו‬with a pronimal suffix) in light of the Greek αὔγασμα αὐτοῦ, and the Latin splendor suus, against Btext ‫ בהוד‬or perhaps ‫בכבוד‬. See discussion on this lacunae below, and see Benjamin G. Wright, “Ben Sira 43:11b—‘To What Does the Greek Correspond?’ ” Text 13 (1986): 111–16. 12  The verbs in Sir 43:14 can theoretically be piel or qal. Piel makes the most sense because the tone is that God, or his aspects are the subject. These aspects are God’s glory (Sir 43:11), rebuke (Sir 43:13), purpose (Sir 43:14), might (Sir 43:15), power (Sir 43:16a), and word (Sir 43:16b). 13  Note that the unusual verse ordering in Mas1h is due to the Greek and Latin versions changing the order of verses. The Hebrew numbering reflects this so that the verses can be more easily compared between versions.

115

On Weather

43:13 43:14 43:15 43:16 43:17 43:18 43:19

Προστάγματι αὐτοῦ κατέσπευσεν χιόνα καὶ ταχύνει ἀστραπὰς κρίματος αὐτοῦ∙ διὰ τοῦτο ἠνεῴχθησαν θησαυροί, καὶ ἐξέπτησαν νεφέλαι ὡς πετεινά∙ ἐν μεγαλείῳ αὐτοῦ ἴσχυσεν νεφέλας, καὶ διεθρύβησαν λίθοι χαλάζης∙ καὶ ἐν ὀπτασίᾳ αὐτοῦ σαλευθήσεται ὄρη, ἐν θελήματι αὐτοῦ πνεύσεται νότος. φωνὴ βροντῆς αὐτοῦ ὠνείδισεν γῆν καὶ καταιγὶς βορέου καὶ συστροφὴ πνεύματος. ὡς πετεινὰ καθιπτάμενα πάσσει χιόνα, καὶ ὡς ἀκρὶς καταλύουσα ἡ κατάβασις αὐτῆς∙ κάλλος λευκότητος αὐτης ἐκθαυμάσει ὀφθαλμός, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑετοῦ αὐτῆς ἐκστήσεται καρδία. καὶ πάχνην ὡς ἄλα ἐπὶ γῆς χέει, καὶ παγεῖσα γίνεται σκολόπων ἄκρα. Latin

43:12 vide arcum et benedic qui fecit illum valde speciosus est in splendore suo : 43 13 gyravit caelum in circuitu gloriae suae manus Excelsi aperuerunt illum 43:14 imperio suo adceleravit nivem et adcelerat coruscationes emittere iudicii sui 43:15 propterea aperti sunt thesauri et evolaverunt nebulae sicut aves : 43 16 in magnitudine sua posuit nubes et confracti sunt lapides grandinis 43:17 in conspectu eius commovebuntur montes et in voluntate eius adspirabit notus 43:18 vox tonitrui eius exprobravit terram tempestas aquilonis et congregatio spiritus 43:19 sicut avis deponens ad sedendum aspargit nivem et sicut lucusta demergens descensus eius : 43 20 pulchritudinem coloris eius admirabitur oculus et super imbrem eius expavescet cor 43:21 gelum sicut salem effundet super terram et dum gelaverit fiet tamquam cacumina tribuli Note: The Syriac lacks Sir 43:11–19.

116

Chapter 4

Textual Commentary on Sir 43:11–19

Sir 43:11 The use of ‫ קשת‬and ‫ ראה‬together (Sir 43:11a) echoes Gen 9:13–14, 1614 and Ezek 1:28, the latter of which reads ‫מראה הקשת‬. Ezek 1:28 may be alluded to since Ezekiel 1 describes the vision of the ‫( רוח סערה‬see Sir 43:16b). Apart from Genesis 9 and Ezek 1:28, the usual meaning of ‫ קשת‬in the Hebrew Bible is the archer’s bow.15 When ‫ קשת‬means “rainbow” in Second Temple literature, it is in allusions to Genesis 9, such as 4QAdmonFlood (4Q370) 1.7, which reads ‫קשתו נתן [בענן ל]מען יזכור ברית‬.16 The rainbow in Jubilees by comparison offers the author’s interpretations of Genesis 9. Jubilees links the date of the rainbow’s appearance to the Festival of Shavuot (Jub. 6:15–17) and the creation of the solar calendar (Jub. 6:29–32). However, Ben Sira in Sir 43:11 and 50:7 mentions the rainbow without clear allusions to Genesis 9.17 Compare for instance, Sir 44:17–18, his lines on Noah, which mention the Noahide covenant but not the rainbow.18 Sir 50:7 describes Simon II, ‫וכקשת נראתה בענן‬. Ben Sira’s careful attention to Noah and the post-flood covenant in Sir 44:17–18 suggests that the Flood and Noahide covenant were important to Ben Sira, just not the rainbow as a symbol. The title Maker19 for God in Sir 43:11 is elsewhere in Ben Sira (Sir 32:13). God is called ‫ ע ֶֹׂשה‬in Job 4:17; 35:10, and ‫ ע ֵֹׂשהּו‬in Isa 17:7; Ps 78:4, 12; 98:1. In the introduction to the Hymn (Sir 42:15a, 15c, and 16b), God’s work is described as

14  The Greek reads τόξος, also found in the LXX of Gen 9:13, 14. 15  One example is in 2 Sam 1:21, in the lament of Jonathan and description of his bow includes a threat against the mountains of Gilboa for no dew or rain to fall upon them (‫הרי‬ ‫)בגלבֹע אל־טל ואל־מטר עליכם‬. The choice of this particular threat could be understood as a case of wordplay upon the possible meanings of ‫ קשת‬as rainbow in addition to archer’s bow. 16  DJD 19, 85–97. Carol Newsom, “4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood,” RevQ 13 (1988): 23–43. 17  Sir 50:7 might be argued to be a reference to Gen 9:14 or Ezek 1:8. However, Sir 50:1–7 demonstrates Ben Sira’s scribal abilities and is better understood as an echoing of language from the Hebrew Bible, rather than actual references as presented in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 552. 18  Ben Sira mentions ‫ מבול‬once (Sir 44:17), and ‫ כלה‬as a euphemism for the Flood in Sir 40:10 (see Chapter Two). Gian Luigi Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975), 186–90, discusses the rainbow in Sir 43:11 as well. 19  Mas1h reads ‫עשיה‬, Btext ‫עושיה‬, and Bmg ‫עושה‬.

117

On Weather

His ‫ מעשה‬three times, which can be compared with ‫ פעלו‬in the introductory line of Elihu’s nature-list speech in Job 36:24. The final word of the line in Sir 43:11b should be reconstructed as ‫ הוד‬or ‫ הודו‬rather than ‫( כבוד‬or ‫)בכבודו‬.20 A reading of ‫ הוד‬would more closely echo Ps 104:1, and, importantly the typical word pairing of ‫ הדר‬and ‫הוד‬.21 The reason for my suggested reconstruction of ‫ בהודו‬is also due to the deterioration of Mas1h VI, which has room for ‫הוד‬, while ‫ כבוד‬would be a squeeze. In Btext, the trace of ‫ ב‬can still be seen, which could be construed as a mistake for ‫כ‬. Wright argued for the same reconstruction of ‫ בהוד‬in his article on this lacuna.22 He reconstructs ]‫ ב[הוד‬on the basis of the Greek Bible translation of αὔγασμα, as a case of the Greek translator’s misreading of ‫ בהוד‬for ‫( בחיר‬brightness) or ‫בבחיר‬. This is also likely because of ‫ ברך‬and the use of ‫ מאד‬as modifier in both Sir 43:11 and Ps 104:1. On the other hand, a synonymous quotation of Psalm 104:1 is not lost with ‫כבוד‬, but it would also be challenging to account for two occurrences of ‫( כבוד‬Sir 43:12a). Furthermore, the Greek reads δόξης. These passages are compared below. In Job and Psalms, nature-lists typically begin by mentioning the glory and majesty of God: Job 36:24 (‫)זכר כי־תשגיא פעלו אשר שררו אנשים‬,23 Job 37:22–23 (‫ אתה‬and ‫ כח ;הוד‬and ‫)משפט‬, Ps 29:1 (‫)כבוד ועז‬, and 104:1 (‫)מאד הוד והדר‬. Naturelists can also begin with the request to praise God for his power and majesty, such as Job 36:24, Ps 29:1–2, and Ps 148:1–6. Ben Sira does both in mentioning the glory and majesty of God as well as requesting the reader to bless God for his work. Sir 42:15–17, similarly, declares God’s works, glory, and majesty to introduce the Hymn. The convention suggests as well that Sir 43:11 begins a new sub-section distinct from that of the sun, moon, and stars. Sir 43:11 (Mas1h)

‫ראה קשת וברך עשיה ׀ כי מאד נהדר[ה‬ ]‫בהודו‬

Ps 104:1

‫ברכי נפשי את־יהוה יהוה אלהי גדלת‬ ‫מאד הוד והדר לבשת‬

20  Breads ‫]וד‬.[. Yadin and Ben-Ḥayyim reconstruct the word as ‫כבוד‬. Yadin, Masada VI, 189. Ben-Ḥayyim, 51. 21  Ben-Ḥayyim, 125–26. For example Sir 43:9, ‫הוד שמים והוד כוכב‬. 22  Wright, “Ben Sira 43:11b.” 23  “Remember to magnify his work, which men have sung about.”

118

Chapter 4

Sir 43:12 In Mas1h, the final word in this line appears to be ]‫בֿגב[ורה‬.24 Scholars read this final word as “in power.”25 The Greek and Latin versions both leave out this word. The letter following –‫ בג‬could be a square-ish ‫ ע‬or a ‫ב‬, but ‫ ב‬seems more likely, as most scholars argue.26 Another possibility would be ]‫בגע[רה‬, which is how Smend reads the first word of the next line, Sir 43:13.27 The word ‫ חּוג‬means the circle or vault. There are only three occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible: Isa 40:22 (‫)חוג הארץ‬,28 Prov 8:27 (‫על־פני חוג‬ ‫)תהום‬, and Job 22:14 (‫)חוג שמים‬. Isa 40:22 is important to note since Isa 40:22–24 describes the heavenly abode of God from where he stretches out the heavens (‫נטה‬, found in Sir 43:12b) and sends forth his ‫( סערה‬found in Sir 43:17b). Job 22:14 also describes the heavenly location of God.29 Sir 43:12a remains the only extant use of ‫ חוג‬in Ben Sira, but another may be in Sir 24:5a (Greek only).30 In both Ben Sira means a vault of heaven, like the “expanse” (‫ )רקיע‬of heaven of Genesis 1 and Ezek 1:22–26. Interestingly, ‫ חוג‬is also found in 1QM 10:13 (‫)חוג ימים‬, which is another short nature-list only a few lines in length.31 The hiphil of ‫ נקף‬is also found in Sir 45:9 (Aaron encircled with pomegranates) and 50:12 (Simon surrounded by his priests).32 Likewise Sir 24:5 (Gr) mentions Wisdom in the “vault of heaven.”33 The use of ‫ נטה‬in Ben Sira is always found in qal with ‫יד‬, and here in Sir 43:12b ‫ נטתה‬is qal.34 Smend notes that the use of ‫ נטה‬further signifies it is a rainbow since the verb ‫ נטה‬is not used with archer’s bows.35 As noted above, 24  Smend, Hebräisch, 46; 2:405. 25  Ben-Ḥayyim, 51, reads ]‫ בגב[ורה‬for Mas1h and … ‫ בג‬for B. Skehan and Di Lella, Yadin, and Beentjes read … ‫בגב‬. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 489. Yadin, Masada VI, 222. Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 119; 171. 26  IAA, “Images of Mas1h.” 27  Smend, Hebräisch, 46; 2:405. 28  ‫( הישב על־חוג הארץ וישביה כחגבים הנוטה כדק שמים וימתחם כאהל לשבת׃‬Isa 40:22 MT). 29  Eliphaz replies to Job that God sees and judges all affairs of humans fairly from the heavens. 30  γῦρον οὐρανοῦ ἐκύκλωσα μόνη. Smend, Index, 44. 31  1QM 10:12–16. See Chapter Four for further discussion. 32  In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ נקף‬is used in the context of battles (Josh 6:3, 11; 2 Kgs 6:14, 11:8). This is the case in the Qumran literary texts as well (such as 1QpHab 4:7). DCH 5:754. BDB, 668–69. Ben-Ḥayyim, 223. 33  γῦρον οὐρανοῦ ἐκύκλωσα μόνη. 34  Ben-Ḥayyim, 218. 35  Smend, Weisheit, 405.

On Weather

119

‫ נטה‬can equally echo language in Isa 40:22 or Job 9:8, two small nature-lists. God stretching out the heavens is a recurring phrase in Isaiah (Isa 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13, 16).36 In each of these cases, the phrase is used to reassure the reader by illustrating God’s power over creation. Isa 40:22 is part of a short naturelist, but the consistent use of the phrase ‫ שמים‬+ ‫ נטה‬in Isaiah is perhaps more significant. Therefore the use of the verb here might not be a direct quotation but perhaps an awareness of the language used throughout Isaiah to describe God’s control over the heavens. It should be noted that both Isa 40:22 and Job 9:8 use ‫ נטה‬for God stretching the heavens out (‫)שמים‬, while Ben Sira uses it to describe not the sky but the rainbow. Job 9:4–10 lists God’s control of the mountains, constellations, and other aspects of nature. Another possibility is Ps 104:2 (again ‫ נטה‬with ‫)שמים‬.37 Likewise in Qumran literary texts, the verb ‫ נטה‬is conventionally reserved for stretching the heavens, as in 11QPsa 26:14, 1QH 9.9, and also 11QPsa Hymn 8 (see comments on Sir 43:13 and in discussion below). Ben Sira remains alone in using ‫ נטה‬for the rainbow and not for the heavens.

Sir 43:13 There is a scribal error in ms B in Sir 43:13a of ‫ גבורתו‬for ‫גערתו‬. By comparison, the Greek reads προστάγματι αὐτοῦ, and the Latin imperio suo. As mentioned, ‫ גערה‬is also in Ps 104:7. It is also in Nah 1:4, one of the shorter nature-lists in prophetic literature. Later, Ben Sira switches from ‫ גערתו‬to ‫אמרתו‬, in all cases making the weather patterns listen to God’s spoken command. This idea is found plainly in Job 37:1–6 (see below on Sir 43:16b–17b). There are other problems of reconstruction in this line. Previous scholarship agrees generally with the reading of Sir 43:13a in B as ‫ברק‬, instead of ‫ברד‬ as in Mas1h. The Greek version also might have read ‫ ברק‬since it translates χιόνα.38 The use of ‫ תהוה‬is unusual as a way to describe either hail or lightning.39 Mas1h, by comparison, however, has ‫ברד‬.40 Conversely, the Latin translates by nivem (snow). Thus B and the versions have made distinct choices that do not 36  Note also that Isa 51:9 mentions Rahab (Sir 43:23). Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 105, also suggests Sir 43:23 should read “Rahab” instead of “Great” (the “great deep”), in light of Isa 51:9 and Job 26:1. 37  ‫( עטה־אור כשלמה נוטה שמים כיריעה‬Ps 104:2). 38  These editions go with ‫ברק‬: Smend, Hebräisch, 46, 2:405, 3:244; Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 296; Ben-Ḥayyim, 51; 112. The Greek for hail is χάλαζα. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 485, translates “hail” at Sir 43:13. 39  The verb ‫ תתוה‬is in hiphil (from ‫ )תוה‬meaning “to mark.” Another possibility is piel, as in 1 Sam 21:14. 40  IAA, “Images of Mas1h.”

120

Chapter 4

completely agree either, and thus, their choices cannot be easily attributed to a scribal error in Mas1h. The next term ‫ זיקות משפט‬requires unpacking. Of the three occurrences of “firebrands,” in Isa 50:22 (twice) the word is feminine, while in Prov 26:18 it is ‫זיקים‬, the form found in Bmg.41 In 1 En. 8:3, 14:8 there is an angel called Ziqel who is in charge of the shooting stars. However, none of these passages help contextualize “firebrands” in the world of nature and only show that Ben Sira uses the feminine. The solution here is to look for synonymous language, particularly with other weather patterns. We find that Sir 39:29 mentions “fire and hail” (‫ )אש וברד‬as instruments of God’s wrath. The word ‫ ברד‬is found compared with thunder (Exod 9:26, 28), fire (Exod 9:22, 24; Ps 148:8), and with fierybolts ‫( אש להבות‬Ps 29:7; Isa 29:6, 30:30, 66:15). In Ps 18:13, God sends forth hail and coals of fire (‫ )גחלי־אש‬from his clouds. Ps 29:7 also matches well with Ben Sira’s emphasis on God’s command bringing forth the weather patterns (‫קול־‬ ‫)יהוה חצב להבות אש‬. Equally, however, Job 38:22 mentions storehouses of snow and storehouses of hail (more below). The closest match with the sequence of weather patterns in Sir 43:1–19 overall, however, is with Ps 148:8: “fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command.” From these examples, we can better understand how Ben Sira understood ‫זיקות משפט‬.42 The examples presented demonstrate that “firebrands” refers to lightning. The pairing of hail and lightning is also in Sir 32:10, ‫“( לפני ברד ינצח ברק‬Before hail, lightning flashes”). Note that in Sir 32:10, ‫ נצח‬is used with ‫ברק‬, just as with ‫ זיקות‬in Sir 43:13b. The word ‫ נצח‬can also mean “to be glorious,”43 which might be why he chose the verb, as well.44 To compare Ben Sira’s language with Qumran literary texts, ‫ ברד‬is paired with ‫ שלג‬in 4QapPsb (4Q381) frag. 14:2.45 Another mention of lightning and heavenly storehouses (Sir 43:14) is in the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa Hymn) 8–9, which is a quotation of Ps 135:7. The most substantial example of “storehouses” in Second Temple literature is 1 En. 69:16–24, narrated by Enoch, on the oath by which God controls the natural universe.46 Enoch lists 41  Smend, Weisheit, 405. 42  Outside the Hebrew Bible ‫ זק‬is found in 1QH 1.12 paired with ‫ברק‬. In 1QM 6:3, though ‫ זיקות‬describes blood. DCH 3:129. 43  BDB, 663–64. 44  There will be a range of verbs with appropriate double meanings throughout Sir 43:11–19. 45  Text: ‫ […]הו ואין לעבור פיהו ארבע רוחות‬3 ]…[.‫ים עננים עבים שלג וברד וכל‬.]…[ 2 ].…[.]…[ 1 ]…[.… ‫ […] לאון‬4 ]…[‫בש‬. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998), 2:755. 46  There are “storehouses of blessing” in 1 En. 11:1–2.

On Weather

121

storehouses of the sound of thunder, lightning, hail and hoarfrost, mist, rain, and dew. Sir 43:14 Sir 43:14 contains the only extant use of ‫ למענו‬in Ben Sira; all others are ‫למען‬.47 The word ‫ עבים‬should be distinguished from ‫( ענן‬Sir 43:15a) in translation, as ‫ ענן‬is generally a nimbus rain-cloud48 and ‫ עב‬is a dark-cloud, a distinction that is held in the Latin (aves | nubes) but not the Greek (νεφέλη only). The ‫ אוצר‬draws from a variety of sources. As mentioned, Job 38:22 mentions storehouses of snow and of hail (‫)אצרות שלג ואצרות ברד‬. Moreover, Job 37:9 describes the chamber (‫ )חדר‬from which come the storm-wind (‫ )סופה‬and cold north-winds (‫)ממזרים קרה‬. In Ps 135:7, God brings forth lightning for the rain, and wind from His storehouses.49 Similarly, Ps 104:3, 13 mention divine ‫עליות‬ (chambers) from which God waters the mountain. Also, in Ps 33:7, God puts the deep in storehouses (‫)אצרות‬. Ben Sira’s ‫ אוצר‬is similar to these contexts. Significantly, Ben Sira only mentions a single ‫ אוצר‬and does not mention what the storehouse contains precisely. The storehouses of heaven are also found in other Second Temple literature, in two examples already mentioned above (Sir 43:13): 11QPsa Hymn 8–9 (quoting Ps 135:7) and in 1QM 10:12. In Mesopotamian mythology, there were storehouses of the seven winds.50 The use of ‫ פרע‬for God physically setting loose is unusual since the verb is almost always reserved for moral unrestraint or moral revolt.51 The double meaning cannot have been missed since elsewhere Ben Sira only uses the meaning “revolt.”52 “Revolts” in my translation conveys the violence of loosening heavenly storehouses. Sir 43:14b shows assonance: ‫ויעף עבים כעיט‬.53 Ps 104:3 and Isa 19:1 both describe ‫ עבים‬as God’s chariot, while ‫ עבים‬described as ‫ עיט‬is in Isa 18:6.54 The swaying of dark clouds is found in Job 37:16 (‫)מפלשי־עב‬. With these considered, 47  Ben-Ḥayyim, 203–4. 48  Except for the pillar of cloud: Exod 13:21–22 (see also Num 10:34, 14:14), and for incense: Ezek 8:11 and Lev 16:13. 49  ‫( עלה נשאים מקצה הארץ ברקים למטר עשה מוצא־רוח מאוצרותיו׃‬Ps 135:7). 50  Marvin H. Pope, Job, 3rd ed., AB 15 (London: Yale University Press, 2008), 281. 51  BDB, 828–29. 52  Sir 10:3, 34:1–2, 38:20, 47:23; 1QS 6:26; CD 8:8; 4QInstra 2 ii 4. DCH 6:772–73. 53  Note: the word ‫ עבים‬is a collective singular. 54  In Isa 60:8 ‫ עב‬and ‫( עוף‬qal) occur together. DCH 6:311, records the use of ‫ ויעף‬in Sir 43:12b as hiphil.

122

Chapter 4

it is only in Ben Sira that clouds fly about.55 Similarly, the Latin (Sir 43:15) reads that the clouds fly about sicut aves (“like birds”). Ben Sira pairs ‫ עבים‬with rain-clouds (‫ )ענן‬in Sir 43:15a. The parallelism of ‫ עבים‬with ‫ ענן‬occurs many times in the Hebrew Bible—many occurrences of which are in nature-lists (Job 37:11, 15–16; Ps 104:3).56 There are other examples of the pairing in Ben Sira57 and Qumran literature.58 This frequency implies that the parallelism is not an echo of one particular source. Instead, the use of the pair demonstrates Ben Sira’s familiarity with the literary convention and with the language of nature-lists. While they are found in several nature-lists in the Hebrew Bible, clouds might also belong because of their role in prophetic literature. Some clouds in prophetic visions describe God’s approval or disapproval (‫ ענן‬in Zeph 1:15, Ezek 30:3, and elsewhere; ‫ עב‬in Isa 18:4). A prophetic tone of revelation and divine justice would be appropriate considering ‫ גערה‬and ‫ משפט‬in the previous line, Sir 43:13. Furthermore, the place of ‫ קשת‬in Ezek 1:28 would also fit in to this theme of nature as revelations of God’s power. Sir 43:15 The two verbs in this line, ‫ חזק‬and ‫גדע‬, do not have any usage or straightforward equivalents in the nature-lists of the Hebrew Bible. The word ‫( גדע‬hew) is used by Ben Sira to emphasize a word play on hail-stones. Ben Sira uses ‫גדע‬ once elsewhere (Sir 32:23, B): ‫ומטה רשע גדוע יגדע‬, “And the staff of the wicked person (i.e. ruler) he will indeed chop up.” To compare, in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ גדע‬is only used as “to tear down” idolatry and to punish, for example at Ezek 6:6 and Zech 11:10. Ben Sira does not use the more common word for cutting rock, ‫חצב‬. The choice suggests that Ben Sira might have used ‫ גדע‬because of its connections with punishing idolatry and prophetic literature. With ‫נצח‬, ‫פרע‬, ‫הדר‬, and now ‫גדע‬, Ben Sira’s characterization of weather as signs of divine majesty and justice, as instruments of prophetic revelation, begins to emerge. 55  Birds are mentioned in Ps 104:12 (‫ )עוף‬and Ps 104:17 (‫)צפרים‬. Ben Sira uses ‫ עוף‬elsewhere only in Sir 11:3, 20, to describe “flying creatures” and not of clouds. Ben-Ḥayyim, 235. 56  Elsewhere, for example Job 26:8–9. Note that Job 38:37 mentions clouds, as well, except they are ‫שחקים‬. 57  Sir 32:20–21; 50:6–7. Ben-Ḥayyim, 231. The example of Sir 50:6–7 is part of a list of nature metaphors describing Simon, another literary convention found in the Hebrew Bible. 58  For the nominal pair ‫ עב‬/ ‫ענן‬, see DCH 6:208. For example, 4Q286 3:4; 1QM 10:12, 12:9; 4Q381 14:2.

On Weather

123

The phrase “hail-stones” (‫ )אבני ברד‬is only found once in the Hebrew Bible at Josh 10:11.59 This is notable because the only other mention of hailstones in Ben Sira is in the lines on Joshua in the Praise of the Fathers (Sir 46:5–6). Normally hail is ‫ברד‬, as in Sir 43:13a. Ezekiel contains a similar phrase‫אבני אלג־‬ ‫(ביש‬Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22).60 Sir 46:5c–d (Heb) reads ]‫אבני [ברד וא]ל[גביש‬, which is interesting to compare with ‫ אבני אלגביש‬in Ezekiel.61 While Ben Sira later in Sir 45:6 quotes vocabulary from Josh 10:11, here ‫ אבני ברד‬could echo either Joshua or Ezekiel. Both of these, crucially, are instances where God uses hail as divine punishment. Another case of hail as divine punishment (with fire) is Sir 39:29. This evidence again suggests divine revelation as a theme: elements of nature being used as instruments of God’s power, justice, and majesty. Sir 43:17a–16a Ben Sira’s description of the movements of the earth and mountains (Sir 43:17a–16a) should be compared with Ps 104:32, in which the earth shakes and mountains smoke (‫)המביט לארץ ותרעד יגע בהרים ויעשנו‬.62 Once again, the source text’s order or sequence of phenomena plays a stronger role than Ben Sira’s choice of description, verbs, or metaphors. The phrase ‫ קול רעם‬in this line, Sir 43:17a, closely resembles Ps 104:7 (‫קול‬ ‫)רעמך‬. The phrase also should be compared with similar vocabulary in Job 37:2–3 (‫)ישאג־קול ירעם בקול גאונו ;רגז קולו‬. There is another possible source in Isa 29:6, which resembles Ben Sira’s order of catastrophes in this line and the next (thunder, earthquake, storm-wind, and tempest).

59  The word continues to be found in the other Minor Prophets, Isaiah, and Chronicles in the context of idolatry. BDB, 154. Note the effort of the Greek: λίθοι χαλάζης. A reference to hailstones )‫ (אבני אלגביש‬is also found once in Rabbinic Hebrew, with a playful etymology—‫( על גב איש‬b. Ber 54a), and ‫( ברד‬m. Mikw. 8:1). 60  The word ‫ אלגביש‬by itself is found in 4QJuba (4Q216) 5.7 together with ‫[ק]רח‬, ]‫[ ַטל‬, and [‫ ]ברד‬listing the order of creation as found in Genesis 1. Note the next verse: 4QJuba 5.8: and the angels of the winds )‫לכחום ולחרף ולקיץ … (רוחות‬. 61  The Greek reads ἐν λίθοις χαλάζης δυνάμεως κραταιᾶς. 62  Smend, Weisheit, 406, mentions Ps 65:7. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 494, mentions Ps 18:8, 16 and 2 Sam 22:8, 16 only, which are also useful to compare with the connection between Sir 43:13a, 15b and Josh 10:11 earlier.

124 Sir 43:17a–16b (Mas1h)

‫קול רעמו יחיל ארצו ׀ ובכחו יניף הרים‬ ‫אמרתו תחריף תימן ׀ על עול סופה וסערה‬

Chapter 4 Isa 29:6 (MT)

‫מעם יהוה צבאות תפקד ברעם וברעש‬ ‫וקול גדול סופה וסערה ולהב אש אוכלה‬

A third comparison may be made with the nature-list in Nah 1:2–10. Nah 1:5 mentions the mountains quaking and the hills melting. Nah 1:2–10 lists elements of nature that demonstrate God’s wrath, beginning with whirlwind and tempest (see Sir 43:17b). The order of these verses in Mas1h is Sir 43:17a|16a, 16b|17b. This ordering is because ms B, the Greek, and Latin switched the order of the lines. The order of phenomena in Isa 29:6 could reinforce the Hebrew verse order in Masada and ms B, against the order in the Greek and Latin. Additionally, the use of similar phrases in Sir 16:19 further suggests the sequence in Sir 43:17a–17b is drawn from Isa 29:6. Ben Sira only uses the noun ‫ רעם‬here in Sir 43:17a.63 The use of ‫( חיל‬hiphil in Sir 43:17a) can be also seen in light of Ps 29:8, ‫קול‬ ‫יהוה יחיל מדבר יחיל יהוה מדבר קדש‬, considering that Ps 29:7 also mentions ‫להבות‬ ‫אש‬, as does Isa 29:6. The ‫ להב(ות) אש‬in these passages are similar to Sir 43:13 above. Ben Sira only uses ‫ חיל‬rarely (Sir 3:27, 48:19).64 However, in the Qumran literature, the hiphil of ‫ חיל‬is found in, for example, 1QH 3.8 and 4Q393 3:8, employed in the context of God’s wrath.65 The verb ‫ נוף‬continues the trend of verbs in Sir 43:11–19 that do not normally find inclusion in nature-lists in the Hebrew Bible.66 Elsewhere in Ben Sira, ‫נוף‬ is used of waving hands (Sir 12:18, 33:3, 37:7, 46:2, 47:4), the same as its meaning in the Hebrew Bible. In Judg 9:9, however, ‫“( נוע‬to shake” or “to wander”) may be translated as either “to shake” or “to rule.”67 Sir 43:16a is therefore the only extant example of ‫ נוף‬in reference to mountains, implying earthquake.68 In fact, whenever Ben Sira mentions mountains, they are shaking or moving in

63  Ben-Ḥayyim, 281. 64  That is, ‫ ַחיִ ל‬. Ben-Ḥayyim, 140. 65  DCH 3:212. Cf. Nah 1:2–10. 66  Here in hiphil (‫)יניף‬. 67  The olive tree refuses to either sway (shake) or hold sway (rule) over the other trees in Judg 9:8–9. BDB, 631. 68  Note Bmg reads ‫“( יזעים הרים‬He makes the mountains angry”). By comparison, the Greek, by translating γῆ, makes the meaning of an earthquake clear.

On Weather

125

some way, such as Sir 16:19 (ms A reads ‫)קצבי הרים‬, 39:28 (Btext ]‫)[הר]ים יעתי[קו‬,69 43:4 (Btext ‫ ;ידליק הרים‬Bmg ‫)שלוח‬, and 43:21 (B ‫)יבול הרים‬.70 By contrast, verbs in the Hebrew Bible describing moving or shaking of the earth or mountains are typically ‫רעש‬, ‫געש‬, ‫נוט‬, or ‫רגז‬. For comparison, Ben Sira uses ‫ רעש‬in the second half of Sir 16:19: ‫בהביטו אליהם רעש ירעשו‬. In Sir 43:4 though, Ben Sira puts forward some variety of expression. Sir 43:16b–17b In past scholarship, the first letters of Sir 43:17b are transcribed without exception as ‫עלעול‬, that is without a space. Smend reads this as a word found in the Targumim, ‫עלעול‬,71 but the word is regarded by later commentators as a scribal error for ‫( גלגל‬whirlwind).72 The Greek (Sir 43:17b Gr) and Latin (Sir 43:18b Lat) witnesses both have only the equivalent of ‫סופה וסערה‬, without an added whirlwind. When inspecting Mas1h, I found that the entire line of Sir 43:16–17b suffers from a lack of spaces between words.73 Furthermore, the phrase ‫על עול‬ should be clearer in light of Job 36:33, a passage from of the nature-lists, which includes the phrase ‫ על־עולה‬in reference to lightning.74 This makes the only extant case of ‫ על עול‬in Ben Sira. Since this is the only case of such language, it is likely that Ben Sira is echoing Job 36:33. Ps 147:15, 18 (‫השלח אמרתו‬, ‫ )השלח דברו‬is a possible source for “God’s word” (‫ )אמרתו‬in Sir 43:16b. In other nature-lists, Ps 104:7 reads that the waters obey God’s rebuke (‫)גערתך‬, while God commands (‫ )צוה‬weather in Ps 148:5, Job 9:7 (‫)האמר‬, and 37:1–6 (‫)יאמר‬.

69  Just before ‫ אש וברד‬in Sir 39:29. Smend reconstructs ‫]ים‬...[as ‫[צור]ים‬, however, but the Greek does not mention hail. Ziegler, Sapientia, 304. Smend, Hebräisch, 37; 2:365. 70  With one exception: when Hezekiah digs a channel through the mountains for the spring in Sir 48:17 (‫ויחסום הרים מקוה‬, B). 71  Smend, Weisheit, 407. The word ‫ עלעול‬is found several times in the Targumim. Jastrow, 137. I suggest this is due to the reception history of Ben Sira since there are no examples of this word in the Hebrew Bible. 72  Yadin, Masada VI, 190. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 486; 490; 494. 73  IAA, “Images of Mas1h.” 74  Job 36:32–33 concerns God commanding lightning, jealous with anger “against iniquity.” Bmg also displays a space in between these words. I therefore disagree with Smend, Hebräisch, 46; Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, 233, which records Bmg as ‫ עלעול‬as well. Yadin, Masada VI, 223; and Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 486; 490, translate “whirlwind, hurricane and tempest,” arguing it is not ‫ על עול‬but ‫גלגל‬. B, conversely, reads ‫זלעפ[ת צפו]ן סופה וסערה‬. “Raging heat of the north-wind,” however, does not make sense either because the north wind should be cold.

126

Chapter 4

The use of the hithpael of ‫ חרף‬in this line is identifiable as another verb with connotations of prophetic revelations (divine wrath) and other ranges of meaning that are also not typically found in nature-lists in the Hebrew Bible.75 There is a possibility, suggested in Clines, that here ‫ תחריף‬could be piel imperfect (“to make cold”).76 While the south wind (‫ )תימן‬in the Mediterranean and Levant occurs in the autumn and early winter, it is in fact a hot wind. In the Eastern Mediterranean, the south wind seasonally brings warm storms in the autumn and early winter. This explains its association with storms in Ben Sira. The ‫( תימן‬southern wind) is found together with ‫ סערה‬in Zech 9:14, but with ‫ צפון‬in Ps 89:13 (‫)צפון וימין‬. As mentioned earlier (Sir 43:14), in Job 37:9 the‫חדר‬ releases the ‫ סופה‬and the cold north-winds (‫)וממזרים קרה‬. The winds (‫)רוחות‬ are also described in Ps 104:3–4. By comparison, the south-wind brings heat and calm in Job 37:17 (‫ דרום‬instead of ‫תימן‬/‫)ימין‬.77 This line is also Ben Sira’s only use of ‫תימן‬, which makes sense in a wisdom text.78 Significantly, extant Qumran literary texts do not ever mention ‫תימן‬, even in the short nature-lists discussed above. Instead, ‫ רוח‬is the usual term for wind, and ‫ צפון‬is sometimes found.79 As noted above, the sequence of thunder and earthquake (Sir 43:17a–16a) followed by storm-wind and tempest (Sir 43:16b–17b) is drawn from Isa 29:6. The inclusion of the winds, however, draws more broadly from the literary convention of nature-lists. The parallelism of ‫ סופה וסערה‬is found in many places in Hebrew literature, including Isa 29:6 and Nah 1:3. The similarities with language in Isaiah (stretching the heavens in Sir 43:11) and Nahum (the wrath of God in weather) could also indicate Ben Sira’s tone. The tenor of expression in Ben Sira is that weather is often a revelatory instrument or prophetic signal of divine pleasure or displeasure. There are several other relevant examples of these words ‫ סופה‬and ‫סערה‬, significant because they come from texts already mentioned thus far. Isa 40:24 describes God blowing out the ‫סערה‬, which is significant since Isa 40:22 75  BDB, 357. The hiphil of ‫ חרף‬means “agitate,” while the piel, found regularly also in Qumran literature, means “reproach,” such as in 4QapLamb (4Q501) 5. In Ben Sira, Sir 43:16b is the only hiphil case of ‫ ;חרף‬all others are piel (Sir 34:21, 41:22, 42:14). DCH 3:320. 76  DCH 3:321. The noun ‫( ח ֶֹרף‬harvest | autumn | winter—that is, after Rosh HaShanah) is found once 4QapLama (4Q179) 1.2.8: “the sons are desolate because of the winter when their hands are weak.” Note that Clines’s Dictionary records 4QapLama 1.2.6, but it is 1.2.8. “Winter” as ‫ חרף‬is not found in Ben Sira. 77  It probably refers to the south-eastern Sirocco wind, which brings warmth and calm from the Sahara. 78  Ben-Ḥayyim, 305. 79  DCH 7:146; 428–30.

On Weather

127

includes the ‫( חוג הארץ‬see Sir 43:12). Besides Isaiah, Amos 1:14 mentions the ‫יום סופה‬, while in Jer 23:19, 30:23 ‫ סופה וסערה‬again occurs, and we find in Jon 1:4, 12 ‫( סער‬n.m.). The storm-winds of the south wind, ‫ סערות תימן‬also appear in Zech 9:14, out of which God will march. Zech 9:13–14 includes references to the rainbow (‫ )קשת‬and lightning (‫)ברק‬, as well. In the nature-lists, the ‫סופה‬ in Job 37:9 comes forth from the heavenly ‫חדר‬, and in Ps 148:8 ‫ סערה‬together with “fire and hail, snow and frost” all fulfil God’s command. Another possible source from the nature-lists is the two divine introductions out of the “whirlwind,” which are in fact the storm-wind ‫( סופה‬Job 38:1) and the tempest ‫( סערה‬Job 40:6). The likeliest source remains Isa 29:6 because of the order of weather mentioned in the verse, indicating the presence of a quotation.80 Sir 43:17c–d Ben Sira changes tone in these next few lines from the divine wrath and justice of hail, storms, thunder, quakes, and winds, turning back to majesty and beauty (as with Sir 43:11–12). In fact, Sir 43:18–22 cover weather patterns that have both good and bad sides.81 Perhaps what holds these weather patterns together, the majestic and the wrathful—is not their respective moods or tones, but that through their creation, the weather can be considered revelations of divine judgement. In Sir 43:17c ‫ רשף‬as a metaphor requires some unpacking. In Deut 32:24 ‫ רשף‬means “plague,” though it can also mean “sparks.” In Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫ רשף‬means “bird,” which explains the choice of the Greek (πετεινὰ) and Latin (avis).82 The meaning “bird” works because then the line would contain two animal metaphors: bird and locust. Furthermore, the meaning of ‫( פרח‬the line

80  The only use of ‫ סופה‬in Ben Sira is here. By comparison, ‫ סערה‬is found as well in Sir 36:2 and Sir 48:9 (Elijah). Ben-Ḥayyim, 228; 229. In Sir 47:17 the form is actually the hiphil of the verb ‫סער‬. In Sir 39:28, winds are made by God to punish the earth, πνεῦμα in the Greek. Smend, Index, 193. In the Qumran literary texts, neither ‫ סערה‬nor ‫ סער‬are found with ‫( סופה‬4QInstrd (4Q418) 34:2 ‫( סער בלע‬storm of slander), 1QH fr. 3.6 ]‫( רוח סע[רה‬rushing storm). DCH 6:135. 81  It is surprising that Ben Sira does not include discussion of ‫ מטר‬itself anywhere in Sir 42–43, although he mentions the raining (‫ )ממטרו‬of snow in Sir 43:18. It is also surprising that given the themes of Sir 43:18–22 as renewal of the earth that Ben Sira does not quote from the Shema (Deut 6), let alone elsewhere in Deuteronomy at Deut 32, which refers to rain (Deut 32:2) and plague (‫( )רשף‬Deut 32:24). 82  Jastrow, 1502.

128

Chapter 4

begins, ‫ )כרשף יפרח‬is “flies away,” often used for birds and insects.83 In Ps 147:16, God scatters (‫ )פרח‬hoarfrost like ashes (see Sir 43:19).84 There are three occurrences of ‫ רשף‬in the Hebrew Bible: Job 5:7, Cant 8:6, and Hab 3:5. The context of Job 5:7 gives another clue as to possibilities of ambiguity: the ‫ רשף‬in Job 5:7 flies upwards (‫)עוף‬. Along the same lines, Cant 8:6 uses ‫ רשף‬as “sparks” with ‫ עוף‬in the context of fire. The line in Sir 43:17c makes sense with snow described as either: sparks scattering or birds flying upwards. The ambiguities of ‫ רשף‬continue in Qumran literature.85 There is no strong evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls of ‫ רשף‬without a doubt meaning “bird,” but there are examples of “plague” and “sparks.” The other use of ‫ רשף‬by Ben Sira is in a verbal form in Sir 16:6, with fire being kindled, which again suggests “sparks.”86 Indeed, there would be a good juxtaposition of metaphor in contrasting hot sparks and snow. Therefore this kind of deliberate ambiguity would be a form of wordplay, akin to the unusual verbs thus far. Snow could be included not just because it is part of the climate in Israel, especially in the mountains, but also because it too is incorporated in the naturelists. In Ps 147:16, snow is “given like wool.” In addition, Ps 148:8 snow fulfils God’s command, and in Job 37:6, God commands the snow to fall to the earth. Locusts are not found in the nature-lists in the Hebrew Bible or Second Temple examples. This is Ben Sira’s only use of ‫ארבה‬, but he does use the word in a typical fashion by pairing it with ‫שכן‬, the verb most employed to describe the settling movements of locusts.87 The comparison of locusts to snow is best understood by observing swarms of locusts in nature. Locusts’ bodies may be brown and green, but their wings are translucent, almost white. In fact, locusts create the impression of a vast 83  BDB, 827. Ezek 13:20. 84  Another small possibility for translation could be: “Like a plague his snow breaks out.” Since ‫ רשף‬can be plague (Deut 32:24, 4QInstrd 127.3, 4QJubd 21:20), and ‫ פרח‬can mean “to break out” in the context of a plague. Yet this meaning is not likely, since all other uses by Ben Sira and Qumran literary texts mean to sprout or flourish. Ben Sira has five other uses of ‫ פרח‬as “to sprout” or “to flourish.” Ben-Ḥayyim, 258. In Qumran, ‫ פרח‬is similarly ‘to sprout’ (4Q185 1.1.10; 1QH 14.15; 16.6, 10; 18.31; 4QJubg fr. 3.2; 4QInstrc 4 ii 3). DCH 6:762–63. Ben-Ḥayyim, 258. 85  In 4QInstrd (4Q418) 127.3, ‫ רשף‬means plague by which the body is eaten up. 4QBeat (4Q525) 15:5, more ambiguously, can be either plague of death or sparks of death (‫רשפי‬ ‫)מות‬, though the following verse 15:6 ‫“( סודי להבי גו[פר]ית‬flames of sulphur are his foundation”) suggests “sparks.” DCH 7:563–64. Snow in the Qumran literature is rare, found just in 4QTheTwoWays (4Q473, 1QS III:13–IV) frag. 2.6: ‫וירקון שלג קרח וברד‬. DCH 8:363–64. 86  Ben-Ḥayyim, 284. 87  BDB, 1014–15 (entry on ‫שכן‬, piel 4.b).

On Weather

129

white flurry when they swarm and fly, because their wings are such a light translucent colour, rather white in appearance. When locusts fly and swarm, they look remarkably like snow in the air. Another consideration is that locusts settle in large numbers together during the cold. For the behaviour of locusts in nature, we may note Nah 3:17, which compares the military guards and marshals of the enemies of Israel to locusts ‫החונים בגדרות ביום קרה שמש זרחה ונודד‬ (‫ )ארבה‬:‫ולא־נודע מקומו אים‬.88 Likewise, ‫( רדתו‬from ‫ )ירד‬in Sir 43:17d echoes vocabulary in Psalm 104. In Ps 104:8 the waters descend (‫)ירד‬. Most significantly, however, snow is described as falling in Job 37:6, albeit with the verb ‫הוא‬. Sir 43:18 In Sir 43:18 ‫ תור‬can mean either “form” or “beauty” (from ‫)תאר‬.89 The same word, spelled ‫תואר‬, is seen earlier in the Hymn of Creation in Sir 43:1, with a meaning of “form.” There are several cases of the metaphor “white as snow,” such as Ps 51:9 and Isa 1:18. Snow is mentioned in the nature-lists (Job 36:6, 38:22; Ps 148:8). However, snow is given a larger description in Ben Sira—two whole lines. Ben Sira describing snow as white is not at all unusual by itself, but the ways in which he gives attention to snow (below) is distinct from Job and Psalms. 88  My translation: “which settle on fences on a frosty day, when the sun comes they flutter off, and where they are nobody knows.” Ancient armies would indeed have to be inactive during winter months, when it was colder and sea travel was unsafe. John P. Cooper, “No Easy Option: The Nile Versus the Red Sea in Ancient and Mediaeval North-South Navigation,” in Maritime Technology in the Ancient Economy: Ship-Design and Navigation, eds. William V. Harris and K. Iara (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2011), 189–210. 89  Yadin suggests it should be ‫תאור‬. See, Yadin, Masada VI, 222. There are two possible explanations for ‫ תור‬in Mas1h, which in B is ‫תואר‬. The problem is whether ‫ תור‬should be spelled ‫תואר‬, or whether it means “to extend/to search” ‫תור‬, a verb found in Sir 51:14. Skehan translates ‫תואר לבבו‬/‫ תור‬as “its shining whiteness,” reading ‫ יהג‬in Mas1h as ‫יקה‬, in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 490, read “dazzles” (literally, “pierces”) although ‫ יגיה‬is also possible. When Ben Sira uses ‫ תואר‬he sometimes spells it ‫תור‬, for example in Sir 43:9, though it is much more common in Mas1h to find ‫תאר‬. This means there are two occurrences of ‫ תור‬in Sir 43:9, 18 in Mas1h, suggesting they are variant spellings. By contrast, mss B and C (such as Sir 36:27) consistently spell it ‫תואר‬. The Greek and Latin both read “beauty” with κάλλος and pulchritudinem. Conversely though, ‫ תור‬is a possible construct form of ‫תאר‬/‫תואר‬, so it could be correct in the construct, which is possible for both Sir 43:9 and 43:18. Orthography is not always perfectly consistent even throughout a single scroll. Tov, Scribal Practices; Textual Criticism.

130

Chapter 4

There is some disagreement in translation over the meaning of ‫יהג‬, from ‫הגה‬, which in scholarship of Ben Sira is translated as “astounded” or “dazzled.”90 The other cases of the verb ‫ הגה‬in Ben Sira mean “ponder,”91 and the verb ap-

pears many times in Qumran literature, also as “ponder.”92 This would then be the exception, but this exception is possible for two reasons. Firstly, the Greek here uses ἐκθαυμάσει (“will marvel”).93 And secondly, considering the naturelists as sources, ‫ הגה‬is also found in Job 37:2, in which it implies more than casual pondering in response to thunder.94 Job 37:1, the verse before it, describes the heart quaking. In the second half of Sir 43:18, Ben Sira describes snow as raining. In Exod 9:23, hail is said to “rain.” In the nature-lists, snow and rain are often paired together in the same line, for example Job 37:6 and over several lines Job 38:28– 29, albeit with ‫ קרח‬and ‫כפר שמים‬. Ben Sira is the sole extant case in Classical Hebrew and Second Temple texts of ‫ ממטר‬being used to specifically describe snow falling, and it is Ben Sira’s only use of the metaphor, too.95 Perhaps because he includes ‫ ממטר‬here, Ben Sira does not later mention rain by itself in his Hymn of Creation. Ben Sira uses ‫ תמה‬only two other times at Sir 11:13, 21.96 This leaves two verbs employed to describe appreciating nature, one of which does not feature in nature-lists and the other which does (‫ הגה‬in Job 37:2). In passages such as Job 36–41 or Psalms 29, 104, 147, 148, and in Ben Sira’s two nature-lists (Sir 39:15–25, 43:27–33), the reader is invited at beginning and end to appreciate the works of God. Hence, the appreciation of the snow is part of the literary convention and stream of tradition. Sir 43:19 Sir 43:19 mentions hoarfrost (‫כפר‬/‫)כפור‬, a noun found only three total times in the Hebrew Bible, two of these times in the nature-lists.97 In Job 38:29, hoarfrost (‫ )כפר שמים‬is used in comparison with ‫קרח‬. In Ps 147:16 hoarfrost 90  Smend, Hebräisch, 77; 2:407. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 486; 490. 91  Sir 6:37, 14:20, and 50:28. DCH 2:488, records Sir 43:18 as the only case of it meaning “to dazzle,” which would be the only extant case of its kind. 92  CD 10:6, 13:2, 14:8; 1QH 11.21; 4Q418 43:4; 4Q525 3.2.6; and others. DCH 2:487. 93  The verb ἐκθαυμάζω has a strengthened meaning of θαυμάζω. 94  ‫( שמעו שמוע ברגז קלו והגה מפיו יצא׃‬Job 37:2). 95  Ben Sira uses ‫ מטר‬only once elsewhere in Sir 40:16, in which the reeds—the children of the ungodly (Sir 40:15)—by the bank of a river will be dried up before any rain. 96  Ben-Ḥayyim, 306. 97  In Exod 16:14, manna is as thin as hoarfrost (‫)דק ככפר‬.

On Weather

131

is scattered like ash. The likelihood of Ben Sira’s direct dependence on these sources is probable because in the Qumran literary texts ‫ כפור‬is never used. Instead, we find that ‫ קרח‬is employed.98 Thus by employing ‫ כפור‬instead, Ben Sira displays his closeness to the text rather than to contemporary conventional shifts in language. Ben Sira also mentions hoarfrost one other time in Sir 3:15; in ms A “hoarfrost” is ‫ כפור‬but C reads ‫קרח‬.99 The second example, Ps 147:16, reads ‫כפור כאפר יפזר‬. In contrast, Ben Sira says it is scattered like salt.100 Ben Sira compares hoarfrost to salt instead of ash because, perhaps, it is already described as ash in Psalm 147. His familiarity with the psalm has been so strongly demonstrated that the possibility of a lapse of memory seems insufficient as a reason. Rather, Ben Sira’s creativity appears here in his choice of words, which does not stop with “ash.” Ben Sira continues, likening frost’s growth to a thorny-bush of blossoms. Interestingly, the word for blossoms, ‫צצים‬, is found usually with ‫פרח‬, as in Num 17:23 or 1QH 14.15.101 Earlier, ‫ פרח‬was found above in Sir 43:17c (‫)יפרח שלגו‬. Here instead, Ben Sira uses ‫צמח‬, which significantly is found ‫ צמח‬in Job 38:27, Ps 104:14, and Ps 147:8. These three cases all refer to sprouting grass. Yet Ben Sira uses ‫ צמח‬for frost because, perhaps, of the metaphor of blossoms. The multiple contrasts of frost and snow with verbs that refer to green things growing indicates that the juxtaposition, for literary effect, is intentional.

Summary of Textual Findings

The main aim of the chapter is to discern any relationship between literary models and direct textual reuse (quotation and allusion), as a way of understanding how Ben Sira approaches textual reuse in such a scenario where some of his sources also come from the same literary genre as his Hymn. Other issues in Sir 43:11–19 are the balance of sources and harmonization in his textual reuse, and nature as a universal theme. 98  DCH 7:322. 99  “As hoarfrost in fair weather, your sins will melt away.” 100  The verb here in Mas1h is written ‫ישפך‬, while B is ‫ישכון‬. The form ‫ ישפך‬may be qal, though niphal ‫ יִ ָש ֵפך‬is also possible, although the verb is active in Greek and the verb in the second half of the line ‫( יצמח‬B is ‫ )יציץ‬is either hiphil with God as subject or qal (“it sprouts”). Ben-Ḥayyim, 263. 101  See Sir 40:4 and 45:12, both times as “shining thing,” that is, a crown. Ben-Ḥayyim, 262. However, in most cases in Biblical Hebrew the meaning is “blossoms.” BDB, 847.

132

Chapter 4

Overall, consistent textual reuse of Job 36–41 and Psalms 29, 104, 147, and 148 was found throughout. There were also many echoes of language in prophetic literature in Isaiah (stretching the heavens) and Nah 1:2–10. Hail and hail-stones in Sir 43:13a, 15b echo God hurling stones at the retreating Amorite kings in Josh 10:11. This episode in Joshua, demonstrating God’s use of weather for divine wrath, is alluded to again in Sir 46:6. Ben Sira’s ability to harmonize texts is accompanied by a strong tone of prophetic revelation through weather patterns as signs of God’s judgement, positive and negative. In Isaiah, God’s control of creation reassures the reader of God’s power, while in Nah 1:2–10, God’s control of creation is employed for divine wrath. In Sir 43:17a–17b, the order of weather patterns are drawn from Isa 29:6 primarily, but also can be seen in Ps 29:8, Ps 104:7, and Job 37:2–5. Ben Sira’s use of ‫ סופה וסערה‬echo the nature-lists in Psalms and Job but also Zech 9:13–14, Nah 1:3, and Isa 29:6. The metaphors for snow in Sir 43:17cd–19 are unusual. There is a synonymous quotation with hoarfrost (Ps 147:16). In Sir 43:18, snow’s movement is imagined as raining, perhaps echoing Job 38:25–26 or Job 37:6, especially while Ben Sira does not mention rain in his nature-list. Throughout Sir 43:11–19, a heavy use of metaphor can be detected. Ben Sira uses many more metaphors than can be seen in the nature-lists of Job or Psalms; he has at least one metaphor for more than half of the weather items in Sir 43:11–19, while in Job and Psalms metaphors are much more sparse. The pattern to be noticed is that while the nature-lists in Psalms 29, 104, 147, 148 and Job 36–41 are used as a literary model, there is a consistent echo of weather patterns and unusual verbs with connotations in Isaiah and the other prophets or else not typically found in nature-lists. These literary features set Ben Sira’s tone as one of a nature-list of divine revelation, strongly influenced by the roles that weather elements (in poetic metaphor, prophecy, and miracles) play in prophecy as indicators of divine pleasure or displeasure. Ben Sira utilizes Psalms 29, 104, 147, 148 and Job 36–41 throughout the Hymn of Creation, not just Sir 43:11–19. This has been illustrated with Table 1 below. The order remains as found in these nature-lists in order to show how Ben Sira uses variety. One should not look for matching elements across rows in order, but for overall textual reuse. Shading indicates shared elements of nature in both tables. The significance of Ben Sira’s echoing of Psalms 104, 147, and 148 in particular thus far has not been fully set in context. Ben Sira’s use of these three psalms affects how we understand the textual history of the Psalms. The debate over the Psalms Scroll is over whether the different order of Psalms 91–150

‫‪133‬‬

‫‪On Weather‬‬ ‫‪Sir 43:11–19 compared to Job and Psalms‬‬

‫‪Ps 148‬‬

‫‪Ps 147‬‬

‫‪Ps 104‬‬

‫–‪Job 38:1‬‬ ‫‪41:26‬‬

‫–‪Job 36:24‬‬ ‫‪37:24‬‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫אש וברד‬ ‫שלג וקיטור‬ ‫רוח וסערה‬ ‫עשה דברו‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫ואצרות ברד‬ ‫תראה‬

‫–‬

‫ ‪Table 1‬‬

‫‪Natural‬‬ ‫‪Descriptions applied‬‬ ‫‪in Sir 43:11–19‬‬ ‫‪works in‬‬ ‫‪order in Sir‬‬ ‫‪43:11–19‬‬

‫ראה קשת וברך עשיה‬

‫)‪(43:11a‬‬

‫קשת‬

‫כי מאד נהדרה כבוד‬

‫)‪(43:11b‬‬

‫הוג [הקיפה] בכבודה‬

‫)‪(Job 38:22‬‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫)‪(Job 38:23‬‬

‫ברד‬

‫ותנצח זיקות משפט‬

‫)‪(43:13b‬‬

‫אשר־הׂשכתי‬ ‫לעת־צר |‬ ‫ליום קרב‬ ‫ומלחמה‬

‫)‪(Ps 148:8‬‬

‫)‪(43:12a‬‬ ‫[ו]יד אל נטתה‬ ‫)‪ (43:12b‬בגב[און]‬ ‫גערתו [תתו]ה ברד‬ ‫)‪(43:13a‬‬

‫מן־החדר‬ ‫תבוא סופה‬

‫הבאת אל־‬ ‫אצרות שלג‬ ‫ואצרות ברד )‪(Job 37:9‬‬ ‫תראה‬

‫)‪(Job 38:22‬‬

‫התרים לעב אף אם־יבין‬ ‫השם־עבים‬ ‫קולך מפרשי־עב‬ ‫רכובו‬ ‫)‪ (Job 38:34) (Ps 104:3‬תשאות סכתו‬

‫)‪(Job 36:29‬‬

‫אף־ברי יטריח‬ ‫עב יפיץ ענן‬ ‫אורו‬

‫)‪(Job 37:11‬‬

‫התדע על־‬ ‫מפלשי־עב‬

‫)‪(Job 37:16‬‬

‫למענו פרע אוצר‬

‫אוצר‬

‫ויעף עבים כעיט‬

‫עבים‬

‫)‪(43:14a‬‬

‫)‪(43:14b‬‬

‫‪134‬‬

‫‪Chapter 4‬‬ ‫)‪Sir 43:11–19 compared to Job and Psalms (cont.‬‬ ‫‪Ps 147 Ps 148‬‬

‫‪Ps 104‬‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫אש וברד‬ ‫שלג וקיטור‬ ‫רוח וסערה‬ ‫עשה דברו‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‪Job 38:1‬‬ ‫‪41:26‬‬

‫–‪Job 36:24‬‬ ‫‪37:24‬‬

‫בשומי ענן‬ ‫לבשו‬

‫אף־ברי יטריח גבורתו חזק ענן‬ ‫)‪(43:15a‬‬ ‫עב יפיץ ענן‬ ‫אורו‬

‫)‪(Job 38:9‬‬

‫ ‪Table 1‬‬

‫‪Natural‬‬ ‫‪Descriptions applied‬‬ ‫‪in Sir 43:11–19‬‬ ‫‪works in‬‬ ‫‪order in Sir‬‬ ‫‪43:11–19‬‬

‫ענן‬

‫)‪(Job 37:11‬‬

‫והופיע אור‬ ‫עננו‬

‫)‪(Ps 148:8‬‬ ‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫)‪(Job 37:15‬‬ ‫–‬

‫התרים לעב שמעו שמוע‬ ‫מן־קול‬ ‫ברגז קלו |‬ ‫קולך‬ ‫רעמך‬ ‫)‪ (Job 38:34‬והגה מפיו יצא‬ ‫יחפזון‬ ‫)‪ (Ps 104:7‬ובקול כמהו )‪(Job 37:2‬‬ ‫אחריו ישאג‬ ‫תרעם‬ ‫)‪ (Job 40:9‬קול | ירעם‬ ‫בקול גאונו‬

‫ותגדע אבני ברד‬

‫)‪(43:15b‬‬

‫קול רעמו יחיל ארצו‬

‫)‪(43:17a‬‬

‫אבני ברד‬

‫קול רעמו‪a‬‬

‫)‪(Job 37:4‬‬

‫ירעם אל‬ ‫בקולו נפלאות‬ ‫ההרים‬

‫וכל־גבעות |‬ ‫ץ פרי וכ ‪‎‬לע‬ ‫ארזים‬

‫)‪(Ps 148:9‬‬

‫–‬

‫על־הרים‬ ‫יעמדו־מים‬

‫)‪(Ps 104:6‬‬

‫יעלו הרים‬ ‫ירדו בקעות‬

‫)‪(Ps 104:8‬‬

‫משקה‬ ‫הרים‬ ‫מעליותיו‬

‫)‪(Ps 104:13‬‬

‫–‬

‫)‪(Job 37:5‬‬ ‫–‬

‫ובכחו יניף הרים‬

‫)‪(43:16a‬‬

‫הרים‬

‫‪135‬‬

‫‪On Weather‬‬

‫‪Ps 147 Ps 148‬‬

‫–‬

‫‪Ps 104‬‬

‫–‪Job 38:1‬‬ ‫‪41:26‬‬

‫–‬

‫המבינתך‬

‫יאבר־נץ |‬

‫–‪Job 36:24‬‬ ‫‪37:24‬‬

‫–‬

‫יפרש כנפו‬ ‫לתימן‬

‫אש וברד‬ ‫שלג וקיטור‬ ‫רוח וסערה‬ ‫עשה דברו‬

‫)‪(Ps 148:8‬‬

‫אש וברד‬ ‫שלג וקיטור‬ ‫רוח וסערה‬ ‫עשה דברו‬

‫)‪(Job 39:26‬‬

‫‪Natural‬‬ ‫‪Descriptions applied‬‬ ‫‪in Sir 43:11–19‬‬ ‫‪works in‬‬ ‫‪order in Sir‬‬ ‫‪43:11–19‬‬

‫אמרתו תחריף תימן‬

‫)‪(43:16b‬‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫ויען־ה׳‬ ‫את־איוב‬ ‫מנ הסופה‬ ‫ויאמר‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫ויען־ה׳‬ ‫את־איוב‬ ‫מנ הסערה‬ ‫ויאמר‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫כי לשלג יאמר כרשף יפרח שלגו‬ ‫הבאת אל־‬ ‫)‪(43:17c‬‬ ‫אצרות שלג הוא ארץ‬ ‫וכארבה ישכן רדתו‬ ‫ואצרות ברד |וגשם מטר‬ ‫וגשם מטרות )‪(43:17d‬‬ ‫תראה‬ ‫תור לבנו יהג עינים‬ ‫)‪ (Job 38:22‬עזו‬

‫)‪(Ps 148:8‬‬

‫)‪(Job 38:1‬‬

‫מן־החדר‬ ‫תבואסופה‬

‫)‪(Job 37:9‬‬

‫–‬

‫על[*]עול סופה וסערה‬

‫)‪(43:17b‬‬

‫על[*]עול סופה וסערה‬

‫)‪(43:17b‬‬

‫)‪(Job 40:6‬‬

‫)‪(Job 37:6‬‬

‫תימן‬

‫סופה‬

‫סערה‬

‫שלג‬

‫)‪(43:18a‬‬

‫וממטרו יתמיה לבב‬

‫)‪(43:18b‬‬

‫–‬

‫כפור‬ ‫כאפר יפזר‬

‫)‪(Ps 147:16‬‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫–‬

‫[וגם] כפור כמלח ישפך‬

‫)‪(43:19a‬‬

‫ויצמח כסנה צצים‬

‫)‪(43:19b‬‬

‫‪a However, see also Psalm 29 mainly. Also Ps 147:15, 19.‬‬

‫כפור‬

136

Chapter 4

in 11QPsa is evidence of 11QPsa not being a Psalms Scroll but something secondary, or whether it is evidence of a separate textual tradition of the Psalms.102 Using manuscript evidence of many different Psalms scrolls, Flint conclusively shows that in the mid-first century bce, the order of Psalms 91–150 was still not as close to being fixed as Psalms 1–90.103 The order of the relevant psalms as found in 11QPsa is 104 (or 103), 147, 105, 146, 148.104 The last lines of Psalms 103 and 104 are the same, so the psalm preceding 147 could be either. In the rearrangement of the 11QPsa edition of Psalms, it is immediately clear that at least Psalm 147 and 148 remain in close proximity, even if Psalm 104 is actually 103. This is why it is important to corroborate with other manuscripts. 4QPsd contains Psalms 106, 147, and 104 only.105 This means that in at least 4QPsd, Psalm 104 was found next to 147, and in 11QPsa, Psalms 147 and 148 were close together. The textual history of Psalms is complex, and 102  M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa). A Problem of Canon and Text,” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33. Menaḥem Haran, “11QPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms,” in M. Brettler and Michael Fishbane, eds., Minḥah le-Nahum (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 193– 201. Manfred R. Lehmann, “11QPsa and Ben Sira,” RevQ 11:2 (1983): 239–251. Shemaryahu Talmon, “Pisqah Be’emsa‘ Pasuq and 11QPsa,” Textus 5 (1966): 11–21. Patrick W. Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” in Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor (Paris: Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978), 163–82. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism, 109; 190n; 220. Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran, STDJ 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Eva Jain, Psalmen oder Psalter? Materielle Rekonstruktion und inhaltliche Untersuchung der Psalmenhandschriften aus der Wüste, STDJ 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Dahmen concludes that 11QPsa is a completely detached separate redaction of the MT-Psalter. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption, 315. Jain also maintains 11QPsa is a secondary collection, arguing that the manuscripts themselves are far too diverse to maintain a hypothesis which would encompasses them as a whole. Jain, Psalmen oder Psalter, 300. However, Wilson has shown that editorial choices do not themselves demand a collection is secondary. Gerald H. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter,” CBQ 45 (1983): 377–88; “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter,” VT 34 (1984): 337–52; “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate,” CBQ 47 (1985): 624–42; The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985); “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping,” CBQ 59 (1997): 448–44. 103  Flint, Psalms Scrolls, especially 136–149; 213–14. Note that not all of the Qumran Psalms manuscripts follow the 11QPsa-Psalter edition order, such as 4Q84 which follows the MT order for Psalms 91–118. Flint shows that there are two separate traditions and both can be found at Qumran. See also discussion in Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 58–75. 104  DJD 4, 5. Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 553–54. 105  DJD 16, 65–71.

On Weather

137

scholarship has sought to explain this complexity with a number of theories. What remains is that in variant Psalms editions, these psalms tend to appear near one another. The placement of Psalm 106 near these nature-lists is also significant because, if Col 1, line 5 of 4QPsd is in fact Ps 106:48,106 it would provide a good reason why Ben Sira places the Praise of the Fathers and the Hymn of Creation directly beside one another. Psalm 106 is a list of patriarchs and the protective actions of God in the history of Israel. By comparison, the Praise of the Fathers is also a list of patriarchs, albeit more complete and focusing attention on priests (Aaron and Simon II), yet still running through Israel’s history chronologically.107 Considering Ben Sira’s use of Psalm 106 in connection with Phinehas in the Praise, the fact that Psalm 106 is thought of together with our nature-list psalms help explain why Ben Sira placed his nature-list next to the Praise. The placement is therefore another example of rationality behind the structure underlying the text of Ben Sira. The orders found in 11QPsa and 4QPsd suggest two possibilities. The first option is that Ben Sira knew an edition of Psalms that looked similar to those found at Qumran, which would have aided his research before composition and encouraged him to think of them together. The other possibility is that Ben Sira could have simply read these psalms separately in a proto-MT edition and conceptually thought of them as belonging together. 11QPsa and 4QPsd demonstrate that other people besides Ben Sira also thought of these psalms as belonging together. Ben Sira’s use of these psalms is thus new external evidence, alongside the Psalms Scrolls, that can be brought to the debate.108

106  The note in DJD 16, 66, gives several convincing reasons why the line cannot be the other options of Ps 146:10 (the final ‫ ן‬is where in Ps 146:10 ‫ ודר‬would be, and it is clearly not a ‫)ר‬ or the final line of Psalm 134 (Psalm 134 does not have ‫)הללויה‬. Psalm 106 is not found in the surviving text of 11QPsa, in which Psalm 104(?) is preceded by Psalm 102. See DJD 4, 20; Plate III. IAA, “Multispectral and Infrared Images of 4QPsd Frag C” (Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library; Israel Antiquities Authority; Photo: Shai HaLevi, Image taken 24 April 2015). 107  Though Ben Sira mention Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, and Adam again at the end (Sir 49:16), this in fact is a literary strategy of making comparisons between patriarchs (Sir 45:25, 48:22) and does not necessarily mean he is interrupting the chronological order. 108  In a recent article, I discuss this issue further. Askin, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira.”

138

Chapter 4

Sir 43:11–19 Compared with Other Sources

Second Temple Sources While list-making is a fundamental scribal strategy since the earliest Akkadian vocabulary lists, the nature-lists in the Hebrew Bible (Psalms 29, 104, 147, 148 and Job 36–41) play a strong textual role at the forefront of Ben Sira’s Hymn of Creation, with direct quotations or allusions, similar order, and literary features such as metaphor. There are much smaller catalogues of nature comprising a single verse or several lines in 1 En. 69:16–24, 2 Bar. 59:5, 4 Ezra 4:5, 5:26, Wis 7:17–21, 11QPsa Hymn 1–9, 1QM 10:11–16. The most relevant comparison is with 1 Enoch since it predates Ben Sira (1 Enoch 1–36, 72–82, and probably 83–90), apart from the Book of Similitudes (1 Enoch 37–71), which is absent from Qumran and is thought to be first century bce to first century ce.109 The prominence of the storehouses and the sequence of thunder, lighting, hail, hoarfrost, rain, and dew (as in Job 37–41) is indeed very significant as evidence of a literary pattern that is clearly based on the nature-lists in the Hebrew Bible. Thus 1 Enoch and Ben Sira are clues of a common stream of tradition in employing the genre of nature-lists, which is continued in later Second Temple texts.110 Significantly, for example, 2 Baruch and Wisdom both echo Job.111 The other examples tend to allude to Isa 40:22 and other shorter nature-lists from prophetic literature. Therefore a main distinction in Ben Sira’s nature-list is his use of the Psalms, 109  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 7. 110  Also mentioned Sir 43:13, 4QapPsb (4Q381) frag. 14:2. Next, as in Sir 43:14, 4QBera (4Q286) frag. 3:4 (the angels … ‫ )ע[ננ]י מטר [ו]ערפלי מים עבי‬and frag. 5 (“the earth, living things, produce, and the abyss”), and 1QM 12:9: army of spirits, our horsemen are ‫כעננים וכעבי טל‬ ‫“ לכסות ארץ‬like dark-clouds and like clouds of dew that cover the earth.” Additionally, as in Sir 43:15: Jub 5:7–8. For ‫ אלגביש‬by itself = 4QJuba (4Q216) v 7 with ‫[ק]רח‬, [‫( ] ַטל‬dew), and [‫]ברד‬. And 5:8 “and the angels of the [winds],” (‫לכחום ולחרף ולקיץ )רוחות‬. In this reference, it is just the list of what God created. Finally, in 4QTheTwoWays (4Q473) frag. 2:6 God will destroy those who walk upon the evil way with snow, frost, and hail, ‫וירקון שלג‬ ‫קרח וברד‬. Hebrew and English from García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scroll Study Edition, 1:132–33 (1QM), 460–61 (4Q216); 2:644–47 (4Q286), 754–55 (4Q381), 954–55 (4Q473). Also note in the New Testament: the sun, moon, and stars are listed in that order in Matt 24:29. 111  Michael E. Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things,” 431–35, compares 2 Baruch 59:5 and Sir 1:1–3 (cannot number the raindrops) with Job 28:23–26, and 2 Bar 48:4 and 4 Ezra 4:5, 5:36 (the order of fire, wind, and abyss/raindrops) with Job 38, but he does not mention Sir 43. He concludes that there are no direct parallels, and that thematically apocalyptic lists are different from the biblical as the former are “primarily of the declarative type” while Job’s lists are “interrogative in formulation.”

On Weather

139

Job, and prophetic literature harmonized together, and the comparatively much longer length of his nature-list. With his Hymn of Creation and his other nature-list at Sir 39:12–35, Ben Sira has mastered the nature-list far beyond his literary contemporaries and taken it further to a higher level. Another key difference between Ben Sira and other early Jewish literature, mentioned briefly above, is theme. One theme in the Hymn is the nature of human wisdom. Wis 7:17–21 stresses how much Solomon has learned already about nature and the universe. Conversely, Ben Sira addresses the knowledge of the universe as something only God knows, along the lines of God and Elihu in Job 36–41. Ben Sira concludes in Sir 43:32, saying, “Many things greater than these lie hidden, for we have seen few of his works.” Sources from the Near East, Egypt, and Mediterranean Early Jewish literature, including Ben Sira, appears to be singular in generating such an established genre of nature-lists.112 In Egypt and the Near East, there are many lists of medicinal plants and catalogues of elements of nature for vocabulary purposes. Again, here comparisons with Near Eastern and Egyptian examples can be made only at the lowest common denominator of listmaking—by comparison, there are several long nature-list poems in Psalms and Job that are much better comparisons with Sir 42:15–43:33. One example of an Egyptian nature-list are the four Hymns of Isidorus, but the Hymns are dated to the first-century bce. There are no known direct textual parallels with the Hymns.113 Another possibility, discussed above, consists of suggested overlapping sentiments in P. Insinger: Sir 43:6 with P. Insinger 32:2 and Sir 43:22 with P. Insinger 32:6.114 In fact, however, the tone of P. Insinger 32 is concerned with things that are made for human survival, similar to the Hymns of Isidorus, and is not a praise of nature’s creator. It does not resemble other nature-lists. 112  To some extent the Greek and Roman interest in geography and natural history can be seen as an appreciation of nature (Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, Eratosthenes [the “Father of Geography,” author of “Geographikos” ca. 276–194 bce, Alexandria], Scymnus [180s bce], Pliny the Elder [77 ce], and Ptolemy [first to second centuries ce]), as well as in literature, for example Virgil’s Georgics 1.393–423 and Lucretius’s DRN 6.495–534. 113  The text can be compared easily. Vera F. Vanderlip, ed., The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis (Toronto: A.M. Hakkert, 1972). The Hymns (I and IV especially) sing of Isis’s and Horus’s power over the earth, sky, Nile, and various nations of the world. The emphasis is on elements of nature that provide for human livelihood, and divine control of nature as an expression of power. The tone is distinct from Hebrew nature-lists, which emphasize examining how divine glory is visible within the natural elements (Ps 104:1; Ps 147:1–7; Ps 148:1–12; Job 36:24–37:24; Sir 42:15–16; 43:2, 9; 43:11, 27–33). 114  Sanders, Demotic, 79.

140

Chapter 4

Rather, these overlaps should be compared more with Sir 39:26, which indicates a wider literary pattern of listing the necessities of human life. These overlaps are also not strong enough evidence of direct textual reuse as much as overlapping common streams of tradition in ancient wisdom literature, since by comparison Ben Sira in his nature-list draws on Psalms and Job with such consistent familiarity. Weather in Geographic and Historical Context Just like today in Israel, late third-century bce Judea had many occurrences of hail and earthquakes. Hail is dangerous particularly from April to May and October to November, but it occurs throughout the winter season. The order of Ben Sira’s weather phenomena is in fact seasonally ordered, not random or based entirely on literary models (which themselves could be based on seasonal order, too). Beginning with Rosh Hashanah in September-October, the rainy season begins, as do hail, thunder, seasonal winds, snow, and ice (Sir 43:20). The summer months bring fires and heat (Sir 43:22) as well as safe travel on the sea (Sir 43:23–24). Ben Sira also mentions the cold north-wind (Sir 43:20), which reach Israel from the northwest from the Mediterranean. From Greece, these winds first come from the Alps.115 In the Mediterranean region, the north wind, which arrives in the winter, was equivalent to the Greek god Boreas. In sum, there is a good possibility that in Sir 43:11–19, Ben Sira cycles seasonally through the weather. A cycle from summer to winter can be seen to some extent in Ps 147:1–17. Additionally, it should be mentioned that in Mesopotamian cartography, the winds act as the cardinal directions, which end up giving an inclined orientation of NW, NE, SW, SE.116 The south wind is found parallel with the storm-wind and tempest (Sir 43:17b–16b). In Greek mythology, the god Notus, the south-wind equivalent to the modern Ostro, was the bringer of storms and the warm south-wind. In Israel and Middle East, the Khamsin wind (which blows south and southeast, referred to in the Hebrew Bible as the ‫ )רוח קדים‬brings terrible storms, sand-storms, and warm air. In dry arid regions of North Africa, the Levant, and Near East, sand storms are common and are caused by seasonal winds, such as the Sharav wind in Israel. Israel’s weather and winds are unpredictable and changeable year-round. Thus, the reasons why Sir 43:11–19 has such a tone of divine revelation of judgement (winds and storms) or benevolence (rainbows, snow)—and perhaps why storms and winds appear so frequently in Hebrew 115  Viewable at http://earth.nullschool.net/. 116  Elizabeth Ruth Josie Wheat, “Terrestrial Cartography in Ancient Mesopotamia” (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2013), 25.

On Weather

141

prophetic literature are emphatically shown by the features of the region’s climate. Conclusions Summary of Textual Findings in Sir 43:11–19 In Sir 43:11–19, Ben Sira characterizes weather as divine revelation, describing miraculous weather (Josh 10:11) and weather elements that function regularly as symbols or metaphors in prophetic literature (Ezekiel 1; Isa 40:21–24; Nah 1:2–10; Hab 3:5). In comparison with other Second Temple sources, Ben Sira is distinctive from his contemporaries in composing such a long nature-list so full of metaphor, allusions, and quotations of Job and Psalms. This is also shown by his shorter nature-list in Sir 39:12–35. The importance of the Psalms in the first century bce is shown by the high number of Psalms manuscripts found near Qumran. Ben Sira uses the nature-list psalms extensively, and he is alone in doing so, compared to the use of nature-lists in Isaiah and Job by other Second Temple sources. Ben Sira’s harmonization of these sources together is also evident. Ben Sira is rather laden with textual reuse in his literary modelling of nature-list, particularly in comparison with other Second Temple texts modelling themselves on well-known literary genres, such as the songs to Zion (ApZion, Tob 13:9–18, and 1 Bar 4:30–5:9) identified by Henderson, which model themselves on biblical songs to Zion such as Isaiah 40–66.117 Additionally, a glimpse of what Ben Sira’s version of his Hebrew sources looked like was discovered from his attention to Psalms 104, 147, and 148. These findings help us understand the text Ben Sira was using in preparation of his composition. Another discovery was that with the order of Psalms, the closeness of Psalm 106 to the nature-list psalms as they are found in 4QPsd illustrates why Ben Sira placed the Praise of the Fathers and Hymn of Creation next to one another in his text. The orders in 11QPsa and 4QPsd show that Ben Sira either had a similar edition of Psalms or at least conceptually thought of these nature-lists and Psalm 106 as belonging together. The possibilities exist but textual reuse cannot prove definitively that Ben Sira had an arrangement in his edition of Psalms that was similar to 11QPsa and 4QPsd, since the reuse could be the result of mental arrangement. This evidence can therefore offer

117  Henderson, Second Temple Songs.

142

Chapter 4

these new considerations to the Psalm Scroll debate, and tell us more about the possible shape of Ben Sira’s Hebrew sources.118 Conclusions for Ben Sira’s Individual Scribalism In his lines on weather, Ben Sira displays his utilization of a known literary model, the nature-list, and uses multiple major and minor sources to reveal a theme of divine revelation. Ben Sira’s creativity has a distinct role in the selection of his sources and in his use of synonymous quotations and echoes rather than, for instance, a use of “copy and paste” quotation by visual back-and-forth work. Rather, in order to set a prophetic theme, Ben Sira employed his creativity through his unusual choices of words and echoing of Job, Psalms, and Qohelet—skipping across numerous texts with such dexterity that a proposal of direct quotation-checking is both implausible and impractical. The aim of this chapter was to examine the relationship between literary convention or genre and direct textual reuse by quotation, echo, allusion, or similarity of vocabulary and phrases. There is indeed a strong association between direct textual reuse and the literary models used in Sir 43:11–19. Where Ben Sira closely imitates nature-lists, he also has a high proportion of direct textual reuse of those same nature-lists through direct textual reuse. Finally, Ben Sira’s expert use of nature-list psalms must be accounted for without arguing for simple overlapping of genre or the popularity of the Psalms, since he also echoes prophetic texts and wisdom literature. On the basis of this way in which he treats the nature-list as a chance to exercise such multi-layered textual reuse (nature-lists, prophetic texts, wisdom), I would suggest that Ben Sira is thereby intentionally shaping an exemplary and highliterary style for his readers, imbuing his readers with a good sense of how he has internalized all these types of sources to a remarkable degree. In effect, Ben Sira is showing how best to perform a known literary genre, drawing from several known sources of these at once, at a remarkably multifaceted level. At the same time, he does all this in a fresh way, with new items such as the rainbow and longer discussions of the sun and moon, and a prophetic tone of divine revelation.

118  Askin, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira.” The Psalms Scrolls and MTPsalter texts are compared to Ben Sira’s textual reuse in cases where quotation may be from Psalms 104, 147, or 148, and the study concludes that we cannot yet rule out either MT or 11QPsa-Psalter in the case of his edition of Psalms.

Chapter 5

Death and the Body: Echoes of Job, Qohelet, and Ancient Perspectives

General Introduction

This chapter will explore textual reuse present in Sir 41:1–15, and what the poem tells us about Ben Sira’s sociocultural interaction with his contemporary world. My aim in this enterprise is to make precise distinctions between sociocultural ideas held in common in the ancient world and direct textual connections between texts. There is also the problem of describing how these two spheres, sociocultural and textual, work together in Ben Sira. Schwartz argues that Ben Sira’s concern for glory and a lasting name (found also in Sir 41:1–15) is evidence for Ben Sira’s adoption of Mediterranean society values.1 Conversely, Di Lella sees Sir 41:8–10 as an attack on Hellenized Jews, and thus a reaction against contemporary Mediterranean culture.2 Popular ideas about death in the ancient world can be explored through the evidence of funerary stelae and vases, inscriptions, tombs, and funerary rites. Comments and proverbs on death are also found throughout Mediterranean and Near Eastern literature, epigraphy, and philosophy. Beginning in fifthcentury bce Athens, funeral orations became a more common practice in the Greek world, such as in the works of Pindar. We can also compare Ben Sira’s views on death with practices found in Jewish epitaphs in Greco-Roman Palestine.3 Thus analysis of Sir 41:1–15 is more complicated than identifying textual parallels in wisdom literature or classical high philosophy such as Epicureanism, since there are many types of expressions of death: public, material, and literary. Scholars divide Sir 41:1–15 into smaller units because it treats two themes that do not seem related on first inspection: death and the fate of the wicked.4 1  Schwartz, Mediterranean, 66–74. Schwartz cites Sir 14:10–13, also on death, but not Sir 41:1–15. Schwartz, Mediterranean, 63. Cf. David A. daSilva, “The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Honor, Shame, and the Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture,” CBQ 58 (1996): 433–55. 2  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 474. 3  van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, especially 114–26. 4  Sir 41:1–4, 5–13, 14–15 (Smend, Hebräisch, 40–41; 72, and Lévi, L’Écclesiastique, 32–39); Sir 41:1– 4, 5–15 (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 464–65; 469; 477–78; 480); Sir 41:1–4, 5–10, 11–13, 14–15 (Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 236–68); Sir 41:1–4, 5–9, 10–15 [Jeremy Corley, “Searching

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_007

144

Chapter 5

This issue will be explored through consideration of Ben Sira’s textual reuse and sociocultural spheres of operation, as we continue to search for characteristics of Ben Sira’s individual scribalism.

Introduction to Death and the Body in Ben Sira

Ben Sira’s attitudes to death are a valuable insight into Second Temple understanding of the Hebrew Bible’s references to death, Sheol, and attitudes to the body during life and after death. Sir 41:1–15 refers to death as the fate of all, Sheol as the fate of the wicked specifically, and having a good name and good children as opportunities for surviving death. These ideas are all found in the Hebrew Bible, as well, and many of them share strong similarities with ideas in the Mediterranean world and the Near East. In his study of death and afterlife in the Hebrew Bible, Philip S. Johnston shows that while Sheol is sometimes portrayed as the fate of all, it is primarily known as the fate of the wicked.5 Thus Sheol is lamented and feared in psalms particularly when the subject is in distress or fears judgement.6 An afterlife for the righteous and wise in some form of communion or rest with God is referred to with ambiguity in Psalms 16, 49, and 73.7 Likewise, Don Matthewson argues that Job has a wide range of attitudes towards death: death is justice, a test, and relief for the weary.8 Ben Sira, too, has similar opinions. Death is rest for the old and good (Sir 41:1cd–2ab) with one’s ancestors (Sir 41:3b) but also judgement for the wicked (Sir 41:5–11). The fear of death (Sir 41:3a) also resonates with Psalm 23. Another example is Isa 38:18, “Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you, those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.” The following verse Isa 38:19 juxtaposes the silent dead with

for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, eds. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLS 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 39 (21–47)]; Sir 40:3–41:13 (Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 103). 5  Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and the Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 81–85. 6  Ps 6:5; 28:1; 69:15; 88:3; 130:1; 143:7. Cited in Johnston, Sheol, 88; discussed 88–97. 7  Johnston, Sheol, 199–217. 8  Don Matthewson, Death and Survival in Job (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 17. Matthewson is responding to Zuckerman’s claim that the rhetorical value of death in Job is for parody. Bruce Zuckerman, Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 118–35.

Death and the Body

145

the living and the passing of pious knowledge from father to children (cf. Sir 41:5–9; 14–15).9 Ben Sira remains close to examples in Hebrew prophetic literature of individual resurrection (Sir 48:9), particularly cases of resurrection in prophecy as a powerful metaphor of the power of God over life and death (Sir 48:5).10 Corley notes that although Ben Sira does not believe in an afterlife, he leaves some openness to the cases of Enoch and Elijah.11 For the rest of humanity, Ben Sira’s afterlife for the good is rest and reunion with one’s ancestors. Attitudes to the body in Ben Sira are critical and negative, which sounds similar to physical suffering in Job. Erickson argues that Job rejects his physical body as part of a legal metaphor to prove his innocence, although it must be noted that many mentions of Job’s body are partly due to symptoms of his illness.12 However, Job also wishes for justice in this life (Job 19:25–27), that is, with his body intact,13 and Job’s health is restored to him at the end (Job 42:10–17). With Ben Sira, the body is criticized because it is impermanent and becomes old, sick, and tired. Ben Sira focuses on the body’s shortcomings, the finality of death, and divine justice (Sir 8:7; 10:9–18; 14:11–19; 38:16–23). Sir 10:9a (ms A) reminds the reader, “how can he who is dust and ashes be proud” in comparison to God? Likewise, Sir 38:1–15 advises moral rectitudeness and ritual purity before seeking healing (see Chapter Six), and Sir 38:16–23 (ms B) offers reasons why mourning for the dead (beyond burial responsibilities) is useless since death is universal.

9   See textual commentary below on Sir 41:1, 4, 14–15. 10  Johnston, Sheol, 221–28, discusses both national (Hosea 6, Ezekiel 37) and individual resurrections in prophecy (Isaiah 26, 53; Daniel 12; Psalm 16). 11  Jeremy Corley, “Sir 44:1–15 as Introduction to the Praise of the Ancestors,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, eds. József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits, JSJSup 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 180–81 (151–82). Klawans finds Ben Sira a common ancestor to Sadducean thought (universal death, free will) that may have been read with approval by later Sadducees. Jonathan Klawans, “Sadducees, Zadokites, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children, eds. David B. Capes et al. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 261–76. See also Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira,” in Die alttestamentliche Botschaft als Wegweisung: Festschrift für Heinz Reinelt (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 203–36. 12  Amy Erickson, “‘Without My Flesh I Will See God’: Job’s Rhetoric of the Body,” JBL 132:2 (2013): 295–313. For a recent discussion of Job’s disease, see Katharine J. Dell, “What Was Job’s Malady?” JSOT 41.1 (2016): 61–77. 13  Johnston, Sheol, 209.

146

Chapter 5

Primary Texts for Sir 41:1–15

Hebrew14 Mas1h II, l. 24–25 to III, l. 1–17a

MS.Heb.e.62, 1b (ms B Xv.) l. 7–18 to 2a (XIr.) l. 1–7

(II, l. 24) ‫ ˥ הו̇ [י] ̇ל[מות מה מר ז] ̇כ ̇ר ̇ך‬41:1



‫̇לאיש שקט על מכונתו‬ ‫ומצ ̇לי̇ ̇ח בכל‬ ̇ ‫[איש] ̇ש ̇לו‬ ‫עוד בו כח לקבל תענוג‬ (III, l. 1) ]‫̇הע למות מה טוב ̇ח[קך‬ ‫ וחסר עצמה‬b(!)‫[ל]אין אוינים‬ ]‫איש כשל ונוקש ב[כל‬ ‫אפס המרה ואבוד תקוה‬ ‫אל תפחד ממות ̇חקך‬ ‫זכר קדמון ואחרון עמך‬ ‫ז̇ ̇ה ̇קץ כל [בשר מאלו] ̇ה‬ ]‫[ומה תמאס בתורת] ̇ע ̇לי̇ ו̇ [ן‬ ‫וא ̇ל ̇ף שנים‬ ̇ ‫לעשר מאה‬



41:2

41:3



41:4



(1b, l. 7) e‫חיים למות מה [מ]ר יברך‬ ‫לאיֿ ש שוקט על מכונתו׃‬ ‫ בכל‬f‫איש שליו ומ[צ]ליח‬ ‫ב[ו ח]יל לקבל תענוג׃‬g ‫ועוד‬ ‫האח למות כי טוב חקיך‬ ‫לאיש אונים וחסר עצמה׃‬ h‫איש כושל ינקש בכל‬ ‫סרב ואבד תקוה׃‬ ‫אל ̇תפחד ממות חוקיך‬ ‫ז[כ]ר כי ראשנים ואחרנים עמך‬ ‫זה חלק כל בשר מאל‬ ]‫ומה תמאס בתורת עלי[ון‬ ‫לאלף שנים מאה ועשר‬

‫חוי‬

41:1

‫חוקחזק‬ ‫חוקו‬

14:2

‫ונוקש‬

41:3 41:4

14  Mas1h and ms B are both in dual hemistitch layout in the manuscripts but are shown side by side in single stitches for easier comparison. Mas1h will be consulted alongside the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions. Masada is damaged in places and is also not free of some scribal errors, but due to its antiquity it is still preferable to B. This chapter’s suggested reconstructions in ms B largely follow Mas1h. This is the case except in lines where the medieval manuscript differs significantly from Mas1h, such as 41:1d, 2d, 12b, or 15a. Most of ms B’s marginal readings align with Mas1h (Sir 41:1a, 2a, 2c/d, 6a, 9a/b, 9d, 11a, 12b, 13b, 14a/b), though not all (Sir 41:4d, 5a, 6a, 9d, 10a, 13b). ms B’s main textual differences are synonymous variants, such as Sir 41:3b, 4a. There is also ‫ חיל‬for ‫( כח‬Sir 41:1d), and ‫ סרב‬for ‫( אפס המרה‬Sir 41:2d). Other changes are orthographic: ‫ חק‬for Masada’s ‫חוק‬, ‫ עולם‬for ‫עלם‬. There are some other changes, such as ‫( חיים‬B) for ‫( הוי‬Mas1h) at Sir 41:1a and ‫( חאה‬B) for the scribal error of ‫( הע‬Mas1h) at Sir 41:2a. Peters, Liber Iesu, 98, actually transcribes ‫ הוי‬for Sir 41:1 Btext instead of ‫חיים‬, based on the Greek and Syriac. Note that B uses the plene spelling in ‫( חוק‬Sir 41:3a) while Mas1h uses ‫חק‬, and elsewhere Mas1h uses the shorter spelling of ‫( עלם‬Sir 41:9c). Tov has observed that, while stressing a lack of universal consistency, the scribal tendencies of the Qumran scrolls (as with others of the Second Temple period) is towards the inclusion of matres lectiones. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 222–28.

‫‪147‬‬

‫‪Death and the Body‬‬ ‫‪MS.Heb.e.62, 1b (ms B Xv.) l. 7–18‬‬ ‫‪to 2a (XIr.) l. 1–7‬‬

‫בש[או] ֿל חיים׃‬ ‫איש תוכחות ֿ‬ ‫‪41:5‬‬ ‫‪i‬נין נמאס דבר רעים ‬ ‫ונכד אויל [במדור רש]ע׃ ‬ ‫‪ 41:6‬מבין ערל‬ ‫מבן עול ממשלת רע ‬ ‫[ועם] זר[ע תמיד חרפה]‪ j‬‬ ‫רישם‬ ‫‪41:7‬‬ ‫אב רשע יקו[ב י]ל[ד] ‬ ‫כי [בג]לל[ו היו בוז]‪ k‬‬ ‫‪41:8‬‬ ‫[הוי ]ל[כם אנשי עולה] ‬ ‫[ ׄעזבי תורת על]יון ‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ אם [תפרו מעל]ידי אסון‪ l‬‬ ‫‪ 41 9‬תפרו     ֿ‬ ‫[ואם ת]ולידו אנחה׃ ‬ ‫[א]ם תכשלו לשמחת עול ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫(‪)2a, l. 1‬‬ ‫לקללתה  ˟˟[ו]אם‪ m‬תמותו לקל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪41:10‬‬ ‫ ‪n‬כל מאפס אל אפס ישוב ‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ב‬ ‫‪o‬כ˟ץחנף מתהו אל תהו׃ ‬ ‫׃‬ ‫ הבל אדם בגויתו ‬ ‫‪ 14 11‬בני ‬ ‫אך שם חסד לא יכרת׃ ‬ ‫‪41:12‬‬ ‫פחד על שם כי הוא ילוך ‬ ‫מאלפי אוצרות חכמה׃ חמדה סומות‬ ‫‪ 41:13‬טוב חי מספר טובת חי ימי מספר‬ ‫וטובת שם ימי אין מספר ‬ ‫ימים‬ ‫‪ 41:14‬וסימה‬ ‫מסותרת חכמה טמונה ואוצר מוסתר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫תעלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫מה תועלה בשתיהם׃‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪ 41 15‬‬ ‫טוב א[י] ֿש מצפין אוֿ לתו ‬ ‫מאדון‬ ‫ ‬ ‫מאיש מצפין חכמתו׃‬

‫‪Mas1h II, l. 24–25 to III, l. 1–17‬‬

‫אין‬

‫‪41:5‬‬ ‫‪41:6‬‬ ‫‪41:7‬‬ ‫‪41:8‬‬ ‫‪41:9‬‬

‫‪41:10‬‬ ‫‪41:11‬‬ ‫‪41:12‬‬ ‫‪41:13‬‬ ‫‪41:14‬‬ ‫‪41:15‬‬

‫[אין תוכחות בשאול חיים]‬ ‫נין נמאס ת[לד]ות רעים‬ ‫[ונכד אויל במגורי ר] ̇שע‬ ‫[מבן עו]ל תאבד ממש[ל] ̇ה‬ ‫[ועם זרע ] ̇ת ̇מי̇ [ד] ̇חרפה‬ ‫ילד‬ ‫[אב רשע] יקב ̇‬ ‫[כי ב] ̇ג ̇ללו היו בוז‬ ‫[הוי לכם] אנשי ̇עו̇ [לה]‬

‫̇עזבי תורת עליון‬

‫[אם תפרו ע]ל [יד אסון]‬

‫ואם תולידו לאנחה‬ ‫[אם תכשל]ו לשמחת עלם‬ ‫ואם תמותו לקללה‬ ‫[כל מ]אפס אל אפס ישוב‬ ‫כן חנף מתהו אל תהו‬ ‫הבל [בני אדם בגוית] ֿם‬ ‫[אך] שם ֿ‬ ‫יֿכרֿת‬ ‫חסד ללא‪ֿ c‬‬ ‫פח[ד] שם כי הוא ילוך‬ ‫מא ֿלפי [שימות] חמדה (?)‬ ‫ֿ‬ ‫[וטו]בת חי [מ]ספר ימים‬ ‫וטו[בת שם ימי] אין מספר‬ ‫[ח]מכֿה טמונה ושימה מסותרת‪d‬‬ ‫מה תעלה בשתיהם‬ ‫טוב איש מטמ[ן] אולתו‬ ‫מאיש [מ]צפן חכמתו‬

‫‪a  Images of Mas1h: IAA, “Images of Mas1h;” IAA, “Mas II”; “Mas III,” bensira.org. Yadin,‬‬ ‫‪Masada VI, 198; 200. Critical editions consulted: Yadin, Masada VI, 227–31, and notes on the‬‬ ‫‪reading by Qimron in Yadin, Masada VI, 228; Smend, Hebräisch, 40–42; Skehan and Di Lella,‬‬ ‫;‪Wisdom of Ben Sira, 462–81; Ben-Ḥayyim, 44–46; Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 71–72; 114–15‬‬ ‫‪Eric Reymond, “Transcription of Mas II–III,” bensira.org.‬‬ ‫‪b  As found in Mas1h there is a missing space, labelled here by (!).‬‬ ‫‪ is perhaps a‬ללא ‪c  Note that footnotes appear in present order due to column layout. Although‬‬ ‫ללא ‪ in‬ל ‪ is found eleven times. Elisha Qimron suggests that the‬ללא ‪scribal error, in the MT,‬‬ ‫‪is part of the preceding word because there is a space between both lameds. The facsimile‬‬ ‫‪of the manuscript (Page III of Mas1h) does not show clearly the space between lameds that‬‬ ‫‪Qimron claims. See notes by Qimron in Yadin, Masada VI, 228.‬‬

148

Chapter 5

d  Qimron notes this is a plene spelling of ‫מסתרת‬. See notes by Qimron in Yadin, Masada VI, 228. e  Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 273, reads ‫זכרך‬. f  Note that Lévi, Hebrew Text, 50–51 reports no damage at Sir 41:3 (‫)ומצליח‬. g  Peters, Liber Iesu, 98, reports no deterioration in this line a century ago. h  Vertically along the left-hand bottom corner of ms B 2a (Xv.) are two lines: ‫איש נוקש ומושל‬ ‫בכל אפס המראה ואבד תקוה׃ איש כושל ונוקש בכל אפס המראה ואבד תקוה׃‬ i  Bmg: ‫כי כן נמאס דבת ערים‬. j  Segal reconstructs as‫ור[יש עם זרעו תמיד] ׃‬, judging the ‫זר‬/‫ ור‬letters to be the start of the hemi-stitch. Yadin and Beentjes rightly propose there were missing characters before it was scratched out. Yadin reconstructs based on the Greek and Syriac. Yadin, ‫מגילת בן־סירא‬ ‫( ממצדה‬Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965), 18. k  Segal reconstructs as ‫כי [בג]לל[ו יחרף]׃‬. Peters interestingly transcribes ]‫כי בגלל[ו ינאץ‬, Liber Iesu, 100, showing deterioration of B over time. This is why Peters, Smend, Lévi, Schechter, Cowley and Neubauer are still important for transcriptions and reconstruction of text, since small holes of damage will deteriorate larger over time and small fragments will disintegrate completely. For example, it was devastating to observe that Sir 44:17 is no longer extant in Mas1h (IAA, “Images of Mas1h”). l  Vertically, to the left of the other vertical marginal note is ‫אם תפרו אל יד אסון ואם מולידו‬ ‫לאנחה׃‬. m Illegible marks here, possibly deliberate. n  Bmg: ‫כל מאונים אל אונים מאונם א׳ אונם‬. o  There are scratch marks for correction between ‫ כ‬and ‫ץ‬. Beentjes reads this as ‫ כן‬in B. From viewing the manuscript, I argue that Mas1h has ‫ כן‬here( IAA, “Images of Mas1h”).

Translation of Mas1h 41:1ab

Alas, Death, how bitter is the remembrance of you For one who is at rest on his estate. 41:1cd One who is at ease and successful in everything And still has strength to receive dainties.15 : 41 2ab [Behold,] Death, how good is your statute For him without vigour and lacks strength, : 41 2cd One who stumbles and trips over everything Having lost sight and hope destroyed. 41:3ab Do not dread Death, your destiny. Remember, those who came before and who will come after are with you. 41:4ab This is the end of all flesh from God And how can you reject the law of the Most High? 15  Also possible: “to receive pleasure.”

149

Death and the Body

41:4cd 41:5ab 41:6ab 41:7ab 41:8ab 41:9ab 41:9cd 41:10ab 41:11ab 41:12ab 41:13ab 41:14ab 41:15ab

For ten, a hundred, or a thousand years There are no discourses in Sheol (about) life.16 The progeny of the rejected are the generations of the evil ones, And foolish offspring are in the homes of the wicked. From a son of iniquity, (his) dominion will perish, And with his seed will continually be contempt. A child will curse a wicked father, For on his account they will be an object of contempt. Alas to you, men of iniquity Forsakers of the law of the Most High. If you reproduce (it is) by the hand of mischief 17 And if you bear children, (it is) for groaning. If you stumble, (it is) for continual joys.18 And if you die (it is) as a disgrace. All that is from nothingness to nothingness returns Thus too the impious from emptiness to emptiness. The breath of the sons of Adam (is) in their bodies Surely a pious name he will not destroy. Fear a name, for it will stand (with) you (Worth) more than thousands of delightful treasures. A good life is numbered (in) days But a good name for days without number. Hidden wisdom and concealed treasure,19 What advantage is there in their two things? Better is one who hides his folly, Than one who treasures up his wisdom. Greek

41:1 ῏Ω θάνατε, ὡς πικρόν σου τὸ μνημόσυνόν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ εἰρηνεύοντι ἐν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ, 16  Yadin does not propose a reconstruction for Masada based on the Greek or Syriac here, probably because the entire line is missing. However, it is safe to suggest the line originally resembled what survives in ms B in light of the Greek: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ᾅδου ἐλεγμὸς ζωῆς. The ‫ איש‬for ‫ אין‬is perhaps a mistake of repetition from the preceding lines. 17  Or possibly, “If you reproduce, (it is only to fall) into the power of disaster.” 18  That is, “the continual joy of others.” 19  Corley writes that ‫( שימה‬or ‫ )סימה‬is a Persian loanword to Aramaic, but an Aramaic loanword to Ben Sira’s Hebrew, and lists several examples of actual Persian loanwords in Ben Sira (‫זמן‬, ‫זן‬, ‫רז‬, ‫פתגם‬, ‫ׂשימה‬/‫)סימה‬. Corley, “Jewish Identity,” 8.

150

Chapter 5

41:2 41:3 41:4 41:5 41:6 41:7 41:8 41:9 41:10 41:11 41:12 41:13 41:14 41:15

ἀνδρὶ ἀπερισπάστῳ καὶ εὐοδουμένῳ ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἔτι ἰσχύοντι ἐπιδέξασθαι τρυφήν. ὦ θάνατε, καλόν σου τὸ κρίμα ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιδεομένῳ καὶἐλασσουμένῳ ἰσχύι, ἐσχατογήρῳ καὶ περισπωμένῳ περὶ πάντων καὶ ἀπειθοῦντι καὶ ἀπολωλεκότι ὑπομονήν. μή εὐλαβοῦ κρίμα θανάτου, μνήσθητι προτέρων σου καὶ ἐσχάτων· τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα παρὰ κυρίου πάσῃ σαρκί, καὶ τί ἀπαναίνῃ ἐν εὐδοκίᾳ ὑψίστου; εἴτε δέκα εἴτε ἑκατὸν εἴτε χίλια ἔτη, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ᾅδου ἐλεγμὸς ζωῆς. Τέκνα βδελυρὰ γίνεται τέκνα ἁμαρτωλῶν20 καὶ συναναστρεφόμενα παροικίαις ἀσεβῶν· τέκνων ἁμαρτωλῶν ἀπολεῖται κληρονομία, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν ἐνδελεχιεῖ ὄνειδος. πατρὶ ἀσεβεῖ μέμψεται τέκνα, ὅτι δι’ αὐτὸν ὀνειδισθήσονται. οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ἄνδρες ἀσεβεῖς, ὅτινες ἐγκατελίπετε νόμον ὑψιστου· ἐάν γαρ πληθυνθῆτε, εἰς απωλειαν, καὶ ἐάν γεννηθῆτε, εἰς κατάραν γεννηθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐάν ἀποθάνητε, εἰς κατάραν μερισθήσεσθε. πάντα, ὅσα ἐκ γῆς, εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσεται, οὕτωςἀσεβεῖς ἀπὸ κατάρας εἰς ἀπώλειαν. πένθος ἀνθρώπων ἐν σώμασιν αὐτῶν, ὄνομα δὲ ἀμαρτωλῶν οὐκ ἀγαθὸν ἐξαλειφθήσεται. φρόντισον περὶ ὀνόματος, αὐτὸ γάρ σοι διαμενεῖ ἢ χίλιοι μεγάλοι θησαυροὶ χρυσίου· ἀγαθῆς ζωῆς ἀριθμὸς ἡμερῶν, καὶ ἀγαθὸν ὄνομα εἰς αἰῶνα διαμενεῖ. παιδείαν ἐν εἰρήνῃ συντηρήσατε, τέκνα· σοφία δὲ κεκρυμμένη καὶ θησαυρὸς ἀφανής, τίς ὠφέλεια ἐν ἀμφοτέροις; κρείσσων ἄνθρωπος ἀποκρύπτων τὴν μωρίαν αὐτοῦ ἢ ἄνθρωπος ἀποκρύπτων τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ.

20  Ziegler makes critical section divisions at 41:6, 11, 14, Sapientia, 317–19. These divisions are also in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 464–65; 476.

151

Death and the Body

Latin 41:1 41:2 41:3 41:4 41:5 41:6 41:7 41:8 41:9 41:10 41:11 41:12 41:13 41:14 41:15 41:16 41:17 41:18

o mors quam amara est memoria tua homini pacem habenti in substantiis suis viro quieto et cuius viae directae sunt in omnibus et adhuc valenti accipere cibum o mors bonum est iudicium tuum homini indigenti et qui minoratur viribus defecto aetate et cui de omnibus cura est et incredibili qui perdit sapientiam noli metuere iudicium mortis memento quae ante te fuerunt et quae superventura sunt tibi hoc iudicium a Domino omni carni et quid superveniet in bene placita Altissimi sive decem sive centum sive mille anni non est enim in inferno accusatio vitae filii abominationum fiunt filii peccatorum et qui conversantur secus domos impiorum filiorum peccatorum periet hereditas et cum semine illorum adsiduitas obprobrii de patre impio queruntur filii quoniam propter illum sunt in obprobrio vae vobis viri impii qui dereliquistis legem Domini altissimi et si nati fueritis in maledictione nascemini et si mortui fueritis in maledictione erit pars vestra omnia quae de terra sunt in terram convertentur sic impii a maledicto in perditionem luctus hominum in corpore ipsorum nomen autem impiorum delebitur curam habe de bono nomine hoc enim magis permanebit tibi quam mille thesauri magni pretiosi bonae vitae numerus dierum bonum autem nomen permanebit in aevo disciplinam in pace conversate filii Sapientia enim abscondita et thesaurus occultus quae utilitas in utrique melior est homo qui abscondit stultitiam suam quam homo qui abscondit sapientiam suam

152

Chapter 5

Syriac ܿ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܓܒܪܐ‬:‫ܢܟܣܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܐ ܒܝܫ ܐܢܬ׃ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܥܬܝܪܐ ܕܝܬܒ ܥܠ‬ ‫ ܝܐ‬41:1 ܿ ܿ ̈ : ‫ ܐܘ‬41 2 ‫ ܘܬܘܒ ܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܚܝܠܐ ܠܡܩܒܠܐ ܬܦܢܝܩܐ܁܀‬.‫ܕܥܫܝܢ ܘܡܨܠܚ ܒܟܠܥܕܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܡܬܬܩܠ‬ ‫ ܓܒܪܐ ܿܤܒܐ‬.‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܐ ܟܫܝܕ ܐܢܬ׃ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܕܬܒܝܪ ܘܚܤܝܪ ܢܦܫܝ‬ ܼ .‫ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܠܐ ܬܕܚܠ ܡܢ‬41:3 .‫ܡܡܘܢܐ ܘܠܝܬ ܒܗ ܚܝܠܐ ܠܡܦܠܚ‬ ‫ ܘܚܤܝܪ‬.‫ܒܟܠܥܕܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ̈ ̈ ܿ ‫ ܼܡܛܠ ܕܗܕܐ‬41:4 .‫ܝܐ ܠܘܬܟ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܡܝܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬܕܟܪ‬.‫ܡܛܠ ܕܗܘܝܘ ܿܡܢܬܟ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܐܚܖ‬ ܿ ‫ܡܤܠܝܐ ܬܘܠܕܬܐ‬ .‫ܕܥ ̈ܘܠܐ‬ ‫ ܙܪܥܐ‬41:5  .‫ ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ‬.‫ܗܝ ܚܪܬܐ ܕܟܠܗܘܢ ̈ܒܢܝ ܒܤܪܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܡܢ ܒܪܐ‬41:6 .‫ܕܚܛܝܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܫܪܒܬܐ ܕܘܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܗ ܬܘܠܕܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܥܡ‬.‫ܘܠܐ ܢܐܒܕ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܥ‬ ܼ ܿ ̈ ̈ : ‫ܕܡܛܠܬܗ ܗܘܘ‬ .‫ܘܠܐ ܒܢܘܗܝ ܟܐܢܐ ܢܠܘܛܘܢܗ‬ ܼ ‫ ܠܐܒܐ ܥ‬41 7 .‫ܙܪܥܗ ܢܥܡܪ ܚܘܤܪܢܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ̈ ̈ ܿ : ‫ ܥܕܡܐ‬.‫ ܕܕܘܘܢܐ ܡܠܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ‬.‫ܠܐܢܫܐ ܥܘܠܐ‬21 ‫ ܘܝ ܠܗܘܢ‬41 8 .‫ܒܤܝܖܐ ܒܥܠܡܐ‬ ܿ ‫  ܘܐܢ ܢܡܘܬ ܐܒܐ‬.‫ܕܥܡܗ‬ ‫ܝܠܕܬܐ ܠܚܕܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢܬܬܐ‬41:9 .‫ܠܝܘܡܐ ܕܡܘܬܗܘܢ‬ ܼ ̈ .‫ܘܠܐ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܒܢܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܚܪܬܗ ܠܐܒܕܢܐ‬ ‫ ܪܫܝܥܐ ܓܝܪ‬41:10b .‫ܢܐ ܠܐ ܢܬܐܒܠܘܢ ܥܠܘܗܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܟܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܥ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ ܘܫܡܐ ܕܥ ̈ܒܕܝ ܛ ̈ܒܬܐ ܠܐ‬41:11b .‫ܗܝ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܐܟܦ ܥܠ ܫܡܟ‬41:12 .‫ܢܬܛܥܐ ܠܥܠܡ‬ ̈ 22.‫ܕܤܝܡܬܐ ܕܥܬܐ‬ ‫  ܡܢ ̈ܐܠܦܐ‬.‫ܢܠܘܝܟ‬

Debates about the Structure of Sir 41:1–15

The section markers in Mas1h help us more fully appreciate how Ben Sira was understood by his earliest readers in the text’s original language. In Mas1h, two ┐ markers divide Sir 41:1–15b from the end of Sir 40 and Sir 41:16 (Sir 41:14a ‫מוסר‬ ‫)בשת‬. The marker above Sir 41:1 is intact, and the marker above Sir 41:16 is partially visible yet clear (Mas1h col. III, line 18).23 These section markers are viewable in other leaves of the manuscript (Sir 40:18; 42:9).24 This encourages us to think of Sir 41:1–15 as a single poem or structure. Tov says that Hebrew paragraphos markers, like those in Mas1h, were possibly influenced by the Greek method, which designated divisions in the text. Tov’s “fish-hook” markers in Hebrew resemble those of Mas1h and the shape of the Greek διπλῆ marker.25 Paragraph markers also exist in the Qumran scrolls, but examples are few.26 It 21  In Codex Ambrosianus this word is missing a seyame (plural marker ̈). See CalduchBenages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 234. 22  I end the transcription after the first sentence since the rest of Sir 41:12 Syr is a summary of Sir 41:19–20. Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 236. 23  IAA, “Images of Mas1h”; IAA, “Mas II”; “Mas III”; “Mas IV,” bensira.org. Yadin, Masada VI, 198; 200; 202. 24  Pages II and IV, respectively. 25  Tov, Scribal, 184. 26  Tov, Scribal, 151; Appendix 1.

Death and the Body

153

is reasonable to argue, then, that at least the copyist of Mas1h understood Sir 41:1–15 as a unified structure. Corley identifies Sir 41:1–15 as one structure based on the closing lines Sir 41:14–15.27 However, he then divides Sir 41:1–15 into two themes: “death” in Sir 41:1–4 and “concern for honourable descendants” in Sir 41:5–13.28 Elsewhere, Skehan and Di Lella include Sir 40:28 with Sir 41:1–15, but they end the lines on death at 41:13 or 41:10.29 Di Lella also divides Sir 40:28–41:4 from Sir 41:5–13.30 Although Skehan’s translation is of the Hebrew, Skehan and Di Lella’s divisions match Ziegler more closely than Mas1h.31 Lutz Schrader also breaks up Sir 41:1– 15 into three or more stanzas or separate poems, and Antonino Minissale views Sir 41:14 as the start of a new section.32 The section divisions in Greek manuscripts also vary. Codex Sinaiticus has paragraph markers (ρ-ω combination sign) projecting onto the left margin at Sir 41:1; 12 and “+” signs at 41:7, 10. Another “+” occurs at 41:12b. A final supralineal dot ˙ and a new line demarcate each verse.33 While the Hebrew witness may have seen Sir 41:1–15 as dealing with the same topic, it is clear that over time history and transmission altered the way Sir 41:1–15 was presented and understood. Considering all these variations in scholarly interpretation, it is most useful to take the divisions of Mas1h as a starting point, since it is our earliest manuscript evidence of Ben Sira.

27  Corley, “Searching,” 39. 28  Corley, “Searching,” 43. 29  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 464–65; 473. Cf. Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide, 99–115. 30  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 469. 31  Ziegler’s critical edition divides Sir 41:1–4; 5–10; 11–13; 14–15. Ziegler, Sapientia, 317–19. 32  Lutz Schrader, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches, BBET 27 (Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1994), 233–58. Schrader (Leiden, 237) considers Sir 41:5–10 to be separate from v.1–4 and 11–13, again on the basis of theme from a modern perspective. Minissale sees Sir 41:14 as the start of a new poem. Minissale, La versiona greca del Siracide, 99. 33  Codex Sinaiticus’s two scribes A and D vary in frequency in their paragraphing choices, and even in their use of the name of God. Dirk Jongkind, The Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007), 95; 74. Codex Sinaiticus Project, “Codex Sinaiticus.” Compare Greek manuscripts found near Qumran. See Tov, Scribal, 303–15.

154

Chapter 5

Textual Commentary on Sir 41:1–15

Sir 41:1a Sir 41:1a begins with ‫ הוי‬as found in Masada and Bmg, while Btext has ‫חיים‬.34 Another example of an address directly to death is LXX Hos 13:14.35 Ben Sira only uses ‫ הוי‬once elsewhere in the extant Hebrew (Sir 37:3).36 The refrain ‫הוי‬ ‫ ל־‬is not too common in BH or LBH; only here and in Ezek 13:18 is ‫ הוי ל־‬found. Biblical Hebrew combines ‫ הוי‬with ‫על‬, ‫אל‬, ‫כי‬, or alone as an interrogative.37 In Isaiah, ‫ הוי‬refers to judgement (for example Isa 17:2; 28:1), although most commonly it introduces a victim; the case in Sir 41:1 is judgement. The similar ‫אוי‬, however, is regularly combined with the preposition ‫ל‬, as in ‫( אוי לי‬Isa 6:5) and ‫( למי אוי‬Prov 23:29). In the Qumran literature, the word ‫ הוי‬is used a number of times, although never with ‫ל־‬.38 It is clear both by ‫ הוי‬and the ‫ ־ך‬in ‫ זכרך‬in Sir 41:1a that the first line addresses death directly, although the rest of the poem addresses the reader.39 In Btext, ‫ חיים‬may be due to textual corruption, mistaking ‫ הוי‬for ‫הויה‬, but such a meaning would be unclear.40 Alternatively, ‫ מר‬was misinterpreted as “master” as in Aramaic and Rabbinic Hebrew.41 Here, ‫ מר‬most likely means “bitter,” in light of the other quotations in Sir 41:1–4 from Job (below) and in light of the Greek. Sir 4:1 also reads ‫מר נפש‬. There is good precedent for the idea of the “bitter in death.” Concerning ‫מר‬, in Job the phrase ‫ מר(י) נפש‬is found (Job 3:20–21; 7:11; 10:1; 21:25). In Job 3:20–21, the ‫ מרי נפש‬long for death. In Job 21:25, one who never tastes goodness dies ‫בנפש מרה‬. In Isa 38:9–20, Hezekiah’s writing concerning his illness and recovery, Hezekiah refers to resigning himself to Sheol and being sleepless in his desire for health, ‫( אדדה כל־שנותי על־מר נפשי‬Isa 38:15).42 Moreover, 1 Sam 15:32 contains the phrase ‫מר המות‬. By comparison, 3 Maccabees describes Hades as

34  Agreeing with Masada and Bmg, there is ὦ in the Greek and ‫ ܝܐ‬in the Syriac. 35  ἐκ χειρὸς ᾅδου ῥύσομαι αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐκ θανάτου λυτρώσομαι αὐτούς‧ ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ᾅδη; παράκλησις κέκρυπται ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν μου (Hos 13:14 LXX). 36  Ben-Ḥayyim, 126. 37  BDB, 223. 38  DCH 2:503–4. 39  In Greek literature, there is the personification of Death as Thanatos, brother of Hypnos. See, for example: Homer, Il. 16.681, Sophocles, Ajax 854; Philoctetes 797. Aeschylus, Fragmenta (Mette) Tetralogy 36 play B. Aristarchus, Fragmenta, 3.1. 40  Feminine participle of ‫היה‬, as in Exod 9:3. 41  Jastrow, 834. 42  See also the discussions below on Sir 41:4, 14–15.

Death and the Body

155

bitter and lamentable (3 Macc 6:31). These passages are significant as textual examples of those who are bitter in death. Sir 41:1bcd In Biblical Hebrew, ‫( מכונה‬Sir 41:1b) refers to a fixed foundation or pillar of the Temple (1 Kgs 8:39) or the basis of something (Ps 89:15, 104:5; ‫ תכונה‬in Job 23:3).43 The Syriac has “dwelling-place,” while the Greek has ὑπάρχοντα (possessions / existing circumstances). In Ps 89:15 and 97:2, ‫ מכון‬refers to an inner foundation or inner centre. In this case we may translate ‫ מכונה‬as “estate” or “dwelling-place” owing to the context of the line: death would be a bitter reminder more to the person who is comfortable with the material things—one at peace with his inner self would not be troubled by death. Past scholarship has translated Ben Sira’s ‫ מכונה‬as “possessions” in light of the Greek. The word ‫ מכונה‬is found only twice in Ben Sira’s vocabulary, and ‫ מכון‬twice as well,44 and is not found in other Second Temple literature.45 Sir 41:1b–d resembles language in Proverbs, Qohelet, and Job (as does Sir 41:2b–d below). For example, ‫ לאיש‬or ‫ איש‬beginning a line is also found in Prov 17:27–29; 18:24.46 Words with the roots ‫שקט‬, ‫שלו‬, and ‫ צלח‬are found numerous times in Proverbs and Job, and in prophetic literature (Isaiah and Ezekiel); these overlaps are cases of Ben Sira using conventional language to match the appropriate subject and style. One example may be slightly more a case of echo of Job rather than overlapping vocabulary: ‫ שלו‬in Sir 41:1c also occurs in Job 21:23, ‫זה ימות בעצם תמו כלו שלאנן ושליו‬.47 Sir 41:2a At Sir 41:2a, Ben Sira uses ‫ חוק‬to describe death as the fortune of all.48 Death as a universal ‫ חוק‬is encountered again in Sir 41:3a and earlier in Sir 14:12. 43  Ps 104:5 is significant to note since Ben Sira uses Psalm 104 in Sir 43:11–19 (Chapter Four). 44  Ben-Ḥayyim, 198. 45  DCH 5:267–68. In Rabbinic Hebrew ‫ מכונה‬is an animal-coop. Jastrow, 781. 46  Sir 41:1–2 in the Greek switches between ἀνθρώπῳ and ἀνδρὶ. 47  Sir 41:1d in Mas1h reads ‫ ועוד כח לקבל תענוג‬while Btext reads ‫ חיל‬instead of ‫כח‬. Both words can mean either wealth or strength. The word ‫ תענוג‬is found frequently in Ben Sira as well as in the Hebrew Bible and Qumran literature. The Greek has τροφή (food) for ‫תענוג‬, but Ziegler emends to τρυφή (luxury, delicacy) to match ‫תענוג‬. Smend, Index, 229. 48  Mas1h has a scribal-error ‫( הע‬the ‫ ע‬is unmistakable) while ms Btext writes ‫ האח‬and there is no Bmg note. The line would still not make sense if ‫ הרע‬were correct. Sirach (Greek) repeats ὦ θάνατε in 41:2a. The Greek ὦ θάνατε, Latin o mors, and Syriac ‫ ܐܘ ܡܘܬܐ‬all suggest the Hebrew original (before Mas1h’s scribal error) was the same or a similar exhortation as 41:1a. ms B may preserve the original with ‫האח‬. This is different from Yadin who

156

Chapter 5

Sir 14:11–19 is similar to Sir 41:1–15, since both explore the finality of death. In fact, Sir 14:18 presents a convincing allusion to Homer (Il. 6.148–149).49 The popularity of Homer may also account for Ben Sira’s knowledge of this saying: many quotes from Homer, often used in school texts, seem to have become part of everyday speech. Nevertheless, we must also account for the recognizability of such popular use of Homer: Ben Sira’s use of a Homeric saying should then be seen as recognizably Homeric to its audience. Ben Sira’s use of ‫ חוק‬in Sir 41:2a is similar to ‫( מקרה‬event) in Qohelet.50 Qoh 9:2 describes how one ‫ מקרה‬comes to all, both righteous and wicked; in Qoh 9:5, the dead know nothing, and their memory is forgotten.51 The same view is found in Qoh 7:2.52 Job 9:22b has a similar statement to Qoh 9:1–12, while Lévi also cites Job 20:29.53 However, Qoh 7:2 and Qoh 9:1–12 are closest to Ben Sira here in language. Anton Schoors argues that all references to ‫מקרה‬ mean death in Qohelet, though the same cannot be said of ‫ חוק‬by Ben Sira.54 Elsewhere Ben Sira uses ‫ חוק‬in a variety of ways: covenant, statute, and destiny; the word ‫ חק‬is found again in Sir 41:3a. Interestingly, both are translated as κρῖμα in the Greek version instead of διαθήκη.55 In Sir 41:3a, the sense is closer to ‫מקרה‬, while ‫ חוק‬in Sir 41:2a suggests “allotted portion,” similar to Qumran

translates ‫ הע‬as Hail! but does suggest that Mas1h here is a scribal error for ‫הרע‬. Yadin, Masada VI, 217. 49  See Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek,” 85–86. Wright suggests another possibility of access through an anthology of Homer, and raises the interesting question of whether Ben Sira might have encountered this and other sayings of Homer in translation into Hebrew or Aramaic, or in the original Greek. 50  BDB, 899–900. 51  See Qoh 9:2: ‫אחד לצדיק ולרשע‬. Same concept in Qoh 9:3; 11–12. Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 35–36. Anton Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth: Part II: Vocabulary, OLA 143 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 203–5. Schoors argues that Qohelet’s ‫ מקרה‬does not reflect Hellenistic use of the concept συμφορή, Schoors, Preacher, 205. 52  See commentary on Sir 41:10–11. 53  Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 34. 54  Schoors, Preacher, 204. 55  The Greek usually translates ‫ חוק‬and ‫ ברית‬both with διαθήκη. Smend, Index, 47–48. See discussion in Wright, No Small Difference, 180. For a recent discussion of the rendering of ‫ חק‬throughout the Greek Ben Sira, see Marko Marttila, “‘Statute’ or ‘Covenant’? Remarks on the Rendering of the Word ‫ חק‬in the Greek Ben Sira,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, eds. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, JSJSup 126 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 73–88.

Death and the Body

157

usage and Sir 38:22,56 or perhaps “statute.” Whether it is a deliberate echo of Qohelet language is uncertain, due to Ben Sira’s familiarity with Qohelet evident throughout his text. It should be noted that Ben Sira has perhaps crafted a creative choice of words to echo ‫ מקרה‬on purpose. Another option is that the use of ‫ חוק‬implies mental or unaided compositional process in using a synonym (‫ )חוק‬instead of ‫מקרה‬. Sir 41:1–3 states that death is the universal fate of all men, using ideas drawn mainly from Job (18 and 21) and Qohelet (Qoh 6:6, 7:2, 9:2–5).57 In Sir 41:4c, Ben Sira reads “a thousand years,” also found in Qoh 6:6.58 The universality of death is found in other places in Ben Sira, such as Sir 8:7: “Remember that we must all die.”59 Sir 41:2b–d There is another scribal error in Masada here: ‫ הע‬appears to be an error for ‫הא‬ (behold).60 The pair of words ‫ אונים‬and ‫ עצמה‬in Sir 41:2b refer to Isa 40:29,61 the only place in the Hebrew Bible where ‫ אין אונים‬and ‫ עצמה‬found together in the same passage: ‫ולאין אונים עצמה ירבה‬.62 The words ‫ אונים‬and ‫ עצמה‬or ‫ עצמות‬are found in Job (Job 7:15; 18:7, 12; 20:10; 40:16)63 and in Prov 11:7, but they are not found paired together as they are in Isa 40:29.64

56  See DCH 3:299–302, for Qumran use of ‫חוק‬. In the Greek, κρῖμα is used both times in Sir 41:2a, 3a. 57  Also Psalm 39. See section on Sir 41:5 below. 58  ‫( ואלו חיה אלף שנים פעמים וטובה לא ראה הלא אל־מקום אחד הכל הולך׃‬Qoh 6:6 MT). Also see below on child mortality (Qoh 6:3) in the section on Sir 41:4cd. 59  See also Sir 14:17b; 38:21. 60  Reymond, Innovations, 40 (n. 45). If it is not in fact a scribal error but a strange alternative spelling, phonetically ‫ אפס המרה‬would match with death as )‫ מר(ה‬earlier in the poem, but this is unlikely. Yadin noticed this scribal error, since the Greek interprets this line as ἀπειθοῦντι. Yadin, ‫מגילות‬, 17. 61  The scribal error of ‫ אוינים‬with Mas1h is clear in light of the ms B, Greek, and Syriac on this line, as well as context (“one without woes” and “one lacking strength” do not agree with each other). 62  Jeremy Corley, “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., eds. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 38 (Washington: CBAA, 2005) 166 (155–82). 63  In particular, Job 7:15 reads that Job would rather choose ‫ מות‬over his ‫עצמות‬. 64  See ‫ תקוה‬in commentary on Sir 41:4cd below.

158

Chapter 5

In Sir 41:2d, we might expect Ben Sira to use ‫עור‬, the more common verb for blindness, but instead he uses the unusual periphrastic ‫אפס המר(א)ה‬.65 By comparison, the verb ‫ חסר‬in this line is found numerous times in Ben Sira’s vocabulary.66 Yet the periphrastic ‫ אפס המר(א)ה‬is not a known phrase in Biblical Hebrew. Interestingly, Ben Sira chooses to use the unique ‫ המר(א)ה‬as “[power of] sight.” In Biblical Hebrew ‫ המראה‬usually means “appearance,” with three exceptions. Crucially, these exceptions are in Qohelet and Job. Qoh 6:9 and 11:9 both call the power of sight ‫מראה‬, and likewise Job 41:9 has ‫“( מראיו‬his sight”). Ben Sira’s attention to these texts in this section may explain the use here. Nevertheless, ‫ אפס המר(א)ה‬is still a unique phrase in surviving examples of Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Rabbinic Hebrew. Lastly, the second phrase in Sir 41:2d, ‫אבוד תקוה‬, recalls Job 7:6, which describes Job’s own days as swift and lacking hope, ‫ימי קלו מני־ארג ויכלו באפס תקוה‬. The word ‫ תקוה‬is found often in Proverbs and Job, as well as in Isaiah and Ezekiel. The phrase ‫אבוד תקוה‬, though, is related most closely to Job 7:6 by synonymous expression. Sir 41:3a–b Sir 41:3a advises the reader not to fear death because it is the fate of all humans, which recalls certain psalms. Ben Sira’s construction ‫ מות‬+ ‫ מן‬in Sir 41:3a is also found only in Ben Sira.67 Sir 9:13 advises to keep far from a person with the power to kill and “you will not fear the fear of death” (‫)ואל תפחד פחדי מות‬. The fear of death (or distress about dying) does appear in the Hebrew Bible (Psalm 23:4, 39:4–6; Isa 38:9–20). Sir 41:3a advises that death is not to be feared because it is the fate of all humans (Job 14:1, 21:23–26; Qoh 6:6, 7:2, 9:2–5). On the fear of death see also Sir 40:5. Although the fear of death cannot be limited to the Hebrew biblical texts, for the purposes of comparison it remains useful to place these biblical passages side by side with Ben Sira. In Sir 41:3b, ‫ קדמון‬and ‫ אחרון‬refer to Job 18:20. Ben Sira uses ‫ קדמון‬to mean “former ones,” a meaning also in Aramaic and 4QInstrd 148.ii.6.68 Kister writes that in 4QMysteries and other texts, the use of ‫( קדמוניות‬fem.) is an

65  The words ‫ עור‬and ‫ כשל‬are found together in Lev 19:14, but in this case Ben Sira is not echoing Lev 19:14, due to a lack of context similarity, but arguing that humans with failing bodies (blindness, stumbling, etc.) and ill health welcome death. 66  Ben-Ḥayyim, 145. 67  DCH 5:202. 68  DCH 7:188.

Death and the Body

159

interpretation of Isa 43:18–19.69 In LBH, ‫ קדמון‬had largely been replaced by ‫רא־‬ ‫שון‬.70 In Job 18:20, ‫ קדמון‬and ‫ אחרון‬are together: ‫על־יומו נשמו אחרנים וקדמנים אחזו‬ ‫שער‬. This verse can be translated, “With his day they are appalled, the western ones, and the eastern ones are seized with horror.”71 However, given the context of Sir 41:3b, Ben Sira clearly understood ‫ קדמון‬in the sense of “former.” He may have also therefore understood Job 18:20 as speaking about “latter ones and former ones” rather than western and eastern. This reading makes sense of other statements about Ben Sira’s beliefs concerning the afterlife of the righteous. In Sir 8:7, 40:28, the righteous die and are reunited with their ancestors.72 The words ‫ אחרון‬and ‫ קדמון‬are also perhaps chosen because they have a neat balance: those who come after and those who go before. Both have a “procession” sense or order. It is unclear what is exactly meant by the reassurance that “those who come after and who came before you are with you.” It could be a reassurance that when people die they join their ancestors in Sheol. The meaning of the “latter ones” is unknown in this context, but it could also perhaps mean a dying person’s surviving loved ones who will join them later in Sheol. Sir 41:4ab With Sir 41:4a, Ben Sira may be echoing Gen 6:3, 13, Job’s pronouncement on the fate of all humans alike (Job 21:26), or the “end of all humanity” in Qoh 3:19–20; 7:2; 9:9. Sir 41:4b speaks of the limitation of the human lifespan, which is delineated by God in Gen 6:3. Furthermore, ‫ כל בשר‬is a distinct refrain in the Noah account, Gen 6:3–9:15 (see Chapter Two).73 It may also be noted that Hezekiah refers to God bringing his life to completion (‫ )תשלימני‬in Isa 38:12, 13. In Sir 41:4b Ben Sira refers to the ‫ תורת עליון‬restricting the human lifespan, perhaps recalling Gen 6:3. In either case, ‫ תורת עליון‬refers to law, either written 69  Menahem Kister, “Wisdom Literature and Its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries,” in Sapiential Perspectives, eds. John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 46 (13–47). 70  Although the plural ‫ קדמין‬is found only in Targum Onqelos, only refers to “former days,” not “former ones.” Yet the changing meaning of ‫ קדמון‬and ‫ ראשון‬in Rabbinic Hebrew may be why B opted for ‫ראשון‬. 71  BDB, 31, translates ‫ אחרנים‬in Job 18:20 as “they that come after” but ‫ קדמנים‬in Job 18:20 (BDB, 870) as “Easterns.” Eastern/western ones is the translation in for example the ESV, RSV, NASB, and NIV. The KJV, NKJV, and ASV retain the sense of those who came before and after. 72  Johnston, Sheol, 33. 73  The phrase ‫ כל בשר‬is also found in Qumran literature as a term for humanity or all living things (for example, CD 1:2 and 1QSb 3:28), However, ‫קץ כל בשר‬, echoing Gen 6:13, is found only in Ben Sira. DCH 2:277–80. Abegg, Bowley, and Cook, Concordance, 1:164–65.

160

Chapter 5

Torah or divine statute (as in Sir 41:2a; 3a).74 The “law of the Most High” is also found in Sir 41:8, 42:2, and 49:4. The phrase ‫ מאס תורת אל‬is also found in the Qumran literature (for example 1QpHab 1:11, CD 8:18, 19:32),75 while in Mas1h, ‫ עליון‬is used instead of ‫אל‬, but this difference may be cursory.76 Ben Sira may have picked up on the meaning of ‫ עצמה‬as “substance [of self]” from Job 21:23, which describes one who dies ‫בעצם תמו כלו‬. Besides this, ‫ שלו‬is found with ‫ עצם‬in Job 21:23 (discussed above). Moreover, in Job 21:24, ‫מח‬ ‫ עצמותיו ישקה‬is found. Instead of ‫עצמה‬, Ben Sira uses ‫ שקט על מכנתו‬to describe being at peace with one’s own self. Job (Job 21:26) and Ben Sira (Sir 41:4a, 10a) both conclude that they all eventually lay down in the dust. Sir 41:4cd Sir 41:4d is damaged in Mas1h but can be supplemented by Btext, Bmg, Greek, and Syriac. The numbers of years mentioned in Sir 41:4c reflect Qoh 6:6, although F.J. Backhaus has claimed that there is no direct textual influence here.77 The likelihood of a direct quotation here is indeed difficult to show. Considering the quotation of Gen 6:3, 13, Ben Sira could also be referring to the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs, but this is not certain. Longevity is found also in Jubilees, displaying a later (mid-second century BCE) Jewish interest in the idea of extraordinarily long-lived mortals.78 The Greek and Syriac follow the order of years of Mas1h. The first number ‫( עׂשר‬ten) is worth noting.79 In a similar context of life and death, Qoh 6:3 refers to the stillborn child or miscarriage (‫) ַהנָ ֶפל‬,80 while Job 3:11, 16, where Job laments that he did not die in infancy.81 Child mortality 74  There should not be confusion with Jubilees here, however, because Jubilees explains how the written Torah came to be through heavenly tablets. 75  Abegg, Bowley, and Cook, Concordance, 1:423. DCH 5:121. 76  The Greek has κύριος in Sir 41:4a, and θεοῦ ὑψίστος in Sir 41:8b. By contrast, Mas1h has ‫עליון‬ in both places. Note that Mas1h avoids Elohim and YYY as divine names, but instead uses Adonai (5x), Elyon (6x), El (3x), and possibly Eloah once (41:4). 77  F.J. Backhaus, “Qohelet und Sirach,” BN 69 (1993): 32–55. 78  D.N. De Jong, “The Decline of Human Longevity in the Book of Jubilees,” JSP 21 (2012): 340–65. 79  In Sir 41:4c, B reads ‫( לאלף שנים מאה ועשר‬decreasing order) while Mas1h reads ‫לעשר‬ ‫וא ׄל ׄף שנים‬ ׄ ‫( מאה‬increasing order). 80  “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life’s good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he” (Qoh 6:3 ESV). 81  Though much later than Ben Sira, Wis 14:15 also mentions child mortality.

Death and the Body

161

was extremely common in the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, perhaps as high as one in four. Jewish epitaphs of children aged between one and five survive from Greco-Roman Egypt.82 The word ‫ תוכחות‬is mentioned in Proverbs (1:25, 1:30, 6:23, 27:5, 29:15), Qoh 9:10, and Job 13:6; 23:4.83 That Sheol is a place without knowledge, thought, or action is clear in Qoh 9:10b.84 Sir 41:4d is most similar to Qoh 9:10 and Prov 6:23. There is a change in development of the meaning of ‫ תוכחות‬in LBH from a two-way discussion to a one-way chastisement (for example 1QH 17.24).85 In Proverbs and Job, ‫ תוכחות‬are two-way discourses.86 Here, Ben Sira’s meaning appears to be closer to the two-way discourse ‫ תוכחות‬because of Ben Sira’s textual reuse of Job and Proverbs. This meaning is also due to the context of the line implying discussion on a topic, not chastisement for a wrong done, and it affects our reading of the line: that the dead are not implied to have a lack of arguments and chastisement in Sheol in a negative fashion, but rather they have no philosophical discussions about life. Sheol is a sombre place of silence and sleep (Job 3:13, 7:11, 14:12; Isa 38:18–19). Middendorp also suggests Job 20:29 as particularly influential in Sir 41:4.87 Reymond argues the line can be read, “There are no reproofs of life (i.e. lifesustaining reproofs) in Sheol,” drawing comparisons with ‫ תוכחת חיים‬in Prov 15:31.88 According to Ben Sira, there are no joys to seek in Sheol (Sir 14:12) and no luxury (Sir 14:11–19, 16). No one praises God in Sheol (Sir 17:27–28),89 and there is no hope of return from death (Sir 38:21), except with Elijah’s resurrection of the widow’s son (Sir 48:5, cf. 1 Kgs 17:17–24). These views are similar to comments about death made in the Hebrew Bible, as mentioned by Johnston.90

82  JIGRE 35, 40, 79(?), 87(?), 93, 96, 102, 103, 104, 132. For child mortality, see JIGRE 35, 102– 104 (all dated mid-second century BCE) from Tell el-Yehoudieh (Leontopolis), which note the children as “untimely dead” (ἄωρος), as does JIGRE 132 (uncertain origin, third century ce). 83  “For a lamp is the commandment and the law is a light, and the way of the living are arguments of discipline” (Prov 6:23 ESV). Job can be called a collection of ‫ תוכחות‬between Job, his friends, and God. 84  ‫( כי אין מעשה וחשבון ודעת וחכמה בשאול אשר אתה הלך שמה׃‬Qoh 9:10b). 85  The one-way meaning of ‫ תוכחות‬survives into Rabbinic Hebrew (such as Arakh. 16b.), meaning chastising one-way, not arguing back and forth. Jastrow, 1652. 86  DCH 8:603–4. 87  Middendorp, Stellung, 76. 88  Reymond, Innovations, 41. 89  Also cf. Isa 38:18. 90  Johnston, Sheol, 28–33.

162

Chapter 5

Sir 41:5 Sir 41:5 does not begin a separate poem but carries on the larger theme of death. The two topics in Sir 41:1–15, death and wicked children respectively, seem unrelated on the surface, but make sense when Ben Sira’s textual reuse of Job is considered. First, ‫ נין ונכד‬from Job 18:19 is found in Sir 41:5a (‫ ;)נין‬5b (‫)ונכד‬.91 In the Hebrew Bible the words ‫( נין‬Sir 41:5a) and ‫( נכד‬Sir 41:5b) are only found in combination with each other (Gen 21:23, Isa 14:22, Job 18:19). The most relevant passage is Job 18:19, which concerns death as the fate of the wicked: the wicked are not remembered after death. Job 18:19 is therefore significant for the cohesion of Sir 41:1–15.92 Furthermore, Sir 11:28, 16:3 also associate survival of death with producing children. Likewise, the word ‫ [במגורי]( מגורי‬proposed for Sir 41:5 lacuna) is also in Job 18:19, which indicates further that the quotation is with Job 18:19 and not Isa 14:22 or Gen 21:23, the two passages that also have ‫נין ונכד‬.93 Furthermore, ‫ מגורי‬is rare in Ben Sira’s vocabulary, found at only one other place (Sir 16:8). It is, however, found in Qumran literature (1QS 6:2; 4QDb 2:12; 1QH 5.8), which indicates it might be a part of his contemporary vocabulary.94 In the Hebrew Bible, the word ‫ תלדות‬is found in genealogies, although it also is the opening line of the Flood narrative Gen 6:9, ‫זה תלדות נח‬. In this case the word means births and deaths, of progeny carrying on one’s name.95 The theme of foolish children and how the wicked take root and produce offspring is found elsewhere in Job (Job 5:3, 9:22–24, 10:3, 18:5–21, 20:29) and Proverbs (Prov 1:7, 16:22). Here, though, it is clear that Job 18:5–21 (especially Job 18:21) are at the fore in Sir 41:5ab, because the ‫ משכנות‬of the wicked men is also found in Job 18:21. There is therefore a connection between ‫ במגורי רשע‬in Ben Sira, and the ‫ משכנות עול‬in Job 18:21. Job 18, a speech by Bildad the Shuhite, is not just about wicked men and their children, but the threat that they will fall into snares and they will not be remembered after their death (see table below).

91  Bmg reads next to Sir 41:5a ‫כי כן נמאס דבת ערים‬. Sir 41:5b is mostly destroyed in Mas1h but the Greek and Syriac both support B and the visible traces in Mas1h. Ben Sira writes ‫נין‬ ‫ ונכד‬once elsewhere in Sir 47:22cd. 92  A different view is found in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 469; 474. 93  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 474, cite Isa 14:22 only. 94  DCH 5:133 (‫ ָמגור‬I). 95  Additionally, this is the only case of Ben Sira using the word ‫ תלדות‬in the extant Hebrew text. Ben-Ḥayyim, 304.

163

Death and the Body

Quotation of Job 18:19, 21 in Sir 41:5ab Job 18:19, 21 Sir 41:5ab Sir 41:5a ‫ נין נמאס ת[לד]ות רעים‬Job 18:19 ‫לא נין לו ולא־נכד בעמו ואון‬ Sir 41:5b ‫ [ונכד אויל במגורי ר] ׄשע‬ ‫שריד במגוריו׃‬ Job 18:21 ‫אך־אלה משכנות עול וזה מקום‬

‫לא־ידע־אל׃‬

Above, the final phrase of Job 18:21 is also found as an idea in Sir 41:9, with those who forsake the law of the Most High, and Job 18 is referred to again with Sir 41:10, as will be discussed below. Sir 41:6–7 In Sir 41:6 a wicked father will destroy his own authority as a parent by producing an unrighteous son. With his children will come ‫תמיד חרפה‬.96 Sir 41:6–7 is drawn largely from Job 18:5–21 and Prov 18:3. Other sources could be Isa 38:19, Exod 20:5, or Prov 18:3. Prov 18:3 contains the words ‫ חרפה‬and ‫( בוז‬cf. Sir 41:7b) as the fate of the wicked, who are also ‫( רשע‬Sir 41:7a).97 The full verse of Prov 18:3 reads ‫בבוא־רשע בא גם־בוז ועם־קלון חרפה‬.98 The root of ‫( קלון‬Prov 18:3) is ‫קלל‬, which is found in Sir 41:9d. Equally, as shown, Isa 38:9–20 bears strong similarities of theme and beliefs about Sheol with Ben Sira. The vocabulary of Sir 41:6–7 contains both words common in Ben Sira’s vocabulary and in Qumran literature. The word ‫גלל‬, found numerous times in Ben Sira, is also attested in the Hebrew Bible but only once in the Qumran literature (4QMMTe 1.4.79). Then, the verb ‫ יקב( קבב‬in Sir 41:7a) is found in Job 3:8, 5:3; Prov 11:26, 24:24. Outside Job and Proverbs its other major occurrence is in Numbers 22–24. The verb ‫ קבב‬was replaced in use by ‫ קלל‬in LBH.99 In Job 5:3, Job curses the dwelling-place of the wicked.

96  Bmg here has ‫ מבין ערב‬for Btext’s ‫ מבן עול‬and ‫ רישם‬for Btext’s ‫רע‬. Ben-Ḥayyim, 45. Mas1h has ‫ממש[ל]ה‬. Yadin, Masada VI, 200–1; 216. The upper traces of a ‫ ל‬for ‫ ממשלה‬can be clearly seen on Mas1h Page III, l. 7 (Sir 41:6). The Greek (τέκνον) indicates the Hebrew is ‫ בן‬not ‫בין‬, and my translation of “authority” follows Mas1h with κληρονομία, not “poverty” as in Bmg or “evil authorities” as in B. “Authority” in Mas1h is supported by the Latin and Syriac. 97  The Greek uses ὄνειδος for both ‫ חרפה‬and ‫ בוז‬in Sir 41:6, 7. 98  “When wickedness comes, also contempt, and with dishonour reproach” (emphasis added). 99  Neither is ‫ קבב‬common in Ben Sira’s vocabulary. Ben-Ḥayyim, 265.

164

Chapter 5

Shared syntax in Sir 41:9 and Job 27:14–16 Sir 41:9 (Mas1h)

Job 27:14–16

]‫[אם תפרו ע]ל [יד אסון‬ ‫ואם תולידו לאנחה‬ a‫[אם תכשל]ו לשמחת עלם‬ ‫ואם תמותו לקללה‬

‫אם־ירבו בניו למו־חרב וצאצאיו לא‬ ‫ישבעו־לחם׃‬ ‫שרידו במות יקברו ואלמנתיו לא תבכינה׃‬ ‫אם־יצבר כעפר כסף וכחמר יכין מלבוש׃‬

a The scribal error or shortened spelling in Sir 41:9c of ‫ עלם‬is the only case of its kind in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira. In B it is spelled ‫עולם‬.

Sir 41:8–9 Ben Sira’s preoccupation with the wicked is found also in both Job 18:5–21 and Prov 18:3. The theme of the wicked’s fate is strongly linked with the universality of death. Ben Sira agrees with Job 18, 22, 27, Prov 18:3 and other places in the Hebrew Bible where a discussion of the wicked involves lamenting their earthly prosperity, speaking about their deserved death, and discussing the fate of their children. In Sir 41:9c the combination of ‫ כשל‬and ‫ שמח‬recalls ‫ צלע‬and ‫ שמח‬in Ps 35:15, a passage that contextualizes the inclusion of celebration at the wicked father’s stumbling. Carrying on, Sir 41:9d remarks that if an evil person dies, it is ‫לקללה‬,100 which calls to mind the judgement on someone who is hanged (Deut 21:23).101 As noted above, Sir 41:9d also shares vocabulary and ideas with Prov 18:3. Moreover, Sir 41:8b uses the same expression in its normal sense of the Torah. Thus it cannot be narrowly stated that the first forsakers of the law of God are all humanity and that the second are only Hellenized Jews. As argued above, Job 27:7–16 (especially verses 14–16)102 provide the model for Sir 41:9. In the table above, the comparison between Sir 41:9 and Job 27:14–16 is summarized. In both cases, the subject is the same: the wicked and their fate. In this case the condemnation of the wicked is part of themes found in Job and Proverbs on the ultimate fate of the righteous and wicked. Compared to other polemical Jewish texts such as 1 or 2 Maccabees or Jubilees, Ben Sira lacks comparable polemical agenda and language, as Jubilees does.103 There are two 100  In ethical dative. 101  The Greek and Syriac both leave out Sir 41:9c in the Hebrew, but include 9d. 102  Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 36. Middendorp, Stellung, 77. 103  Milka Rubin, “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity,” JJS 49:2 (1998): 306–33. Ben Sira is not secretive or subversive in his

Death and the Body

165

examples of Ben Sira’s polemical language: Sir 50:25–26, against Shechem, and Sir 36:1–17, his nationalistic prayer.104 Yet Ben Sira’s polemic is sparse and careful compared to texts such as Jubilees. In the case of Sir 41:1–15, Ben Sira’s concerns speak of a more universal condemnation of the wicked and their offspring with strong echoes of Job 18 and 27. Sir 41:10 Sir 41:10 expands upon Qoh 3:19–20. The structure of the two bicola: ‫כל מאפס‬ ‫ אל אפס ישוב‬in Sir 41:10a and ‫ מתהו אל תהו‬in Sir 41:10b closely resemble Qoh 3:20, which reads ‫הכל היה מן־העפר והכל שב אל־העפר‬. Moreover, in Qoh 3:19 the word for humanity is ‫בני־האדם‬, which can be compared with ‫ בני אדם‬in Sir 41:11a. The phrase ‫ בני אדם‬is not common in Ben Sira when compared to ‫איש‬ or ‫אדם‬.105 Ben Sira’s association of the term ‫ בני אדם‬with death’s universality may be due to Job 14:1, the beginning of Job’s speech on man (‫ )אדם‬who is born of woman. Another word from Qoh 3:19–20 is ‫( הבל‬also Qoh 1:2; 6:12; 9:9; 12:8). This word is found only twice in total in Ben Sira, again strongly suggesting this is a quotation of Qoh 3:19–20. The meaning of ‫ הבל‬in Sir 41:11a is translated here as “breath” rather than “vanity,” in light of the context of “in their bodies,” though it can also be wordplay. The Hebrew of Sir 41:10a ‫ שב( ישוב‬in Qoh 3:20) is also additional evidence for quotation.106 The verb ‫ אפס‬is found in Job 7:6: “My days are swifter … and come to their end lacking hope.”107 Sir 41:10a would again echo Qoh 3:20 with two uses of ‫ אפס‬to match ‫( עפר‬table below).108 By comparison, the Greek version has a closer quotation of Qohelet, removing ‫ אפס‬and using γῆς. The Greek insertion of “earth” may be further illuminated by a comparable saying in Sir 40:11, and bears strong resemblance to a line in Euripides (Chrysippus, fr. 839, 8ff.).109 This could be evidence of the literary attainment of the grandson as a translator familiar with Greek literature, or it could simply indicate an attempt to align

vocabulary as seen in Jubilees, 1 Enoch, or 1QM, and constantly praises his contemporary political establishment and the Jewish leaders (Simon II) associated with them. Aitken, “Seleucid,” 191–208. Argall, 1 Enoch, 249–55. 104  Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:137; 152–53. 105  Ben-Ḥayyim, 74–75; 81–82. 106  For Ben Sira’s attitudes to the body see section below. 107  The noun ‫ אפס‬again is not commonly found in Ben Sira. Ben-Ḥayyim, 96. Its presence here is as a synonym for ‫תהו‬. 108  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 465; 468; Ben-Ḥayyim, 96; 247. 109  See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:150.

166

Chapter 5

the text closer to Qohelet, since the Greek translator sometimes made passages more “biblical.”110 Ben Sira calls the afterlife of the wicked ‫ אפס‬and ‫תהו‬. In this line, Ben Sira strongly echoes the “dust” sayings of Qoh 3:20 and Gen 3:14. Job 15:31 associates ‫ שאול‬with ‫תהו‬, and Job 6:12, 18; 26:7 also give similar afterlife meanings for ‫תהו‬.111 Additionally, Ben Sira’s use of ‫ תהו‬is different from the Qumran literature, in which ‫ תהו‬can refer to idolatry and waste, not a void or emptiness. This is because in Qumran literature, ‫ אפס‬is more often used to mean emptiness.112 In Job, Job’s friends argue that the wicked will always perish. In many of these cases, these doomed wicked are described as ‫( חנף‬Job 8:13, 36:13–14), another word that Ben Sira has used here. That it is drawn from Job is likely because again ‫ חנף‬is not frequently used by Ben Sira, nor is ‫ חנף‬used frequently in the Qumran literature except for 4QJubd 21:19 (hiphil) and 4Q424 1.12 (‫ ָחנֵ ף‬adj.).113 Therefore there is a mix of both Job (Sheol as emptiness) and Qohelet (all return to nothingness/dust) in Sir 41:10. Sir 41:11 In Sir 41:11, Mas1h is partially damaged (including ‫)הבל‬. The Greek changes‫הבל‬ to “the mourning [πένθος] of men is in their bodies.” Btext reads ‫הבל אדם בגויתו‬ with Bmg adding ‫בני‬.114 Altogether, Qoh 3:19–20 is reflected in Sir 41:10–11 as shown in the table below.

110  Regarding the Greek translation, it must be recognized, as Wright has argued, that the grandson does not have a systematic approach to making quotations closer to scripture, in contrast to earlier claims made by G.B. Caird and Rudolf Smend. The translator can make passages more biblical when it suits the situation, but does not systematically do this. Wright, No Small Difference, 173–74. Smend, Weisheit. G.B. Caird, “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint,” in Studia Evangelica Vol VII, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, TU 126 (Berlin: Akademie, 1982), 95–100. For evidence of the Greek literary attainment of Ben Sira’s grandson, see Aitken, “Literary Attainment.” 111  Also a rare plural form of ‫ תהו‬is in Ps 71:20, ‫תהומות הארץ‬, referring to Sheol. Note that ‫ תהומות‬is the plural of ‫תהום‬. BDB, 1062. 112  DCH 1:359 (‫) ֶא ֶפס‬. 113  Ben-Ḥayyim, 144–45. DCH 3:276–77. By Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫ חנף‬means “to flatter/deceive.” Jastrow, 485. 114  Yadin’s reconstruction of this line in Mas1h as ‫ בני אדם‬is also supported by Qoh 3:19–20 here.

167

Death and the Body

Sir 41:10–11 (Mas1h) compared with Qoh 3:19–20 Sir 41:10a ‫[כל מ]אפס אל אפס ישוב‬ Sir 41:10b ‫כן חנף מתהו אל תהו‬ Sir 41:11a ‫הבל [בני אדם בגוית] ֿם‬ Sir 41:11b ‫יֿכרֿת‬ ֿ 22‫חסד ללא‬ ֿ ‫[אך] שם‬

Qoh 3:19 ‫כי מקרה בני־האדם ומקרה‬ ‫הבהמה ומקרה אחד להם כמות‬ ‫זה כן מות זה ורוח אחד לכל‬ ‫ומותר האדם מן־הבהמה אין כי‬ ‫הכל הבל׃‬ Qoh 3:20 ‫הכל היה מן־העפר והכל שב‬ ‫אל־העפר׃‬

Job 18:17 and Qoh 7:1 are drawn upon for the idea of a lasting good name (Sir 41:11b), as well as Prov 10:7; 18:3: the name of the wicked not lasting. A similar saying in Ben Sira is Sir 40:17. Sanders argues that one of the things that separates Ben Sira from Proverbs, however, is his attention to the immortality of a person’s name.115 It is clear from all these examples, however, that the immortality of a good person’s name (and a bad name being forgotten) are indeed recurring themes in Job, Qohelet, and Proverbs. Moreover, since this passage in Job has already been used by Ben Sira above in Sir 41:5–9, the likelihood increases that he has used that same passage in this line. Furthermore, ‫( אך‬Sir 41:11b) is in fact also in Job 18:21. Job 18:17–21 has resurfaced multiple times, showing how important this passage is for Sir 41:1–15. Sir 41:12 Earlier the fear of death was ‫( פחד ממות‬Sir 41:3), and elsewhere in Ben Sira it is called ‫( פחד מות‬Sir 9:13). In Sir 41:12a, we encounter the fear of a name, again with ‫ פחד‬where ‫ ירא‬might be expected. While ‫ פחד‬seems more appropriate for death, Ben Sira in fact appears be reserve ‫ ירא‬exclusively for fear of the Lord. This is due to a development in LBH between ‫ פחד‬and ‫ירא‬, visible also in the Qumran literature.116 In Sir 41:12b, ‫ )שׂימה( שימות‬in Mas1h is ‫ אוצרות‬in Btext, while Bmg agrees with Masada. Other commentaries have compared ‫ שימות‬to the silver and gold in Prov 3:14 (value of wisdom) or ‫ שמן‬in Qoh 7:1 (value of a name).117 The word ‫שׂימה‬, however, is also in Job 17:3, with an emphatic imperative ‫שׂימה־נא‬.118 By 115  Sanders, Demotic, 18–19. 116  DCH 6:673–74; 4:276–81. 117  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 475. Middendorp, Stellung, 24. Also worth mentioning, though, is Job 28:18. 118  A loanword adopted from Greek. Corley, “Jewish Identity,” 8.

168

Chapter 5

LBH ‫ שימה‬means “treasure,” for example 4QTobite 2.9 and 4QDibHama 7.9.119 This contemporary LBH meaning is the way in which Ben Sira is using ‫שימה‬.120 The reason for its appearance may also be wordplay, ‫שימות | שם‬. Proverbs frequently uses ‫אוצר‬, which is the reading in Btext.121 Sir 41:13 In Sir 41:13, there are two occurrences of ‫מספר‬. The reference or allusion here is to counting days (Job 14:1). Ben Sira writes that a good name lasts forever (Sir 41:13b). Sanders and Middendorp suspect parallels between Greek and Demotic literature and Sir 41:12–13 here. Middendorp calls attention to Euripides (Oedipus frag. 734) and Xenophon (Mem. 11, 33).122 Likewise, Sanders compares Ben Sira here to P. Insinger 20:1.123 Another parallel can be found with Pliny the Younger.124 However, while these concerns exist in Demotic, Greek, and Roman literature, they are not exclusive to one society. Furthermore, Ben Sira’s ideas are by far closer to statements made in Job, Qohelet (for example Qoh 7:1), and Proverbs, as mentioned. Sir 41:14–15 In Sir 41:14–15, comparison can be made with Prov 3:14, Job 28:18, and Isa 38:19. In addition, Prov 2:4 asks the reader to search for wisdom ‫“( ככסף וכמטמונים‬as silver and as hidden treasures”), and Prov 10:14 mentions wise men treasuring up their knowledge (and includes the word ‫צפן‬, also in Sir 41:15b). There are a number of possibilities for what Ben Sira refers to exactly by hidden wisdom; ‫ חכמה טמונה‬may refer to pseudepigrapha and lost ancient wisdom, but it is more likely a reference to the immortality of a man’s name due to the context. Ben Sira could be referring to Prov 10:14, to pseudepigraphal claims to antediluvian knowledge (as is more likely in Sir 3:22), or to Deut 29:29, the “secret things that belong to the Lord,” as found also in CD.125 Any or some combination of these things is possible. For Ben Sira however, his concern in mentioning stored-up wisdom is probably not esoteric, due to verse 15, which observes 119  DCH 8:146. 120  This reading would also support Yadin’s reconstruction. 121  Another case of Btext making the text closer to Hebrew Bible, despite the resulting repetition of ‫ אוצר‬in Btext in this case. 122  Middendorp, Stellung, 24. 123  Sanders, Demotic, 84–85. cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 475. 124  Pliny the Younger, Letters 9.27, “liber tamen ut factum ipsum manet manebit legeturque semper.” 125  Campbell, Damascus Document, 58; 77; 179.

Death and the Body

169

that treasured up wisdom (wisdom that is not told or written down) is worse than a silent fool. This sentiment echoes the fool who keeps silent in Prov 17:28 (cf. Sir 37:26). The importance of expressing one’s wisdom while alive is clear elsewhere in Ben Sira, too. For instance, Ben Sira says that wisdom is known through speech (Sir 4:24).126 Sayings like these demonstrate the connection Ben Sira made between the shortness of life and the necessity of writing down and teaching wisdom; his advice in the face of death is that one must speak while one is alive, because no one talks in Sheol (Sir 14:12, 16; 17:27–28; 41:4d). Furthermore, Sir 41:14–15 can be compared with Sir 20:30–31 (C and Gr), which reads: “Hidden wisdom and unseen treasure, what advantage is there in either of them? Better is the one who hides their folly than the one who hides their wisdom.”127 The feminine ‫ שתיהם‬in Sir 41:14b is due to the two preceding feminine subjects (wisdom and treasure). The use of “two things” echoes either Job 13:20; 40:5 (about death), or Prov 30:7 (“two things before I die”). There is wordplay with ‫ צפן‬in Sir 41:15b. One who treasures up wisdom is contrasted with the one in Proverbs or Job who searches for wisdom as hidden treasures. The contrast between storing-up and treasures is the wordplay here, also marked by the synonymous uses of ‫ טמן‬and ‫ צפן‬in verse 15. The verb ‫ טמן‬is only found in Ben Sira here.128 In Isa 38:19, the living are contrasted with the silent dead in Sheol who cannot praise God. By comparison, living fathers may pass on knowledge of God’s faithfulness to their children. This sentiment resounds in Ben Sira, who is very concerned with surviving death through having pious children; this is particularly shown by the lament over evil children in Sir 41:5–9. The fact that Isa 38:9–20, concerned with Hezekiah, is utilized by Ben Sira later in Sir 48:17–25, might increase the likelihood of a quotation. A final passage worth noting in this context is Job 3:21, which speaks of bitter souls who long for death more than hidden treasures. Earlier, Sir 41:1–4 describes death as bitter but welcome to those in bad health. A lasting name, written wisdom not kept to oneself, and righteous children are Ben Sira’s advice to master the fear of death’s universality.

126  For another similar sentiment: Plutarch also wrote that a person’s character is known through speech. Plutarch, Mor. 801a. 127  Elizur, “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira,” 28–29. 128  Ben-Ḥayyim, 152. Another possible case while not in the extant Hebrew is Sir 20:31. Smend, Index, 26.

170

Chapter 5

Analysis of Textual Findings

A Lasting Good Name The lasting memory of a good name is one of Ben Sira’s greatest concerns and shows his use of the Hebrew Bible and his sociocultural sphere of operation in the Mediterranean world.129 By comparison, Sanders argues Ben Sira’s concern as evidence of the direct use of Hellenistic texts by Ben Sira.130 Ben Sira, however, advises that survival of death comes through both having a good name and having righteous children.131 In this light, Ben Sira is similar to Job 18 and 21, Isa 38:9–20, and Qoh 9:1–12. Middendorp suggests that Sir 41:1–15 is Stoic in origin, arguing that Ben Sira suggests that death is neither good nor bad, but neutral.132 However, this claim to Stoic literature requires strong textual evidence of Stoic texts. There is a large difference between parallel streams of tradition and the presence of intertextual dependence. Ben Sira’s direct use of Stoicism is also unlikely because of the textual history of Qohelet; recent studies, discussed below, suggest that overlapping ideas in Stoic and Epicurean philosophy also find their expression in Qohelet, but these ideas are not necessarily indicators of direct textual dependence. This is a different picture from that of John J. Collins, who suggests positive Stoic influence, especially with Sir 43:27, arguing Ben Sira was likely “influenced by Stoic notions, even if they were imperfectly grasped.”133 Collins ascribes Ben Sira’s view of universal opposites (Sir 33:14–15; 42:24–25) to the teaching of the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus.134 Job 21:23–26 in Sir 41:1–4 The sustained allusion to Job 21:23–26 in Sir 41:1–4 is worth bringing together. Matthewson calls Job 21 a shift to the generalized death lament, since in Job 1–20 all death speeches were personal.135 A sustained quotation of Job 21:23–26 in Sir 41:1–4 is demonstrated by the proximity and quantity of vocabu129  Schwartz, Mediterranean, 66–74. 130  See Sir 38:20, 23; 40:19; 44:9, 13; 45:1, 11; 46:2, 11; 49:1, 13. Sanders argues the survival of one’s name is not a concern of Proverbs, but it is clearly important in Ben Sira. Sanders, Demotic, 18–19. 131  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 86. 132  The neutral things are called ἀδιάφορα. Middendorp, Stellung, 24; 30. See also John G. Gammie, “Stoicism and Anti-Stoicism in Qoheleth,” HAR 9 (1985): 169–87. 133  Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 105. 134  John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 85. 135  Matthewson, Death and Survival, 120.

171

Death and the Body

lary and phrases used by Ben Sira, and by his use of Job 21’s themes here and subsequently in Sir 41:4–15. In Job 21, Job describes the fate of the wicked and their offspring as part of his speech on death (especially Job 21:7–8).136 This inclusion of the wicked in a speech on death is another reason why Sir 41:1–15 ought to be considered one poem. To modern readers, the subject seems to change from death to wicked children, but when compared with the range of themes in Job 21 (and Job 18, 22, 27), it is not the case that the theme has changed at all. Ben Sira’s attention to wicked children as a theme is also found in Sir 16:3, “To die childless is better than to have ungodly children.” Using the term ‫ אחרית‬Sir 11:28 likewise argues that a person is known through their children.137 The interspersed allusion through Sir 41:1–4 is mapped below: Quotation of Job 21:23–26 (excerpted) in Sir 41:1–4 and thematic overlap Sir 41:1–4 Sir 41:2b ‫[ל]אין אוינים וחסר עצמה‬ Sir 41:1c ‫[איש] שלו ומצליח בכל‬ Sir 41:1a ‫מה מר ז]כרך‬

Job 21:23–26 Job 21:23b 21:24b 21:25

‫זה ימות בעצם תמו כלו‬ ‫שלאנן ושליו׃‬ ‫עטיניו מלאו חלב ומח עצמותיו‬ ‫ישקה׃‬ ‫וזה ימות בנפש מרה ולא־אכל‬ ‫בטובה׃‬

Thematic overlap (death as universal) Sir 41:2a ]‫טוב ח[קך‬ Job 21:26b ‫יחד על־עפר ישכבו ורמה‬ ‫תכסה עליהם׃‬ Sir 41:3a ‫ממות חקך‬ Sir 41:4a ‫קץ כל בשר‬ Psalm 39 also emphasizes how all humans must die. Due to the vocabulary in use here in such a short space, it is clear that while Psalm 39 may have influenced Ben Sira in familiarity and thematic overlaps, the textual quotation itself is drawn from Job 21:23–26. The intertextuality of Psalm 39 and Job has been explored by Will Kynes, so Psalms in this case may be another silent partner,

136  As does Bildad in Job 18. 137  Greek; cf. Sir 16:3; Ps 37:37–38, although ‫ אהרית‬can be read as “ending” instead of “children” (cf. Sir 11:25–27, 7:36; Job 8:7, 42:12. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬. A person is also known through speech (Sir 4:24).

172

Chapter 5

like Proverbs, having an overall supporting role to play forming Ben Sira’s education, but not being directly used in this part of the text.138 The commentary has also shown the significance of Isa 38:9–20, Hezekiah’s writing after his illness, and Qoh 9:1–12. Other textual findings include the continued importance of Proverbs language in Ben Sira, indicating Ben Sira’s familiarity with Proverbs.139 Ben Sira’s Afterlife for the Righteous Ben Sira’s quotation of Job 21:23–26 indicates that he wishes to emphasize a peaceful passing for the righteous and a bitter end for the wicked—both in Sheol.140 The righteous, consoled in Sir 41:1–4 that they should not fear death, are reminded that the “former and later ones are with you” (Sir 41:3b) i.e. in Sheol, a theme also in Sir 8:7 and 40:28.141 Even while warnings surround Sheol (Sir 41:4d), Ben Sira does appear to make a juxtaposition between the rest of the righteous and the old (Sir 41:3ab–4ab), and that of the wicked (Sir 41:4cd–10). Structure The textual findings have shown strong evidence to support the Mas1h section markers which delineate Sir 41:1–15 as one section. Moreover, Sir 41:16 (Sir 41:14a) begins a section called ‫ מוסר בשת‬in B. By comparison, Sanders argues that Sir 41:12–13 summarizes the main point of the book, again focusing on Ben Sira’s attention to names. He argues that after Sir 41:13, the main points of the previous forty chapters are reiterated in a digested form from Sir 41:14–42:8.142 Wisdom reverberates as a solution in Ben Sira, and in this case, thematically passing on wisdom forms part of the survival of death that Ben Sira advises in order to have pious children, along with having a good name.

138  Kynes dates Psalm 39 as older than Job, and particular overlaps with Psalm 39 are in Job 6–7 and throughout Job. Will Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, BZAW 437 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 122–41. The situation may not be textual dependence (Kynes, Psalm, 123; 125), which is difficult to pin down given the similarity of theme, in which case an overlap of vocabulary becomes more likely. However, Kynes’s argument demonstrates the scribal training (familiarity with literary convention and relevant texts) of the composer of Job. 139  Corley, “Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira,” 155–82. 140  On the finality of death in Ben Sira, see Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 92–94. Collins compares and contrasts Ben Sira’s views with Epicurus, Ep. Men. 124, and Theog. 181–182. 141  Johnston, Sheol, 28–33. 142  Sanders, Demotic, 13. Citing J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihr Literatur (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1967), 185.

Death and the Body



173

Death in Sir 41:1–15 and Other Sources

Concerns about death—the fear of death, the universality of death, and search for immortality—are as old as Gilgamesh. The Hebrew Bible contains many references to these concerns, chiefly in Job, Qohelet, and Proverbs, as we saw above. The search for immortality, it must be remembered, is connected with the concern for honour or fame. Schwartz argues how Ben Sira’s focus on fame is due to his Hellenistic setting, but this argument still presents a problem: how and why does Ben Sira pick up on what is already present in Hebrew literature and how does that relate to his place in Mediterranean culture during the Hellenistic period (323–31 bce), a culture that also values honour and is firmly grounded within the social system of recripocity? To some degree, ancient Israelite thought at first glance appears to be critical of reciprocity, but ancient Israel itself was still strongly part of the reciprocity model and mediterraneanism. Likewise, reciprocity is a near constant theme within Ben Sira.143 By comparison, Middendorp argues that death as universal fate (though not the fear of death) in Sir 41:3a can be matched by Theognis’s μοῖρα θανάτου in Theog. 819–820,144 but that it is also simultaneously a reference to the wicked man’s ‫ חלק‬in Job 20:19.145 The μοῖρα θανάτου is also a popular theme in Greek lyric poetry.146 Theognis writes on the subject of death numerous times, but Sanders suggests another alternative: that death as universal fate has parallels in Ankhsheshonqy.147 For example, Ankhsh. viii.8 states there is no one who does not die.148 However, in both cases, these are not sentiments exclusive to these texts. Neither are these suspected quotations on same level as those of Job, Qohelet, and Proverbs, because he does not advertise them to the same degree. This difference is down to two factors: the recognizability of quotations, and the consistency. Moreover, Ben Sira’s claimed uses of Theognis are not recognizably and undeniably allusions to the Greek lyricist, since they are more widespread themes concurrent in a sociocultural sphere, and neither are the examples found consistently throughout Ben Sira’s text as we find with 143  Schwartz, Mediterranean, 1–20; 29–30; 32–33; 48; 49–54. 144  Middendorp, Stellung, 24. Another commentary which discusses the use of Job, Qohelet, and Psalms in Sir 41:1–15 is Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, 332–63. 145  Middendorp, Stellung, 54. 146  Esther Eidinow, Luck, Fate and Fortune: Antiquity and Its Legacy (London: I.B.Tauris, 2011), 82–86. 147  Theog. 133–142, 425–428, 1007–1011, 1179–1180. 148  Sanders, Demotic, 104. For discussion of Theognis and Qohelet, see Weeks, Ecclesiastes, 134.

174

Chapter 5

his regular use of major Hebrew sources such as Job, Qohelet, and Proverbs. Therefore, no convincing Ankhsheshonqy or Theognis quotations can be found positively in Sir 41:1–15.149 As Miriam Lichtheim has argued, Ben Sira shares much with P. Insinger and Ankhsheshonqy in outlook and themes as well as being eclectic in form, but this is owing to wider shared wisdom traditions that were internationally popular.150 Lichtheim stresses that many sayings were internationally popular, and she does not make a case for direct dependence.151 Therefore, there is a complex sociocultural environment that we must bear in mind before we leap to conclusions of direct textual dependence. The universality of death stretches back as far as Gilgamesh, and it is a popular theme in literature from Mesopotamia, Greece, and Egypt. One Egyptian text, The Maxims of Anij (Any), also speaks about the inevitability of death for the old and young alike: Your messenger (Death) will come and reach for you. Don’t say, “I am too young to be carried away by you,” for you know not your hour to die. He comes and carries away both the old man and the infant still in its mother’s womb.152 Studies have also compared Qohelet with Greek gnomic wisdom (Theognis and Hesiod, among others) and Ancient Egyptian literature.153 There would therefore be a difficult case for direct use of Theognis influence in Ben Sira if he already extensively and consistently uses Qohelet throughout his text. As Carol Newsom has argued, parallels alone are not evidence of influence, especially if 149  Another case is Sir 12:4, which resembles Theog. 955–956, 107–108. Again, however, it is necessary to establish the likelihood of the wider popularity of Theognis and other gnomic wisdom sayings, which were usually reserved to circles of interested adult individuals. This is the case with Demotic wisdom, as shown by Miriam Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions, OBO 52 (Freiburg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1983), 185. 150  As does Proverbs, as Lichtheim argues throughout. Miriam Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context, 37–50; 184. For translations of Anchsheshonqy, P. Insinger, and other late Demotic Wisdom texts, I have consulted Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3, and Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context, 66–92; 197–234. 151  Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom in the International Context, 37; 194–95; et passim. 152  Boris de Rachewiltz, Maxims of the Ancient Egyptians, trans. Guy Davenport (Milan: All’Insegna del Pesce d’Oro, 1954). 153  On the basis of Greek loanwords, Schoors, Pleasing Words, 501–2, dates Qohelet to the post-Alexander Hellenistic period. Weeks, Ecclesiastes, 134.

Death and the Body

175

there are already Hebrew textual parallels.154 However, naturally the two conclusions are not mutually exclusive; it is possible that Ben Sira was acquainted with both Qohelet and Theognis. The idea that Ben Sira used Theognis cannot be ruled out systematically, but the point remains that Ben Sira does not seem to recognizably advertise his use of Theognis in the same way that he overflows with praise for, and quotations of, Hebrew texts. This premise rests on the idea, outlined throughout this book, that quotations must be recognizable to a reader in order for them to have any effect. That being said, the role of sociocultural context and the popularity of death as a literary theme are two factors that muddy the waters a bit, preventing a clear envisioning of Ben Sira’s use of Theognis or Demotic wisdom texts. Dominic Rudman argues that Stoic influence on Qohelet is only at a thematic, popular level, not direct textual dependence.155 The same should be said of Ben Sira: there are no convincing textual parallels with Theognis or Ankhsheshonqy besides general statements that are also found across ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern literature. These sociocultural ideas are too well-known across cultures to justify limiting them to a single text, since texts are products of their sociocultural worldview and thus often reflect popular ideas of their time.156 Texts that in reverse affect the expression and popular views of a period in history are far fewer. These texts are central to school curriculum, have many more surviving copies than other texts, and have been used as models for other texts. These texts are: Homer for the Mediterranean, Gilgamesh for the Near East, and Torah and wisdom literature for Second Temple Judea. Homer was so popular that phrases entered speech.157 There are distinct cultural shifts that suggest a change in sociocultural ideas during Ben Sira’s day. Greek epigraphic and literary evidence shows that death and personal immortality became increasingly popular concerns from the fourth century bce onwards, as the structure of Greek society shifted from the polis to the Hellenistic empire.158 The dating of Qohelet to the mid-third 154  Carol Newsom, “Job and Ecclesiastes,” in Old Testament Interpretation Past, Present, and Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, eds. J.L. Mays, D.L. Petersen, and K.H. Richards (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 185 (177–194). 155  Rudman, Determinism, esp. 30–31. 156  More on this below in the example of Epicureanism. 157  Morgan, Popular Morality. One could say the same about many Classical Hebrew expressions in Late Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew. 158  Shannon Burkes, Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period, SBLDS 170 (Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 243–48, citing F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 209–210; 220.

176

Chapter 5

century bce indicates the increasing concern about death and mortality within Jewish society.159 Pieter van der Horst notes how many characteristics of Jewish epitaphs resemble Greek and Roman ones, including formulae that invite attention from the passer-by, addresses to the deceased, curses, epithets, and expressions of grief.160 Tobit 4:17 reads, “Place your bread on the tomb of the just, but give none to sinners.” These Jewish attitudes to death in the Hellenistic period are shared with a Greek and Roman contemporary shift in values towards an increased concern for lasting memorial of one’s good name and profession. This contemporary feeling about death and individualized memorial would explain why Ben Sira has concerns about death and the name, and why he pays attention to the texts about death in the Hebrew Bible. This he would do, then, as a product of his time, but again, these shifting concerns in the Hellenistic world indicate changing sociocultural ideas, which is not the same as a case for direct literary dependence. Jewish epitaphs reveal that there was a profound sociocultural concern for many Jews in the Greek and Roman periods to make a memorial to the deceased as individuals. For example, in Greco-Roman Egypt, Jewish tomb inscriptions call on the living to mourn at their graves. Two inscriptions from Leontopolis, dateable from between the mid-second century bce to first century ce, quote Qoh 9:10 and 12:5 (JIGRE 38 and 34, respectively).161 In Judea, mainly Jerusalem and Jericho, funerary inscriptions rarely allude to scripture.162 As mentioned, Tobias’s father offers advice about honouring the righteous dead but forgetting 159  The most convincing dating is to the mid-third century bce. Rudman, Determinism, 13– 27. Burkes, Death, 41, puts it fifth to third centuries bce, citing Persian and Egyptian influences, but Rudman’s arguments due to Greek language, monetary shifts, and spice trade are more convincing. 160  van der Horst, Jewish Epitaphs, 40–60; 62–64. One of the problems with making conclusions based on Jewish epitaphs is that out of over 1600, about 600 contain only the name. However, the fact that the name is memorialized is still interesting evidence for a wider sociocultural concern in Hellenistic Judaism. Yet other analysis becomes problematic. van der Horst for example concludes that concerning professions, more Jews had religious functions rather than secular, Jewish Epitaphs, 85; 100–1. However, there is too little evidence to make such a conclusion, since one-third of the inscriptions record only the name, and out of 1000 descriptive inscriptions, 40% are women, and only a few dozen (out of 1000) mention a profession ( Jewish Epitaphs, 99; 102). Additionally, with contemporary concerns to record the good deeds and deserving rest of the deceased in the afterlife, the mention of community religious functions might be more likely to be recorded than not on the basis of wishing to provide a deserving memorial for good individual. 161  JIGRE 74–78; 90–94. 162  Hachlili, Funerary, 164 (Qoh 12:5).

Death and the Body

177

sinners (Tobit 4:17), in a way a damnatio memoriae. Thus even while Jewish tomb inscriptions are not the place to quote scripture, their written formulae and motifs, shared with Greek and Roman practices, attest to wider sociocultural concerns to establish a lasting name for the dead and to deal with grief and mortality. For example, one Jewish inscription from Leontopolis reads: Weep for me, stranger, a maiden ripe for marriage, who formerly shone in a great house. For, decked in fair bridal garments, I untimely have received this hateful tomb as my bridal chamber. For when a noise of revellers already at my doors told that I was leaving my father’s house, like a rose in a garden nurtured by fresh rain, suddenly Hades came and snatched me away. And I, stranger, had accomplished twenty revolving years.163 These Jewish tomb inscriptions illustrate how Jews in the Hellenistic period were openly concerned with death and grief. Ben Sira is similarly preoccupied with the question of a lasting name, and he seeks to address common issues such as grief and untimely versus timely death. For the likelihood of direct textual reuse of Greek and Hellenistic literature (or late Egyptian), there should be convincing direct quotations. Schrader argues that there is similarity, if not direct Epicurean influence, in Sir 41:1–4, 11–13, on the basis of shared themes and concerns.164 However, I have found that there are no convincing Greek quotations in Sir 41:1–15 which are at all comparable to those from Hebrew sources, on the basis of recognizability to the reader. If Ben Sira did quote from Greek or Demotic literature, he did so unconsciously. Familiarity with Greek literature would require training. Before the late second century bce even a high-rank Jerusalem scribe or teacher would not have needed intimate knowledge of Greek literature as an Egyptian scribe in Ptolemaic Egypt would have done.165 This is because the Seleucids at the 163  CIJ 1508 from Leontopolis, dated to between mid-second century bce and first century ce. van der Horst, Jewish Epitaphs, 48. 164  Schrader, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 257 (233–58 for discussion on Sir 41:1–4, 11–13). Schrader, Leiden, 116–30, agrees with Middendorp, Sanders, Lee, and Lichtheim in favour of high, direct dependence or direct influence from Greek and Egyptian literature. It is not clear why direct influence alone is the best answer for the parallels cited, when in fact such parallels would be more adequately explained by the additional considerations of historical context, shared conventions of wisdom literature, and shared contemporary concerns, as has been argued throughout this book. 165  There is evidence from outside Sir 51:23–30 that Ben Sira likely had his own school. In Mesopotamia only the highest-ranking administrative scribes had schools. Giuseppe Visicato, The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia (Bethesda, MD:

178

Chapter 5

beginning of the second century bce continued to operate officially in both Aramaic and Greek. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence does show widespread trade and business use of Greek in Judea in the mid-second century, but not literary use.166 By comparison, native scribes in Phoenicia and Philistia rapidly switched to Greek,167 which is reflected in other fundamental changes such as architecture, epigraphy, and coin styles: these changes were all much slower in Judea, and were not complete until the late second century bce.168 As a much earlier text, Gilgamesh is the archetypal quest for fame and immortality.169 Gilgamesh seeks fame and physical immortality in his journey to the Forest of Cedars. In the Standard Version (SV) of Gilgamesh (1200–1100 bce) Ut-napištim170 laments the mortality of all humanity but cannot offer anyone else the immortality that the gods have given him (Gilg. X.185–XI.320, SV).171 Likewise, death’s universality is the topic of Sidduri the Barmaid’s advice to Gilgamesh at the ends of the earth (Gilg. x.1–105, Old Babylonian Version 1700 bce).172 There are indeed a few places in Qohelet that echo sentiments found in Gilgamesh.173 The Qumran Book of the Giants also mentions the CDL, 2000), 233; 236; 240. Cribiore, Gymnastics, 19–31, argues that connections, wealth, and situation all affected whether teachers could hold their schools in a good location such as a temple or the forum. If they were unfortunate or unconnected in circumstances, their school was held in their home. Ptolemaic law dictated from 145 bce that all official documents should be in Greek. Until then administrative documents are a mix of Demotic and Greek. Thompson, “Multilingual.” 166  Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume II: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE), vol. 2 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 2:125–135. 167  Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 2:138–39. 168  Thompson, “Multilingual,” 405. Meshorer, ‫מטבעות היהודים‬, 118–36, shows that coins continued to be in Hebrew until the end of the second century bce. For architecture see Arav, Hellenistic Palestine. Aaron A. Burke, Martin Peilstoecker, and George Pierce. “Hellenistic Architecture in Jaffa: The 2009 Excavations of the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project in the Visitor’s Centre,” PEQ 146:1 (2014): 40–55. 169  Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Theology of Death,” in Mesopotamia 8: Death in Mesopotamia: XXVI e Recontre assyriologique internationale, ed. Alster Bendt (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 53 (53–66). 170  Known as “Atrahasis” in Atrahasis Epic (1700–1600 bce). 171  Andrew George, The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian (London: Allen Lane, 1999), 83–87. 172  George, Gilgamesh, 75–79. Note that the SV gives much of Sidduri’s speech to Ut-napištim; in the Old Babylonian Sidduri’s speech on death is longer. 173  Qoh 9:7–9. See Thomas Krüger et al., Qoheleth, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), 172–73. Also the threefold cord (Qoh 4:12) echoes a Gilgamesh motif, as argued by

Death and the Body

179

hero.174 These examples show that death and immortality through fame were popular themes for a very long time in the Near East, long before Theognis, Ankhsheshonqy, or Ben Sira. Another example of these concerns in the Mediterranean world is Epicureanism, which is too large an area of study to be examined in depth here. Epicureanism is, however, a good example of the relationship between popular ideas and written texts. Epicurus (341–270 bce) wrote that the removal of fear was necessary for the enjoyment of life’s pleasures, and that the two chief fears of humankind were fear of the gods and fear of death (Ep. Men. 124–25; Ep. Hdt. 81). Epicurus calls death “the most frightening of evils” (Ep. Men. 124).175 The Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, almost a century after Ben Sira, in 110 bce expressed similar ideas (On the Gods XVI.18, 20–34), as did Lucretius (DRN 3.870–893).176 The question is how many people would have had contact with these statements, and what kind of audience would have recognized them if embedded as recognizable echoes in a text. In the third to first centuries bce, there is scant evidence—due to the small number of surviving texts compared to Homer or Hesiod—that the language of high Greek philosophy such as Epicureanism, including catchwords from Stoicism and Epicureanism, entered popular morality.177 Furthermore, broad issues and concerns in high philosophy were drawn from popular morality.178 Morgan writes that the use of Epicurean thought in gnomic collections suggests that some popular sayings in Epicurean writing were “close to popular culture, if they were not derived from it.”179 Looking for direct parallels in Ben Sira with Greek philosophy becomes very difficult if the sayings and vocabulary of Stoics and Epicureans did not frequently trickle down into popular morality. In other words, Epicureanism was not encountered by many literate people outside of inner Epicurean circles, and the filtration of Epicurean Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 223. 174  1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530–532, 6Q8. Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant.” 175  Epicurus, Ep. Men. 124–127 is mentioned in Collins, “Ecclesiasticus,” 103, but Collins also compares Ben Sira’s views on death to P. Insinger without further comment (“Ecclesiasticus,” 104). 176  Classical references from: James Warren, “Removing Fear,” in The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, ed. James Warren (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 234–48. 177  Morgan, Popular Morality, 334. By “popular morality” Morgan means written traces (literary or epigraphal) of wisdom sayings and fables. 178  Morgan, Popular Morality, 298. 179  Morgan, Popular Morality, 285.

180

Chapter 5

ideas into popular morality did not happen like it did for the texts of Homer or Hesiod, the two cornerstones of Greek-language education from elementary to advanced. This evidence tells us that the likelihood of Ben Sira encountering Epicurean literature (or gnomic literature such as Theognis) is even smaller, even if he had a basic knowledge of Greek.180 Not many copies of Theognis survive at all from the ancient world compared to those of Homer or Hesiod; Theognis is regularly quoted in philosophical texts, but his sayings do not find their way into popular morality as do Homer and Hesiod.181 Therefore, the sociocultural sphere of operation—ideas held in common across cultures or within a single culture—is the most viable option for how Ben Sira encountered texts that overlap with his ideas but do not present convincing literary or historical arguments for direct dependence. In sum, Ben Sira is drawing from popular concerns about death which were common in his day and already part of the language about death in Hebrew literature (Isa 38:9–20; Psalm 39; Job 18, 21; Qoh 9:1–12). Therefore, in this case Ben Sira’s sociocultural sphere best explains these suspected “parallels.” Considerations for the “Hellenism Debate” The evidence of Sir 41:8–9 as anti-Hellenistic was put forward first by Robert H. Pfeiffer and Hengel.182 Middendorp claims further that Sir 41:8–9 are cloaked references to the Tobiads and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as does Hengel.183 Hengel writes that Ben Sira “could not express his criticism directly, but had to clothe it in the form of wisdom discourse to protect himself … At one point he does express his view openly [Sir 41:8,9].”184 Di Lella argues that the wicked 180  Wright, “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek,” argues that Ben Sira’s openness to travel and use of Theognis indicate knowledge of Greek. Corley, “Identity,” 8, argues for a basic knowledge of Greek. James Aitken has argued in a recent paper that the word πεπλανημένος in the first-person statements about “travel” should read “wander” (Sir 31[34]:9, 11–13 Gr), and the autobiographical nature of v.12–13 should not be taken literally, but seen in the wider trope of the Homeric travelling hero, an example of the Greek translator’s literary background. James K. Aitken, “Cross-Cultural Translation and Classical Allusion in the Greek Version of Sirach,” paper presented at the Being Jewish Writing Greek Conference, Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge, 6–8 September 2017. 181  Three papyri of Theognis survive: LDAB 178, 3864, 4013, and he is quoted by Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, Xenophon, and Epicurus. 182  Robert H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (New York: Harper, 1949), 371. Hengel, Judaism, 1:138–39. 183  Middendorp, Stellung, 66; 163. 184  Hengel, Judaism, 1:151.

Death and the Body

181

and ungodly mentioned in Sir 41:5–10 all refer to Hellenized Jews, especially Sir 41:8ab, which resembles 1 Macc 1:52.185 Di Lella argues that 1 Macc 3:5–8 also has a similar description of the Hellenizers who are destroyed by Judas Maccabeus. The absence of opinions clearly opposing Mediterranean thought in Sir 41:1–15 comes primarily from Ben Sira’s historical setting (pre-175 bce). However, the political situation under Simon II and pre-175 bce Seleucid administration was different from the situation under Antiochus IV. Furthermore, recent scholarship is favouring an interpretation of the Maccabean Revolt as a political embroilment between two warring priestly families, and not primarily as a religious revolt.186

The Body in Sir 41:1–15 and Other Sources

Ben Sira’s attitudes towards the body are linked with his attitudes to death. In Sir 33:10, every human is a clay vessel, since Adam was formed from the dust. Sir 10:11 reads, ‫במ[ו]ת אדם ינחל רמה ׀ ותולעה כניום(!) ורמש‬,187 and Sir 41:11 reads, ‫הבל [בני] אדם בגויתו‬.188 Ben Sira regularly advises his readers that death is universal and does not delay (Sir 8:7; 14:11–19; 41:1–15), and that life is short (Sir 17:2; 41:13). Neither does anyone return from death (Sir 38:21; 41:4). The breath departs from the body upon death (Sir 34:23; 38:23). The final verse of Ben Sira’s text, Sir 51:30, advises the reader to “do your work in righteousness, and he will give you your reward in His time,” but this is likely during one’s lifetime, as it is in Isa 38:20.189 And, echoing Sir 41:13, Sir 44:14 reads that the bodies of the famous Fathers rest in peace while their name lives on. Names last, but bodies do not. Ben Sira’s attitude to the physical body is overwhelmingly negative: the body has strength (Sir 17:3), but all other references to the body are concerned with illness (Sir 31:22; 38:9, 13–15), staying young (Sir 31:1), and decrepitude in old age (Sir 3:12–13; 41:1–2). However, Sir 39:26, 33 state that God has provided for humanity, and admires how little the body needs to simply survive. Ben Sira even pits the body against the name as opposites. In Sir 44:14, Ben Sira writes, “Their bodies were buried in peace, but their name lives to all 185  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 474. 186  Schwartz, Imperialism, 12–13. 187  ms A as reconstructed in Ben-Ḥayyim, 12. “When a man dies, he will inherit maggots and worms, gnats, and creeping things.” 188  Btext with Bmg for “sons of.” 189  This also depends on how ‫בעתו‬, “in his time,” is interpreted.

182

Chapter 5

generations.” This is very similar to Sir 41:13, which contrasts a good life versus a good name. The appearance of ‫ הבל‬in Sir 41:11 might therefore be explained in light of Ben Sira’s negative attitudes to the body. The word ‫ הבל‬can also be seen as “breath,” which clearly has a metaphorical sense in Qohelet, but it also is a grim reminder of mortality (Qoh 1:3–4). The contrast of bodies as mortal (or lives as short) with names as immortal is significant. Ben Sira sees the name as inherently at odds with the perishable body and the shortness of life. In Proverbs and Job, there are similar sentiments to those of Ben Sira on the body (Prov 5:11).190 Job includes laments of physical pain and suffering (Job 3 and 7) and, as discussed above, the fate of the wicked (Job 18 and 21). There is no resurrection of the physical body for Ben Sira. There are similar statements in Wis 1–2:5 and 1 Cor 15:12–58. Wis 2:1–5, especially, includes some of the same concerns as Job and Ben Sira about death: that life is short and a person’s name is soon forgotten. That being said, while they speak about death, they are not self-contained poems on death either.191 Philo wrote that there were two kinds of death, by divine punishment and by the laws of nature, and commenting on Gen 15:15, he argues for the migration of souls, and links old age to honour.192 In de Sacrificiis Abelis et Cain, Philo argues that the mind is immortal because of the honour God gave to Moses.193 Sarah Pearce has also noted the pervasiveness of Philo’s metaphor of Egypt as the land of the body, contrasted with the land of the spirit, Israel.194 Finally, Sami Yli-Karjanmaa has brought to attention Philo’s acceptance of the Greek idea of reincarnation.195 Philo’s concerns are the survival of souls, while for Ben Sira, death is universal, and Sheol is the gloomy, final destination of all. In comparison with other texts of the Second Temple and early Judaism and Christianity, Ben Sira stands out with a focus on survival of death through good children and a good name, a theme that he shares with Qohelet and Proverbs. 190  “And at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed.” For a full discussion of death and afterlife in Hebrew literature, Second Temple literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and early rabbinic thought, see Tobias Nicklas, Friedrich V. Reiterer, and Joseph Verheyden, eds., The Human Body in Death and Resurrection, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). 191  They also both date after Ben Sira, and Wisdom of Solomon makes use of Ben Sira. Moreover, Wis 3 and 1 Cor 15 express a belief in a resurrection, which is lacking in Ben Sira. 192  Philo, Leg. 1.33.107. Philo, Her. 56.275–57, 292. 193  Philo, Sacr. 3.8–10. 194  Sarah Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt, WUNT 208 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 195  Sami Yli-Karjanmaa, Reincarnation in Philo of Alexandria, Studia Philonica Monographs 7 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015).

Death and the Body

183

Theognis advises an early death due to the painful, short duration of living. However, Weeks has also found parallels with Theognis in Qohelet on death (Theog. 133–142, 425–428; 1007–1011; 1179–1180).196 As argued above, an argument for the extensive use of Greek elite philosophical literature in Sir 41:1–15 presents us with problems of accounting for book circulation and accessibility. Thematic parallels and agreeing opinions do not necessitate direct textual dependence. A similar argument is put forward by Rudman for the likelihood of direct influence of Stoicism in Qohelet.197 The case of Proverbs is dissimilar from that of Qohelet, considering that its provenance is thought to be earlier. G.E. Bryce argued for direct textual dependence in Proverbs 22–24 of the Instruction of Amemenope, a twelfth century BCE Egyptian wisdom text, reflecting a prevailing view in scholarship.198 In Proverbs, the likelihood of direct dependence is more tenable considering 1) the concentration of shared parallels in a small section (Proverbs 22–24), and 2) the use of sustained reuse of phraseology and expression (e.g. Prov 22:17–18; cf. Amenomope 3:9–13). The distinctiveness of phrases as found in Amenomope echoed faithfully by Proverbs, make a stronger case for direct dependence than do arguments for Ben Sira’s use of Theognis or Qohelet’s use of Stoic literature. Scattered words and shared ideas, with no concentrated collections of quotations, do not suggest direct textual use in the same way that such a situation is presented in the case of Proverbs’s relationship with Amenemope. The case for Proverbs’s use of Amenomope rests also on its popularity over a long period of time: there are eight surviving witnesses of the text, and circulation lasted as late as the sixth century BCE.199 Popular texts have more opportunity to be encountered by readers, certainly over so many centuries. The limited circulation, in both time and place, of some Greek high philosophical texts and collections of gnomic sayings would be a reasonable explanation for why Theognis and Epicurean texts are not reused extensively by Ben Sira to an extension of recognisability, beyond common overlapping sentiments. These texts leave far less of an impression on Ben Sira by comparison, than does Amenemope for Proverbs. Likewise, the preface to the Gospel of Luke is a case where quotation reflects high esteem of the original source, and non-quotation reflects a low 196  Weeks, Ecclesiastes, 134. 197  Rudman, Determinism, 198–99. 198  G.E. Bryce, A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel (Lewisburg; London: Bucknell University; Associated University, 1979). A more recent discussion is by Fox: Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31, AB 18B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). 199  Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:146–49.

184

Chapter 5

esteem, or lack of familiarity, of other texts.200 Allusions and quotations, in essence, are recognizable markers that resonate with their audience, or else fall on deaf ears if they are unrecognizable. Ancient writers such as Luke and Ben Sira, and perhaps the author of Proverbs, identify themselves with certain sources by echoing particular texts but not others. To summarize the case, the case for Ben Sira’s sociocultural thematic overlaps with Greek and Hellenistic (or late Egyptian) themes depends on popular sentiments that cannot be called exclusive to one text or society. Therefore, it is difficult to pinpoint them as recognizable echoes of such texts. Furthermore, Ben Sira’s historical context and the very limited circulation of these texts restrict the likelihood of familiarity. In addition, quotation in ancient literature is an indication of the high esteem in which a source was held, which can be said for Ben Sira and the Hebrew Bible, but not convincingly enough for these other texts, which happen to write on the same universal subjects.

Conclusions

Summary of Textual Findings in Sir 41:1–15 Our analysis has shown textual reuse and echoes of Job, Qohelet, and Proverbs which also deal with death and names, as well as similar sentiments in Isa 38:9–20. In addition, Job 18 and 21 provide a literary model for Ben Sira’s death poem, and these wisdom sources also serve as a strong indication that Sir 41:1–15 is not to be divided up into smaller poems of death and the fate of the wicked. It was also found that there is little textual evidence for Sir 41:3a being a direct quotation of Theognis, Epicurus, or Ankhsheshonqy, owing to the lack of recognizability of these sources in Ben Sira’s writing, the popularity of claimed parallels as widespread ideas in antiquity, and the limited book circulation of high philosophical texts among elite literary circles. While it is still certainly plausible that Ben Sira was acquainted with Greek and even Demotic philosophical works, he does not seem to have advertised or promoted such a learnedness through his writing. Conclusions for Ben Sira’s Individual Scribalism The main challenge with this chapter has been how to distinguish between popular ideas and direct textual reuse. Once textual reuse has indeed been identified, the challenge is also to consider Ben Sira’s context in late Ptolemaic 200  Loveday Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 & Acts 1.1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Death and the Body

185

and early Seleucid Judea. It has been found that Stoic and Epicurean vocabulary and quotations had limited circulation and did not trickle down into Greek popular morality. We should also consider the case of Qohelet, which also shares concerns with Stoicism in general but not direct dependence. This chapter found that there was strong material and literary evidence, especially of Jewish funerary inscriptions, that sociocultural concerns about death increased by the third century bce in the Mediterranean and Judea. The limited audience and circulation of Epicurus and Ankhsheshonqy suggest that Ben Sira’s thematic overlaps with these texts (and as well, Theognis and P. Insinger) can only show that they were all similarly influenced by wider concerns about death which were known to have increased in the Mediterranean. This chapter has found that even when a theme is increasingly popular for literature in the Mediterranean, Ben Sira draws on Hebrew literature for textual reuse and imitation of literary conventions or genres. This is partly because the concern over death is found to have increased within Jewish literature too (Qohelet), or perhaps was already long present (Job, Psalms, Proverbs). In this chapter, we have seen the interaction between Ben Sira’s textual and sociocultural spheres of operation looks like in action. In this case, on a theme increasingly popular in his time as seen in Jewish epitaphs from Palestine, Rome, and Egypt, the sociocultural sphere is at work, as is his attention to Hebrew texts about death and the body. These findings therefore show Ben Sira’s scribalism to be oriented towards textual reuse of the Hebrew Bible, to make use of literary models such as those in Job and Qohelet, and to display a lack of recognizable sources from outside the Hebrew corpus. There seems to be a distinct lack of effort to include non-Hebrew sources as overtly recognizable to the exclusion of all other possibilities. This may be to due to the tradition in which Ben Sira aims to place himself, as recently argued by Mroczek.201 Ben Sira’s creativity as a scribe presents itself in the selection of these texts, recognizing that death is written about in the Hebrew Bible and echoing it in his own composition, and in responding to popular concerns of his time.

201  Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 86–115.

Chapter 6

The Physician and Piety: Textual Reuse and Perspectives on Medicine Introduction Sir 38:1–15, Ben Sira’s Physician poem, addresses how piety affects the effectiveness of medicine.1 The themes of honour, piety, and wisdom are found throughout the poem. Ben Sira first states that physicians are honoured by both God and king (In Sir 38:1–8), declaring that all medical wisdom originates with God. Subsequently, he links one potential cause of illness with impiety and iniquity (Sir 38:9–15). In scholarship on ancient Jewish medicine, James L. Crenshaw, Martin Noth, Martin Hengel, Johannes Marböck, and R.K. Harrison state that Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism largely rejected medicine.2 In their studies, these scholars viewed almost all of ancient Jewish medicine as magic or mantic-magic medicine.3 Their view is mostly drawn from the belief that the Hebrew Bible is seen as having no medical literature or medical knowledge in it, except examples of folk medicine, which is understood as magical superstition, such as in the case of Essene medicine.4 The theory also stems from the Rabbinic interpretations of 2 Chr 16:12 and related biblical texts on healing, which are rather mixed at best, but overall saw medicine as a necessary evil.5 1  Medicine is defined here as any actions taken to prevent or cure illness, including prayer, magic, objects, ritual, prescribed food and drink, and herbal remedies. 2  Crenshaw, Education, 153n; 273. Martin Noth, Leviticus (London: SCM, 1977), 105. Johannes Marböck, “Sir 38,24–39,11: Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein Beitrag zur Gestalt und Lehre Ben Siras,” in La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Nouvelle édition mise à jour, ed. Maurice Gilbert, BETL 51 (Louvain, 1990), 293–316; 421–23. Hengel, Judaism, 1:207, 240–41; 2:162. R.K. Harrison, “Medicine,” IDB, 331–34. Harrison contrasts Ben Sira’s positive attitude to medicine with Ancient Israelite folk medicine which he describes as “superstition,” and includes for this argument Gen 30:31, 1 Kgs 1:1–4, Ps 121:6, and others passages in the Hebrew Bible. 3  See discussion below. 4  For example, Hengel, Judaism, 1:240–41. 5  Rabbinic attitudes to medicine are mixed. While we have the saying “the best of physicians can go to hell” (m. Kiddushin 4:14), there is also rabbinic justification of medicine through Ex 21:19, a law stating that the injurer of a person must pay for their doctor (Ibn Ezra,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_008

The Physician and Piety

187

The history of Ancient Israelite medicine is generally seen as murky folk superstitions and magic—no physicians or medical literature, nothing compared to Classical Greece or Ancient Egypt. Thus many scholars on Ben Sira have argued that the intended reader of Sir 38:1–15 did not trust medicine and needed be convinced of its effectiveness.6 Elias Bickerman argues that by Ben Sira’s time, these negative attitudes to medicine were changing, and that court physicians appeared in Judea beginning with the Macedonians. He sees Ben Sira’s positive attitudes to medicine as being entirely due to Hellenistic influence.7 However, by reminding his reader of the origins of medicine and prescribing sacrifice and repentance (Sir 38:9–12) before treatment, Ben Sira’s main concern is clear: impious people take medicine without first attending to their spiritual purity. A slightly more pragmatic reading is also possible—anyone with a tricky illness should turn to the priest as well as the doctor for good measure. Before Ben Sira, the scholars above argue, there was very little that could be called ancient Jewish medicine.8 Other studies by Walter Jacob, Joan Taylor, and Gideon Bohak help dispel this misconception. Jacob explores medical knowledge in the opaque periods of Ancient Israelite and Second Temple medicine, contextualizing herbs and materials in the Hebrew Bible with Near Eastern and Egyptian medical ingredients.9 To help complete the picture, Bohak corrects the unhelpful dichotomization of magic vs. rationality, while Taylor examines evidence of sophisticated medical plant production in the Dead Sea.10 These studies present a rich heritage of ancient Jewish medicine before and during Ben Sira’s time. Therefore, the entire dynamic of Ben Sira’s relationship On Exodus, 21:19). The most pragmatic expression is found in b. Berakhot 60a, that humans do not have a right to heal when it is the role of God, but that it is human custom to do so anyway. 6  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 441–43. Di Lella (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 441) comments, “Ben Sira probably had in mind those who on religious grounds refused or were reluctant to consult a physician in their illness” or “were sceptical of doctors,” an idea also found in Smend, Weisheit, 338–40. 7  Bickerman, Greek Age, 161. 8  Bickerman, Greek Age, 161. Harrison, “Medicine,” 331–34. 9  Walter Jacob, “Medicinal Plants of the Bible—Another View,” in The Healing Past: Pharmaceuticals in the Biblical and Rabbinic World, eds. Irene Jacob and Walter Jacob, SAM 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 27–46. See discussion below. 10  Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 37–41. Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 239–40; 304–40.

188

Chapter 6

with medicine and Hellenistic views on medicine deserves fresh scrutiny in light of these more recent studies on ancient Jewish medicine. Comparing Sir 38:1–15 with other sources of ancient medicine—Jewish and non-Jewish—will also help explain why the Physician poem is placed where it is in the text. The preceding poem, Sir 37:27–31, concerns gluttony’s effect on health, and the subsequent verses, 38:16–23, muse on death.11 Gluttony was seen in the ancient world as a cause of disease and illnesses. The progression from food, to illness, to death, is a natural one in Ben Sira’s terms and mirrors the content orders of ancient medical texts. This is a wider issue that will also be returned to later in this chapter. This chapter will explore Ben Sira’s textual reuse and sociocultural ideas in Sir 38:1–15, a poem that has no close literary precedent in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, Mesopotamian, or Greek sources. While it might be tempting to see Hellenism as the reason Ben Sira approves of medicine, no Greek or Hellenistic texts have been cited as textual precedents: medical poetry does not seem to be a genre. Therefore, at the outset we might hypothesize that textual reuse in Sir 38:1–15 is less concentrated, and predict that creativity of expression and sociocultural perspectives might play a larger role.

Primary Texts for Sir 38:1–15 Hebrew12

(VIIIr., l. 7)

‫כי‬ ‫מלכים‬

‫כחים‬ ‫בגבורתם׃‬

‫צרכך‬ 1 3‫֯גם אתו חלק אל׃‬ ‫צרכו‬ ֯ ‫֯רעי רופא לפני‬ 38:1 ‫ומאת מלך ישא משאות׃‬ ‫מאת אל יחכם רופא‬ 38:2 ‫דעת רוֿפא תרים ראשו ולפני נדי֯ בים יתיצב׃‬ 38:3 ‫שמים‬ ‫ברא‬ ‫מוציא תרופות וגבר מבין אל ימאס בם׃‬ ֯ ‫ אל מארץ‬ 38:4 ‫מעץ‬ :5 ‫כחו׃‬ ֯ ‫בעבור להודיע כל אנוש‬ ‫הלא ֯בעץ המתיקו מים‬ 38 ‫להתפאר בגבו֯ רתו׃‬ ‫ויתן לאנוש בינה‬ 38:6

11  John E. Rybolt, Sirach (Collegeville Bible Commentary: Old Testament 21; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1986), 80. 12  T.S. 16.312 (ms B VIIIr.) l. 7–18 to (VIIIv.) l. 1–3. This selection is the only use of B which does not come from MS.Heb.e.62 (Oxford) but from the Schechter-Taylor Genizah Research Unit (CUL). Images of B used come from: Schechter, Facsimiles; bensira.org (Copyright of CUL), and Friedberg Genizah Project. Note that ms B is the only Hebrew witness for Sir 38:1–15 apart from part of Sir 38:1 in ms D, Iv. (BAIU, Paris), which reads, …‫רעה רעוה רופא לפי‬. For ms D see Israel Lévi, “Fragments de deux nouveau manuscrits hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique,” REJ 40 (1900): 1–30. 13  Bmg: ‫רעה רועה רופא לפי צרכך כי גם אותו חלק אל‬. Above ‫ צרכך‬also in Bmg is ‫רעה‬.

189

The Physician and Piety

14‫רוקח עושה מרקחת׃‬ ֯ ‫וכן‬ ‫בהם רופא יניח מכאוב‬ 38:7 :8 ֯ ‫ ישכח ֿל ֿמען לא‬38 ‫אדם׃‬ ֯ ‫ותושיה ֯מ ֯בני‬ ‫ישֿבוֿ ֿת מעשהו‬ ‫התפלל אל אל כי הוא ירפא ׃ פלל‬ :9 ֯ 15‫בחולי אל תתעבר‬ ֯ ‫במחלה בני‬ 38 ‫ומכל פשעים טהר לב׃‬ ‫ומהכר פנים‬ ֯ ‫[ ֯סור מ]עול‬16 38:10 ‫ערך | הנך‬ :11 ‫ערוך בכנפי הוני֯ ך׃‬ ֯ ‫ודשן‬ ‫ אזכרתה [הגש ניחוח] אז֯ כרה‬38 ‫כ ֗ג ֗ב צרכיך׃‬  ֗ | ‫ֿגם ֿבוֿ ֿצוֿ רך׃ ואל ישמש מאח‬ ֿ ֿ‫ ֿכי‬17‫ולא ימוש‬ ֯ ‫וֿ ֿג[ם] ֿל[רפא ֯תן] מקום‬ 38:12 (VIIIv., l. 1) ‫ת כי גם הוא אל אל יעתיר׃‬ ‫מצלח‬ ֯ ‫ ֯כי יש עת אשר בידו‬18 38:13 :14 ‫ורפאות למען מחיה׃‬ 19‫יצלח לו פשרה‬ ֯ ‫ ימנה אשר‬38 ‫יסתוגר|על ידי‬ ‫לפני רופא׃‬ ֯ ‫יתגבר‬ ֯ ‫אשר חוטא לפני עושה ו‬ 38:15 ‫קרח‬

‫מבני| מפני | ארצו‬

Translation of Hebrew20 38:1ab Honour the physician before your need,21 Him also God apportioned. 38:2ab From the part of God, the physician becomes wise, And from the part of the king he carries his duties, : 38 3 The knowledge of the physician will exalt his head, and before nobility he will minister. 38:4ab God brings forth medicines from the earth, And the discerning man will not reject them. 38:5ab Did not the waters become sweet with wood? For the sake of making known to all of humanity His strength. 38:6ab And he gave to humanity discernment To glory in His might. 14  Ben-Ḥayyim, 39, lists Sir 38:7b as 38:8a on a separate line despite being in stichometric format on the same line in ms B. This is also done at Sir 38:13, where Ben-Ḥayyim lists Sir 38:13b as 38:14a. Same in Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, xliv. My transcription is based on the layout as found in ms B. 15  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, xliv, rightly suggests ‫תתעכר‬. Greek: μὴ παράβλεπε. 16  Bmg: ‫יסיר מ׳ ׀ והכר‬. Concerning ‫ מ׳‬here in Bmg, Schechter notes the copyist might have intended ‫( מוזר‬cf. Syriac). Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61. 17  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61, says this should read ‫( ימוש מאתך‬cf. Greek). 18  Bmg: ‫עת אשר בידו מ׳ | כי הוא אל אל יעתיר‬. 19  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61, suggests a connection with ‫ כום של פושרים‬of the Talmud, corresponding then with ‫( שקוי‬Prov 3:8). 20  With considerable consideration of the other versions. 21  Following Bmg, Peters, Liber Iesu, 86, and Smend, Hebräisch, 34. Compare Greek “before his need of his honorarium,” Latin necessitate, and Syriac “he is needed by you,” and Btext ‫צרכו‬. Thanks to James K. Aitken for noting that τιμαῖς may also mean honorarium, which explains the Greek αὐτοῦ.

190

Chapter 6

38:7ab By means of them22 the physician will give rest from pain And thus the perfumer makes unguents. : 38 8ab Therefore his work will not cease Nor efficacious counsel from the face of the earth.23 38:9ab My son, in sickness do not be negligent,24 Pray to God that He will heal, 38:10ab Depart from iniquity and cleanse the hands25 And of all transgressions, purify the heart. : 38 11ab [Bring a soothing-odour, ] a memorial-offering And fat arranged to the extent of your wealth.26 : 38 12ab And also [give] to [the physician] (his) place And let him not depart because (your) need is also in him, 38:13ab For there is a time in which success is in his hand, For also he will plead unto God, 38:14ab That he will succeed in diagnosis, And in medicine for the sake of the living. : 38 15ab Whoever is a sinner before his Maker Will be delivered into the hands of the physician.27 Greek 38:1 38:2 38:3

Τίμα ἰατρὸν πρὸς τὰς χρείας αὐτοῦ τιμαῖς αὐτοῦ,28 καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔκτισεν κύριος∙ παρὰ γὰρ ὑψίστου ἐστὶν ἴασις, καὶ παρὰ βασιλέως λήμψεται δόμα. ἐπιστήμη ἰατροῦ ἀνυψώσει κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔναντι μεγιστάνων θαυμασθήσεται.

22  That is, medicine. 23  Following “from the face of the earth” in the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions. Compare with Bmg “from the face of his earth.” All agree against Btext “from the sons of Adam.” 24  Agreeing with Schechter’s suggestion for ‫תתעכר‬, in the note on the Hebrew transcription above. 25  Following Bmg, Greek, Latin against Btext ‫ ומהכר פנים‬and Syriac “lying,” which is another scribal error in Btext as in Sir 38:8b. 26  For ‫ ודשן ערוך‬Segal and Ben-Ḥayyim read the imperative, which is also possible. Also, with thanks to Jeremy Corley, another translation of ‫ אל תתעבר‬would be “do not delay” (cf. Sir 5:7) or “do not be angry” (cf. Sir 16:8). 27  Agreeing with Bmg, ‫ סגר‬in a rare hithpael, Greek, Latin, and Syriac against Btext. The text of Sir 38:15b B reads: “will be bold/stubborn before the physician.” 28  Codex Sinaiticus ( f.177b) contains a paragraph marker at Sir 38:1 and crosses at Sir 38:3, 4.

191

The Physician and Piety

38:4 38:5 38:6 38:7 38:8 38:9 38:10 38:11 38:12 38:13 38:14 38:15

κύριος ἔκτισεν ἐκ γῆς φάρμακα, καὶ ἀνὴρ φρόνιμος οὐ προσοχθιεῖ αὐτοῖς. οὐκ ἀπὸ ξύλου ἐγλυκάνθη ὕδωρ εἰς τὸ γνωσθῆναι τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτοῦ; καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν ἀνθρώποις ἐπιστήμην ἐνδοξάζεσθαι ἐν τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ∙ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐθεράπευσεν καὶ ἦρεν τὸν πόνον αὐτοῦ, μυρεψὸς ἐν τούτοις ποιήσει μεῖγμα, καὶ οὐ μὴ συντελεσθῇ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰρήνη παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἐπὶ προσώπου τῆς γῆς. Τέκνον, ἐν ἀρρωστήματί σου μὴ παράβλεπε, ἀλλ᾽ εὖξαι κυρίῳ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἰασεταί σε∙ ἀπόστησον πλημμέλειαν καὶ εὔθυνον χεῖρας καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας καθάρισον καρδίαν∙ δὸς εὐωδίαν καὶ μνημόσυνον σεμιδάλεως καὶ λίπανον προσφορὰν ὡς μὴ ὑπάρχων. καὶ ἰατρῷ δὸς τόπον, καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔκτισεν κύριος, καὶ μὴ ἀποστήτω σου, καὶ γὰρ αὐτοῦ χρεία. ἔστιν καιρὸς ὅτε καὶ ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν εὐοδία∙ καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ κυρίου δεηθήσονται, ἵνα εὐοδώσῃ αὐτοῖςἀνάπαυσιν29 καὶ ἴασιν χάριν ἐμβιώσεως. ὁ ἁμαρτάνων ἔναντι τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὸν ἐμπέσοι εἰς χεῖρας ἰατροῦ. Latin

38:1 38:2 38:3 38:4 38:5

honora medicum propter necessitatem etenim illum creavit Altissimus a Deo est omnis medella et a rege accipiet dationem disciplina medici exaltabit caput illius et in conspectus magnatorum30 conlaudabitur Altissimus creavit de terra medicinam et vir prudens non abhorrebit illi nonne a ligno indulcata est amara aqua

29  Segal says this must be an error for ἀνάλυσιν. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 246. 30  Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, 198, corrects this to magnorum.

192

Chapter 6

38:6 ad agnitionem hominum virtutis illorum31 et dedit homini scientiam Altissimus honorari in mirabilibus suis 38:7 in his curans mitigavit dolorem et unguentarius facit pigmentum suavitatis et unctiones conficiet suavitatis et non consummabuntur opera eius 38:8 pax enim Dei super faciem terrae 38:9 fili in tua infirmitate non despicias sed ora ad Dominum et ipse curabit te 38:10 averte a delicto et dirige manus et ab omni delicto munda cor tuum 38:11 da suavitatem et memoriam similaginis et inpingua oblationem et da locum medico 38:12 etenim illum Dominus creavit et non discedat a te quoniam opera eius sunt necessaria 38:13 est enim tempus quando in manus eorum incurras 38:14 ipsi vero Dominum deprecabuntur ut dirigat requiem eorum et sanitatem propter conversationem illorum 38:15 qui delinquit in conspectus eius qui fecit eum incidat in manus medici Syriac32 ܿ :1 ‫ܡܢ ܩܕܡ‬38:2  .‫ܠܗ ܐܠܗܐ ܒܪܝܗܝ‬ ‫ܝܩܪ‬38 ܼ ܼ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܐܦ‬.‫ܐܣܝܐ ܥܕ ܠܐ ܢܬܒܥܐ ܠܟ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ‫ܡܢ ܬܪܥܝܬܗ ܕܐܣܝܐ‬38:3  .‫ܡܘܗܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܟܐ ܢܣܒ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܡܢ ̈ܡ‬.‫ܐܠܗܐ ܢܬܚܟܡ ܐܣܝܐ‬ ̈ : .‫ܐܠܗܐ ܡܢ ܐܪܥܐ ܒܪܐ ܣܡܡܢܐ‬38 4  ∙‫ܟܐ ܢܩܝܡܘܢܗ܀‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܩܕܡ ̈ܡ ܼܠ‬.‫ܢܪܡܪܡܘܢܗ‬ ̈ ܿ ܿ ‫ܒܝܕ ܩܝܣܐ ܓܝܪ ܚܠܝܘ ܡܝܐ ܡܪ‬38:5  .‫ܘܓܒܪܐ ܚܟܝܡܐ ܠܐ ܢܒܣܐ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ܿ ܿ :6  ‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܢܬܝܕܥ ܚܝܠܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬33.‫ܝܪܐ‬ ‫ܠܡܫܒܚܘ‬ .‫ܚܟܡܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܗܒ‬38 ܼ ̈ ܿ ̈ : ‫ܡܐ ܡܬܩܢ‬ ‫ܒܗܘܢ‬38:7  .‫ܒܓܒܖܘܬܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܐܦ ܒܣ‬38 8  .‫ܐܣܝܐ ܡܢܝܚ ܡܢ ܟܐܒܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܪܝ ܐܦ‬38:9  ∙‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܠܐ ܢܒܛܠ ܥܒܕܐ ܘܚܟܡܬܐ ܡܢ ܐܦܝ ܐܪܥܐ܀܀‬.‫ܒܣܡܡܢܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܢ‬.‫ܐܥܒܪ ܥܘܠܐ ܘܫܘܩܪܐ‬38:10  .‫ܒܡܪܥܟ ܿܨܠܐ ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܗܘܝܘ ܡܐܣܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܚܛܗܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܐܦ ܒܗ ܐܝܬ ܒܗ‬.‫ܠܐܣܝܐ ܗܒ ܐܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬38:12  .‫ܕܟܐ ܠܒܟ‬ ‫ܟܠ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ : : ‫ܕܢܨܠܐ ܩܕܡ‬38 14  .‫ܕܒܐܝܕܗ ܡܨܠܚܐ ܐܣܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܕܐܝܬ ܙܒܢܐ‬38 13  .‫ܗܢܝܢܐ‬ ܼ 31  Sir 38:5b Heb. 32   Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 218–20. Note that the numbering leaves out Sir 38:11, possibly to avoid Jewish ritual. See van Peursen, Language and Interpretation, 80. 33  The manuscript here (Codex Ambrosianus) is lacking a plural mark. Noted in: CalduchBenages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 219.

The Physician and Piety

193

ܿ ‫ܘܚ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬38:15  .‫ܝܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܐܬܐ ܐܣܝܘܬܐ‬.‫ܒܐܝܕܗ ܚܘܠܡܢܐ‬ ‫ ܘܢܬܩܢ‬.‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܒܐܝ‬ ܿ ̈ ܿ ‫ܕܡܢ‬ …‫ܠܐܝܕܝ ܐܣܝܐ‬ ‫ ܡܬܝܗܒ‬.‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܛܐ ܩܕܡ‬ ܼ

Textual Commentary on Sir 38:1–15

Sir 38:1 The first four lines of the Physician poem (Sir 38:1–4) praise the physician. In Sir 38:1a, the physician is to be honoured before the reader’s need of him, that is, before illness.34 In this context, ‫ רעה‬might refer to the ancient physician’s honorarium, payment before treatment (τιμή) in Sir 38:2 (Greek). The unusual use of ‫ רעה‬creates alliteration with ‫רופא‬.35 Honour is given other humans in Sir 7:31, 10:24, and to patriarchs in Sir 44:7. In Sir 38:1b, ‫ חלק אל‬seems to be drawn from Qohelet and Job.36 The phrase ‫ חלק אל‬occurs three times total in the extant Hebrew of Ben Sira, and one case of ‫חלק עליון‬.37 Ben Sira also refers to the mortal portion of days in Sir 17:2; 37:25–26; 41:13.38 The portion of days is expressed in Qoh 9:9 as ‫כל ימי הבלך כי‬ ‫הוא חלקך‬.39 Job 31:2 has ‫חלק אלוה‬, and a repeated refrain of Job is about how unfair is his mortal ‫ חלק‬from above. In sum, Ben Sira’s ‫ חלק אל‬is a concept known from Hebrew wisdom literature and not a quotation of one source alone.

34  The term ‫ צ ֶֹרך‬increases in use in LBH (for example 11QT 47:9) and Rabbinic Hebrew. The word is found only once in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Chr 2:15. DCH 7:162. Ben-Ḥayyim, 264–65. Jastrow, 1302–3. 35  Here the meaning of ‫ רעה‬is the qal III meaning (BDB, 953), derived from ‫רצה‬, and one exception to the qal I in Hos 12:2 gives the meaning of ‫ רעה‬as “honour” rather than befriend. Jastrow, 1486, reports ‫ רעה‬as both “tend a flock” and “to befriend.” Most cases in Ben Sira’s vocabulary use the “befriend” meaning of ‫רעה‬, and this is the only exception. Ben-Ḥayyim, 280–81. The Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions all support the reading of “honour.” The context also supports this meaning. Another possibility is that the Hebrew should read ‫צרך‬, as in “your time of distress (‫) ַצר‬.” 36  Compare the Hebrew ‫ חלק אל‬to the Syriac: “God created” and Greek: “the Lord created.” 37  The phrase ‫ חלק אל‬is found in Sir 16:16 (A) and Sir 34:13 (Bmg), and ‫ חלק עליון‬in Sir 40:1 (B). Ben-Ḥayyim, 142–43. 38  Ben-Ḥayyim, 143. 39  Cf. Sir 17:2; 37:25–26; 41:13. Qohelet 9 is unfortunately not extant in 4QQoha; making it impossible to determine if a possible textual variant in Qohelet 9 (or Job 31:2 which is also not extant in the Qumran scrolls) could explain the expression of Ben Sira. Regardless, the phrase is common enough in Classical Hebrew.

194

Chapter 6

Sir 38:2 It is significant that the verb ‫ חכם‬is found in Sir 38:2, since wisdom is linked to the knowledge of physicians. One of the aims of advanced scribal education is to learn wisdom,40 so attributing wisdom to physicians makes a powerful claim. John E. Rybolt argues that the reasons to consult the physician are dual: sacred and secular.41 Yet, we might argue instead that Ben Sira might not have seen a distinction between the two. He might not be giving two separate reasons but encompassing the secular reason within the sacred. The word ‫ משאות‬in its LBH meaning is a general duty or a burden, while its later meaning in Rabbinic Hebrew is specifically worldly affairs and worldly burdens. In Gen 43:34, ‫ משאות‬is Benjamin’s food portion from Joseph (μερίς in LXX)—given to him when Joseph is second in power in Egypt, and in 2 Sam 11:8 King David’s gift to Uriah’s house is referred to as ‫( משאות המלך‬ἄρσις in LXX).42 In Sir 38:2, ‫ משאות‬is likewise from someone in a position of power. The ̈ Greek δόμα, Latin dationem, and Syriac ‫ܡܘܗܒܬܐ‬ all agree with the meaning of ‫משאות‬in Sir 38:2 as gift, that is a payment or stipend, not a duty or burden as in LBH. The context of rulers in Sir 38:2–3 (the king in 38:2 and nobility in 38:3) indicates that ‫ משאות‬implies royal or high-status clientele for the physician.43 Sir 38:1–2 so far demonstrates high status, divine endorsement, and wisdom for the physician. Finally, another indication from Sir 38:2 is that it might have been costly to go to the physician in Ben Sira’s time.

40  Sir 38:24–39:11; 51:23–30. 41  Rybolt, Sirach, 80. 42  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 18. Schechter notes Gen 43:34 and 2 Sam 11:8. Also in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 441. 43  The phrasing of Sir 38:2, ‫ישא משאות‬, consists of two words both from the root ‫נׂשא‬. It is also unusual that Ben Sira only uses ‫ נׂשא‬one other time in the extant Hebrew at Sir 4:21 (shame “carries” iniquity). Despite these two considerations, which normally indicate quotation, the contexts of these passages are so unrelated that is unlikely they are cited specifically. In the other versions, the Hebrew wordplay (verb and noun from the same ܿ In all versions, however, the sense of Sir 38:2 is that root) is lost: λήμψεται | accipiet | ‫ܢܣܒ‬. the physician gets medical learning from God and is under royal and aristocratic patronage. The ‫ נדיבים‬in Sir 38:3 are in Bmg ‫ מלכים‬and Syriac ‫ܟܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܡ ܼܠ‬,̈ but the Greek has μεγιστάνων and Latin magnatorum.

The Physician and Piety

195

Sir 38:3 Sir 38:3 contains another example of alliteration with the sequence ‫רופא תרים‬ ‫ראשו‬.44 The opening words ‫ דעת רופא‬recall ‫ רופא יחכם‬in Sir 38:2, further cementing the theme that the physician is wise and learned.45 In addition to being wise, the physician is in service to nobility,46 much like in Mesopotamia (the physician in The Tale of the Poor Man in Nippur), and Egypt (the archaeological evidence of Egyptian physicians who served in courts and held court titles). Markham Geller tracks the rise of the foreign courtly physician, from Greece or Egypt, in the Achaemenid Persian royal court, a shift which he theorizes might have contributed to the decline and disappearance of the Mesopotamian asûtu physician.47 By Imperial Roman times, the courtly physician was far less common, since most physicians in the Roman world were Greek slaves—Galen being an exception as the physician of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.48 In Ben Sira’s time, though, the physician still held a high value and occupied places at court in the Mediterranean world. In Ptolemaic Egypt, for example, physicians had a high status in the Museion of Alexandria (see below). While there is not a clear textual quotation in Sir 38:3, there are linguistic clues about Ben Sira’s views on the status of physicians in Ptolemaic or Seleucid Jerusalem. Ben Sira’s other uses of ‫( יצב‬found in Sir 38:3 in the form of ‫ )יתיצב‬show that the verb has a strongly court meaning for him. In Sir 8:8, ‫ ׂשרים‬are ministered to (‫ ;)יצב‬in Sir 11:1, the humble person’s wisdom will lift up their head and seat them among the ‫נדיבים‬. This sentiment is very similar to the physician raising their head and ministering to the nobility in Sir 38:3.49 Sir 8:8 and 11:1 both advise on court behaviour. This context places the physician in Sir 38:3 solidly in a court setting. In effect, Ben Sira praises court physicians, the type Ben Sira and his prospective scribal reader would have most likely encountered, rather than local self-employed physicians or midwives who might not be associated with the court. Ben Sira’s attention to the court-physician sheds light on Ben Sira’s social class and his expectations of his intended audience. 44  The root of ‫ תרים‬is ‫רום‬. 45  The phrase ‫ דעת רופא‬is unattested elsewhere in BH or LBH. 46  The verb ‫ יצב‬is combined with ‫ לפני‬in BH (for example Gen 50:2) and LBH (1QS 11:16, 1QH 11.13) to mean “to stand before,” meaning to present oneself to or to minister to someone in their court. 47  Markham J. Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine (London: Blackwell, 2010), 126–29. 48  Sanders, Demotic, 82, compares the bee in Sir 11:3 to P. Insinger 25:2. 49  Other uses of “noble” ‫ נביד‬include Sir 7:6; 8:2,4; 13:9.

196

Chapter 6

The Greek (“in the presence of the great he will be wondered at”) and Syriac (“for his opinion they will exalt the physician”) both read that the physician has honour in the presence of nobles, but the Hebrew emphasizes that physicians should be honoured because they serve nobles.50 The Greek is perhaps an interpretation of “standing before” without the full force of the Hebrew combination ‫יצב לפני‬, which indicates an act of service. Thus far, Sir 38:1–3 has not demonstrated any concentration of textual reuse. Rather, these verses provide an insight into Ben Sira’s historical context. Sir 38:4 The word ‫( תרופות‬medicine) is found only once in the Hebrew Bible at Ezek 47:12. Whether Ben Sira’s use of this word suggests textual reuse might depend on the context of Ezek 47:12.51 Ezekiel 47 is the vision of the river flowing from the Temple and the division of the land. In Ezek 47:12, trees grow up around the riverbanks with fruit for eating and leaves for medicine. In both Ezek 47:12 and Exod 15:25 (see below on Sir 38:5), water plays a strong role in healing, which is significant since healing waters are a feature mentioned in Greek literature such as Herodotus (see below). Later in the Physician poem, Sir 38:14 mentions ‫רפאות‬, the more common word for medicine in Biblical, Late Biblical, and Rabbinic Hebrew. Caution should be taken in determining whether the choice of ‫ תרופות‬over its alternative ‫ רפאות‬bears any meaning. The more common word for medicine ‫ רפאות‬is found several times in the Hebrew Bible.52 In Ezek 30:21 and Jer 30:13; 46:11, medicine is found in curses and proclamations of doom. Conversely, the vision in Ezekiel 47 centres on the river with its trees of vitality, which is more suitable for Ben Sira’s tone about medicine being a gift from above. Therefore, it might be that ‫ תרופות‬evokes a sense of the promise in Ezek 47:12. For the phrase ‫מארץ מוציא‬, Segal refers to Gen 1:12 in which God brings forth plants from the earth.53 By comparison, however, Ezekiel 47 is a stronger case for textual reuse; alternatively though, a general concept of God’s creative powers would make better sense in lieu of attaching too much weight to Gen 1:12.

50  Instead of “serve,” the Greek has θαυμασθήσεται (Latin conlaudabitur), while the Syriac reads “before kings he will be given a place.” Syriac translation from Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Sabiduría, 218. 51  There are no examples of ‫ תרופות‬in other extant Second Temple sources. 52  Although in Modern Hebrew ‫ תרופה‬is more common than ‫רפואה‬. 53  Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 245. The similarity to the blessing for bread is likewise because of Gen 1:12.

The Physician and Piety

197

Sanders argues that Sir 38:4 is reminiscent of P. Insinger 24:2 and 32:12.54 P. Insinger 24:2 reads, “Do not slight a small illness for which there is a remedy; use the remedy.” However, while this seems striking on its own, the line is within a list of small things not to slight, including small gods and small scarabs.55 In this case, the advice to take medicine cannot be narrowed down to P. Insinger or even to Egyptian Demotic wisdom alone. As Matthew Goff argues, such parallels should be seen as emerging from common wisdom thought and not from direct dependence.56 The other claimed parallel, P. Insinger 32:12, reads, “He [the god] created remedies to end illness, wine to end affliction.” The context of P. Insinger 32:12 is likewise not in a series of sayings about medicine or healing. Instead, it is a single line on healing plants within the 24th Instruction, which is about the creation of things useful for humans to survive.57 Without sustained quotation and textual reuse, however, it is difficult to argue for influence as Sanders does.58 Similarity of advice is simply not enough unless it is so specific and unusual and traceable to a single origin. General advice to take medicine found in the wisdom literature of two civilizations—Ben Sira’s Judea and Egypt— in which medicine was made and which possessed a profession of physicians, is not compelling evidence of direct parallels. The view that medicine came from divine origins was shared in the ancient world, alongside the idea that some illnesses had divine causes.59 Furthermore, the case of textual reuse of 54  Sanders, Demotic, 75. Also in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 441. Sanders cites Paul Humbert, Recherches sur les sources égyptiennes de la littérature sapientiale d’Israël (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1929), 138–39. 55  Text of P. Insinger from Lichtheim, Egyptian, 3:204; 210. For discussion of P. Insinger, see Miriam Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context (Freiburg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1983), 107–234. 56  Matthew J. Goff, “Ben Sira and Papyrus Insinger,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1 Thematic Studies, eds. C.A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 64 (54–64). 57  The 24th Instruction does not resemble Ben Sira’s Hymn of Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33), either, because it lists concerns of humans and society like water, wealth, work, social status, dreams, and other earthly concerns rather than Ben Sira’s list of sun, moon, stars, and weather phenomena. Besides this, Lichtheim says P. Insinger is datable (in ms) only to the first century ce and determined to have been written in the “latter part of the Ptolemaic period.” Lichtheim, Egyptian, 3:184. 58  Both societies also had similar beliefs in the divine gift of medicinal plants and medicinal knowledge to humankind: in Egypt, it was Thoth. In Jubilees, it is the angels who teach Noah medicine. 59  For example, 1 En. 7:1, 8:3. For the rest of the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, see discussion below.

198

Chapter 6

P. Insinger in Sir 38:4 is also weak because there are stronger correlations with the Hebrew Bible: in this case, with Gen 1:12 and Ezek 47:12, both of which share a common perspective about medicine being a divine gift. Finally, the ‫ גבר מבין‬in Sir 38:4 is matched by the echoes of ‫ בינה‬and ‫בגבורתו‬ in Sir 38:6.60 The choice of ‫ מבין‬might reflect semantic variation, since Ben Sira has already used ‫ חכם‬and ‫דעת‬.61 The poetic repetition and variation of words occur throughout Sir 38:1–15. Sir 38:5 Sir 38:5a reads that God sweetened waters with wood, which refers to the miracle of water in Exod 15:25. This line has been argued by many as a quotation in Sir 38:5.62 It is the first clear interspersed quotation in the Physician poem. It is also the largest quotation (three words) in the Physician poem. The miracle in Exod 15:25 by itself is not explicitly a healing miracle, but one of water for thirst in the desert. Yet it is the mention of God as Healer in Exod 15:26—the only title of God as Healer in the Hebrew Bible—that makes Exod 15:25 the most appropriate miracle for Ben Sira to quote. Sir 38:5 is perhaps the first known quotation and interpretation of Exod 15:25 as a medicinal miracle. Sir 38:5a shares three words with Exod 15:25: ‫מתק‬, ‫עץ‬, and ‫מים‬, as shown in the table below. Sir 38:5a compared with Exod 15:25 Sir 38:5a (Btext)

‫הלא ב֯ עץ המתיקו מים‬

Exod 15:25 (MT)a

‫ויצעק אל־יי ויורהו יי עץ וישלך אל־המים וימתקו‬ ‫המים שם שם לו חק ומשפט ושם נסהו׃‬

a Exod 15:25 does not survive in the Dead Sea Scrolls witnesses of Exodus for comparison.

60  The phrase ‫ גבר מבין‬is not found in the Hebrew Bible or LBH, and only once here in Ben Sira. Alternatively, the phrase ‫ גבר חכם‬is found in the Hebrew Bible (Job 34:34; Prov 24:5; Ps 18:26), as well as ‫איש חכם‬. The combination is always with ‫ חכם‬rather than ‫מבין‬. The noun ‫ מבין‬is common in wisdom literature (for example Prov 17:10, 24). The phrase in Ben Sira here is a variation on ‫מבין‬, ‫גבר חכם‬, or ‫איש חכם‬. 61  Note also Sir 10:25. 62  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 441–42. Middendorp, Stellung, 59. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 246. Smend, Weisheit, 339.

The Physician and Piety

199

Ben Sira is the first extant quotation of this passage in Second Temple texts. In later times, Exod 15:25–26 became important in Rabbinic Judaism. Thus, Ben Sira is also evidence that the verses have had a long continuous use in Jewish biblical interpretation.63 In Ben Sira’s time, these verses may have been in use by Jewish physicians or priests within liturgy for healing, such as in the rituals found in Leviticus 13–15, discussed below. Furthermore, we might also consider the use of wood as an ingredient in Greek and Mesopotamian medical recipes. We could also remember that Judea was an exporter of numerous types of wood highly valued in antiquity for their medical properties: frankincense, myrrh, balsam, and date palm.64 Sir 38:6 Both the ‫( גבר‬Sir 38:5) and ‫( אנוש‬Sir 38:6) are the recipients of the gifts of medicine and knowledge of medicine.65 Ben Sira’s terminology is universal, especially in comparison to Jubilees 5, which limits the gift of medical knowledge to Noah. God’s power in Sir 38:5b, ‫בעבור להודיע כל אנוש כחו‬, is thus also for all humans to see, not just Jews. Despite the miracle in Ex 15:25 being witnessed only by the Israelites in the wilderness, Ben Sira’s interpretation of the passage applies it to all of humankind. As mentioned above, ‫ בינה‬and ‫ בגבורתו‬reflect ‫ גבר מבין‬in Sir 38:4. Moreover, ‫ אנוש‬appears in both Sir 38:5 and 38:6. Hence there is a substantial repetition of phrasing: ‫מבין‬/‫ בינה‬in v.4, 6, ‫בגבורתו‬/‫ גבר‬in v.4, 6 and ‫אנוש‬/‫ אנוש‬in v.5, 6.66 Discernment (‫ )בינה‬in Sir 38:6 is the third wisdom word in the poem, in which the theme of wisdom is strong. The physician’s skill is wisdom and knowledge, and likewise the use of medicine is the natural conclusion of the ‫גבר מבין‬. With this line, Ben Sira again impresses that God gave the discernment, ‫בינה‬, to glorify His mighty works, namely, the medical miracle of Exod 15:25. Thus far, a strong theme of wisdom unifies the poem, which will continue in the next few lines. 63  Bohak, Magic, 299. 64  Discussed in a recent paper presented to the EABS Medicine in Bible and Talmud section at EABS/ISBL 7–11 August 2017 in Berlin. Lindsey A. Askin, “The Hand That Feeds You: Reassessing Second Temple Attitudes to Medicine through Ben Sira and the Cost of Ingredients.” 65  In Sir 38:6 the Greek ἐν τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ and Latin mirabilibus suis differ from the Hebrew and Syriac. This is most likely due to a misreading of the Hebrew ‫ גבורתו‬for ‫( גבהותו‬from ‫גבה‬, “wonder”). Since the Syriac has “His might” as well, the scribal error may have been within the Hebrew copy it used or in transmission. 66  Schechter identifies wordplay in Sir 38:6–7 between the words ‫ רופא‬and ‫להתפאר‬. Earlier in Sir 38:2 is a much stronger example of wordplay with ‫ישא משאות‬.

200

Chapter 6

Sir 38:7 Ben Sira states in Sir 38:7 that medical wisdom and medicine are both gifts from God, strengthening medicine’s dependence upon God.67 This statement comes to its climax with Sir 38:12–15, which stresses how the physician’s success is also dependent on God. Ben Sira’s emerging argument is that everything in medicine begins and ends with God. The main problem of this line in Ben Sira scholarship is that ‫ רוקח‬is translated as apothecary, druggist, or pharmacist, severing the link with the word’s context in the Hebrew Bible.68 In the Hebrew Bible, the ‫רקח‬/‫( רוקח‬perfumer) and ‫( מרקחת‬unguents, ointments, or perfume) are firmly associated with the Temple. Perfumers are found preparing products and oils for different liturgical needs: funerary, sacrificial, and anointing rituals.69 Furthermore, in the other versions of Ben Sira, the μύρεψος, unguentarius, ܿ are not strictly pharmacists or druggists, but unguent makers or and ‫ܡܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܣ‬ perfumers.70 If the ‫ רוקח‬by Ben Sira’s time or his grandson’s time implied a profession limited to the manufacture of medical products, not a perfumer who also made drugs, perhaps a word like μιγματοπώλης or φαρμακοπώλης 67  Schechter and Segal note there is a rabbinic quotation of this line in Gen. Rab. 10. Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 246. Solomon Schechter, “The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature,” JQR 3 (1890–91): 693 (682–706). Jenny R. Labendz, “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature,” AJS Review 30:2 (2006): 373–74 (347–92). 68  Pharmacist: RSV; NRSV; Skehan and DiLella, 438. Apothecary/pharmacist/chemist: DCH 7:552. Druggist: NAB. “Der Apotheker”: Smend, Hebräisch, 65; apothecary: Gary A. Rendsburg and Jacob Binstein, bensira.org; druggist/apothecary: Jastrow, 1496. Out of interest, CEB has “those who prepare ointments,” and the Wycliffe Bible “ointment-maker.” In all cases it is clear that these English versions of Ben Sira, as well as the scholarly translations, make a distinction between Ben Sira’s ‫ רוקח‬and any ‫ רוקח‬in the Hebrew Bible. 69  For example, Exod 30:25 mentions a ‫רקח מרקחת‬, a “blend of ointment” for the Temple. In Exod 30:33 the ‫ רוקח‬is a perfumer who makes the Temple anointing oil. 2 Chr 16:14 refers to spices “blended by the perfumers’ work” (‫ )מרקחים במרקחת מעשה‬for funerary preparations. Isa 57:9 refers to perfumes for Temple sacrifice. Perfumers are also in Qoh 10:1 making oil, Neh 3:8 as a profession, and in 1 Sam 8:13 there are female perfumers. Exod 30:33 is referenced in Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 246. 70  As noted, some translations have “pharmacist.” Further, the Greek version’s μύρεψος is a maker of perfumes and unguents (skin products). The Greek version clarifies by μεῖγμα “mixture,” meaning drugs, perfumes, or pigments. The ‫ רוקח‬and the μύρεψος made balms for healing (ointments and unguents) as well as spices, oils, and perfumes for a variety of purposes: sacrificial, funerary, and dermal. Likewise, the Latin unctiones and Syriac ̈ ‫ܒܣܡܡܢܐ‬ also have similar varied meanings to μεῖγμα.

The Physician and Piety

201

would have been used in the Greek version. Therefore, while the ‫( רוקח‬and the μύρεψος) might make products for medicinal purposes, they are still primarily known as ointment-makers or perfumers with a variety of ritual-centred applications. In other words, the ancient perfumer made healing remedies and ritual products. The primary place of the ‫ רוקח‬in Biblical Hebrew is in sacrificial and funerary contexts. This predominance could indicate a Temple environment for the ‫רוקח‬, in addition to the ‫רופא‬. Therefore, the perfumer and the physician both might have very respected work locations in the Temple, perhaps set up in market areas on the Temple Mount, much like the same practices evidenced in Near Eastern and Mediterranean temples, which housed schools, markets, and famously bankers’ tables (Matt 21:12–13; John 2:15). Ben Sira’s attention is focused on the Temple in Jerusalem. For him ointment-making is not a separate profession, nor is it distant from the Temple hub, but it is part of the job of a provider of spices and plants, minerals, oils, and compounds. The perfumer’s range of applications is also clear because many of the same spices and oils that were used for funerary, sacrificial, and anointment rituals were also used for medicine. Frankincense was used to treat a variety of illnesses in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. As Jacob writes, frankincense was used medically for many ailments: The various species are not distinguished medically. Internally, it served to help with stomach problems, as a purgative, as a stimulus to take food, to treat liver and bladder ailments, for coughs, worms, poison, skin diseases, pains in the arms, sores, and to stimulate menstruation. Externally … for stiffness, pain in the legs, demons, pus, stomach problems, pressure in ear, body odor and to stimulate birth … various diseases of the eyes, as well as toothaches and tongue problems … infection of the birth canal.71 The perfumer used the same ingredients for whichever application was needed. In the perfumer’s case, there might have been little distinction between the application or ingestion of medical products and that of funerary, anointing, and sacrificial products, since the administration of medical drugs could have involved rituals too, such as those described in Leviticus 13–14. These rituals might have been difficult to distinguish at times since, as Geller writes, the most effective method of administration of drugs in ancient Babylonia was 71  Jacob, “Medicinal Plants of the Bible,” 35.

202

Chapter 6

through fumigation, i.e. the concentrated burning or incensing of dry wood together with a compound of aromatic substances.72 The physician is able to give actual pain relief, which is a good indication of the efficacy of medicine in Ben Sira’s day.73 Sir 38:7 also indicates that the place of patient treatment would have been within the Temple, and that perhaps there was a strong working relationship between physician and perfumer, especially since the ancient perfumer made a variety of unguents (skin products). Skin diseases were a common medical ailment in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, which helps explain the prominence of skin ailments in Leviticus 13–14.74 Sir 38:8 In Sir 38:8, the theme of divine wisdom is returned to a fourth time. This is Ben Sira’s only use of the word ‫ תושיה‬in the extant Hebrew, and its use here is similar to the passages in the Hebrew Bible that refer to God’s gift of ‫ תושיה‬to humanity, or to God’s supply of ‫תושיה‬.75 In effect, Sir 38:8 says that the physician’s (and thus the perfumer’s) work will never cease, meaning illness will never end, but fortunately the divine wisdom that enables medicinal knowledge will never cease either. The continuity of medical knowledge is dependent upon God’s wise counsel. Ben Sira concludes his advice on the divine origin of medicine (Sir 38:1–8). He next turns to the patient’s and the physician’s dependence upon God for healing through piety, sacrifice, and prayer (Sir 38:9–15). He firmly roots all medicine and healing in God in two key ways: the wisdom of the physician (Sir 38:1–8) and the piety of the patient (Sir 38:9–15). Sir 38:9 Moving onto Sir 38:9, Ben Sira advises the reader to pray first for healing from God.76 With Sir 38:9–15, Ben Sira shows how wisdom and prayer go hand in hand with healing. The defined line of action takes the following order: prayer, cleansing of sin, and sacrifice (Sir 38:10–11), before finally seeking the physician 72  Geller, Babylonian, 20; 127. 73  Ben Sira refers to the physician giving relief from pain using a combination of words (‫ )יניח מכאב‬not found in extant Dead Sea literature or the Hebrew Bible. 74  Robert D. Biggs, “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 19:1 (2005): 8 (1–19). 75  Wisdom gives it to humanity in Prov 8:14, God has a supply of ‫ תושיה‬in Prov 2:7 (storing it), and Job 12:16 God has power and ‫תושיה‬. The word ‫ תושיה‬is also in Job, and in Dead Sea literary texts (1QS 10:24, 11:6; 4QTime 1.2, 11; CD 2:3). DCH 8:617. 76  See notes above: Schechter argues it should read ‫ תתעכר‬not ‫תתעבר‬.

The Physician and Piety

203

(Sir 38:12–13), who will also pray (Sir 38:12–15).77 Still, Sir 38:1 and 38:12 give advice to seek the physician, which makes it clear that Ben Sira strongly supports both: he believes firmly in a cause of illness being iniquity (and therefore healing through sacrifice and upright behaviour), but he also defends the inherent efficacy of drugs. The language of this line stresses supplication and pleading for deliverance in prayer, such as for cases where iniquity causes illness.78 The “problem” of the poem, therefore, cannot be simply that the patient does not use medicine at all. Rather, the patient’s problem is the state of piety before taking medicine, which Ben Sira believes to have an effect on the efficacy of medicine taken. Once again, this marks out the same key theme: the importance of the patient’s piety in addition to the physician’s wisdom. Alternatively, as mentioned above, Ben Sira might be echoing a pragmatic sociocultural sentiment of his time that involves providing for both human and non-human causes of illness by covering all of one’s bases, so to speak, and visiting the priest as well as the physician. Sir 38:10 Ben Sira agrees with the Deuteronomistic view of medicine’s causes in Sir 38:10. Skehan and Di Lella refer to illness being a punishment from God in Deut 28:21–29 and Prov 3:7–8.79 Sir 38:10 reads ‫]סור מ]עול‬, which echoes a phrase in Prov 3:7, ‫סור מרע‬. Skehan and Di Lella are therefore right in directing attention to Prov 3:7–8, perhaps more than Deut 28:21–29. Here Ben Sira’s ‫ ]סור מ]עול‬is a case of synonymous quotation or echoing of Prov 3:7–8. In this regard, he would not be at all different from beliefs in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, or pre-Hellenistic Greece. The question is whether Ben Sira thinks that the only cause of illness is iniquity. The recommendation to sacrifice before visiting the physician shows that piety alone does not cure illness; hence, Ben Sira’s cause of illness cannot only be punishment from God for iniquity.

77  See below discussion for more information about the medical “line of action” in Hippocratic medicine. Note also that “pray to God” in Sir 38:9b can be compared with Hezekiah’s prayer for his illness in 2 Chr 32:24. 78  The language’s context is for healing: Phinehas stands up and pleads with God to intervene, and thus the plague was restrained. The word ‫ פלל‬is sometimes used for healing, but also for deliverance and other problems (Gen 20:17). BDB, 813. The syntax of ‫אל אל‬, “unto God,” is found again in Sir 38:13b, with another verb meaning to supplicate, ‫עתר‬ (Sir 38:13b: ‫)כי גם אל אל יעתיר‬. Schechter cites Ps 106:30 for the form of ‫ התפלל‬here. Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61. This same verse Ps 106:30 is quoted in Sir 45:23d with Ps 106:23 (see Chapter Two). 79  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 442.

204

Chapter 6

The meaning of Sir 38:10 requires detailed unpacking owing to the problems presented by ms B when compared to the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions. First, ‫ומהכר כפים‬, as it has been reconstructed (‫ כפים‬instead of ‫ )פנים‬by Schechter, Segal, and Smend.80 There might be a second underlying error, since if the phrase were ‫הבר כפים‬, “to purify/clean one’s hands,” it would agree with the Greek version and make more sense in the context of moral purity (‫ טהר לב‬in 10b).81 It might also be the case that Bmg, ‫והכר‬, could easily be ‫ותבר‬. Thus, the Hebrew should be reconstructed as ‫ותבר כפים‬. A further reason we should reconstruct ‫ ותבר כפים‬is seen in the second half of the line (Sir 38:10b), which is reminiscent of the “clean hands and a pure heart” (‫ )נקי כפים ובר־לבב‬in Ps 24:4. Furthermore, the word ‫ כפים‬is found four other times in Ben Sira (Sir 38:10; 40:14; 48:20; ‫ כפי‬in 51:20), while there are dozens of cases of ‫ידים‬.82 Ben Sira uses ‫ כפים‬always in the context of prayer and liturgy: Sir 40:14 (of a generous man); 48:20 (Israelites); 51:20 (Simon). Therefore Sir 38:10 might be either a direct textual quotation, or an example of Ben Sira’s familiarity with psalms language, as seen in the rest of his text.83 Sir 38:10 compared with Ps 24:4 Sir 38:10 (reconstructed)

Ps 24:4

‫[סור מ]עול והבר כפים ומכל פשעים‬ ‫טהר לב‬

‫נקי כפים ובר־לבב אשר לא־נשא לשוא‬ ‫נפשי ולא נשבע למרמה׃‬

80  Schechter and Segal both recognized that ‫ פנים‬in 10a should read ‫כפים‬. Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 18; 61. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 246. Smend, Weisheit, 340. 81  This is entirely possible since the Greek and Latin reflect “straighten/correct” which is one of the senses of ‫ברר‬. The range of meaning of ‫ ברר‬may be: to examine, purify, clean, or select (BDB, 140–41). 82  Ben-Ḥayyim, 153–54; 179. 83  The other phrase found in Ps 24:4, is “purity of the heart.” Sir 38:10 is the only mention of ‫ לב טהר‬in Ben Sira, while ‫ טהרה‬alone is in Sir 51:20 (Simon) and Sir 43:1 (“purity” of the shape of the world). However, Ps 24:4 is not the only place “purity of heart” is found: see ‫ טהור־לב‬in Prov 22:11, ‫ לבי טהרתי‬in Prov 20:9, and ‫ טהרה לבב‬in 2 Chr 30:19. 2 Chr 30:19 concerns purification rites (‫ )טהרה‬in the Temple, as in Neh 12:45 or Leviticus 13–15. For similarities between Leviticus 13–15 and Egyptian and Mesopotamian medical texts, see below.

The Physician and Piety

205

The phrase “pure heart” is found in the literature of Qumran, for example 4Q436 1.10.84 The central issue behind the use of psalms language in this line, however, is the fact he is using psalms phrases to describe how to heal oneself of illness. The use of Psalms phrasing thus stresses the centrality of liturgy and prayer for the effectiveness of medicine in Ben Sira’s day. Sir 38:11 Ben Sira makes prayer his first priority with respect to actions taken for healing (Sir 38:10). Sacrifice follows shortly after (Sir 38:11). Segal’s reconstruction of Sir 38:11 agrees with the Greek and Latin versions, though we could argue that by looking at B more closely, ‫ ערוך‬has been incorrectly read by scholars as ‫ערון‬.85 The practice referred to by Ben Sira in this verse is a burnt-offering for a soothing-odour (as in Leviticus 2).86 The ‫ אזכרתה‬of flour for a soothingodour, ‫( ניחח‬Lev 2:2, 9), includes oil and frankincense (2:1, 4–7, 15; 24:7). The Hebrew of Sir 38:11 does not explicitly specify flour, but the Greek and Latin do. Meat-offerings are also for a soothing-odour, but the addition of oil (Sir 38:11b) indicates it would be flour. The Temple flour-offering could also be a form of payment if the physician is also a priest, since only some of the flour-cakes are burnt (Lev 2:3; 24:5–9). Sir 35:2 also mentions the grain offering, as Sirach 35 describes how right mentality and piety are necessary for efficacious sacrifice and prayer (Sir 35:2, 7, 16; compare Isa 1:11–17). Ben Sira repeats this idea several times in Sir 38:9–15. 84  Also in first-century ce Judea in the Beatitudes (Matt 5:8). For Qumran, this is 4Q525 3.2.1, “Blessed is he who walks with a pure heart.” For Matt 5:8 and 4Q525 3.2.1 see: Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 95. DCH 4:504 (‫ לב‬and adjectives). Part of this phrase became part of the Amidah: ‫וטהר לבנו לעבדך באמת‬. 85  Ben-Ḥayyim and Beentjes transcribe this word as ‫ערון‬, as if it is a scribal error for ‫ערוך‬, but I argue that the ‫ ן‬in Btext appears to be a ‫ך‬. Schechter transcribes Btext here as ‫ערוך‬. The reading ‫ ערוך‬is found in Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 243; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 442. Btext looks unclear but actually reads ‫ערוך‬, Bmg has ‫“ ערך‬to arrange,” and Greek reads προσφοράν. The Syriac version does not include this verse, perhaps because it refers to Temple sacrifice. 86  Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61; Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 247; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 442. Skehan and Di Lella also list Ps 20:2–6 as a textual reference. The verb in Sir 38:11a is ‫ נגׁש‬in hiphil, which is used often of sacrifice (BDB, 620–21).There is wordplay with “oil” ‫ דשן‬in Ps 20:4 (‫)ידשנה‬, but there is no convincing argument through further vocabulary distinct to Psalm 20. I argue it is unlikely to be a quotation, since because the subject is similar, some vocabulary will necessarily overlap. Likewise, flour-offerings are found in Leviticus 2, and this again indicates similarity of subject and Temple practice rather than an explicit textual quotation.

206

Chapter 6

As with the recommendations in Leviticus (Lev 5:7–13, 12:8), Ben Sira suggests the presenter spend as much as financially possible for that individual (Sir 38:11b), although as noted in the translation, the words ‫ אל תתעבר‬could also be read “Do not delay,” or “Do not be angry,” either of which still would show that Ben Sira is concerned with the reader taking immediate (or wholehearted) action. He finishes 38:11 with an unusual phrase, ‫בכנפי הוניך‬.87 The word means “edge” in the Hebrew Bible, usually of garments and the earth, but Ben Sira uses it with wealth.88 With this line, Ben Sira reminds the reader to give offerings for healing, a practice similar to that of Roman temples to Aesculapius (Asclepius in Greek), where anatomical ex voto offerings were presented for healing from Asclepius.89 Earlier, temple offerings were the practice.90 While the Temple in Jerusalem would not have had anatomical ex voto, the idea of an offering for healing is comparable. While frankincense is found as an ingredient of flour-offerings in Lev 2:2, 15 and 24:7, it is not mentioned in Ben Sira. However, the “extent of your wealth” certainly suggests an expense such as frankincense being added to the offering, if it could be afforded.91 87  Schechter suggests it might be an error for ‫ככפני‬. Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 61; Beentjes, Ben Sira; and Ben-Ḥayyim, 39, all transcribe ‫בכפני‬. 88  Either way, “to the edge (extent) of your wealth” is not a biblical expression, nor is it found in LBH. In Biblical Hebrew and LBH, “wings” may be used in the meaning of “corners” or “edges” in the context of garments: Num 15:38, Deut 22:12, or of the earth as in: Isa 11:12, 24:16; Ezek 7:2; Job 37:3, 38:13. One possible example of ‫ כנף‬as “edge” for something else besides the above could be Dan 9:27, which reads: ‫ועל כנף שקוצים משמם ועד־‬ ‫( כלה ונחרצה תתך על־שמם‬MT). Potentially here, ‫“( על כנף‬to the edge”) functions with ‫“( עד־כלה‬to the completion”) as a parallelism. Another sense in which ‫ כנף‬means something other than wing or edge is in a military sense, which could be an interpretation of Dan 9:27 or a linguistic development of the word. See for example 1QM 9:11, where ‫ כנף‬refers to an army flank. Ben Sira would be the only example of ‫ כנפי‬in a description of wealth. DCH 4:438–39. In Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫ כנף‬means “wing,” “protection,” or “lap.” Jastrow, 651. Finally, it is unlikely to be related, but Lev 1:17 (Lev 1:1–17 concerns meat burnt-offerings) describes the priest tearing birds open by their wings (‫)בכנפיו‬. 89  This practice began during the Roman Republic and had stopped by the first century bce. Before this famous practice, general offerings were common in the Near East and Mediterranean. See Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins, “anatomical ex-voto, ancient Roman,” in The Dictionary of Roman Religion (New York: Facts On File Inc., 1996), 8, and the Asclepieium (Adkins, “Asclepieium,” Dictionary, 20–21). 90  For another Roman example, the cult of Apollo Medicus, founded in 433 bce, corresponding to the Greek Apollo Iatros. Vivian Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London: Routledge, 2004), 107. 91  Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (London: Doubleday, 1991), 196. The flour-offering in Lev 2:1–16 is argued by Milgrom to be the offering of the poor. However, Lev 2:4–10 may be

The Physician and Piety

207

Sir 38:12 Sir 38:12 advises that the reader needs the physician in illness. The physician has a set “place” and time (Sir 38:13) within healing, an idea that is slightly reminiscent of ‫ עת לרפא‬in Qoh 3:3.92 This is not a textual quotation, however, as with Exod 15:25 earlier. Rather, the concept of an arranged “time and place” in Qohelet 3 agrees more broadly with Ben Sira’s wisdom and the tenor of Sir 38:1—the physician being assigned a place by God.93 In this example, however, the context of Qoh 3:3 is not distinct enough to reveal direct textual dependence. Rather, since it is a common stream of tradition to assign times and places to things in life, the order developed in Sir 38:11–12 is that the time and place of the physician comes after the time and place of prayer and sacrifice. Another meaning of ‫מקום‬, however, might be a separate offering (payment) given to the physician in the Temple for his services, since the remaining portion of the flour-offering is a payment to the priests. The likeliest meaning, though, is that Ben Sira is dispensing advice to give an established place for the physician following the patient’s prayer and sacrifice. With this line then, Ben Sira completes his “priorities of action” in healing: prayer, sacrifice, and finally a visit to the physician. Understanding ‫ מקום‬as place rather than a payment or stipend makes sense of Ben Sira’s insistence on prayer and sacrifice in the preceding lines. The curious phrase “let him not depart” in Sir 38:12b might be appropriate if the physician is also a priest or at least located in the Temple.94 Having made a flour-offering at the Temple, the priest or physician (or patient) might leave before the physician has prayed. The reason for the patient not leaving is clarified by Sir 38:13b–14, the physician’s “pleading unto God.” These lines suggest that the physician’s medical services include prayer. Sir 38:13 Sir 38:13 contains the sentiment that prayer helps in making wise decisions about medicine, which recalls the physician becoming wise (Sir 38:2a) and the read as a separate kind of flour offering pre-baked without frankincense as contrasted to offering flour and oil to be baked Lev 2:1–3, although Lev 2:15 again suggests flour-offerings must have frankincense. Ben Sira’s advice in Sir 38:11 suggests the offering might cost as much as one could afford. 92  Qoh 3:3 is noted in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 442. 93  As stated earlier, Ben Sira’s Physician poem does not have any direct equivalents in Jewish and non-Jewish ancient literature, though it resembles the wider genre of praising professions. 94  See above note on Sir 38:12, that it should read ‫ולא ימוש מאתך‬.

208

Chapter 6

discerning man’s intelligence to use medicine (Sir 38:4).95 Therefore the pious physician prays for medical wisdom. With this line, Ben Sira begins another list of three items. The first list was the priority of action for the reader when ill: pray, sacrifice, and visit the physician. Now, the physician prays for three things: success in diagnosis, the effectiveness of medicine given, and finally that the sinful patients the physician treats might be healed. In sum, not only must the patient be wise (to use medicine) and pious (to resolve causes of illness from iniquity), but the physician is also expected to be both wise and pious. Sir 38:1–15 begins with wisdom and the origin of medicine with God, and soon transforms into a discussion on piety—of patient and physician each. The “piety before healing” principle is outlined in the summary of Sir 38:1–15 in the table below. “Piety before healing” in Sir 38:1–15 Sir 38:1–3 Sir 38:4–8 Sir 38:9–12 Sir 38:13–15

Respect is due to physicians, because they are sanctioned by God and become wise through God Respect is due to medicine and medical wisdom, since they come from God Prayer and sacrifice are necessary before visiting the physician (meaning illness from impiety will then be ruled out) The physician’s success is guided by God through piety

Sir 38:14 In Sir 38:14, the word “interpretation,” ‫פשרה‬, is an indication that there was not a separate word in Ben Sira’s Hebrew for what is called today medical diagnosis.96 The word, normally in the form ‫פשר‬, refers to an interpretation of texts, such as in the Pesharim of the Dead Sea Scrolls.97 Ben Sira’s use is the only extant case of this word for a medical diagnosis, an “interpretation” of illness, unless, perhaps, Ben Sira means the interpretation of medical texts. 95  To consider the phrase ‫“( אל אל יעתיר‬he will plead unto God”), ‫ עתר‬+ ‫“( אל‬unto”) is found in Biblical Hebrew, (for example Exod 10:18). BDB, 801. It is also in Sir 37:15 ‫תעתר אל אל‬. Both Greek and Latin leave out Sir 38:13b (Hebrew only). 96  Further, Ben Sira does not use the word ‫ פשר‬or ‫ פשרה‬anywhere else in the extant Hebrew, not even in discussions of advice or understanding. 97  In Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫ פשרה‬is a legal dispute/arbitration. Jastrow, 1249.

The Physician and Piety

209

In both the Near East and Mediterranean, ancient medical literature is concerned with the initial diagnosis. In this framework, it is therefore very significant that Ben Sira mentions diagnosis. In the Hebrew Bible, much of Leviticus 13–15 is preoccupied with the diagnosis or interpretation of the disease (for example: Lev 13:2–3, 9–10; 14:2–3, 48). As with other ancient diagnostic texts, such as Babylonian Diagnostic Handbook or the Egyptian Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, in Leviticus the diagnosis often concludes with a decision of nontreatment.98 For Ben Sira, too, the diagnosis does not necessarily entail treatment, since treatment is mentioned separately in Sir 38:14b.99 Sir 38:15 The physician must pray owing to his responsibility to heal sinful patients. These patients are sinners, since they have fallen ill, and presumably have not offered prayer and sacrifice. It is a final reminder that illness can be due to iniquity.100 There was high risk associated with medicine, particularly surgery, in Ben Sira’s day, but the verse might also suggest that prayer and liturgy on the part of the physician were normal, routine aspects of medical treatment during this period. The segregation between magic and medicine is a modern invention. For example, Geller describes the blending of Babylonian medicine, stating that the rituals of the therapist-exorcist asiputu increasingly took on medical aspects, while the asûtu increasingly borrowed from the magical over time.101 Ben Sira thus does not blame the inefficacy of medicine, but instead he lays the blame on the patient not being pious enough for the drugs to work when correctly administered.

98  Babylonian prognostic texts advised prognoses such as pain relief or rituals that would not violate the non-treatment recommendations. Specific examples from Babylonian texts: AOAT 43.200, 202, 255, 256; SpTU 1.34:29; TDP 42 r. 34, 104 iii 12, 111 i 35, JoAnn Scurlock and Burton R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 529; 530–48 (texts). 99  In Sir 38:14b, I read the final Hebrew word as a collective noun, “the living/survivors,” as in 1QM 13:8. However, the Greek reads, “that he might grant them success with rest, and healing grace for the maintenance of life,” as in Gen 45:5, Ezra 9:8–9. There is resonance between ‫( מצלחת‬Sir 38:13) and ‫( יצלח‬Sir 38:14). Medicine ‫ רפאות‬may be compared with ‫ תרופות‬in Sir 38:4. 100  The line in Btext is corrupt, Bmg has ‫על ידי‬, and the Greek and Latin have “fall into the hands of the physician.” Likewise the Syriac: “will be given into the hands of the physician.” 101  Geller, Babylonian, 162.

210

Chapter 6

Skehan and Di Lella argue that there is a final inclusio of ‫ רופא‬in Sir 38:1, 15.102 Ben Sira creates inclusio elsewhere. On the other hand, ‫ רופא‬is repeated a number of times in the Physician poem, which might make it not be an inclusio. However, since ‫ רופא‬is the final word of Sir 38:15, however, the inclusio is plausible.103

Ben Sira and Ancient Medicine

Introduction Ben Sira’s depiction of the physician and medicine is better understood through the lens of his wider historical and literary context. Harrison argues that by Ben Sira’s time there must have been some Hellenistic influence on Jewish medicine because Ben Sira honours the physician, raising the status of physicians in contrast to folk medicine in Ancient Israel.104 However, scholarly understanding of Jewish medicine before and during Ben Sira’s time deserves a fresh reconsideration with respect to other civilizations, particularly the Achaemenid Persian Empire. A wider historical context helps address questions about Ben Sira’s attitudes to medicine that cannot be answered from his text alone or from the current consensus on Ancient Israelite and Second Temple Jewish medicine. Traces of medicine in Ben Sira and other Second Temple Jewish texts share many similarities with Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman medicine.105 Ancient medical literature includes prayers for the admission and repentance of sins, praise of the divine, requests for healing, and exorcisms,106 which are remedies advised in Ben Sira. Owing to mixed sacred and secular

102  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 443. 103  This line may be a case of Btext biblicizing Ben Sira with ‫ יתגבר‬instead of ‫ינפל על ידי רופא‬. In Job 36:9, God declares the sins of the sinners “because they are arrogant” (‫)כי יתגברו‬. 104  Harrison, “Medicine,” 331–34. 105  These include Genesis Apocryphon, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, T. 12 Patr., 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Testament of Job, among others. Most of these textual excerpts reveal a belief in divine punishment for illness or injury. The specific passages are analyzed in Larry P. Hogan, Healing in the Second Temple Period (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1992). Hogan (Healing Past, 5) sees little in common with the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman medicine. However, see Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses. See also JoAnn Scurlock, Sourcebook for Ancient Mesopotamian Medicine (Atlanta: SBL, 2014); E.D. Phillips, Aspects of Greek Medicine (London: Croom Helm, 1973). 106  Biggs, “Medicine,” 2–3.

The Physician and Piety

211

causes of illness, the boundaries between priest and physician are blurred in Second Temple medicine, too, as seen in Ben Sira. The current model in Ben Sira scholarship treats Ancient Israelite medicine as non-existent except for folklore and herbal remedies, without reference to geographical or cultural circumstances as to why this would be. Ben Sira’s wider historical context will fill in the blank spaces that characterize the current state of scholarship on Sir 38:1–15, and, to a large extent, on ancient Jewish medicine. Medicine Elsewhere in Ben Sira Ben Sira writes about healing and medicine several other times besides Sir 38:1–15. In Sir 3:28, and 28:3, the wicked cannot be healed. Sir 18:19, 21 advises the reader to take care of their sins or risk illness. These examples all agree with Ben Sira’s primary cause of illness as iniquity, as in Sir 38:1–15. On a greater scale, Ben Sira sees plagues as a result of human wickedness (Sir 40:9–10), similar to the Athenians in Thucydides (Thucyd. 2:7; 47), the Babylonians,107 and the Hebrew Bible. Elsewhere, Sir 27:21 writes of a wound bandaged, showing medical treatment other than herbal remedies. Sir 10:10 reads, “a long illness baffles the physician.”108 Elsewhere Ben Sira recommends both eating slowly and working industriously throughout your life in order to avoid illness, since idleness and gluttony cause illness (Sir 31:21–22). Sir 30:15–17 advises that death is better than illness.109 Finally, Ben Sira also mentions mental distress after nightmares of battles (Sir 40:6).110 Medicine in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature Contrary to popular assumption, there is much evidence of professional medicine in the Hebrew Bible. One recent study by Catherine Hezser explores Ben Sira’s views of medicine and his place in Second Temple Jewish medicine among Jubilees and Philo of Alexandria, yet she gives the impression that apart from mentions in literature there is little evidence for Jewish medical practices “on the ground,” as it were. Hezser also presents the idea there is a discernible

107  A. Leo Oppenheim, “Mesopotamian Medicine,” BHM 36:2 (1962), 97–108. 108  Note that Gregory argues that the fallen king in Sir 10:10 might be Alexander the Great. Bradley C. Gregory, “Historical Candidates for the Fallen King in Sirach 10,10,” ZAW 126 (2014): 589–91. 109  The Greek reads “long illness,” and the Hebrew “a whisper of an illness.” 110  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 470.

212

Chapter 6

gap or change of attitudes between the Hebrew Bible and Ben Sira.111 It has been argued that Ancient Israel did not have physicians and that Israelites rejected medicine, with medicine being an imported effect of Hellenization.112 However, there is much evidence to the contrary. The idea of illness as a divine punishment (Deuteronomistic History) and the efficacy of moral rectitude in the process of healing (e.g. Num 12:1–15 or Job 33:19–33) is understood only partly, interpreted within a religious context.113 However, other perspectives about medicine are often hiding in the Hebrew Bible in unlikely places. For example, the “land of milk and honey” has an underlying medical context. Butter, honey, and milk were often used as a carrier for other ingredients to be ingested together in a liquid mixture to neutralize poison.114 Another ancient medical ingredient from Ancient Egypt, honey (bee or date palm), was farmed in Judea in the Second Temple period including in the Dead Sea and Jericho region.115 Ancient Egyptian and Greek medical products were edible plants and animals—in other words, food. The Deuteronomistic idea that illness is caused by divine punishment, as a result of sin, is shared with Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek medicine. In Judaism, texts that promote this idea include Ben Sira, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Testament of Job.116 Medicine in Second Temple pseudepigrapha included appeals to Divine Name and to angels, and the use of curses, astrology, and herbal medicine.117 Qumran literature especially is concerned with angelology and astrology, an interest that can be illuminated by the rise of astrological magico-medicine in Achaemenid Persia. Taylor stresses that Qumran interest in these areas should not be separated from wider Jewish interest in astrology or angels.118 111  Catherine Hezser, “Representations of the Physician in Jewish Literature from Hellenistic and Roman Times,” in Popular Medicine in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Explorations, ed. W.V. Harris (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 173–98. 112  Bickerman, Greek Age, 161. 113  Hogan, Healing. Harrison, “Medicine.” B. Barry Levy, Planets, Potions and Parchments (London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990). 114   Fred Rosner, “Pharmacology and Dietetics,” in Healing Past, 10 (1–26). Although Maimonides also mentions the mixture of milk, butter, or honey as drug carriers, the practice is much earlier. Maimonides, Treatise on Poisons and Their Antidotes, 1:6; 2:2. Rosner, “Pharmacology,” 20. 115  Joan E. Taylor, Essenes, 318. 116  A wide range of Second Temple sources are surveyed for perspectives on healing in Hogan, Healing Past. 117  Bohak, Magic, 119–35. 118  Joan E. Taylor, Essenes, 335–36.

The Physician and Piety

213

There are several cases in the Hebrew Bible where we get a glimpse of how medicine was practiced. Miriam is healed of a skin disease through both quarantine and prayer in Num 12:10–13, appealing to the Divine Name (Num 12:13), just as practiced much later in Second Temple pseudepigrapha. Job is perhaps the best example of disease without just cause. While the identification of Job’s maladies is debated, Katharine Dell has suggested that Job’s sense of social exclusion due to his skin disease is not too far from reality, and that this isolation plays a part in his mental suffering.119 When we turn to Hezekiah, we find that the prophet Isaiah heals the king (Isaiah 38). As with Ben Sira’s advice regarding illness, the first action Hezekiah takes upon falling ill is to pray. Once he has prayed and justified his morality, Isaiah tells him he will be healed and that God will defend Jerusalem from Assyria. Then, finally, Isaiah applies a fig cake as medicine to Hezekiah (Isa 38:21). Ben Sira’s order of action (Sir 38:1–15) does not seem to come directly from Isaiah 38, as it is not quoted explicitly. Yet Isaiah 38 supports the idea of a longstanding practice of medicine with which Ben Sira would have been familiar, that is, to seek prayer and ensure righteousness before taking physical medicine. Exod 15:26 is the only time God is called “Healer” in the Hebrew Bible. This title of God as Healer can be compared with other divine titles in the Levant. The Phoenician god Ba’lu was also called Ba’lu the Healer. Ugaritic sources have titles of Baal and Ugarit kings as rapiʾu (healer).120 In the case of 2 Chr 16:12, Asa did not seek the Lord first but instead the ‫רפאים‬. MT vocalizes this word as “physicians,” even though in the Hebrew Bible and in Ben Sira, physician (a participle) is spelled ‫רופא‬. The other reading could be shades or ghosts, ‫רפאים‬. Thus, it is possible that Asa consulted not the Lord but shades, in a form of ancestor worship.121 Alternatively, if ‫ רפאים‬is an alternative spelling of ‫רופאים‬, then the issue could be that Asa did not seek the Lord first (prayer and piety) but solely consulted the physicians. Tobit mentions physicians as his eyes are blinded by the poor herbal treatments of the physicians (Tob 2:10). This case, however, is not convincing evidence of a wholesale rejection of physicians by Second Temple Jews, as recently argued by Maria Chrysovergi, since Tobias with the aid of Raphael simply go

119  Dell, “Job’s Malady.” 120  Hogan, Healing, 8, citing Johannes C. de Moor, “Rapi’uma-Rephaim,” ZATW 88:3 (1976), 329 (323–45). 121  Asa is of course a pun-name, meaning “physician” in Aramaic, as in Tg. Onq. Exod 15:26. Alexander Sperber, ed., ‫ תרגום אונקלוס לתורה‬.‫ כרך א‬.‫( כתבי הקדש בארמית‬Brill: Leiden, 1959).

214

Chapter 6

in search of a better medical remedy.122 It is the remedy that failed, or else the physicians were not experienced practitioners. The absence of any criticism of the physicians themselves must be seen as part of the wider ancient pragmatic awareness that medicine sometimes is ineffective. The view that medicine sometimes fails corresponds well with the opinions of Ben Sira in his advocacy of piety in medicine, since immorality can cause medicine to be ineffective. The range of passing references to actual medicines and medical practices in the Hebrew Bible are wide: binding battle wounds (Ezek 30:21; 2 Kgs 8:29, 9:15; 2 Chr 22:6)123 mandrake, midwifery,124 balms such as hyssop oil (Num 19:18; Jer 8:22), wine and fat (Ps 104:15), quarantine (Lev 13:46),125 amulets (Ezek 13:18; 2 Macc 12:40), and ancestor-worship (‫ רפאים‬as in Isa 26:14; Ps 88:11; or the cases in 1 Sam 28:7–25; 2 Kgs 21:6).126 Ben Sira, by contrast, actually proscribes ancestor-worship, or perhaps belief in ghosts, by insisting on the powerlessness of the dead (Sir 10:11, 41:4). Ben Sira’s proscription might mean it was still practiced by many people. Some practices did change over time, though. Bohak shows that written amulets declined as a practice in Judea in 122  Maria Chrysovergi, “Contrasting Views on Physicians in Tobit and Sirach,” JSP 21:1 (2011): 37–54. Chrysovergi assumes that the fact that the medicine did not work means that the physicians must be Gentile, or if not, then the author is rejecting physicians and medicine entirely. Chrysovergi, however, operates on the assumptions that Greek medicine was secular, which she says Jews rejected and saw as being of Gentile origin, and that Jews had no medical traditions before the Hellenistic period. She equates rationality in Hippocratic medicine with secularity, when in fact Hippocratic medicine cannot be called secular (see discussion below). 123  Also practiced to a smaller extent by Egyptian physicians, and much more by Roman times with the development of battlefield surgery. Mesopotamian physicians avoided surgery due to high risk of death. 124  Midwifery and menstruation are topics frequently found in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek medical texts. Kent R. Weeks, “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Egypt,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Sasson et al. (New York; London: Scribners; Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International, 1995), 3:1787–98. Nutton, Ancient Medicine. Helen King, Greek and Roman Medicine (London: Bristol Classical, 2001), 49. Biggs, “Medicine.” Specific Hippocratic Texts: Gynaikeia (Diseases of Women). Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 260, lists women’s menstrual issues in SpTU 1.59:12, 14; 4.153:1, 17, and birth control in BAM 381 iii 21–22, 422 iii 5 (Diagnoses, 261). 125  This practice also existed in Mesopotamia, as in the texts describing quarantine advised for contagion: ARM[T] 10.129:1–20 and BM 64526:26–31. There was also an understanding that some diseases appeared to be infectious while others had other causes, for example TDP 84:39–40 and AOAT 43.204. Texts: Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 17–18. 126   Mesopotamian diseases could also be caused by neglected dead ancestors. Biggs, “Medicine,” 4.

The Physician and Piety

215

the Second Temple period, though some Jews used amulets.127 Although much later chronologically, by the rabbinic period there are clear and well-developed systems of pharmacology and medicine in place.128 In sum, Ben Sira is not alone in viewing a primary cause of illness as divine punishment for iniquity. Upon investigating further, iniquity is not the only cause of illness in either Ancient Israel or the Second Temple period. It is also clear that some practices evolved over time, such as the decline in written amulets. As noted above, the Hebrew Bible refers to herbal medicine and rituals of healing in many places, and the high production of herbal and mineral ingredients for medicine in the Second Temple period show the same picture as Ben Sira with his ‫מרקחת‬: Jewish medicine promoted both ritualistic and herbal remedies.129 We should consider that among life’s necessities Ben Sira includes items with medical as well as dietary uses: salt, flour, milk, honey, wine, and oil (Sir 39:26). The longest set of texts that are concerned with bodily matters is within the Purity Laws (Leviticus 11–15). Priests acted as physicians for leprosy and other medical issues. Dietary laws are established (Leviticus 11), and childbirth and menstruation discussed (Leviticus 12; 15). Scholars have long argued that the priests were merely diagnosticians and did not actually heal the sick, distancing them from the role of physicians. Jacob Milgrom, John E. Hartley and Martin Noth contend that Leviticus 11–15 was not concerned at all with healing but with ritual purity.130 However, there are numerous problems with this. The 127  Bohak cites 1 Macc 5:55–62 and Josephus, A.J. 12.350–52. Bohak, Magic, 119–23. 128  It is beyond the scope of the present book to delve into the early development of Jewish pharmacology and medicine from ancient to rabbinic times. A recent treatment of Talmudic medicine and attitudes towards knowledge of medicine, see Lennart Lehmhaus and Matteo Martelli, eds., Collecting Recipes: Byzantine and Jewish Pharmacology in Dialogue, Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 4 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017). 129  Joan E. Taylor, Essenes, 311–36. See also Maria Chrysovergi, “Attitudes Towards the Use of Medicine in Jewish Literature from the Third and Second Centuries BCE” (PhD diss., Durham University, 2011). Chrysovergi argues that there was a pluriformity to Second Temple Jewish medicine in the Hellenistic period, even different schools of medical thought. However, her analysis throughout is based on the assumption that most Second Temple Jews were sceptical of medicine, which she sees as simultaneously secular and pagan, and a reading of Sir 38:1–15 as addressing such scepticism. I have argued in this chapter that these arguments do not match the archaeological and literary evidence for the richness of Second Temple Jewish medicine with its roots in Persian Yehud, reflecting a similar situation in Achaemenid Persia. 130  Chrysovergi, “Contrasting Views,” 41. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 817. John E. Hartley, Leviticus (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 190. Noth, Leviticus, 105. Hogan, Healing, 24.

216

Chapter 6

first is that Egyptian physicians were priests themselves, and all Mesopotamian physicians and exorcists were aligned with a particular god.131 Second, the ancient Israelite rites of healing were mostly ritualistic and included offerings and sacrifices, prescriptions similar to Mesopotamian and Egyptian medicine, particularly fumigation through incense.132 Lev 14:1–57 includes a number of offerings and rituals in the Temple, including hyssop oil (Lev 14:4), a bird in blood (Lev 14:6), and ritual oil treatment (Lev 14:17, 28) given by the priest.133 In fact, the diagnostic nature of Leviticus 13–14 is reminiscent of Mesopotamian and Egyptian medical texts, for example, the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, in which the physician has three options for his patient depending on the likelihood of recovery: treat, treat with caution, or do not treat (no recovery expected).134 Additionally, as stated above, food (Leviticus 11) is an important part of health (correct regimen in Greece) and served throughout the ancient world as medical ingredients. The sick person was expected to quarantine himself or herself and will inevitably present themselves and their offerings for healing to the priest in the Temple.135 Here again Leviticus 13–14 (cf. Num 12:1–15) bears strong similarities to Mesopotamian and Egyptian medical prescriptions for diseases, which give combinations of advice: quarantine, animal-fat, animal offerings, herbal remedies, priestly rituals, and/or incantations (prayers) for healing. Most of all, Levitical medicine prescribes priestly ritual and individual sacrifices for sins,

131  Some Mesopotamian physicians also had the title of priest, but were mostly varying levels of physician, in an apprenticeship system, similar to how scribes designated themselves in levels. Geller, Babylonian, 134. 132  For example, onions were used as sacrifices for healing in Mesopotamia. Biggs, “Medicine,” 3. Babylonian medicine frequently used fumigation as the most effective treatment, using aromatic substances burned with dry wood. Geller, Babylonian, 127. 133  Specific Mesopotamian rituals for fever include anointing the sick person, or recommending medicine such as diluted beer, in Marten Stol, “Fevers in Babylonia,” in Disease in Babylonia, eds. Irving Finkel and Markham J. Geller, Cuneiform Monographs 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–40. Witchcraft, gods, and demons are also causes of illness and their prescriptions are ritualistic. See Finkel and Geller, eds., Disease in Babylonia. Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 525–27. 134  Wilson, “Medicine in Ancient Egypt,” 118. In Mesopotamian medicine: Oppenheim, “Mesopotamian Medicine,” 102. 135  Scholarship argues the reason for quarantine in Leviticus is primarily for the Temple sanctuary and not for the sake of the individual (Hartley, Leviticus, 190), even though quarantine is a form of medicine in Babylonian and Assyrian texts.

The Physician and Piety

217

similar to the Near East, Egypt, and Mediterranean (Asclepius). Quarantine was also practiced particularly in Mesopotamia.136 Moreover, as mentioned above, the Achaemenid Persian period saw the decline of recorded physician names and the stagnation of the creation of new medical texts in Mesopotamia. We have a shortage of medical texts from this period, and those that survive are old texts, such as the Diagnostic Handbook, that continued to be copied by or for exorcists (asiputu), who preserved the traditions of the asûtu physicians long after their decline in this period.137 The situation in Persia matches up chronologically with the development of many Hebrew texts in the Persian period, such as the Pentateuch and Chronicles, and it would explain why there is no separate medical text in the Hebrew corpus of literature that equates to the Hippocratic corpus, the Diagnostic Handbook, or Edwin-Smith Papyrus. Instead, Leviticus 13–15 is included within the Purity Laws, since without a flourishing, exclusive study of medicine as in pre-Persian Mesopotamia or fifth to fourth-century bce Greece, priests and scribes were the most likely candidates to preserve medical knowledge, as they were in Egypt. Taken altogether, the dietary laws in Leviticus 11, together with the childbirth and menstruation rules in Leviticus 12 and 15, indicate that Leviticus 11–15 might be classified as a “medical tradition” of sorts in addition to being a purity text with the following contents: food, childbirth, skin diseases, and bodily discharges (unusual blood flow, semen, and menstruation). Menstruation is also in Lev 15:19–33, which resembles the Diagnostic Handbook and the Hippocratic Corpus, where women’s medicine is placed at the end.138 The two concerns of purity and health are not distinguishable from each other in light of the evidence shown: food can be considered a matter of purity but also health— as can childbirth, menstruation, and skin diseases. In Egyptian medical texts, medicine is usually food associated with a particular god. Since the right food is the key to health and bad or immoderate amounts of food the cause of illness, the dietary laws are in keeping with other ancient practices.139

136  Biggs, “Medicine,” 16. See above note specifying contagion quarantine texts. 137  Cranz points out another convergence with (earlier) Babylonian practices: purity practices. Isabel Cranz, “Priests, Pollution and the Demonic: Evaluating Impurity in the Hebrew Bible in Light of Assyro-Babylonian Texts,” JANER 14:1 (2014): 68–86. 138  Phillips, Aspects of Greek Medicine, 29–119. 139  Milgrom, Leviticus, 649–50.

218

Chapter 6

Set within this context, a priestly Temple setting for medicine and healing was a long-established location for Jewish medicine in Ben Sira’s time.140 Ben Sira’s ritualistic setting for the physician and perhaps also the perfumer reflect this tradition as continuous.141 A mystery still surrounds why Leviticus 11–15 was subsumed into the Book of Leviticus if it was a kind of medical text. Why, in fact, would the Hebrew corpus lack any medical literature in this period if, as I argue, ancient Jewish medicine was much more alive than previously assumed? In the sixth-century bce during the Achaemenid Empire, there was a distinct sharp decline in Mesopotamian interest in medicine. Old medical texts were copied, but new texts were not created in this period. Post-sixth century bce Mesopotamia seemed to produce no recorded physicians. Instead, the class of physicians appears to be replaced by exorcist magicians and, increasingly, by magi, or astrologers. As Markham Geller notes, these professionals “dominate the intellectual scene in Hellenistic Babylonia.”142 They continue to copy the old medical texts but did not create new ones. Oppenheim laments this decline of the physicians,143 but perhaps this shift explains why there is a relative absence of medical texts and well-defined physicians in ancient Jewish medicine.

140  We know that Leviticus held a high status in the Second Temple period because many copies of it survive from Qumran. The biblical manuscripts number as follows: Psalms (36 copies); Deuteronomy (30); Genesis (20); Isaiah (21); Exodus (17); Leviticus (15); Numbers (8). James VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 150. Leviticus’s importance can also be shown from works such as the Temple Scroll that are modelled after Leviticus, or texts like MMT and CD which quote Leviticus. 141  Chrysovergi bases her analysis Sir 38:1–15 on the assumption that Second Temple Jews were sceptical of medicine and saw it as magic, drawing upon existing scholarly interpretations. I have contended throughout this chapter that the opposite is the case, that Ben Sira is advocating piety in medicine, not addressing mistrust, that Second Temple Jewish medicine was part of a longstanding tradition of healing and medicine going back to Leviticus, and that therefore medicine and physicians cannot be interpreted solely as outside or pagan influences. Chrysovergi, “Contrasting Views.” 142  Geller, Babylonian, 163. Geller outlines the development of magical rituals for healing: “By the advent of the first millennium BC, incantations increasingly embodied short rituals which resembled medicinal remedies, while at the same time medical prescriptions included more and more magic.” Geller, Babylonian, 162. 143  Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 299–300. Oppenheim cites 2 Chr 16:12 and Sir 38:2, 4 for evidence that there was a similar situation for Judea.

The Physician and Piety

219

Archaeological Evidence: Plant Remains Archaeological plant remains from ancient Judea show how much and what kinds of medicine were grown. During the Herodian period, certain valuable and indispensable medicinal ingredients were grown and farmed in large quantities in the Jordan valley, around the Dead Sea, such as balsam, date palm, rue, bee honey, and mandrake. There is some evidence of these ingredients being harvested before the Herodian period, though large-scale production did not seem to start until the first century bce. More importantly, though, these plants already had a long tradition of being medical ingredients in other civilizations and in Ancient Israel, as argued above. The Dead Sea produced bitumen, sulphur, alum, and balsam—these were all important ingredients for medicine at the time. Dead Sea water was famous for its medicinal qualities for curing leprosy. The Dead Sea valley around Qumran was therefore a hotbed of medicinal ingredients and healing, as attested by Josephus, Pliny, Herodotus, and several Greek writers.144 Bohak and Taylor present a picture of Second Temple Jewish medical practices that incorporates ritual and herbal remedies and has much in common with practices found in the Hebrew Bible. Second Temple Jewish pseudepigrapha also present this same picture. In Tobit, the remedy-dispensing angel who guides and advises Tobias to heal his father Tobit’s eyes is eponymously named Raphael, “God heals.” 1 Enoch reports that the angels taught the art of roots, or healing, to humankind (1 En. 7:1–3; 8:3; 67:8–13).145 Similarly, Jubilees teaches that Noah is instructed in medicine by angels (Jub. 10:10–14). 4Q560 is an exorcism text for a demon of toothache.146 In all these cases, there is a close relationship between the divine and health, and an agreement that healing and medicine owe their origins to God. This relationship resounds within Ben Sira. Hengel viewed the roots and plants sought out by the Essenes as part of their mantic-magic medicine, seeing them more as magic than medicine.147 Such modern distinctions between magic and medicine are unhelpful. Since the plants grown in the Dead Sea valley were widely used for medicine, the Essene use of roots and plants is better understood as part of medicine and trade rather than sectarian esotericism.148

144  Joan E. Taylor, Essenes, 311; 321; 335–37. 145  Johnston, Sheol, 129. 146  Bohak, Magic, 111–12. 147  Hengel, Judaism, 1:240–41. 148  Joan E. Taylor, Essenes, 335–37.

220

Chapter 6

Archaeological Evidence: Jewish Physicians In Jewish epitaphs, there are several examples of Jewish physicians and one chief-physician from the Greco-Roman period. Two chief physicians (archiatros) are found in Roman-period Jewish inscriptions, as is one physician (iatros).149 While these examples date to after Ben Sira, they are still worthy of note since these inscriptions are usually not included in discussions on ancient Jewish medicine. They deserve further attention in future scholarship. Knowledge of Anatomy Anatomical knowledge in medicine was limited in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greek cultic medicine.150 Physicians in all traditions, apart from Alexandrian anatomists such as Erasistratus, avoided contact with dead bodies, which limited anatomical knowledge.151 In the century of Ben Sira’s early life, the third century bce, Ptolemaic medicine at Alexandria developed dramatically from Hippocratic (Coan school) and Cnidian schools of medicine. In the third century bce, the soul was no longer thought to be attached in any way to the dead body, which allowed dissection and even vivisection at the Museion of Alexandria. These experiments resulted in astronomical leaps forward in anatomical knowledge and knowledge of hygiene’s role in health. Another school, the Empirics, developed at Alexandria during the third century bce, as well, and fixated on the diagnoses of observable symptoms. The Empirics used only those medicines previously trialled as effective for these symptoms by experience.152 Their insistence on 149  CIJ 600, 745 (archiatros) and 1110 (iatros). For discussion see van der Horst, Jewish Epitaphs, 99. An added note to this might be that CIJ 600 (from Venosa, Apuleia, Italy), the inscription of Faustinos the archiatros, depicts a plant leaf (probably olive or date palm) among its symbols (also a horn and menorah). 150  Mainly during the fifth to third centuries bce in the cults of Asclepius and Apollo Iatros. King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 6. Before then, the literary sources for belief in the divine punishment of illness are in Homer’s Iliad and Hesiod’s Works and Days. King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 3. 151  Embalmers, who would have had some knowledge of anatomy to remove organs, were priests of Anubis, at least in the Old Kingdom, and in Herodotus are called social outcasts, though this may be an exaggeration. In either case, Wilson argues they would have had little contact with physicians, who were priests of Sekhmet. Wilson, “Medicine in Ancient Egypt,” 121. 152  As opposed to dissection in the Anatomical school, or fixation on diseases and humours in the Hippocratic and Cnidian schools. Nutton, Ancient Medicine, 149. King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 31.

The Physician and Piety

221

observing and compiling a list of symptoms to treat patients is reminiscent of Ben Sira’s ‫( פשרה‬Sir 38:14). Sir 38:16–23 insists that the dead do nothing and there is nothing left in corpses, a development that Ben Sira witnesses around the same time as Ptolemaic physicians in the Museion of Alexandria begin espousing that souls are not attached to corpses in any way.153 Ben Sira defends this idea for a different reason—rejecting ancestor-worship. Yet Ben Sira does not draw from the Anatomists directly. It is more credible that Ben Sira and the Anatomists are both part of a much wider development in Mediterranean society of the late third-century bce Ptolemaic Empire. Second Temple Jewish tombs such as the Herodian tombs at Jericho were loculi tombs, designed in the shape of a square mourning chamber with stone benches at which offerings for the dead were left.154 This practice is the same as contemporary tombs in Jerusalem155 and in earlier tombs in Ancient Israel, such as at Silwan (eighth century bce).156 In light of these practices, Ben Sira might be commented on contemporary practices of ancestor-worship, or perhaps even necromancy. By stating that the dead have nothing to offer us, since they can do nothing, Ben Sira probably warns against the idea that the dead might help the living if offerings are left for them. He could also be commenting, albeit somewhat opaquely, on Ptolemaic ruler-king cults, or Egyptian practices of preparing bodies for the afterlife with food, entertainment, ushabti models, and worldly possessions in a tomb. Causes of Illness Causes of illness have been covered above in ancient Jewish medicine, but here some further thoughts may be made through comparisons with the rest of the ancient Mediterranean and Near East. The idea of illness as a result of divine punishment was deeply set in Mesopotamia,157 Egypt, and the Mediterranean. Thucydides records that the Athenians initially believed their devastating 153  The Museion of Alexandria should be emphasized as the Temple of the Muses, which included its famous library. 154  The origin of this style of tomb is possibly Phoenicia but could also be Greco-Roman Egypt. Rachel Hachlili, and Ann E. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: IAA, 1999), 58. 155  Hachlili and Killebrew, Jericho, 50. 156  Hachlili and Killebrew, Jericho, 57–58. 157  Such as texts: AMT 76/1:4–7 (ghost), TDP 226:82 (the goddess Gula), or TDP 122 iii 7–9 (demon Kūbu). Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 501–28. Biggs, “Medicine,” 3. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 291.

222

Chapter 6

plague of 430–426 bce was due to the gods’ disfavour, until residents began dying even in the protection of the temples (Thucyd. 2:7, 47).158 Just as in Ben Sira, Qumran literature, and in the Hebrew Bible (particularly the prophetic literature), repentance was required for healing in Near Eastern, Egyptian, and Mediterranean cultic traditions. Though fragmentary, Ahiqar 154 seems to assume that for there is no healing for those without God.159 Ben Sira has a similar statement, saying that for the proud there is no healing because of their wickedness (Sir 3:28). These two statements use healing as a metaphor (“there is no cure for stupid”), but the metaphor itself might express the connections people made between iniquity and illness in the ancient world. Judea and surrounding civilizations regularly attributed both divine and/or non-divine causes to illness, and they equally applied both divine and/or nondivine remedies.160 Natural causes such as worms were recognized to cause sickness, but the treatments varied, incorporating both religious aspects and “rational” treatments of drugs.161 In particular, studies of Mesopotamian and Egyptian medicine show how “magic” and “rational” medicine had blurred 158  King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 21. 159  Ahiqar 154 reads … ‫ירפון המו להן זי אל עמה‬. James M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University, 1983), 79. By contrast, Cowley translates Ahiqar 154: “one who is like him(self).” A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), 217. An Aramaic text of Ahiqar dating to 500 bce was found in the Elephantine papyri, and its original language is now thought to be Aramaic. Lindenberger, Ahiqar, 16–17. Against Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 206. 160  Aramaic incantation bowls (sixth century ce) from Nippur are much later but reveal the use of scripture and the title of God as healer in Jewish medicine, forming a link from Second Temple to rabbinic times. M103, M117, M119, M142, M155, M156. C.D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, SBLDS 17 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975). Dan Levine, A Corpus of Magic Bowls (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003). M156 reads ‫“( הדין קמיעא יהי לאסו למהדוך‬This amulet will be to heal Mahadukh”). The closest incantation to Exod 15:26 is bowl M117, which mentions “the Lord God of David healer of the sick,” ‫רופא החולים‬. Levine, Corpus, 77–80. R. Akiba condemns the chanting of Exod 15:26 for healing. Sanhedrin 10a: “R. Akiba says: Also he that reads the heretical books, or that utters charms over a wound and says, ‘I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.’” Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 397. Bohak, Magic, 299, says that Exod 15:26 along with Zech 3:2, Psalm 91, and Num 6:24–27 are all verses shown to have a continuous stream of use from the Second Temple to the medieval period. 161  2 Macc 9:5–28; Acts 12:23; Herodotus, Hist. 4.205; Josephus, A.J. 17; Pliny, NH 7.172.

The Physician and Piety

223

boundaries, with magic and medicine often borrowing aspects from each other.162 Ben Sira and Proverbs, as well as perhaps Daniel, all advocate moderation in eating for good health (Sir 37:27–31; Prov 25:16; Daniel 1). Even advances in anatomy and causes of illness (mostly diet) never disconnected professional Classical Greek medicine from religion. The archaeological and epigraphic evidence shows honours given to and from physicians in temples of Asclepius during the fifth and fourth centuries bce into the Hellenistic period, such as the Epidaurian miracle inscriptions.163 Medicine and worship complemented each other. Much of the reason why Western society believes Greek medicine was separate from religion is due to modern interpretation of the Hippocratic text The Sacred Disease.164 However, Vivian Nutton points out that this text’s author is very pious, believing that diseases are equally divine and non-divine, but that many illnesses have natural causes—a normal claim to make in the ancient world. The only practices the author criticizes are fake charms and chants from charlatan peddlers, not temple votive offerings or prayers.165 This is a sentiment Ben Sira shares in Sir 34:1–8, which condemns false dreams, divination, and omens. Therefore, while there are subtle differences in tradition, larger themes resound throughout with ancient Jewish medicine. Far more is shared than not. The causes and remedies of illness are charted below to illustrate this conclusion:

162  Crenshaw argues the Ancient Israelite and Second Temple Jewish sages had little interest in magic and downplays its importance by contrast with the highly developed “magic” of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Crenshaw, Education, 153n; 273; 280. 163  Nutton, Ancient Medicine, 111. Lynn R. LiDonnici, The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text Translation and Commentary, Texts and translations, Graeco-Roman Religion series 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). 164  Please refer also to recent studies of early Jewish medicine, as in Chrysovergi, “Contrasting Views.” 165  Nutton, Ancient Medicine, 111.

224

Chapter 6

Table 1 Causes of illness Iron Age Israel IIB–C & III (925– 515 bce)

Divine • causes Sorcery • Demons • Food/ • drink Worms Hygiene Humours Winds/ other external forces

Second Temple Judea (515 bce– 70 ce)

Egypt Mesopo­ (c. 3100– tamia (mid332 BCE) second millen­ nium to 550 BCE)

Achaeme­ nid Persia (550– 332 BCE)

Classical Greece (fifth and fourth c. BCE)

Hellenistic Greece (323– 31 BCE)

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

• • •

• •

• • •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• •

Republican and Imperial Rome (509 BCE– 330 CE)

•

•

Table 2 Types of Medicine Iron Age Israel IIB–C & III (925– 515 BCE)

Prayers/ • spells Religious • objects/ amulets

Second Temple Judea (515 BCE– 70 CE)

Egypt (Dynastic to 332 BCE)

Mesopo­ tamia (midsecond millen­ nium to 550 BCE)

Achaeme­ nid Persia (550– 332 BCE)

Classical Greece (fifth and fourth c. BCE)

Hellenistic Greece (323– 31 BCE)

Republican and Imperial Rome (509 BCE– 330 CE)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

225

The Physician and Piety Iron Age Israel IIB–C & III (925– 515 BCE)

Drugs, • edible plants, animals Surgery • Whole diet • /regimen including exercise

Second Temple Judea (515 BCE– 70 CE)

Egypt (Dynastic to 332 BCE)

Mesopo­ tamia (midsecond millen­ nium to 550 BCE)

Achaeme­ nid Persia (550– 332 BCE)

Classical Greece (fifth and fourth c. BCE)

Hellenistic Greece (323– 31 BCE)

Republican and Imperial Rome (509 BCE– 330 CE)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

Opportunities and Fluidity of Roles Ancient scribes, like Ben Sira, in the Mediterranean and Near East inhabited a multiplicity of roles and responsibilities, depending on situation, time of life, family, politics, and opportunity. Ben Sira was scribe, ambassador, and an advanced teacher of wisdom. Physicians in ancient Egypt were in fact priests of Anubis. Chiefs of Physicians in Egypt, part of the court, would have been educated in the scribal system along with the royal family. In Mesopotamia, the physician (asûtu) worked side-by-side with the exorcist magician (asiputu).166 Mesopotamian physicians also were unusually clean-shaven, as in the manner of Egyptian physicians and priests.167 The multiplicity of roles played by priests and physicians in Egypt and Mesopotamia matches Ben Sira’s information about the fluidity of roles performed by the physician and perfumer.168 The perfumer is both a maker of incenses and of medical products, since more often than not the ingredients, such as frankincense, overlapped. 166  Biggs, “Medicine,” 1; 4. 167  Oppenheim, “Mesopotamian Medicine,” 100. 168  Geller, Babylonian, 130–40.

226

Chapter 6

Additionally, Ben Sira describes the physician as wise and having a professional knowledge originating with God. The wise physician, in Ben Sira, consults God in prayer for wisdom about his diagnoses. The Hippocratic text On Decorum (περὶ εὐσχημοσύνης) describes the ideal physician as pious, one who loves wisdom. On Decorum states that medicine is a form of σοφίη, wisdom. The physician who loves wisdom is “equal to a god,” and the gods honour medicine, even though they are the real physicians.169 Finally, Mesopotamian physicians, especially in the second millennium bce, earned the most money working in the palace.170 This location of work resembles Sir 38:2b–3: the physician will earn gifts from the king, and minister unto nobility. As mentioned, Achaemenid Persia witnesses a distinct decline in the creation of new medical texts and the class of physicians, contemporaneous with a rise in magician exorcists and the power of courtly magi or astrologers, often identified with the Chaldaei in Roman texts. Geller theorizes that the decline of the physician class in Persia might have been due in part to a preference in the Achaemenid court for Greek physicians over local ones, in addition to the rise of the courtly magi.171 Ben Sira’s sacred-secular fluidity echoes the ancient world’s fluidity and dynamic between the roles of priest and physician or scribe and priest. Skilled physicians likewise are wise (Sir 38:2–3). Ben Sira’s physicians could be any combination of physician and scribe, priest, or teacher, depending on the situation, opportunity, and stage of life. The common factor is wisdom—scribal training—that enabled professional expertise in physicians, priests, and scribes.172 Ben Sira’s list of the wise includes civil administrators, judges, court officials, and wisdom teachers (Sir 38:33). By comparison, physicians are not included in the craftsmanship category of the unlearned (Sir 38:24–34) who make up a functioning society and produce goods for living (Sir 38:32). The education of physicians and their fluidity of professional roles could also be why Ben Sira begins his section on scribes and the trades (Sir 38:24–39:11) directly after the physician (Sir 38:1–15) and mourning for the dead (Sir 38:16–23). 169  Phillips, Aspects of Greek Medicine, 118–19. 170  Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 303. 171  Geller, Babylonian, 126–9. 172  There is some debate about whether or not Mesopotamian physicians were literate, especially with the diminishing of the role during the Achaemenid Persian period (550–332 bce), but with Egypt, there is a large body of medical literature that makes it unlikely all physicians were unable to read these largely-Q&A form texts. Also, an Egyptian relief depicts Hesi-Re (Hesy-Ra), the Chief of Dentists and Physicians under Djoser, carrying a scribal kit (wood panels of Hesi-Re, 2650 bce). Abeer El-Shahawy, The Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Dar al-Mushaf, 2005), 63.

The Physician and Piety

227

Food and Gluttony in Medicine The most common non-divine cause of illness is food. The Egyptians believed that overindulgence in food or drink putrefied into diseases in the bowels, and then travelled to invade other organs.173 Greek medicine from the Hippocratic to the Alexandrian schools174 and Roman medicine similarly proscribed overindulgence in rich foods.175 Egyptian and Greek medicine, therefore, prescribed certain foods and holistic corrective diets as medicine.176 Egyptian medicine was food. The food choices themselves were not always based on experiential practice, but frequently on what plants and animals were important to particular gods and the corresponding organs for which they cared.177 Despite having their own developed thoughts on which foods were best (wet and dry, hot and cold, in the Hippocratic school),178 Greek physicians also copied Egyptian food remedies.179 Philo notes the longstanding feud between cooks and physicians, indicating a continuity of the tradition from Ben Sira that the abuse of food caused illness.180 As mentioned earlier, Sir 38:1–15 is probably placed where it is—between a section on gluttony and death—because of this ancient belief about food and health. Sir 37:27–31 advises against gluttony, which in the ancient world was 173  Kent R. Weeks, “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health,” 1788 (1787–98). 174  Phillips, Aspects of Greek Medicine, 19; 29, while the Alexandrian Anatomist physician Erasistratus recommended both hygiene and food as remedies, Phillips, Aspects of Greek Medicine, 153. King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 44, explains the Hippocratic “line of action”: first consulting diet (regimen or lifestyle, including but not limited to food), then drugs, and surgery as a final resort. 175  King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 47, cites Plutarch, Tabletalk 731d. and Seneca, Epistle to Lucillus 95. 176  Elite Roman moralists tended to be somewhat suspicious of physicians because most of their physicians were Greek slaves. King, Greek and Roman Medicine, 33; 47. King cites Pliny, NH 29.1–29, as saying that consulting physicians, who were normally slaves (and Greek) in the Roman Empire, upset the social order, swindled the populace, and took the responsibility of one’s health away from the individual. King also cites Plautus, Menaechmi 875, for suspicion of the physician’s skills. Galen, physician to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, was a notable exception. This situation appears to be more of a case of Roman moralistic tendencies of being suspicious of foreign influences, not a wholesale criticism of physicians completely. To this subject we might also cite Philo, who is favourable to physicians during the Roman period (Leg. 3.61). 177  Kent R. Weeks, “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health,” 1795. 178  Hipp. Corp., Regimen. An Alexandrian text is Diocles’s Diocles to King Antigonus. Phillips, Aspects of Greek Medicine, 76–85; 134. 179  Wilson, “Medicine in Ancient Egypt,” 123. 180  Philo, Joseph 11.62.

228

Chapter 6

understood to cause illness, requiring a physician (Sir 38:1–15). Illness could result in death (Sir 38:16–23). Furthermore, Ben Sira advises that sorrow is physically draining and leads to death (Sir 38:18), another note on which his theory of illness may actually turn. Ben Sira praises robust health as a prevention of fatal illness, much like the more naturalistic causes of illness discussed such as regiments of food and exercise in Classical Greek medicine. Conclusions In sum, Sir 38:1–15 is underlined throughout with contemporary perspectives on medicine. Ben Sira’s views on medicine are grounded firmly within a longstanding tradition of medicine in ancient Judaism. The originality of Sir 38:1–15 is in how Ben Sira assembles and arranges conventional wisdom and perspectives on medicine. Sir 38:1–15 is also distinct from other poems in his text, such as the Hymn of Creation, since Ben Sira does not have a well-established “medicine” poetry genre to draw upon. Indirectly, Sir 38:1–15 can be seen as a composition on the professional “trades,” but as stated above, poems about medicine do not survive from the ancient world, only medical texts. Summary of Textual Findings in Sir 38:1–15 The poem contains only two textual quotations: Exod 15:25–26 and Ezek 47:12. The use of Exod 15:25–26 should be understood as part of a larger convention of its citation in ancient Jewish medicine. Hence even his textual reuse is deeply set within Ben Sira’s historical context. By contextualizing the Physician poem in a fresh survey of ancient medicine, this chapter has dispelled myths about changes in ancient Jewish medicine. In truth, Ben Sira’s attitudes to medicine fit neatly within widely-held beliefs in the ancient world, and as I have shown, ancient Israelite and early Jewish worlds, too. Ben Sira has a novel theme by writing on the “physician” as a profession and defending piety in medicine. Yet, even with a low proportion of textual quotation, Ben Sira’s attitudes expressed in the poem are entirely conventional and appropriate for his time period and Second Temple Judaism. Therefore, there is no correlation in this case between the amount of textual reuse and unusual perspectives. This context better characterizes Ben Sira’s scribalism in the Physician poem as far more conventional than previously thought. That is, it is not just textual reuse that makes Ben Sira conventional in his composition, but his espousal of conventional ideas of his time.

The Physician and Piety

229

Second Temple Jewish physicians may have become more distinct as a specialized professional in the Hellenistic age as compared with Achaemenid Persian period when they were likely known primarily as scribes or priests. Still, the surfacing of this profession is not due to a change of attitudes to medicine. Neither do the attitudes expressed in Ben Sira towards medicine indicate a major change in Jewish opinion from negative to positive. Instead, I have shown that past scholars have underestimated the state of ancient Jewish medicine and the importance of medicine in the Hebrew Bible. Ancient Jewish medicine is better seen through the lens of Achaemenid Persia and a contextualized understanding of the Levitical Purity Laws. The historical context of ancient medicine and ancient Jewish medicine has also made clear the importance of not liming Ben Sira’s attitudes to one civilization. We can conclude that it is far better to speak of Ben Sira’s contemporary attitudes to medicine in a Mediterranean world (with a Persian heritage). In this case in particular, a narrow understanding of Ancient Israelite and early Jewish medicine clouds the issue, mistakenly presenting Ben Sira’s attitudes to medicine as Hellenistic only and thus implying a departure from Jewish attitudes when there is no evidence for such a conclusion. The fluidity of roles in Ben Sira and his historical context is striking, particularly the physician as priest, and the perfumer as handling ingredients used for both temple rituals and medicine. Sir 38:1–2 firmly roots the physician’s place in life as established by God and working in court. Sir 38:12b indicates that the physician’s place of work is the Temple, which was also the court in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid eras. This aspect of Ben Sira’s physician is contained within both the scribal cultural and sociocultural spheres. The wisdom of the physician is a strong note throughout the Physician poem. Ben Sira depicts the pious physician as one who prays for the correct diagnosis, consulting God for wisdom in his decisions. The physician must be wise and pious, and the patient must be pious too before seeking the treatment of the physician. The education of physicians also rationalizes the placement of Sir 38:24–39:11, his section on scribes and the value of education. These findings also better explain Ben Sira’s social-cultural sphere of operation by showing that the addressee of the Physician poem should not be seen as someone who rejects medicine—another impression that has left scholarship arguing that Ben Sira is speaking against a tide of Jewish opinion that medicine was bad (and thus that Ben Sira is espousing Hellenistic opinions). The Achaemenid decline of the physician class and new medical texts provides a background for ancient Israelite and early Jewish attitudes to medicine in the Hebrew Bible. The application of medicine was alive and well; it simply

230

Chapter 6

sprung out of a different framework from the Exile. The archaeological and literary evidence shows that medicine remained in use in the Second Temple period: astrology, angelology, and the growing of herbal and mineral ingredients for medicine. Sir 38:1–15 is not defending medicine against criticism, but Ben Sira is defending the role of piety in medicine, or pragmatically suggesting that one should go to the priest as well as the physician, just to be careful of all possible causes of illness. The structure of Sir 38:1–15 outlines a priority of action to be taken: pray and expiate all sins, give offerings at the Temple, and do not leave the physician-priest. The actions lead towards the Temple. This order of action appears to be embedded in Ben Sira’s knowledge from a longstanding Jewish practice, as may be detected from texts such as Isaiah 38 and Leviticus 11–15, texts that prescribe prayer and sacrifice as remedies for illness before the application of physical medicine. The addressees of Sir 38:1–15 are not rejecting medicine; they are neglecting to take care of their sins before visiting the physician. It has become clear that Jewish medicine was alive and well during Ben Sira’s day. The Achaemenid Persian model of medicine also explains some of the Hebrew Bible’s opacity regarding physicians as a separate class and the placement of medical literature in a priestly text. Ancient medical roles in Egypt and Babylon (the priest as physician) provide a pre-existing model for Ben Sira’s pious physician in the Temple, and parts of the Hebrew Bible such as Leviticus 11–15 and Isaiah 38. Ben Sira’s perfumer is also likely to be found within this domain, since as with other civilizations, perfumers created medical products and liturgical products alike. Conclusions for Ben Sira’s Individual Scribalism We can conclude much from this poem on the individual compositional style of Ben Sira, and on the overall structure of his text. The placement of Sir 38:1–15 after a section on gluttony and followed by a section on mourning the dead is best seen in the lens of ancient medicine. This placement is therefore not random. Therefore, our comparison with ancient medicine sheds light on the structure of Ben Sira as a carefully arranged text. Sir 43:11–19 showed strong textual reuse and the imitation of a conventional genre in the Hebrew Bible (Chapter Four). In Chapter Five, Sir 41:1–15 showed strong textual reuse and conventional sociocultural ideas about death. By comparison, Sir 38:1–15 Ben Sira’s perspectives on medicine are rooted firmly within his sociocultural framework—yet Sir 38:1–15 does not show high amount of textual reuse. Only indirectly with “trades” advice as in Sir 38:24–39:11 can we say Sir 38:1–15 fits within an established literary convention of writing

The Physician and Piety

231

about a profession (Satires of the Trades).181 It is, however, a limited analogy for the message contained within Sir 38:15. I suggest then that few direct textual comparisons can be made with Sir 38:1–15, since no other extant physician or medicine poetry survives. The originality of Sir 38:1–15 is contained within its topic and creativity as an original composition, yet it still echoes contemporary views on medicine common in ancient Judaism and in other societies. Furthermore, one of the two texts reused (Exod 15:25–26) is already known from other sources as important in ancient Jewish medicine already, making his quotation of Exod 15:25–26 appear to be less about literary effect and more a reflection of his society. In sum, Ben Sira’s scribalism as exemplified by the Physician poem must be understood within the context of ancient medicine, and in particular, a reevaluation of ancient Jewish medicine. In this study, I have shown how Ben Sira still contains his originality of genre within the framework of his contemporary context through literary style, textual reuse, and sociocultural attitudes. It is perhaps the most striking example of originality since the poem has no strict exemplar of genre: it is a poem not elaborating on the trades, as Ben Sira does elsewhere, but instead a poem celebrating piety in medicine. I conclude the Physician poem is a case where Ben Sira exemplifies how he can compose a poem on a new theme while still encapsulating the mood of his times. 181  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 449.

Conclusions

Ben Sira’s Individual Scribalism

In the preceding chapters, we have explored how Ben Sira wrote his text, more specifically, the ways in which he reuses other texts and integrates contemporary thought and practice. I have outlined how looking to scribal culture can help define the relationship between creativity and imitation in Ben Sira’s personal compositional style, or scribalism. Scribal culture—when focused on material, mechanical, and textual evidence of textual handling, rather than anecdotal evidence of how scribes learned—remains a useful and promising lens for understanding the mechanics of how Ben Sira wrote his text. Throughout this book, an effort has been made to recognize the complexity of Ben Sira’s compositional process within distinct textual, sociocultural, and scribal spheres of operation. Identifying his quotations and interpretation of texts alone is useful for discovering Ben Sira’s attitudes and values, but scribal culture as a lens can illuminate physical aspects of how textual reuse happens in Ben Sira. Accordingly, Ben Sira is not simply the sum of his quotations, and his originality cannot be accounted for without recognition of his wider historical context and distinct spheres of operation. Ben Sira adapts to different situations, as shown by the textual samples examined above, and his adeptness at navigating originality and imitation in his textual reuse demonstrate fully his scribalism as both exemplary and skilful. Ben Sira’s compositional style is, in a way, an acrobatic performance of exemplary textual reuse: balanced expertly between the old and new. His scribalism is innovative in the strict sense of making something old fresh and interesting, not making something new from scratch. Where he does write on an entirely new theme, as he does with Sir 38:1–15 on medicine for example, he does so while still operating within other conventional frameworks of contemporary sociocultural beliefs and classic literary techniques. Along the way, several key characteristics about Ben Sira’s individual scribalism were discerned. These features present a more comprehensive picture of how Ben Sira wrote his text, how he used other texts, and how he interacted with his world. In this way, we can more properly gauge Ben Sira’s location within ancient Jewish literature, and we avoid taking his scribal identity for granted. For Ben Sira, good writing alludes skilfully to Hebrew texts, showcasing often what is truly exuberant dexterity, as he directs the reader’s attention to his primarily Hebrew sources, since scribes are the ones who are “found using

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372863_009

Conclusions

233

proverbs” (Sir 38:33), who “preserve the discourse of notable men” (Sir 39:2). Ben Sira’s extensive textual reuse seems to rest on an expectation that his audience recognizes the texts and stories to which he continually refers. Looking back at some of the examples of sociocultural ideas in the text, we have found that it is better to speak of Ben Sira operating within contemporary sociocultural ideas, certainly situated within the Mediterranean world but not to the extent that he is directly using texts from Egypt or Greece. If this were so, we might find stronger hints of non-Jewish literature in his allusions. While scholarship sometimes still repeats the claims that Ben Sira is “influenced” by Stoicism or P. Insinger, the reasons for arguing “influence” have not been convincing. The concerns of Ben Sira and his contemporary world are encapsulated in his attention to certain general subjects (glory, names, death, and medicine), which sometimes results in overlapping thematic parallels but not demonstrable direct influence. A sociocultural sphere of operation that focused on priesthood and leadership is another feature of Ben Sira’s scribalism. In the studies on the Praise of the Fathers (Chapters One and Two), Ben Sira’s tendency is to focus on priesthood and leadership (not the criticism of kingship) as a way of highlighting these roles in Simon II. His orientation towards Simon indicates much about the value placed on the High Priest in Ben Sira’s time. It might also tell us about a probable personal relationship of patronage between Ben Sira and Simon.1 Additionally, the priestly leadership and Temple focus can also reveal Ben Sira’s sociocultural background to some extent, or at least his professional location. There is enough evidence to modestly propose with some confidence that Ben Sira’s school might have been located in the Temple of Jerusalem.2 Ben Sira’s sphere of operation within scribal culture is carried out through his physical reuse of texts and aspects of his education. His style of writing characteristically reflects the sphere of direct textual reuse. His habits of physical composition, drawing upon different textual sources with dexterity and effortless interpretation, agree with other evidence of scribal culture in the ancient world. Ben Sira uses paraphrase and harmonizes multiple large texts together (Chapter Two), demonstrating that he did not copy and paste from different texts simultaneously while writing. In other places, he has direct or interspersed quotations (Chapter Three). His scribal culture operation is also shown in how he engages with established literary conventions (or genre) as 1  Askin, “Beyond Encomium or Eulogy.” 2  To summarize: well-connected teachers in antiquity had schools in temples, and Ben Sira speaks from a perspective which centres life around the Temple. Hengel writes that Ben Sira could have been a Jerusalem Temple scribe. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:133 (cf. 1:78).

234

Conclusions

models for his text (Chapter Four and Five), and carries out new themes within conventional frameworks of literary style (Chapter Six). In sum, the total effect of Ben Sira’s writing, as an individual with his own personal compositional techniques, or scribalism, is to present his work as an example of fine Jewish literature. For Ben Sira, exemplary Hebrew writing draws upon classical Hebrew texts, at all times directing the reader’s attention back to known and recognizable Hebrew texts, phrases, and stories in subtle and cohesive ways—demonstrating simultaneously the literary achievement and the usefulness of his own book.

Methodological Conclusions

I have approached the multilayered complexity of Ben Sira’s writing by speaking of three intersecting spheres of operation: direct textual, sociocultural, and scribal cultural. These categories help to outline a framework for the characterization of how Ben Sira wrote his text. The framework distinguishes how exactly ideas and texts function and intersect in Ben Sira. I have argued that instead of conflating parallels with direct influence as in the cases of P. Insinger and Theognis, it is better to organize the complexity of overlapping ideas and texts into “spheres of operation.” In this way, we resist mistaking common streams of ancient thought for direct dependence. It must be stressed that there are a number of possible ways in which Ben Sira still operated as part of the Mediterranean world in cases when direct textual links were in fact mainly from specific Hebrew texts. Not all of the ways in which a text operates within its contemporary environment are textual, a point shown in Chapter Five, for example, which argued that limited circulation of elite literature challenges the methodology of searching for parallels as a way of establishing direct influence. The findings in this book should affect the way in which we interpret and build up a vocabulary of scribal culture. The spheres of operation shift focus away from the challenges of parallelomania and dichotomization of oral versus literary, textual versus sociocultural. Scribal culture as a lens for reading texts in their ancient context can help to bridge a gap between materiality and text-critical studies. What is the personal, literary achievement of writing a text in an ancient setting, where composition largely occurs during periods of pensive reading, note taking, and subsequent stages of writing and drafting, without the aide of large tables? Our recognition that many ancient authors clearly make use of quotation should go hand-in-hand with an understanding of what tools and furniture would have been at a writer’s disposal in the

Conclusions

235

process of composition. In this way, we can appreciate the extent to which textual dexterity is in fact a literary performance of achievement and knowledge.

Specific Textual Findings

There are several findings from the textual analysis that might contribute to Ben Sira scholarship. The findings in Chapter Four open the possibility, while not providing conclusive evidence, that Ben Sira’s Psalms might have looked like the tradition of 11QPsa-Psalter.3 The structure of Ben Sira’s Hymn of Creation followed by the Praise of the Fathers can be understood at least as showing that Psalms 104, 106, 147, and 148 in Ben Sira’s time were thought of as belonging together. The variant of Isa 37:20 (concerning Sir 48:20cd) in Chapter Three shows that Ben Sira’s textual edition of Isaiah perhaps agreed with the MT. The scrolls that Ben Sira used might have been his personal collection, although ancient authors tried to consult the best sources at their disposal. These findings on Ben Sira’s sources, therefore, could tell us about the editions of his Hebrew texts, perhaps even the editions available to Temple scribes. The use of Qohelet and Job in Sir 41:1–15 (Chapter Five) shows that Sir 41:1–15 should be thought of as part of the same sociocultural stream of thought about death, not as separate poems. The sociocultural background in Sir 41:1–15 indicates that it is not necessary to turn first to direct literary dependence, since Ben Sira’s views on death are shared by the increasing popularity of Jewish epitaphs, which themselves strongly resemble concerns found throughout the Mediterranean and Near East. These findings affect how we understand the structure of Ben Sira, and show how crucial it is to consider sociocultural as well as textual backgrounds for reasons why Ben Sira writes on a particular topic. Some of the textual findings also can be applied more broadly to biblical studies. The comparative studies in Chapter Six indicate that Leviticus 11–15 is better understood as being about both purity and medicine. Chapter Six also highlights how vibrant ancient Jewish medicine was and how Ben Sira reflects longstanding positive views on medicine that are reflected in classical Hebrew thought, not a sudden shift due to Hellenization as previously thought. Ben Sira’s portrayal of Noah indicates that, at least for Ben Sira, the Flood—not the rainbow—was the most recognizable symbol of Noah. By comparison, Josephus and Philo are concerned with the rainbow. In Chapters One and Two, Ben Sira pays close attention to covenant, but he does not select P material or 3  Askin, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira.”

236

Conclusions

themes, showing that perhaps he did not pay close attention to themes and statements that today are called P. Thus, he might not have been part of a P school stemming from the post-Exilic period or else such a school was fading. Ben Sira’s treatment of Isaiah in the Praise of the Fathers was also found to be unusual. Isaiah was important in Second Temple times, but he receives a short (though positive) portrayal in the Praise that relegates him to a secondary role, attached to Hezekiah. Isaiah’s portrayal is similar to that of the prophet Jeremiah as attached to Josiah: both are the prophets of rulers. Placing Isaiah in a secondary role is unexpected because of the Second Temple popularity of Isaiah, including the extensive use of Isaiah quotations throughout Ben Sira’s text. Instead, however, he overrides the popularity of Isaiah, perhaps to emphasize rulers over prophets.

Final Remarks

The case of Ben Sira’s scribalism demonstrates why it is so important that studies of scribal culture in biblical studies carefully consider the materiality and physicality of ancient compositional techniques. Future work on scribal culture in biblical scholarship must look more closely at questions of ancient technology, furniture, mechanics, and the physicality of text handling. Many misconceptions still persist in biblical studies about scribes: formal and informal schooling, the cost of writing and reading material, the physical writing and reading positions of scribes, and the cost of libraries.4 This has led to incomplete pictures of how biblical texts were written, edited, and transmitted. To determine how texts are written, scribal culture as a lens can enable us to better imagine the actions and processes behind ancient reading and writing, such as techniques of reuse, transmission, and harmonization. The mechanics of how a complex and multifaceted text such as that of Ben Sira was written can be reconstructed and outlined through an appreciation of the material culture of reading and writing. We have seen that the technique of textual reuse in Ben Sira is a significant and intricate part of his individual scribalism, echoing and varying between sources in combination with ideas and innovations in a balanced way that emphasizes a strong relationship to his own literary tradition, and his place in Jewish literature. The physical and material environment and tools available to Ben Sira as a writer in ancient 4  See Skeat, “Papyrus,” for the cheapness of papyrus. For scholarship on libraries and private collections of books see: Houston, “Papyrological Evidence”; Casson, Libraries; Small, Wax Tablets.

Conclusions

237

Judea clearly illustrate this point: when used innovatively and in balance with sociocultural and textual spheres of operation, Ben Sira’s textual reuse is both an achievement of literary skill and sheer dexterity, and a recognizable cultural marker, offered to an audience with whom such quotations and allusions are expected to actively resonate in order to achieve their intended effect of literary accomplishment. The fact that Ben Sira’s textual performance was recognized and approved of by his audience is shown by his book’s survival and translation across time.

Editions and Translations Used Abegg, Martin G., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Baillet, Maurice, J.T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. ‫ קונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המלים‬,‫ספר בן סירא׃ המקור‬. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973 [Hebrew]. Broshi, Magen, et al. Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba: edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa. Estella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 2003. Cowley, A.E., and Adolf Neubauer, eds. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Durand, Xavier. Des Grecs en Palestine au III e siècle avant Jésus-Christ: le dossier syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos (261–252). Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1997. Edgar, Swift, ed. The Vulgate Bible: Douay-Rheims Translation. Vol. 3. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 1; Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 2011. Frey, Jean-Baptise, ed. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1936–1952. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997–1998. Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Horbury, William, and David Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Horst, Pieter W. van der. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE). Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 2. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991.

240

Editions and Translations Used

Isbell, Charles D. Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 17. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975. Lévi, Israel. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Semitic Study Series 3. Leiden: Brill, 1904. Levine, Dan. A Corpus of Magic Bowls. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of Cali­ fornia Press, 2006. LiDonnici, Lynn R. The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text Translation and Com­ mentary. Texts and translations, Graeco-Roman Religion series 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Lightfoot, J.L. The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lindenberger, James M. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. London; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Marcus, Joseph. The Newly Discovered Original Hebrew of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 16–xxxiv, 1): The Fifth Manuscript and a Prosodic Version of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxii, 22–xxiii, 9): Edited from the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Elkan N. Adler Genizah Collection in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America by Joseph Marcus. Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1931. Margoliouth, George. “The Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus XXXI.12–31, and XXXVI.22–XXXVII.26.” JQR 12 (1899–1900): 1–33. McRae, Calvin Alexander. The Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus): Codex “B.” Chaps. XXXIX, 15 to XLIII, 33. With Translation and Critical Notes. PhD Thesis. University of Toronto, 1910. Morla, Víctor. Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira: traducción y notas. Asociación Bíblica Española. Tesis y monografías 59. Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino, 2012. Osb, Boniface Fischer, Johannes Gribiomont Osb, H.F.D. Sparks, and W. Thiele. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta vulgatam versionem II Proverbia-Apocalypsis. Stuttgart: Württem­ bergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Peters, Norbert. Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus untersucht, herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit kritischen Noten. Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Peters, Norbert, ed. Liber Jesu filii Sirach sive Ecclestiasticus hebraice. Freiburg: Herder, 1905. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Qimron, Elisha. ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬. Vol. 3 of ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃‬ ‫החיבורים העבריים‬. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2014 [Hebrew].

Editions and Translations Used

241

Rendsburg, Gary A., and Jacob Binstein. “The Book of Ben Sira.” http://bensira.org. Sanders, James A. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scrolls of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Schechter, Solomon, ed. Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901. Schechter, Solomon and Charles Taylor, eds. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Segal, Moshe Zvi. ‫ספר בנ־סירא השלם‬. The Complete Book of Ben Sira. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958 [Hebrew]. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes by P.W. Skehan: Introduction and Commentary by A.A. Di Lella. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 39. London: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1907. Smend, Rudolf. Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebräischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: Reimer, 1907. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Sperber, Alexander, ed. ‫ תרגום אונקלוס לתורה‬.‫ כרך א‬.‫כתבי הקדש בארמית‬. The Holy Aramaic Writings: Volume 1: Targum Onkelos to the Torah. Leiden: Brill, 1959 [Aramaic]. Streck, M.P., and N. Wasserman. “Sources of Early Akkadian Literature: A Text Corpus of Babylonian and Assyrian Literary Texts from the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BCE.” http://www.seal.uni-leipzig.de/. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene and Peter W. Flint. Qumran Cave 1: II: The Isaiah Scrolls. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene, et al., eds. Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versione greca, latina e siriaca. Pubblicazioni del Seminario de Semitistica 1. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 2004. Vigouroux, F. L’Ecclésiastique. La Sainte Bible Polyglotte 5. Paris: A. Roger et F. Chernoviz, 1904. Weber R., ed. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1969. Yadin, Yigael. ‫מגילת בן־סירא ממצדה‬. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965 [Hebrew and English].

242

Editions and Translations Used

Yadin, Yigael, Elisha Qimron, and Florentino García Martínez. Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, XII.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Ziegler, Joseph. Iob. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, XI.4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Zimmermann, Frank. The Book of Tobit: An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Harper & Brothers for Dropsie College, 1958.

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003–. Abegg, Martin G., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Adams, J.N., Mark Janse, and Simon Swain, eds. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Adams, Samuel L. “Sage as Prophet? Allusion and Reconfiguration in Ben Sira and Other Second Temple Wisdom Texts.” Pages 89–105 in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Hindy Najman, Jean-Sébastian Rey, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. JSJSup 174. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Adkins, Lesley, and Roy A. Adkins, eds. The Dictionary of Roman Religion. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1996. Aitken, James K. “The Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint: Palestine and The Diaspora.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by Alison Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Aitken, James K. “Septuagint and Egyptian Translation Methods.” Pages 1–26 in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Munich, 2013. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Aitken, James K. “The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach.” Pages 95– 126 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jan Joosten. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Aitken, James K. “The God of the Pre-Maccabees: Designations of the Divine in the Early Hellenistic Period.” Pages 246–66 in The God of Israel. Edited by Robert Gordon. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Aitken, James K. The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew. Louvain: Peeters, 2007. Aitken, James K. “Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto: Ben Sira in His Seleucid Setting.” JJS 41 (2000): 191–208. Aitken, James K. “The Semantics of ‘Glory’ in Ben Sira—Traces of a Development in Post-Biblical Hebrew?” Pages 1–24 in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

244

Bibliography

Aitken, James K. “Hebrew Study in Ben Sira’s Beth Midrash.” Pages 27–37 in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben Yehudah. Edited by William Horbury. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Aitken, James K. and James Carlton Paget, eds. The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Albright, William F. “Discussion.” Pages 94–123 in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Culture Development in the Ancient Near East. Edited by C.H. Kraeling and R.M. Adams. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Alexander, Loveday. The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Alexander, Philip S. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures.” Pages 217–54 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Amiran, R. “The Water Supply of Israelite Jerusalem.” Pages 75–78 in Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974. Edited by Yigael Yadin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976. Aperghis, Gerassimos George. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Arav, Rami. Hellenistic Palestine: Settlement Patterns and City Planning, 337–31 B.C.E. BAR International Series 485. Oxford: BAR, 1989. Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Askin, Lindsey A. “What Did Ben Sira’s Bible and Desk Look Like?” in Readers and Their Scriptures: Engaging the Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by John Dunne and Garrick Allen. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Series. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Askin, Lindsey A. “The Hand That Feeds You: Reassessing Second Temple Attitudes to Medicine through Ben Sira and the Cost of Ingredients.” Paper presented at the EABS Medicine in Bible and Talmud section, EABS/ISBL Berlin 7–11 August 2017. Askin, Lindsey A. “Beyond Encomium or Eulogy: Simon the High Priest as Patron of Ben Sira.” Paper presented at the BAJS Conference 2016: The Texture of Jewish Tradition: Investigations in Textuality, University of Birmingham. Birmingham, 11 July 2016. Askin, Lindsey A. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Debate and Ben Sira: Considering the Evidence of Textual Reuse in Sir 43:11–19.” DSD 23:1 (2016): 27–50. Askin, Lindsey A. “Jubilees’ Attitudes to Hebrew and Writing in Historical Context.” M.A. diss., Durham University, 2012.

Bibliography

245

Avigad, Nahman. Archaeological Discoveries in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem: Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1976. Avigad, Nahman. ‫ תולדות וצרות בניין‬:‫מצבות קדומות בנחל קדרון‬. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954 [Hebrew]. Avrin, Leila. Scribes, Script, and Books: The Book Arts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. London: British Library; Chicago: American Library Association, 1991. Backhaus, F.J. “Qohelet und Sirach.” BN 69 (1993): 32–55. Bagnall, Roger S., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Baillet, Maurice, J.T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baines, John, ed. Visual and Written Culture in Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Baines, John. “Interactions between Orality and Literacy in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 101–2 in Literacy and Society. Edited by Karen Schousboe and Mogens Trolle Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989. Baines, John, and Christopher Eyre. “Four Notes on Literacy.” Göttinger Miszellen 61 (1983): 65–96. Bakhos, Carol. “Orality and Memory.” Pages 282–302 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Barthélemy, D. and O. Rickenbacher. Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Sirach: mit SyrischHebräischem Index. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Some Notes on the Ben Sira Scrolls from Masada.” JQR 58:4 (1968): 323–27. Baumgartner, W. “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach.” ZAW 34:3 (1914), 161–98. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “What About Apocalypticism in the Book of Ben Sira?” Pages 207–27 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by Martti Nissinen. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira 44:19–23—The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology.” Pages 209–26 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (SIR. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon: Their Interpretative Significance.” Pages 591–605 in vol. 1, part 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

246

Bibliography

Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Reading the Hebrew Ben Sira Manuscripts Synoptically: A New Hypothesis.” Pages 95–111 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “A Closer Look at the Newly Discovered Sixth Hebrew Manu­ script (Ms. F) of Ben Sira.” EstBib 51 (1993): 171–86. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Hezekiah and Isaiah: A Study of Ben Sira xlviii 15–25.” Pages 77–88 in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder. Edited by A.S. van der Woude. Oudtestamentische Studiën 25. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “The ‘Praise of the Famous’ and Its Prologue: Some Observations on Ben Sira 44:1–15 and the Question on Enoch in 44:16.” Bijdr 45 (1984): 374–83. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern [Sir 46:19].” Bib 63 (1982): 506–23. Beentjes, Pancratius C. Jesus Sirach en Tenach: Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26. Nieuwegein: self-published, 1981. Beentjes, Pancratius C, ed. The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands. BZAW 255. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bell, R.H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. ‫ קונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המלים‬,‫ספר בן סירא׃ המקור‬. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973 [Hebrew]. Ben Zvi, Ehud, and Michael H. Floyd, eds. Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. SBL Symposium Series 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Noah and the Flood at Qumran.” Pages 199–231 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, & Reformulated Issues. Edited by D.W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bernstein, Moshe J. “4Q252: From Rewritten Bible to Biblical Commentary.” JJS 45 (1992): 2–29. Biblical Archaeology Society. “Hezekiah’s Tunnel Revisited: Ayreh Shimron Answers Questions and Moderates an Archaeological Discussion.” http://www.biblical archaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/hezekiahs-tunnel-revisited/.

Bibliography

247

Bickerman, Elias J. “The Seleucid Charter of Jerusalem.” Pages 315–56 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees. Edited by Amram D. Tropper. Vol. 1. 2 vols. AJEC 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bickerman, Elias J. The Jews in the Greek Age. London: Harvard University Press, 1988. Biggs, Robert D. “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 19 (2005): 1–19. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Bodleian Library. “Cairo Genizah Collection of the Bodleian: Ms. Heb.e.62.” http:// genizah.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/fragment/MS_HEB_e_62/. Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Bremmer, Jan N. “Walking, Standing, and Sitting in Ancient Greek Culture.” Pages 15–35 in A Cultural History of Gesture. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg. Oxford: Polity Press; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Brooke, George J. “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin: Cultural Complexity and Multiple Identities in the Qumran Library.” Pages 119–35 in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World. Edited by Mladen Popović, Myles Schoonover, and Marijn Vandenberghe. JSJSup 178. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Brooke, George J. “Between Scroll and Codex? Reconsidering the Qumran Opistho­ graphs.” Pages 123–38 in On Stone and Scroll: Studies in Honour of Graham I. Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and B.A. Mastin. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Brooke, George J. “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible and Pesher.” DSD 17 (2010): 361–86. Brooke, George J. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library & Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium; Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. Brooke, George J. “Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom Texts from Qumran.” Pages 201–20 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2002. Brooke, George J. “E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 107–19 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim. London: T&T Clark, 2000. Brooke, George J. “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts.” Pages 609–32 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Brooke, George J. “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” Pages 85–100 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in

248

Bibliography

Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig E. Evans and W.F. Stinespring. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987. Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Pres, 1985. Broshi, Magen, et al. Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Broyles, Craig C., and Craig A. Evans, eds. Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bryce, G.E. A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel. Lewisburg, PN: Bucknell University; London: Associated University, 1979. Bülow-Jacobson, Adam. “Writing Materials in the Ancient World.” Pages 3–29 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Burke, Aaron A., Martin Peilstoecker, and George Pierce. “Hellenistic Architecture in Jaffa: The 2009 Excavations of the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project in the Victor’s Centre.” PEQ 146:1 (2014): 40–55. Burkes, Shannon. Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 170. Atlanta: SBL, 1999. Buth, Randall, and R. Steven Notley, eds. The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, Vol. 2. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 26. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Caird, G.B. “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint.” Pages 95–100 in Studia Evangelica Vol VII: Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies Held at Oxford, 1973. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Texte und Untersuchungen 126. Berlin: Akademie, 1982. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Hymn to the Creation [Sir 42:15–43:33]: A Polemic Text?” Pages 119–38 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba: edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa. Estella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 2003. Calduch-Benages, Núria, and J. Vermeylen, eds. Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Festschrift M. Gilbert. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Campbell, Jonathan G. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. BZAW 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995.

Bibliography

249

Capasso, Mario. Manuale di papirologia ercolanese. Testi e studi (Università degli studi di Lecce, Dipartimento di filologia classica e mediovale) 3. Galatina, Congedo: 1991. Carmignac, J. “Les rapports entre l’Ecclésiastique et Qumrân.” RevQ 3 (1961–62): 209–18. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Carr, David M. “Response to W.M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel.” JHebS 5 (2005): 1–19. Carr, David M. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels.” Pages 107–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Gütersloh: Kaiser; Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Carr, David M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Casson, Lionel. Libraries in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene; London: Yale University Press, 2001. Charpin, Dominique. Reading and Writing in Babylon. Translated by Jane Marie Todd. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 2010. Chazon, Esther G., ed. Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Chazon, Esther G., Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements, eds. Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January 2002. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Chazon, Esther G., and Michael E. Stone, eds. Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January 1997. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Clarke, Martin Lowther. Higher Education in the Ancient World. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1971. Clines, David J.A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. + Index. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2016. Codex Sinaiticus Project. “Codex Sinaiticus.” http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ manuscript.aspx.

250

Bibliography

Cohen, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. London; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Cohen, Yoram, Amir Gilan, and Jared L. Miller, eds. Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Collins, John J. “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach.” Pages 68–111 in The Apocrypha. Edited by Martin Goodman, John Barton, and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Collins, John J. “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit.” Pages 24–40 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuter­ onomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengeller. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Collins, John J. “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence.” JBL 122 (2003): 3–21. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Collins, John J., and George W.E. Nickelsburg, eds. Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 10. London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Cogan, Mordechai. “Israel in Exile: The View of a Josianic Historian.” JBL 97 (1978): 40–44. Connolly, Peter, and Hazel Dodge. The Ancient City: Life in Classical Athens & Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Conzelmann, Hans. “Die Mutter der Weisheit.” Pages 225–34 in Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Cooper, John P. “No Easy Option: The Nile Versus the Red Sea in Ancient and Mediaeval North-South Navigation.” Pages 189–210 in Maritime Technology in the Ancient Economy: Ship-Design and Navigation. Edited by William V. Harris and K. Iara. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2011. Corley, Jeremy. “Elements of Jewish Identity in Ben Sira.” BN 164 (2015): 3–19. Corley, Jeremy. “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira.” Pages 21–47 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Corley, Jeremy. “Sirach 44:1–15 as Introduction to the Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 151–81 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Bibliography

251

Corley, Jeremy. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” Pages 155–82 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 38. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Corley, Jeremy. “Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach.” Pages 301– 12 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. Corley, Jeremy, and Harm van Grol, eds. Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Corley, Jeremy, and Vincent Skemp, eds. Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Costaz, Louis. Dictionaire Syriaque-Français: Syriac-English Dictionary. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1963. Cotton, H.M., and K. Wörrle. “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel.” ZPE 159 (2007): 191–205. Cowley, A.E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923. Cowley, A. “Notes on the Cambridge Texts of Ben Sira.” JQR 12 (1899): 109–11. Cowley, A.E., and Adolf Neubauer, eds. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Cranz, Isabel. “Priests, Pollution and the Demonic: Evaluating Impurity in the Hebrew Bible in Light of Assyro-Babylonian Texts.” JANER 14:1 (2014): 68–86. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. New York; London: Doubleday, 1998. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Oxford; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Croom, Alexandra. Roman Furniture. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2007. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Pages 108–126 in International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Congress Proceedings. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2. [Missoula, MT]: [Society of Biblical Literature], 1972. Cross, Frank Moore, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr., eds. Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976.

252

Bibliography

Chrysovergi, Maria. “Contrasting Views on Physicians in Tobit and Sirach.” JSP 21:1 (2011): 37–54. Chrysovergi, Maria. “Attitudes towards the Use of Medicine in Jewish Literature from the Third and Second Centuries BCE.” PhD diss., Durham University, 2011. Dahmen, Ulrich. Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. daSilva, David A. “The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Honor, Shame, and the Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture.” CBQ 58 (1996): 433–55. Davies, Anna Morpurgo. “Forms of Writing in the Ancient Mediterranean World.” Pages 23–50 in The Written Word: Literacy in Transition. Edited by Gerd Baumann. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Davies, Graham I. “Were There Schools in Ancient Israel?” Pages 199–211 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Davies, Graham I., et al., eds. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991–2004. Davies, Norman, and Nina De Gardis. “Grave of Scribe of Merenptah Tejy/Teji or ‘To,’ in TT23, Thebes. 1225 BCE.” http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/4TT23.html. Davies, Philip R. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. London: SPCK, 1998. Davies, W.D., and Louis Finkelstein, eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 2— The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Day, John, Robert P. Gordon, and H.G.M. Williamson, eds. Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. De Jong, D.N. “The Decline of Human Longevity in the Book of Jubilees.” JSP 21 (2012): 340–65. Delamarter, Steve. “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?” VT 54:1 (2004): 29–60. Dell, Katharine J. “What Was Job’s Malady?” JSOT 41.1 (2016): 61–77. Dell, Katharine J. The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Dell, Katharine J. Get Wisdom, Get Insight: An Introduction to Israel’s Wisdom Literature. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2000. Descœudres, Jean-Paul. “History and Historical Sources.” Pages 9–27 in The World of Pompeii. Edited by John J. Dobbins and Pedar W. Foss. London: Routledge, 2007.

Bibliography

253

Dihi, Haim. “Non-Biblical Verbal Usages in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 56–64 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza.” Bib 69 (1988): 226–38. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Sirach 51:1–12: Poetic Structure and Analysis of Ben Sira’s Psalm.” CBQ 48 (1986): 395–407. Di Lella, Alexander A. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom.” CBQ 28 (1966): 139–54. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45 (1964): 153–67. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Authenticity of the Geniza Fragments of Sirach.” Bib 44 (1963): 171–200. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Qumrân and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach.” CBQ 24 (1962): 245–67. Dimant, Devorah. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseude­ pigrapha.” Pages 379–419 in Mikra Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Durand, Xavier. Des Grecs en Palestine au III e siècle avant Jésus-Christ: le dossier syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos (261–252). Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1997. Edgar, Swift, ed. The Vulgate Bible: Douay-Rheims Translation. Vol. 3. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 1; Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 2011. Eidinow, Esther. Luck, Fate and Fortune: Antiquity and Its Legacy. London: I.B.Tauris, 2011. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Josiah and His Prophet(s) in Chronicles and Ben Sira.” Pages 231–56 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Elizur, Shulamit. “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17:1 (2010): 13–29. Elizur, Shulamit, and Michael Rand. “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira.” DSD 18:2 (2011): 200–5. El-Shahawy, Abeer. The Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Dar al-Mushaf, 2005. Elwolde, J.F. “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah.” Pages 17–55 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a

254

Bibliography

Symposium Held at Leiden University 11–14 December 1995. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Erickson, Amy. “ ‘Without My Flesh I Will See God’: Job’s Rhetoric of the Body.” JBL 132:2 (2013): 295–313. Evans, Craig A., and Peter W. Flint. Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Evans, Craig A., and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds. Early Christian Literature and Inter­ textuality: Volume 1 Thematic Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Falk, Daniel. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Fassberg, Steven E. and Avi Hurvitz, eds. Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest-Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006. Feder, Frank. “The Coptic Version(s) of the Book of Jesus Sirach.” Pages 11–20 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Feldman, Ariel, and Liora Goldman. Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible. Edited and introduced by Devorah Dimant. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Feldman, Louis H. “The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus.” JQR 93 (2002): 315–45. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrait of Isaiah.” Pages 583–608 of vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Finkel, Irving L., and Markham J. Geller, eds. Disease in Babylonia. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fishbane, Michael. “Biblical Colophons.” CBQ 42 (1980): 438–49. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary. Rome: Biblical Pontifical Press, 1971. Fletcher-Lewis, Crispin H.T. “The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira.” Pages 69–113 in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Library of the Second Temple Studies 50. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Fox, Michael V. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Fox, Michael V. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Bibliography

255

Frahm, Eckart. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. Frank, Jill and S. Sara Monson. “Lived Excellence in Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens: Why the Encomium of Theramenes Matters.” Pages 243–70 in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought. Edited by Stephen Salkever. Cam­ bridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Fransen, I. “Les Oeuvres de Dieu (Sir 42,1–50,20).” BVC 81 (1968): 26–35. Frey, Jean-Baptise, ed. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1936–1952. Friedbreg Jewish Manuscript Society. “Oxford MS Heb.e.62.” http://jewishmanuscripts .org/. Funke, Tobias. “Phinehas and the Other Priests in Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees.” Pages 257–76 in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman. LHBOTS 456. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Gammie, John G. “Stoicism and Anti-Stoicism in Qoheleth.” HAR 9 (1985): 169–187. Gammie, John G., and Leo G. Perdue, eds. The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. García Martínez, Florentino, and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, eds. Interpretations of the Flood. Themes in Biblical Narrative 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997–1998. Gardiner, Alan H. “The House of Life.” JEA 24 (1938): 157–79. Gardiner, Alan H. Egyptian Hieratic Texts: Series I, Part I.: Literary Texts of the New Kingdom. Leipzig, Hinrichs: 1911. Gaster, Moses. “A New Fragment of Ben Sira [Parts of Chaps. 18, 19, and 20].” JQR 12 (1899–1900): 688–702. Geller, Markham J. Ancient Babylonian Medicine. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Geva, Hillel. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. 6 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000–2014. George, Andrew. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London: Allen Lane, 1999. Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira dans la tradition.” Pages 61–84 in Maurice Gilbert, Ben Sira: Recueil d’Études—Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Gilbert, Maurice. “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 1–21 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tra­ dition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.

256

Bibliography

Gilbert, Maurice. “The Book of Ben Sira: Implications for Jewish and Christian Tra­ ditions.” Pages 81–91 in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Sheffield: JSOT; International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization, 1991. Gilbert, Maurice. “Jerome et Ben Sira.” Le Museon 100 (1987): 109–120. Glassner, Jean-Jacques. The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van de Mieroop. London; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Glickman, Mark S. Sacred Treasure—the Cairo Genizah: The Amazing Discoveries of Forgotten Jewish History in an Egyptian Synagogue Attic. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2012. Goff, Matthew J. “Gilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants’ Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs.” DSD 16:2 (2009): 221–53. Goff, Matthew J. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup118. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Goff, Matthew J. “Hellenistic Instruction in Palestine and Egypt: Ben Sira and Papyrus Insinger.” JSJ 36:2 (2005): 147–72. Goff, Matthew J. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Goodman, Martin. “Jewish Attitudes to Greek Culture in the Period of the Second Temple.” Pages 167–74 in Jewish Education and Learning. Edited by G. Abramson and T. Parfitt. Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994. Goodman, Martin, ed. Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Gordis, Robert. “The Social Background of Wisdom Literature.” Hebrew Union College Annual 18 (1944): 77–118. Gordon, Robert, ed. The God of Israel. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading.” Pages 235–67 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham—Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. ‘The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa). A Problem of Canon and Text.’ Textus 5 (1966): 22–33. Grabbe, Lester. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume I: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah. Vol. 1 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Grabbe, Lester. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume II: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE). Vol. 2 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Bibliography

257

Grabbe, Lester. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Grainger, John D. The Syrian Wars. Mnemosyne Supplements: History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity 320. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Grainger, John D. The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Graziosi, Barbara. Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Gregory, Bradley C. “Historical Candidates for the Fallen King in Sirach 10,10.” ZAW 126 (2014): 589–91. Gregory, Bradley C. “Slips of the Tongue in the Speech Ethics of Ben Sira.” Biblica 93 (2013): 321–39. Hachlili, Rachel. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices, and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1988. Hachlili, Rachel, and Ann E. Killebrew. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1999. Hallo, William W. Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. “Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Tra­ ditions in Jubilees 46.” Pages 135–52 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January 2002. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Haran, Menaḥem. “11QPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms.” Pages 193–201 in Minḥah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday. Edited by M. Brettler and Michael Fishbane. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Haran, Menaḥem. “On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel.” Pages 81–95 in Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Harrington, Daniel J. Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London: Routledge, 1996. Harrington, Daniel J. “The Wisdom of the Scribe according to Ben Sira.” Pages 181–88 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W.E. Nickelsburg. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.

258

Bibliography

Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1992. Haspecker, J. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiose Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1967. Hayward, C.T.R. (Robert). “Sirach and Wisdom’s Dwelling Place.” Pages 341–60 in Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity. By C.T.R. (Robert) Hayward. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 10. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Hayward, C. “El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira.” Pages 180–198 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham—Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Hayward, C. “Phinehas—The Same Is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition.” JJS 29:1 (1978): 22–34. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Profile and Character of Qumran Cave 4Q: The Community Rule Manuscripts as a Test Case.” Pages 80–86 in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano 2014. Edited by Marcello Fidanzio. STDJ 118. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hempel, Charlotte. The Qumran Rule Texts in Context: Collected Studies. Texts and Studies on Ancient Judaism 154. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Henderson, Ruth. Second Temple Songs of Zion: A Literary and Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPSa Xxii 1–15); Tobit 13:9–18 and 1 Baruch 4:30–5:9. DCLS 17. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Hengel, Martin. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I Until 70 A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1974. Hezser, Catherine. “Representations of the Physician in Jewish Literature from Hellenistic and Roman Times.” Pages 173–98 in Popular Medicine in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Explorations. Edited by W.V. Harris. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Hezser, Catherine. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Levi, Phinehas, and the Problem of Intermarriage at the Time of the Maccabean Revolt.” JSQ 6 (1999): 1–24. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Elias Bickerman on Judaism and Hellenism.” Pages 199–211 in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians. Edited by David N. Myers and David B. Ruderman. London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees.” Poetics Today 19:1 (1988): 19–40.

Bibliography

259

Hoffman, Adina, and Peter Cole. Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza. New York: Schocken Books, 2011. Hogan, Larry P. Healing in the Second Temple Period. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1992. Holladay, Carl R., ed. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 4 vols. Texts and translations, Pseudepigrapha series 20. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Horbury, William. “Deity in Ecclesiasticus.” Pages 267–92 in The God of Israel. Edited by Robert Gordon. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Horbury, William. Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Horbury, William, and David Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Horsley, Richard A. Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins. Phila­ delphia: Fortress, 2010. Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson, eds. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985. Horst, Pieter W. van der. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE). Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 2. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991. Hudson, Michael, and Cornelia Wunsch, eds. Creating Economic Order: Record-keeping, Standardization, and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East: A Colloquium Held at the British Museum, November 2000. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2004. Humbert, Paul. Recherches sur les sources égyptiennes de la littérature sapientiale d’Israël. Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1929. Houston, George W. Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Houston, George W. “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the Roman Empire.” Pages 233–67 in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Edited by William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Hurvitz, Avi, Leeor Gottlieb, Aaron Hornkohl, and Emmanuel Mastéy. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hurvitz, Avi. “Was QH a ‘Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments.” Pages 110–14 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

260

Bibliography

Hurvitz, Avi. “The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects.” Pages 72–86 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11–14 December 1995. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ikeda, Jun. “Scribes in Emar.” Pages 163–86 in Priests and Officials in the Ancient near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient near East—the City and Its Life, Held at the Middle Eastern Cultural Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996. Edited by K. Watanabe. Heidelberg: Winter, 1999. Ilan, Tal. “‫יחסו של בן־סירא לנשים וקבלתו בתלמוד הבבלי‬.” “Ben Sira’s Attitude to Women and its Reception by the Babylonian Talmud.” ‫ [ מדעי היהדות‬Jewish Studies] 40 (2000), 103–11 [Hebrew]. Inowlocki, Sabrina. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 64. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Isbell, Charles D. Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 17. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975. Israel Antiquities Authority. “Infrared and Multispectral Images of Mas1h.” Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library; Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai HaLevi. Image taken 24 April 2015. Israel Antiquities Authority. “Infrared and Multispectral Images of 11Q5 Frag C.” Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library; Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo: Shai HaLevi. Image taken 24 April 2015. Jacob, Walter. “Medicinal Plants of the Bible—Another View.” Pages 27–46 in The Healing Past: Pharmaceuticals in the Biblical and Rabbinic World. Edited by Irene Jacob and Walter Jacob. Studies in Ancient Medicine 7. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Jain, Eva. Psalmen oder Psalter? Materielle Rekonstruktion und inhaltliche Untersuchung der Psalmenhandschriften aus der Wüste. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 109. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Jamieson-Drake, David W. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. JSOTSup 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Janssen, Rosalind, and Jacobus J. Janssen. Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon, 1990. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1943. Jenni, Ernst. Die hebräischen Präpositionen: Band 1—Die Präposition Beth. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1992. Johnson, William A. “The Ancient Book.” Pages 256–81 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Bibliography

261

Johnson, William A. Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus. Studies in book and print culture. Toronto; Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Johnson, William A., and Holt N. Parker, eds. Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and the Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Jongkind, Dirk. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007. Joosten, Jan. “Al tiqré as a Hermeneutical Device and the Septuagint.” Pages 377–90 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 252. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Joosten, Jan. “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 146–59 in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Joosten, Jan, and Jean-Sébastien Rey, eds. The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. JSJSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Joosten, Jan, and Jean-Sébastien Rey, eds. Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kaddari, M.Z. “The Syntax of ‫ כי‬in the Language of Ben Sira.” Page 87–91 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11–14 December 1995. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kaiser, Otto. “Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach.” Pages 97–105 in Grundriβ der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments 3. By Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1994. Kearns, Conleth. The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus: Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 11. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Kieweler, H.V. Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus: eine kritische Ausein­ andersetzung mit Th. Middendorp. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 30. Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1992. King, Helen. Greek and Roman Medicine. London: Bristol Classical, 2011. Kister, Menachem, “‫לפירושו של ספר בן־סירא‬.” “A Contribution to the Interpretation of the Book of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 303–78 [Hebrew]. Kittel Rudolph, Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, Hans Peter Rüger, and G.E. Weil, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977.

262

Bibliography

Klawans, Jonathan. “Sadducees, Zadokites, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 261–76 in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal. Edited by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy Miller. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Knabenbauer, Joseph. Commentarius in Ecclesiasticum: cum appendice, Textus “Ecclesiastici” Hebraeus, descriptus secundum fragmenta nuper reperta, cum notis et versione litterali Latina. Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1902. Knibb, Michael A. “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 633–50 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Com­ mentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 12A. London; New York: Doubleday, 2004. Knoppers, Gary N. “ ‘There was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings.” CBQ 54 (1992): 411–31. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Rev. ed. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Koltsida, Aikaterini. Social Aspects of Ancient Egyptian Domestic Architecture. BAR international series 1608. Oxford, England: Archaeopress: Hadrian Books, 2007. König, Jason, Katerina Oikonomopoulou, and Greg Woolf, eds. Ancient Libraries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Krüger, Thomas, O.C. Dean, and Klaus Baltzer. Qoheleth: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. Kuhrt, Amélie, and S. Sherwin-White. “Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa.” JHS 3 (1991): 71–86. Kuhrt, Amélie, and S. Sherwin-White, eds. Hellenism in the East: Aspects of the Inter­ action of Greek and Non-Greeks from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander. London; Berkeley: Duckworth, 1987. Kynes, Will. My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms. BZAW 437. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJS Review 30 (2006): 347–92. Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Lambert, Wilfred G. “The Theology of Death.” Pages 53–66 in Mesopotamia 8: Death in Mesopotamia: XXVIe Recontre assyriologique internationale. Edited by Alster Bendt. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980. Lambert, Wilfred G. “A Late Assyrian Catalogue of Literary and Scholarly Texts.” Pages 313–18 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel

Bibliography

263

Noah Kramer. Edited by Barry L. Eichler. Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976. Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Landsberger, Benno. “Scribal Concepts of Education.” Pages 94–102 in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, December 4–7, 1958. Edited by Carl H. Kraeling and Robert M. Adams. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Lange, Armin and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Lange, Armin, and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 2A and 2B. Textual History of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. “What They Wrote on Clay.” Pages 121–48 in Literacy and Society. Edited by Karen Schousboe and Mogens Trolle Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989. Lee, Thomas R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Lehmann, M.R. “11QPsa and Ben Sira.” RevQ 11 (1983): 242–46. Lehmann, M. “Ben Sira and the Qumran Literature.” RevQ 3 (1961–62): 103–16. Lemaire, André. Les Écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël. Fribourg, Switzerland; Göttingen: Éditions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Lehmhaus, Lennart, and Matteo Martelli, eds. Collecting Recipes: Byzantine and Jewish Pharmacology in Dialogue. Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 4. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. Leiwo, Martti. “Scribes and Language Variation.” Pages 1–11 in Grapta Poikila I. Edited by Leena Pietilä-Castrén and Marjaana Vesterinen. Papers and monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 8. Helsinki: Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 2003. Lesko, Leonard H. “Somes Comments on Ancient Egyptian Literacy and Literati.” Pages 656–50 in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Edited by Sarah Israelit-Groll. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001. “Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB).” http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/. Lévi, Israel. “Un Nouveau Fragment de Ben Sira.” REJ 92 (1932): 136–45. Lévi, Israel. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Semitic Study Series 3. Leiden: Brill, 1904. Lévi, Israel. “Fragments de deux nouveaux manuscrits hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique.” REJ 40 (1900): 1–30. Lévi, Israel. L’Écclesiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. 2 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1898–1901. Levine, Dan. A Corpus of Magic Bowls. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Levinson, Bernard M. “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

264

Bibliography

Levy, B. Barry, and David M. Stewart. Planets, Potions and Parchments: Scientific Hebraica from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Eighteenth Century. London: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1990. Lewis, Jack P. A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Lichtheim, Miriam. Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 52. Freiburg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1983. Liddel, Peter, and Polly Low, eds. Inscriptions and Their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. LiDonnici, Lynn R. The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text Translation and Com­ mentary. Texts and translations, Graeco-Roman Religion series 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Lieberman, Stephen J. “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Under­ standing of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection.” Pages 305–36 in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Edited by Tzvi Abusch. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Lightfoot, J.L. The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lim, Timothy H. Formation of the Jewish Canon. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Lindenberger, James M. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. London; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Lipinksi, Edward. “Royal and States Scribes in Ancient Jerusalem.” Pages 157–64 in Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Lipschits, Oded, and Oren Tal. “The Settlement Archaeology of the Province of Judah.” Pages 33–52 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Mack, Burton L. “Under the Shadow of Moses.” Pages 299–318 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Mackay, Anne E., ed. Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World. Mnemosyne Supplements 298. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Bibliography

265

MacDonald, M.C.A. “Literacy in an Oral Environment.” Pages 49–118 in Writing and Ancient Near East Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski, C. Mee, E. Slater, and Alan Millard. London: T&T Clark, 2005. MacKenzie, R.A.F. Sirach. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983. MacKenzie, R. “Ben Sira as Historian.” Pages 213–27 in Trinification of the World: A Festschrift in Honour of Frederick E. Crowe in celebration of his 60th birthday. Edited by Frederick E Crowe, Thomas A. Dunne, and Jean-Marc Laporte. Toronto: Regis College Press, 1978. Maertens, Jean Thierry. L’Éloge des Pères (Ecclésiastique XVLIV–L): Hors-texte, huit illustrations, etc. Collection “Lumière et Vie” 5. Bruges, 1956. Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. BZAW 272. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Marböck, Johannes. Gottes Weisheit unter uns: zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Herders biblische Studien 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Marböck, Johannes. “Das Buch Jesus Sirach.” Pages 285–92 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by E. Zenger, G. Braulik, H. Niehr, et al. Kohlhammer Studien­ bücher 1:1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Marböck, Johannes. “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch.” Pages 177–97 in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by Christoph Dohmen and Erich Zenger. Quaestiones disputatae 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Marböck, Johannes. “Sir 38,24–39,11: Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein Beitrag zur Gestalt und Lehre Ben Siras.” Pages 293–316; 421–23 in La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Nouvelle edition mise à jour. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 51. Louvain, 1990. Marcus, Joseph. The Newly Discovered Original Hebrew of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 16–xxxiv, 1): The Fifth Manuscript and a Prosodic Version of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxii, 22–xxiii, 9): Edited from the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Elkan N. Adler Genizah Collection in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America by Joseph Marcus. Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1931. Margoliouth, George. “The Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus XXXI.12–31, and XXXVI.22–XXXVII.26.” JQR 12 (1899–1900): 1–33. Marrou, Henri Irénée. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. 3rd ed. London: Sheed and Ward, 1981. Martin, James D. “Ben Sira—A Child of His Time.” Pages 141–61 in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane. Edited by J.D. Martin and P.R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Marttila, Marko. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012.

266

Bibliography

Marttila, Marko. Marttila, Marko. “ ‘Statute’ or ‘Covenant’? Remarks on the Rendering of the Word ‫ חק‬in the Greek Ben Sira.” Pages 73–88 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. JSJSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Matthewson, Don. Death and Survival in Job. London: T&T Clark, 2006. McRae, Calvin Alexander. The Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus): Codex “B.” Chaps. XXXIX, 15 to XLIII, 33. With Translation and Critical Notes. PhD Thesis. University of Toronto, 1910. Meskell, Lynn. Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 3. London: Doubleday, 1991. Millar, Fergus. “The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 29 (1983): 55–71. Minchin, Elizabeth. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Minissale, Antonino. “Ben Siras Selbstverständnis in Bezug auf Autoritäten der Gesellschaft.” Pages 103–16 in Der Einzelne und Seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer. BZAW 270. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Minissale, Antonino. La versione greca del Siracide: confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico. Analecta biblica 133. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995. Moor, Johannes C. de, and Wilfred G.E. Watson, eds. Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. Mopsik, Charles. La sagesse de Ben Sira. Lagrasse (Aude): Verdier, 2004. Morgan, Teresa. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Morla, Víctor. Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira: traducción y notas. Asociación Bíblica Española. Tesis y monografías 59. Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino, 2012. Mowinckel, S. “Die Metrik bei Jesus Sirach.” Studia Theologica 9 (1955): 137–65. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

Bibliography

267

Mulder, Otto. “New Elements in Ben Sira’s Portrait of High Priest Simon in Sirach 50.” Pages 273–90 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Mulder, Otto. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel. JSJSup 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Mullen, Alex, and Patrick James, eds. Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Muraoka, T., and J.F. Elwolde, eds. Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Myers, Jacob M. II Chronicles. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 13. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Najman, Hindy. “How Should We Contextualize the Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra.” Pages 529–36 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Emile Puech, A. Hilhorst, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Najman, Hindy. “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its AuthorityConferring Strategies.” JSJ 30 (1999): 389–410. Nelson, Milward D. The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 107. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Nevett, Lisa C. Domestic Space in Classical Antiquity. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Newsom, Carol. “Job and Ecclesiastes.” Pages 177–94 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Edited by James Luther Mays, David L. Petersen, and Kent Harold Richards. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Newsom, Carol. “4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood.” RevQ 13 (1988): 23–43. Newsom, Carol. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Nicklas, Tobias, Friedrich V. Reiterer, and Joseph Verheyden, eds. The Human Body in Death and Resurrection. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001.

268

Bibliography

Niehoff, Maren R. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Nims, Charles F. “The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut.” ZÄS 93:1 (1966): 97–100. Nissinen, Martti, with contributions by C.L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Peter Machinist. Writings from the Ancient World 12. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Nitzan, Bilha. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Noth, Martin. Leviticus. London: SCM, 1977. Nutton, Vivian. Ancient Medicine. London: Routledge, 2004. Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86. Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Rev. ed. London; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Oppenheim, A. “The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society.” Daedalus 104 (1975): 39–46. Oppenheim, A. “Mesopotamian Medicine.” BHM 36:2 (1962): 97–108. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon.” JBL 110:3 (1991): 483–90. Osb, Boniface Fischer, Johannes Gribiomont Osb, H.F.D. Sparks, and W. Thiele. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta vulgatam versionem II Proverbia-Apocalypsis. Stuttgart: Württem­ bergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Ostia Antica. “Orator Relief: Link E49915.” http://www.ostia-antica.org/vmuseum/ marble_6.htm. Owens, Robert J. “The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat.” JSS 34.1 (1989): 39–75. Papaconstantinou, Arietta, ed. The Multilingual Experience in Egypt: From the Ptolemies to the Abbasids. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010. Parássoglou, G.M. “A Roll Upon his Knees.” Pages 273–75 in Papyrology. Edited by Naphtali Lewis. Yale Classical Studies 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Pardee, Dennis. Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt 1 and Proverbs 2). VTSup 39. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Parker, Holt N. “Books and Reading Latin Poetry.” Pages 186–229 in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Edited by William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Payne-Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded Upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Pearce, Sarah. The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt. Wissen­ schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 208. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

Bibliography

269

Penar, Tadeusz. Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Perdue, Leo G. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Cambridge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Perdue, Leo G. “Ben Sira and the Prophets.” Pages 132–54 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 38. Washington, DC: CBAA, 2005. Perdue, Leo G., ed. Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Peters, Dorothy M. Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Contro­ versies of Antiquity. Early Judaism and its Literature 26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Peters, Norbert. Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus untersucht, herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit kritischen Noten. Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Peters, Norbert, ed. Liber Jesu filii Sirach sive Ecclestiasticus hebraice. Freiburg: Herder, 1905. Peursen, Willem (Wido) Theodoor van. “The Word ‫ תחליף‬in Ben Sira.” Pages 133–48 in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Peursen, Willem (Wido) Theodoor van. Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 16. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Peursen, Willem (Wido) Theodoor van. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 4. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Pfeiffer, Robert H. History of New Testament Times. New York: Harper, 1949. Phillips, E.D. Aspects of Greek Medicine. London: Croom Helm, 1987. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pope, Marvin H. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 3rd ed. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 15. London: Yale University Press, 2008. Popović, Mladen, ed. Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Potter, David. “Hellenistic Religion.” Pages 415–30 in A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Edited by Andrew Erskine. London: Blackwell, 2003. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.

270

Bibliography

Qimron, Elisha. ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬. Vol. 3 of ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃‬ ‫החיבורים העבריים‬. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2014 [Hebrew]. Rabin, Ira, Admir Masic, Gisela Weinberg, Oliver Hahn, and Timo Wolff. “On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayotA).” DSD 16.1 (2009): 97–106. Rabin, Ira. “Archaeometry of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 20.1 (2013): 124–42. Rachewiltz, Boris de. Maxims of the Ancient Egyptians. Translated by Guy Davenport. Milan: All’Insegna del Pesce d’Oro, 1954. Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: Duckworth, 1983. Rajak, Tessa, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken, and Jennifer Dines, eds. Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. London; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge­ sellschaft, 2006. Reich, Ronny, and Eli Shukron. “The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered.” Tel Aviv 38 (2011): 147–57. Reif, Stefan C. A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: This History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection. Richmond: Curzon, 2000. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. “Der Fremde bei Ben sira. Die Spannungen zwischen der spätalttestamentlichen und hellenistischen Weltauffassung.” Pages 65–85 in The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition: Papers Read at the First Meeting of the JBSCE, Piliscsaba, 2009. Edited by Frederich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, and Tobias Nicklas. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies, 4. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. “The Hebrew of Ben Sira Investigated on the Bases of his Use of ‫כרת‬: A Syntactic, Semantic, and Language-Historical Contribution.” Pages 253–77 in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. “Review of Recent Research.” Pages 23–60 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. “Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira.” Pages 203–36 in Die alttestamentliche Botschaft als Wegweisung: Festschrift für Heinz Reinelt. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz, and Núria Calduch-Benages. Bibliographie zu Ben Sira. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Rengakos, Antonios. “Review of Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich-Leipzig: K.G. Saur, 2001.” Bryn Mawr Classical Review. 2002.11.15. Rendsburg, Gary A., and Jacob Binstein. “The Book of Ben Sira.” http://bensira.org.

Bibliography

271

Rey, Jean-Sébastien. 4QInstruction: Sagesse et Eschatologie. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 81. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Reymond, Eric D. “New Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Chapter 1 in MS A (T-S 12.863) (1).” RevQ 26 (2015): 1–16. Reymond, Eric D. “New Readings in the Ben Sira Masada Scroll (Mas 1h).” RevQ 26 (2014): 327–44. Reymond, Eric D. “The Meanings of ‘Life’ in the Hebrew of Ben Sira.” JBL 132:2 (2013): 327–32. Reymond, Eric D. Innovations in Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism and the Poems of Sirach. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Reymond, Eric D., ed. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Reymond, Eric D., Jean-Sébastien Rey, and Jan Joosten. “A New Hebrew Word in Ben Sira 40:4 (MS B IX Verso, Line 12 = Or. 1102): ‫סיגה‬.” RevBib 1 (2017): 103–110. Richter, G.M.A. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans. London: Phaidon, 1966. Robb, Kevin. Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Rochberg-Halton, Francesca, ed. Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. American Oriental Series 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. Rollston, Christopher A. Writing and Literacy In the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Rollston, Christopher A. “Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence.” BASOR 344 (2006): 47–74. Rollston, Christopher A. “Ben Sira 38:24–39:11 and the ‘Egyptian Satire of the Trades’: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120:1 (2001): 131–39. Rollston, Christopher A. “The Non-Encomiastic Features of Ben Sira 44–50.” M.A. diss., Emmanuel School of Religion, 1992. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rosner, Fred. “Pharmacology and Dietetics.” Pages 1–26 in The Healing Past: Pharma­ ceuticals in the Biblical and Rabbinic World. Edited by Irene Jacob and Walter Jacob. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Rubin, Milka. “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity.” JJS 49:2 (1998): 306–33. Rudman, Dominic. Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Rüger, Hans Peter. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.

272

Bibliography

Rybolt, John E. Sirach. Collegeville Bible Commentary: Old Testament 21. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1986. Sacks, David, and Oswyn Murray. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World. London: Constable, 1995. Samely, Alexander, with Philip Alexander, Rocco Bernasconi, and Robert Hayward. Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Sanders, Jack T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Sanders, Jack T. “On Ben Sira 24 and Wisdom’s Mother Isis.” Pages 73–78 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div. A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982. Sanders, James A. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scrolls of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Sawyer, John F.A. “Was Jeshua Ben Sira a Priest?” Pages 65–71 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div. A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira: Übersetzt und Erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schams, Christine. Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period. JSOTSup 291. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Schechter, Solomon. “A Further Fragment of Ben Sira [MS C: Parts of Chapts. 4, 5, 25, and 26].” JQR 12 (1899–1900): 456–65. Schechter, Solomon. “Genizah Specimens: Ecclesiasticus [Original Text of 49:12–50:22].” JQR 10 (1897–98): 197–206. Schechter, Solomon. “A Fragment of the Original Text of Ecclesiasticus.” Expositor 5th Ser.: 4 (1896): 1–15. Schechter, Solomon. “The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature.” JQR 3:4 (1891): 682–706. Schechter, Solomon, ed. Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901. Schechter, Solomon and Charles Taylor, eds. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Scheiber, A. “A New Leaf of the Fourth [sic; read Sixth] Manuscripts of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.” Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982): 179–85, with 8 plates. Schectman, Sarah, and Joel S. Baden, eds. The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Con­ temporary Debate and Future Directions. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009.

Bibliography

273

Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Schirmann, Jefim. “‫סירא העברי‬-‫דף חדש מתוך ספר בן‬.” “New Page from the Hebrew Book of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 27:4 (1958): 440–43 [Hebrew]. Schirmann, Jefim. “‘‫בן־סירא‬ʼ ‫דפים נוספים מתוך ספר‬.” “Other Pages from the Book of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 29:2 (1960): 125–34 [Hebrew]. Schmid, Konrad. Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schoors, Anton. Ecclesiastes. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Louvain; Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2013. Schoors, Anton. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth: Part II: Vocabulary. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 143. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Schorch, Stefan. Euphemismen in der Hebräischen Bibel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Schrader, Lutz. Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 27. Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1994. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Schwartz, Seth. “Hebrew and Imperialism in Jewish Palestine.” Pages 53–84 in Ancient Judaism in Its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Carol Bakhos. JSJSup 95. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Scott, James M. On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees. JSJSup 91. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Scurlock, JoAnn. Sourcebook for Ancient Mesopotamian Medicine. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Scurlock, JoAnn, and Burton R. Andersen. Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine: Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005. Segal, Michael. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira.” JQR 25:2 (1934): 133–40. Segal, Moshe Zvi. ‫ספר בנ־סירא השלם‬. The Complete Book of Ben Sira. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958 [Hebrew]. Seow, C.L. Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Sherwin-White, Susan. “Seleucid Babylonia: A Case Study for the Installation and Development of Greek Rule.” Pages 1–31 in Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of

274

Bibliography

Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexandria. Edited by Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White. London: Duckworth, 1987. Sider, David. The Library of the Villa dei Papiri. Los Angeles: Getty, 2005. Siebeneck, R.T. “May Their Bones Return to Life!—Sirach’s Praise of the Fathers.” CBQ 21 (1959): 411–28. Skeat, T.C. “Was Papyrus Regarded as « Cheap » or « Expensive » in the Ancient World?” Aegyptus 75:1/2 (1995): 75–93. Skeat, T.C. “Two Notes on Papyrus.” Pages 373–78 in Scritti in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi. Edited by Edda Bresciani, et al. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice, 1981. Skehan, Patrick William. “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cog­ nate Studies 13 (1980): 14–44. Skehan, Patrick William. “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24.” CBQ 41 (1979): 364–79. Skehan, Patrick William. “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism.” Pages 163–82 in Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. Paris: Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978. Skehan, Patrick William. ‘Sirach 30:12 and Related Texts.’ CBQ 36 (1974): 535–42. Skehan, Patrick William. “The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13–30.” HTR 64:2/3 (1971): 387–400. Skehan, Patrick William. “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (32:1– 43).” Pages 67–77 in Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom. By Patrick William Skehan. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 1. Washington: CBAA, 1971. Skehan, Patrick William. “Staves, and Nails, and Scribal Slips (Ben Sira 44:2–5).” BASOR 200 (1970): 66–71. Skehan, Patrick William. “Sir 40:11–17.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 570. Skehan, Patrick William. “Didache 1,6 and Sirach 12,1.” Biblica 44 (1963): 533–36. Skehan, Patrick William. “They Shall Not be Found in Parables (Sir 38,33).” CBQ 23 (1961): 40. Skehan, Patrick William. “Tower of Death or Deadly Snare? (Sir 26,22).” CBQ 16 (1954): 154. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes by P.W. Skehan: Introduction and Commentary by A.A. Di Lella. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 39. London: Doubleday, 1987. Small, Jocelyn Penny. Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1997. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1907. Smend, Rudolf. Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebräischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: Reimer, 1907.

Bibliography

275

Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Snaith, John G. “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy.” VT 25 (1975): 167–74. Snaith, John G. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Snaith, John G. “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus.” JTS 18:1 (1967): 1–12. Spek, R.J. van der. ‘The Babylonian City.’ Pages 57–74 in Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexandria. Edited by Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White. London: Duckworth, 1987. Speiser, E.A. Genesis. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Sperber, Alexander, ed. ‫ תרגום אונקלוס לתורה‬.‫ כרך א‬.‫כתבי הקדש בארמית‬. The Holy Aramaic Writings: Volume 1: Targum Onkelos to the Torah. Leiden: Brill, 1959 [Aramaic]. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sōfēr unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Stol, Marten. “Fevers in Babylonia.” Pages 1–40 in Disease in Babylonia. Edited by Irving L. Finkel and Markham J. Geller. Cuneiform Monographs 26. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Stone, Michael E. Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views. Cambridge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Stone, Michael E. “The Book(s) Attributed to Noah.” DSD 13 (2006): 4–23. Stone, Michael E. “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins.” JSJ 19 (1988): 159–70. Stone, Michael E. “Ideal Figures and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age.” Pages 575–86 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Stone, Michael E. “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 414–52 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Stone, Michael E., ed. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseude­ pigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Stone, Michael E, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel. Noah and His Book(s). EJL 28. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Streck, M.P., and N. Wasserman. “Sources of Early Akkadian Literature: A Text Corpus of Babylonian and Assyrian Literary Texts from the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BCE.” http://www.seal.uni-leipzig.de/.

276

Bibliography

Strugnell, John. “Notes and Queries on The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.” Pages 109–19 in W.F. Albright Volume. Edited by Avraham Malamat. Eretz Israel 9. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969 [volume in Hebrew and English]. Swanson, Dwight D. Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Tal, Oren. ‫הארכיאולוגיה של ארץ־ישראל בתקופה ההלניסטית בין מטורת לחידוש‬. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009. Talmon, Shemaryahu, ed. Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Edited by Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Pisqah Be’emsa‘ Pasuq and 11QPsa.” Textus 5 (1966): 11–21. Talshir, Zipora. “The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography (2 Kings Xxiii 29–30; 2 Chronicles Xxxv 20–5; 1 Esdras I 23–31).” VT 46:2 (1996): 213–36. Taylor, Joan E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. New York: Atheneum, 1970. Thomas, Rosalind. “Literacy in Archaic and Classical Greece.” Pages 33–50 in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Thomas, Rosalind. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Thompson, Dorothy J. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Thompson, Dorothy J. “The Multilingual Environment of Persian and Ptolemaic Egypt: Egyptian, Aramaic, and Greek Documentation.” Pages 395–417 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Tooman, William. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe; 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. London: Harvard University Press, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001. Tov, Emanuel. “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” Pages 491–511 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bibliography

277

Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1981. Turner, Eric G. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Oxford, Clarendon: 1952. Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. BZAW 379. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene and Peter W. Flint. Qumran Cave 1: II: The Isaiah Scrolls. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene, et al., eds. Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Vanderlip, Vera F., ed. The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis. Toronto: A.M. Hakkert, 1972. VanderKam, James C. “The Righteousness of Noah.” Pages 13–32 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W.E. Nickelsburg. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. VanderKam, James C., and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Varner, Eric R. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versione greca, latina e siriaca. Pubblicazioni del Seminario de Semitistica 1. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 2004. Vigouroux, F. L’Ecclésiastique. La Sainte Bible Polyglotte 5. Paris: A. Roger et F. Chernoviz, 1904. Visicato, Giuseppe, The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2000. Voitila, Anssi, and Jutta Jokiranta, eds. Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. JSJSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Walbank, F.W. The Hellenistic World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Watts, James W. “Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties.” JHS 13 (2013): 1–15. Warren, James. “Removing Fear.” Pages 234–48 in The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Edited by James Warren. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Weeks, Kent R. “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 1787– 98 in vol. 3 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson, John Baines, Gary M. Beckman and Karen Sydney Rubinson. New York: Scribners; London: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International, 1995.

278

Bibliography

Weeks, Stuart. Ecclesiastes and Scepticism. New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Weeks, Stuart. “Literacy, Orality, and Literature in Israel.” Pages 465–78 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Weber R., ed. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1969. Weigold, Matthias. “Noah in the Praise of the Fathers: The Flood Story in nuce.” Pages 229–44 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. West, Martin L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich: Saur, 2001. West, Martin L. “The Writing Tablets and Papyrus from Tomb II in Daphni.” Greek and Roman Musical Studies 1 (2013): 73–92. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984. Wevers, John William. Numeri. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientarium Gottingensis editum, III.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Wheat, Elizabeth Ruth Josie. “Terrestrial Cartography in Ancient Mesopotamia.” PhD Thesis. University of Birmingham, 2013. Whybray, R.N. “Ben Sira and History.” Pages 137–145 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by Núria CalduchBenages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Wieringen, Archibald L.H.M. van. “Sirach 48:17–25 and the Isaiah-Book: Hezekiah and Isaiah in the Book of Sirach and the Reader-Oriented Perspective of the IsaiahBook.” Pages 191–210 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Wikander, Ola. Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Philological and Comparative Study. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Wilcke, Claus. Wer las und schrieb in Babylonien und Assyrien: Überlegungen zur Literalität im Alten Zweistromland. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000. Williams, R.J. “Wisdom in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 949–52 in Interpreter’s Dic­ tionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Williamson, Hugh G.M. “The Vindication of Redaction Criticism.” Pages 26–36 in Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton. Edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Bibliography

279

Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448–64. Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624–42. Wilson, Gerald H.The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Wilson, Gerald H. “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34 (1984): 337–52. Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377–88. Wilson, John A. “Medicine in Ancient Egypt.” BHM 36:2 (1962): 114–23. Winter, Michael M. A Concordance to the Peshitta Version of Ben Sira. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Winter, Michael M. “Interlopers Reunited: The Early Translators of Ben Sira.” JBL 131 (2012): 251–69. Winter, Michael M. “The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac.” VT 27 (1977): 237–53, 494–507. Wischmeyer, Oda. Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Woods, Christopher, ed. Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010. Woolf, Greg. “Literacy or Literacies in Rome?” Pages 46–68 in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Edited by William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Woolf, Greg, and Alan K. Bowman, eds. Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Wright, Benjamin G. (III) “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek.” Pages 71–88 in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Hindy Najman, JeanSébastian Rey, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. JSJSup 174. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Wright, Benjamin G. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 363–88 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Wright, Benjamin G. “Jubilees, Sirach, and Sapiential Tradition.” Pages 116–30 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Wright, Benjamin G. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s ‘Praise of the Ancestors.’” Pages 183–207 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by József Zsengellér and Géza G. Xeravits. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

280

Bibliography

Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship.” Pages 76–91 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Edited by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken, and Jennifer Dines. London; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature.” Pages 101–23 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20–22 May, 2001. Edited by John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wright, Benjamin G. “B. Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira.” Pages 41–50 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, eds. Núria Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 1999. Wright, Benjamin G. “ ‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 189–222 in Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Wright, Benjamin G. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 133–49 in SBL 1996 Semitics Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira 43:11b—‘To What Does the Greek Correspond?’ ” Text 13 (1986): 111–16. Yadin, Yigael. ‫מגילת בן־סירא ממצדה‬. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965 [Hebrew and English]. Yadin, Yigael and E. Stern, eds. Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968– 1974. Translated by R. Grafman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1975. Yadin, Yigael, Elisha Qimron, and Florentino García Martínez. Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999. Yli-Karjanmaa, Sami. Reincarnation in Philo of Alexandria. Studia Philonica Mono­ graphs 7. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Yuditsky, Alexey (Eliyahu). “The Non-Construct ‫הכל‬/‫ כל‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 259–68 in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher, and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 108. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Zahn, Molly. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Bibliography

281

Zarmakoupi, Mantha, ed. The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. Sozomena 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, XII.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Iob. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, XI.4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Zimmermann, Frank. The Book of Tobit: An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Harper & Brothers for Dropsie College, 1958. Zsengellér, József, and Géza G. Xeravits, eds. Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Zuckerman, Bruce. Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Index of Subjects Aaron 14, 50, 52, 52, 54, 54n, 57, 57n, 58, 63, 64, 68, 69, 79n, 100, 101n, 104, 105, 107, 118, 137 Abraham 41n Achaemenid Persia 176n, 195, 210, 212, 215n, 217, 224, 225, 226, 226n, 229, 230 Adam 137n, 149, 181, 190n administrators 2, 13, 27, 85, 106, 177n, 226 afterlife 144, 145, 159, 166, 172, 176n, 182n, 221 agenda  2, 33, 44, 45, 47, 61, 74, 75, 164 Alexander Polyhistor 3 Alexander the Great 8n, 28, 79, 211n allusion 15, 16, 17, 69n, 72, 184, 233, 237 altar 60, 60n, 100 amulets 214, 215, 222n, 224, 225 Anatomists 220, 221, 227n Anatomy 220, 220n, 221, 223 ancestors 46, 144, 145, 159, 213, 214, 214n, 221 angels 65, 90, 90n, 120, 123n, 138n, 197n, 212, 219, 230 anthology (see florilegia) Antiochus IV Epiphanes 78, 180, 181 antiquarian (-ism) 18 apocalyptic 94, 138n apocrypha (-al) 93 Apollo Iatros 220n Aramaic 6, 14n, 55, 59, 149n, 154, 156n, 178, 222n archaisms (-izing) 12n, 60, 61 Aristobulus 3n Aristocracy 85, 194n Armenian 6, 46 armoria 24 arrogance (-t) 80, 88, 88n, 89, 210n Artapanus 3 Asclepius 206, 217, 220n, 223 asphalt (see bitumen) Assyrians 80, 83, 90, 213 astrologers 218, 226 astrology (-ical) 120, 206, 212, 230 Athenians 211, 221 audience 9n, 16, 20, 31, 86, 97, 156, 179, 184, 185, 195, 233, 237 authority (-itative) 6, 28n

authors  3, 3n, 11, 15, 16, 18, 25, 25n, 26, 30, 31, 56, 69, 70, 71, 71n, 72, 74, 75, 108, 108n, 184, 219, 223, 234, 235, 236 autobiography (-ical) 3, 180n Baal 213 Baal Peor 47, 48, 67, 67n Babylon (-ian(s)) 10, 35n, 36, 88, 93, 209, 209n, 211, 216n, 217n, 230 Babylonia (city) 201, 218 balsam  199, 219 banquets (see feasts) bee honey 219 benches 24, 221 Benjamin 194 Berossus 90 Bethel 68 Biblical Hebrew 12, 12n, 58, 59, 154, 175n, 193n, 195n, 206n bilingual (-ism) 11n bitter (-ness) 148, 154, 155, 165, 166, 169, 172, 181, 182, 220, 221 bitumen 219 blessing(s) 55, 63, 64, 68, 75, 79n, 104, 105, 120, 196n body (human) 21, 128n, 145, 158n, 181, 182 books 25 book access 9n, 15, 156n, 183, 184, 185, 234 book collections 24, 28, 235, 236n book production (see manuscript production) Boreas 140 burial 145, 160n, 181 business 178 Cairo Genizah  4 calendar (-rical) 45, 47, 111n, 116 Canaanites 90n canon (-ical) 6, 7, 72n Catullus 24, 26, 30n, 70 child (-ren) 130n, 144, 145, 149, 157n, 160, 160n, 161, 162, 163, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 182 childbirth 80, 162, 201, 215, 217 Chrysippus 165, 170

Index Of Subjects Cicero 24, 74 class 71n, 195, 218, 226, 230 clothes 103, 104, 177, 206, 206n clouds 84n, 114, 120, 121, 122, 122n, 138n codex (-ices) 25 columns 22, 23, 97n, 147n commands (-ment(s)) 88, 111, 119, 120, 125, 127, 128, 161n community (-ties) 25, 41, 57, 67, 96, 176 composition 2, 17, 18, 26, 29n, 30, 32, 56, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 84, 105, 108, 109, 110, 137, 141, 157, 185, 228, 230, 231 Coptic 6 corrections 54n, 148 cosmology (-ical) 35n costs (of books, papyrus, parchment) 13n, 22, 70n, 71n, 236 costs (of education) 28, 28n covenant (-al) 34, 34n, 35, 35n, 36n, 37, 39n, 40, 41, 41n, 42, 42n, 43, 43n, 44, 44n, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 50n, 57, 58, 58n, 59, 60n, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 101n, 116, 156, 235 craftspersons 25, 29, 65, 71n, 226 creation 35, 36, 111, 111n, 112, 119, 123n, 127, 132, 197 creative (-ity) 6, 16, 17, 18, 32, 33, 44, 69, 75, 109, 131, 142, 185, 188, 231, 232 crown (-ed) 50, 65, 131 cults (-ic) 8, 79, 105, 220, 221 culture (-al) 10, 14n, 16, 23n, 24, 26, 28, 29, 143, 173, 175, 179, 180 curses (-ing) 149, 163, 176, 196, 212 damnatio memoriae 99n, 101, 102, 177 date palm 199, 212, 219, 220n David 50, 50n, 53, 58, 60n, 61, 62, 81, 84n, 89, 91, 96, 97, 105, 106, 107, 194, 222n David, house of  58n, 62 Dead Sea  22, 187, 212, 219 Dead Sea Scrolls 2, 22, 30, 54n, 56n, 64n, 92, 182n, 212, 222 death  13n, 30, 103, 103n, 107, 128n, 143, 144, 145, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 157n, 158, 158n, 160, 160n, 161, 161n, 162, 164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 182n, 184, 185, 188, 211, 214n, 233, 235 Death (personified) 148, 154, 154n, 174, 177

283 demons 201, 216n, 219, 221n, 224, 225 Demotic 9, 168, 174n, 175, 177, 178, 184, 197 desks (see tables) Deuteronomistic History 36, 203, 212 diagnosis 190, 208, 209, 220, 226, 229 diet 60, 155n, 186n, 188, 194, 201, 211, 212, 215, 216, 217, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 227n, 228 dietary law 215, 217 discourse 149, 161, 180, 233 disease  90n, 145n, 188, 201, 202, 209, 213, 214n, 216, 220n, 222n, 223, 227 drafts (-ing) 22, 30n dreams 12, 197n, 223 drink (see wine) Ecclesiasticus  1, 5n, 39n echo (literary) 15, 16, 17, 18, 66, 74, 142, 184, 185, 236 economy (-ic) 7, 10 editing 2, 26, 30, 31, 70, 72, 110 editors  136n education (-ed, -al) 2, 15, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 28n, 29, 30, 71, 72n, 73n, 75, 172, 180, 194, 226, 229, 233 Egypt (-ian(s)) 3, 3n, 11n, 13n, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 56n, 67n, 71, 90n, 99n, 101n, 102n, 112, 139, 161, 174, 176, 177, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 194, 195, 197, 197n, 201, 202, 203, 210, 212, 214n, 216, 217, 220, 221, 222, 222n, 223n, 224, 225, 226n, 227, 230, 233 Eleazar (high priest) 49, 52, 67n, 68 Elijah 127n, 145, 161 elites  15, 25, 183, 184, 227n, 234 Empirics 220 encomium (-ia) 9, 9n, 13n enemies 40, 90n, 129 Enochic traditions 12n Epicureanism 143, 170, 177, 179, 180, 183, 185 Epicurus 172n, 179, 180n, 184, 185 epigraphy (-s, -ic) 27, 52n, 65, 84n, 143, 175, 176, 176n, 177, 178, 185, 220, 220n, 223 Erasistratus 220, 227n Eratosthenes 139n errors  3, 53n, 54, 55n, 56, 63, 70, 89n, 90, 119, 120, 125, 146n, 147n, 155n, 156n, 157, 157n, 164, 190n, 191n, 199n, 204, 205n, 206n eschatology (-ical) 12n esoteric (-ism) 93, 94, 168, 219 Essenes 186, 219

284 ethics (-ical) 6 Ethiopic 6 eulogy 13n euphemism 40n, 63, 103n, 116n Eupolemus 3 Eusebius of Caesarea 3, 3n, 70 exegesis (-ical) 6, 13n, 33n, 40, 46, 58, 69, 70, 70n, 73 exemplar (-ity) 16, 91n, 96, 142, 231, 232, 234 Exile 35n, 36, 36n, 44, 93, 99, 104, 230 exorcism 210, 219 exorcists 209, 216, 217, 218, 225, 226 Ezekiel the Tragedian 3 faithful (-ness) 46, 81, 92, 144, 169 fame (-ous) 16, 173, 178, 179, 181, 219 family 225 fathers 145, 149, 160n, 163, 164, 169 fear of death 144, 158, 167, 173, 179 fear of the Lord/God 88, 167 feasts  97, 102, 103 festivals 45, 64, 74, 116 finances (-ial) 25n, 194, 206 flood 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 41n, 42, 42n, 45, 46, 47, 116, 116n, 162, 235 florilegia   5, 24, 28, 56n, 71, 105, 156n flour 205, 205n, 206, 207, 207n, 215 food (see diet) fool (-ish) 149, 162, 169 foreign rule 28n, 85, 85n frankincense 199, 201, 205, 206, 207n, 225 friend (-ship) 193n frost 120, 127, 129n, 131, 138n fruit(s) 196 funerary rites 200, 200n, 201 furniture 8, 22, 24, 25, 25n, 71, 71n, 72, 234, 236 genre 17, 18, 131, 138, 139, 141, 142, 185, 188, 207n, 228, 230, 231, 233 Gentiles (see pagans) Georgian 6 ghosts 213, 214, 214n giants 12n Gihon (spring)  84, 84n, 86, 86n glory 10, 39, 50, 50n, 52n, 53n, 62, 63, 65, 114n, 117, 139n, 143, 189, 233 gluttony 188, 211, 227, 230 gold 167

Index Of Subjects Greece (-ks) 8n, 10, 11, 18n, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 44n, 46, 56n, 71n, 73, 90, 139n, 140, 143, 152n, 153, 154n, 165, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 195, 196, 199, 203, 206n, 212, 214n, 216, 217, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 227n, 228, 233 Greek 3n, 5, 6n, 8, 8n, 9, 11, 11n, 14n, 23, 59, 70, 174, 174n, 175, 176n, 177, 178, 178n, 179, 180, 180n, 183, 184, 188, 196, 206, 214n Greek-Jewish literature 3, 3n hail 114, 119, 119n, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 130, 132, 138, 138n, 140 hailstones 114, 122, 123, 123n, 132 handling of texts 10, 11, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 56, 70, 71, 71n, 72, 84, 95, 107, 110, 232, 236 harmonization 33, 34, 39, 44, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 83, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 105, 107, 108, 108n, 109, 110, 131, 132, 139, 141, 233, 236 healing  91, 92n, 145, 186, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200n, 201, 202, 203, 203n, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209n, 210, 211, 212, 212n, 215, 216, 216n, 218, 218n, 219, 222, 222n health (-y) 145, 154, 158n, 169, 188, 216, 217, 219, 220, 223, 227, 227n, 228 heavens 46, 114, 118, 118n, 119, 126, 132, 139n heavenly storehouses 111, 114, 120, 120n, 121, 138 heavenly tablets 45, 160n Hebrew  3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 12n, 14n, 38n, 61, 64n Hellenism (-istic) 3n, 7, 8, 8n, 9, 10, 10n, 11, 11n, 13n, 14n, 18n, 24, 44n, 60, 71n, 72n, 108n, 156n, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 176n, 177, 178, 178n, 180, 184, 187, 188, 210, 214n, 215n, 218, 223, 224, 225, 229 Hellenization 9, 164, 181, 212, 235 hemistitch 60, 66, 88, 146n, 165 Heraclitus 8 Herodian 219, 221 Herodotus 70, 90n, 108, 139n, 196, 219, 220n Hesiod 174, 179, 180, 220n Hezekiah 62, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 84n, 85, 86, 86n, 87, 88, 89, 89n, 91, 91n, 92, 92n, 93, 94, 95, 95n, 96, 97, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 125n, 154, 159, 169, 172, 203n, 213, 236

Index Of Subjects Hezekiah’s Tunnel 83, 84, 84n, 85, 86, 125n hieratica 22 high priests (-hood) 50, 60, 64, 67n, 69, 74, 75, 77, 85, 101, 106, 107, 109, 233 historiography 14, 46, 90 hoarfrost 114, 121, 128, 130, 130n, 131, 131n, 132, 138 holiness 57, 60 Holiness Code 215, 217, 229 Homer 8, 8n, 69, 154n, 156, 156n, 175, 179, 180, 180n, 220n honey 97, 99n, 102n, 212, 212n, 215, 219 honorarium 189n, 193, 194, 205, 207 honour 10, 30, 52n, 65, 67, 153, 173, 176, 182, 186, 189, 193, 193n, 196, 223 Horace  24, 26, 30n humility 195 humours 220n, 224 hygiene 220, 224, 227n Hymn of Creation 19, 55n, 111, 116, 130, 131, 132, 137, 138, 139, 141, 197n, 228, 235 hymns (see psalms) hyssop oil 214, 216 ideology (-ical) 33, 49 idolatry 67, 103, 105, 122, 123n, 166 illness 20, 87, 88, 91, 97, 109, 145, 154, 172, 181, 186, 186n, 187, 187n, 188, 193, 197, 201, 202, 203, 203n, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210n, 211, 211n, 212, 213, 215, 216n, 217, 220n, 221, 222, 223, 224, 227, 228, 230 imitation 16, 17, 18, 32, 41, 42, 44, 45, 185, 230, 232 immorality 46, 47, 214 immortality 167, 168, 173, 175, 178, 179, 182 incense  46, 97, 99, 100, 100n, 101, 105, 106, 121n, 216, 225 inclusio 210 inherit (-ance) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 62, 63, 67n, 181n ink 22, 23, 53n, 97n inkwells 22, 23, 26 iniquity 125n, 149, 186, 190, 194n, 203, 208, 209, 211, 215, 222, 224 innovation 16, 18, 33, 40, 44, 232, 236, 237 inscriptions (see epigraphy (-s, -ic)) interpret (-ation) 6, 13, 33, 34, 41, 41n, 42, 44, 47, 57n, 61, 69, 73, 74, 75, 90, 94, 101,

285 116, 159, 186, 198, 199, 206, 208, 209, 232, 233 Isaac 41n, 42n Isaiah (prophet) 80, 81, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 96, 96n, 97, 107, 109, 213, 236 Israel (-ite(s)) 14n, 27, 28, 29, 36, 45, 47, 48, 48n, 49, 50n, 54n, 57, 57n, 67, 72n, 73n, 83, 86, 88, 102, 104, 106, 107, 128, 129, 137, 140, 173, 182, 186, 186n, 187, 199, 204, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 219, 221, 223n, 224, 225, 228, 229 Jacob  40, 41, 41n, 61, 68 Jeremiah (prophet) 78, 99, 236 Jericho  176, 212, 221 Jerome  5n,38n, 70, 70n, 71n, 74, 108 Jerusalem 1, 13, 27, 84, 85, 87, 89, 106, 176, 177, 195, 201, 206, 213, 221, 233, 233n Jesse 50, 61 Job (figure) 40, 40n, 118n, 145, 145n, 157n, 158, 159, 160, 161n, 163, 165, 166, 193, 213 Jordan 67n, 219 Joseph (son of Jacob) 137n, 194 Josephus 46, 47, 55n, 67, 67n, 68, 69, 73, 75, 90, 96, 106, 107, 108, 215, 219, 222, 235 Joshua 53, 104, 123, 132 Josiah 62, 78, 79, 86, 92, 94, 97, 99, 99n, 100, 101, 103, 103n, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 236 Judah (place) 61, 73n, 77, 83, 102, 106, 107, 109 Judah (tribe) 50, 61 Judas Maccabeus 181 Judea  7n, 11n, 13, 22, 28, 56n, 78, 85, 96, 140, 175, 176, 178, 185, 187, 197, 199, 205n, 212, 214, 218n, 219, 222, 237 Judean Desert 97 judges 226 judgment 118n justice 112, 123, 127, 144, 145 juxtaposition 128, 131, 144, 172 Kenaz 67 Khamsin wind 140 kings (-ship) 8n, 15, 61, 62, 79, 79n, 83, 85n, 89, 92, 95, 99, 101, 102, 105n, 106, 107, 109, 196n, 213, 233

286 knowledge 9, 28n, 66, 75, 76, 139, 145, 161, 168, 169, 177, 180, 180n, 189, 194, 197n, 199, 202, 217, 220, 226, 235 Kosbah 47, 54n, 57, 67 Late Biblical Hebrew 6, 12, 12n, 52n, 55, 58, 60, 94n, 154, 159, 161, 163, 167, 168, 193n, 194, 195n, 198n, 206n Latin 5, 5n, 38n, 51n laws 57, 58, 68, 103, 145, 148, 149, 159, 160, 161n, 163, 178n, 186n, 208n, 215, 217, 229 lecterns 25 Leontopolis 161n, 176, 177, 177n Levi 66, 66n, 68 Levi, tribe of 57, 68 Levites  58, 60, 68, 216 libraries 28, 28n, 70n, 71, 71n, 221n, 236, 236n (see also book collections) literacy  27, 28, 29, 29n, 30, 30n, 110 liturgy (-ical) 57, 63, 111n, 199, 200, 204, 205, 209, 230 locusts 114, 127, 128, 129 longevity 46, 160 Lucretius  139n, 179 Luke (physician) 26, 108, 183, 184 Maccabean revolt 10, 181 magic bowls 222n magical practices 186, 186n, 187, 209, 212, 218n, 219, 222, 223n Manasseh 95, 106 mandrake 214, 219 manuscript production 1, 2, 3, 16, 21, 23, 26, 72, 72n, 73, 74, 110 manuscripts 26, 30, 37n, 53n (see also parchment, papyrus (-i), books, scrolls) Martial  25, 71n Masoretic Text 47, 48, 90, 95, 142n, 235 material culture 2, 2n, 10, 21, 71, 71n, 72, 73, 110, 236 materiality 31, 70, 72, 76, 234, 236 Mattathias 66, 67 mechanics 8, 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 232, 236 medicine (-ical) 139, 186, 186n, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194n, 196, 197, 197n, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 206n, 207, 208, 209, 210, 210n, 211, 212, 213, 214, 214n,

Index Of Subjects 215, 215n, 216, 216n, 217, 218, 218n, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235 Mediterranean 8, 8n, 10, 11, 14, 18, 18n, 21, 28, 29, 70, 71, 79, 105n, 126, 140, 143, 144, 161, 170, 173, 175, 179, 181, 185, 195, 201, 206n, 209, 217, 221, 225, 229, 233, 234 membranae 71 (see also notebooks) memorial 176, 176n, 190 memory (-ization) 29, 30, 44, 56, 70, 70n, 97, 99n, 101, 110, 131, 156, 170 menstruation 201, 214n, 215, 217 Merodak-Baladon 93 Mesopotamian  23, 24, 27, 28, 36, 71, 121, 140, 174, 177n, 188, 195, 199, 201, 203, 204n, 210, 212, 214n, 216, 216n, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223n, 224, 225, 226, 226n metaphor (-ical) 86, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 122n, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 138, 141, 145, 182, 222 Middle Egyptian 12n Midianites 48, 67, 67n Midianite woman (see Kosbah) midwifery 195, 214, 214n might (-y) 49, 50n, 52, 52n, 53, 65n, 68, 81, 94, 114, 189, 199 minerals 22, 201, 215, 230 Miriam  213 miscellanies 24, 28 mortality (see death) Moses 55, 55n, 67, 67n, 69, 84n, 96, 182 Most High 80, 89, 148, 149, 160, 163 mourn (-ing, -ers) 81, 93, 145, 166, 176, 177, 221, 226, 230 music 97, 99n, 102, 103 myrrh 199 names 3, 31, 102, 144, 149, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 176, 177, 182, 184, 233 nature-lists 111, 111n, 112, 117, 118, 119, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 137, 138, 139, 139n, 140, 141, 142 Near East 9, 10, 18, 25, 36 85, 139, 140, 144, 161, 175, 179, 187, 201, 202, 206n, 209, 210n, 217, 221, 222, 225, 235 Noah 33, 34, 34n, 35, 35n, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 41, 42, 44, 45, 45n, 46, 47, 65, 73, 75, 116, 159, 197n, 199, 219, 235

Index Of Subjects nobles (-ility) 189, 195, 195n, 196 notebooks 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 44, 44n, 56, 56n, 70, 71, 72, 105, 108 Notus 140 Old Greek 43n offerings 46, 57, 60n, 74, 100, 101n, 190, 205, 205n, 206, 206n, 207, 207n, 216, 221, 223, 230 oil 100, 200, 200n, 201, 205, 205n, 207n, 214, 216 ointments (see unguents) Oniads  61, 75 onomastica 112 orality 22, 26, 29, 30, 72, 234 orators  25 originality 7, 16, 18, 32, 33, 45, 228, 231, 232 ostraca  22 Ostro wind 140 P, source 15, 35, 35n, 36, 36n, 43, 44, 44n, 48, 49, 59, 235, 236 pagans  214, 215, 215n, 218n paleo-Hebrew 61, 64n Palestine 3n, 143, 185 pan-Aaronide view 57n, 60, 68, 68n, 69, 74 pan-Levitic view 35n, 68, 68n, 74 papyrus, (-i) 22, 23, 56n, 71, 180, 236n paragraph markers 99, 152, 153, 153n, 190n parallelisms 55, 57, 90, 122, 126, 140, 206n parallels 8, 9, 18, 36, 36n, 138n, 139, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175, 177, 177n, 179, 180, 183, 184, 197, 233, 234 paraphrase 26, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 233 parchment 22 patriarchs 34n, 40, 41n, 53, 63, 101, 108, 137, 137n, 160, 193 patron (-age) 13n, 28, 194, 233 patronyms 52, 61n Paul 67, 70, 108 pedagogy (-ical) 14n pens 22 Pentateuch (see Torah) performance 26, 31, 76, 232, 235, 237 perfume 200, 200n perfumers 97, 99, 101, 101n, 190, 200, 200n, 201, 202, 218, 225, 229, 230 pesharim 96, 96n, 208

287 pharmacists 200, 200n pharmacy (-ology) 215, 215n Philistia 178 Philo of Alexandria 45, 47, 67, 73, 75, 93, 182, 211, 227, 227n, 235 Philodemus 179 philosophy (-ical) 143, 161, 170, 179, 180, 183, 184 Phinehas 33, 47, 48, 48n, 49, 51, 52, 52n, 53, 54, 55n, 57, 57n, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 67n, 68, 68n, 69, 73, 74, 75, 79n, 104, 105, 137, 203n Phoenicia (-ns) 178, 213, 221n physicality (of writing and reading) 21, 22, 29, 31, 70, 72, 76, 236 physicians 14, 186, 186n, 187, 189, 190, 193, 194, 194n, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 202n, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 214n, 215, 216, 216n, 217, 218, 218n, 220, 220n, 221, 223, 225, 226, 226n, 227, 227n, 228, 229, 230, 231 piety (pious) 8, 67, 98, 104, 105, 105n, 106, 109, 145, 149, 169, 172, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209, 213, 214, 218n, 223, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231 Pindar 143 Piso, Lucius Calpurnius 70n plague 80, 90, 90n, 127, 127n, 128, 128n, 203n, 211, 222 plastered benches 24 Pliny the Elder 24, 25n, 26, 30n, 70, 108, 108n, 110, 139n, 219, 227n Pliny the Younger 168 polemic (-ical) 164, 165 politics (-ical) 10, 13, 13n, 14, 60n, 97, 109, 165n, 181, 225 poor 28n, 206n posture (bodily) 21, 23, 25, 26, 56 seating 24, 25, 26 poverty 163n Praise of the Fathers 1n, 9, 32, 33, 34n, 41, 42, 55n, 63, 68, 69, 74, 77, 84, 85, 93, 97, 99, 101, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 137, 141, 233, 235, 236 prayer 63, 63n, 64, 80, 84, 88n, 89, 89n, 91, 165, 186n, 202, 203, 203n, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213, 216, 223, 226, 230 prices (see costs)

288 priesthood 35, 35n, 48, 49, 50, 57, 58, 58n, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67n, 68, 68n, 69, 74, 75, 104, 233 priests 14, 15, 60, 60n, 74, 77, 79, 79n, 85, 97, 101, 105, 109, 118, 137, 199, 207, 215, 216, 216n, 217, 220n, 225, 226, 229 prophecy (-tic) 12n, 34, 93, 94, 97, 119, 122, 126, 132, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 145n, 155, 222 prophets 40n, 67, 77, 78, 78n, 81, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99, 107, 213, 236 psalms 16, 55n, 64, 105, 111, 111n, 141, 142, 144, 204, 205 pseudepigraphy (-ical) 69, 93, 96, 97, 168, 212, 213, 219 Ptolemaic Egypt 3n, 13, 25, 27, 161, 176, 177, 195, 221n Ptolemy (geographer) 139n punishment 122, 123, 127n, 182, 203, 210n, 212, 215, 220n, 221 purity 145, 187, 190, 204, 204n, 205, 215, 217, 217n, 235 quarantine 213, 214, 214n, 216n, 217, 217n Quintilian 23, 108n quotations 6, 7, 17, 20, 28n, 32, 32n, 34, 41, 44, 44n, 55n, 56, 59, 60, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 87, 88, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 112, 120, 127, 131, 141, 142, 154, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 183, 184, 185, 194, 194n, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200n, 205n, 207, 228, 231, 232, 234, 236, 237 direct 57, 57n, 88, 96, 119, 138, 142, 160, 177, 184, 204n, 233 implicit 69n indirect 70, 77, 96 interspersed 60, 77, 170, 171, 198, 199, 233 inverted 33, 33n synonymous 55, 57, 65, 70, 73, 87, 117, 132, 142, 203n Qumran (place)  24, 25, 25n, 26, 96 Qumran Hebrew 11, 12n, 14n, 22, 52n rabbinic culture 53n, 55n, 64, 64n, 68, 69, 182, 186, 186n, 199, 200, 215, 215n, 222n Rabbinic Hebrew 66n, 88, 123n, 127, 154, 155n, 158, 159n, 161n, 166n, 175n, 193n, 194, 196, 206n, 208n

Index Of Subjects rainbow 42, 45, 46, 47, 114, 116, 116n, 118, 119, 127, 140, 142, 235 Raphael 213, 219 Rav-Shaqeh 80, 87 readers (-ing) 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 66, 69n, 71n, 75, 110, 112, 142, 175, 177, 183, 187, 233, 234 reception 15, 45, 125n reciprocity 10, 173 references (-ing) 11, 16, 17, 26, 39n, 40, 41n, 42, 53n, 55n, 61, 62, 64, 83, 85, 93, 94, 97, 103, 104, 112, 116n, 120, 123n, 124, 125, 127, 127n, 144, 156, 168, 173, 180, 181, 200n, 205n, 214 religion (-ious) 10, 16, 25n, 60n, 86, 106, 107, 176n, 181, 187n, 212, 222, 223 remedies 186, 197, 201, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 218n, 219, 222, 223, 227, 227n, 230 remnant 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47 reputation 16 resurrection 145, 145n, 161, 182, 182n revelation (-ory) 122, 123, 126, 127, 132, 140, 141, 142 reward  67, 68, 74, 181 Rewritten Scripture 33, 33n rhetoric 74 righteous (-ness)  37, 39n, 44, 45, 47, 65, 66, 106, 144, 156, 159, 164, 169, 170, 172, 176, 181, 213 ritual  68, 109, 145, 186n, 192n, 199, 200, 201, 209, 209n, 215, 216, 216n, 218, 218n, 219, 229 Rome (-an(s)) 13n, 22, 25, 25n, 28, 28n, 29, 29n, 70, 71, 71n, 72, 85, 99n, 101, 139n, 168, 176, 177, 185, 195, 206, 206n, 210, 210n, 214n, 220, 220n, 224, 225, 226, 227, 227n rue 219 rulers  8, 60n, 61, 77, 79, 85, 97, 195, 105, 106, 107, 109, 122, 194, 221, 236 sacrifice (-ial) 35, 35n, 44, 44n, 46, 57, 57n, 63, 67, 68, 86, 100, 101, 106, 187, 200, 200n, 201, 202, 203, 205, 205n, 207, 208, 209, 216, 216n, 230 Sadducees 145n sages  8, 11, 14, 31, 231n salt 97, 101, 101n, 114, 131, 215

Index Of Subjects Samaritan Pentateuch 55, 70 schools 27, 28, 28n, 72n, 73n, 156, 175, 177n, 178n, 201, 233, 233n, 236 scribal culture 2, 2n, 15, 18, 21, 26, 27, 31, 232, 233, 234, 236 scribalism 1, 15, 18, 66, 74, 75, 84, 109, 110, 142, 184, 185, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236 scribes  2, 11n, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 54n, 56, 66, 70, 72, 73, 73n, 74, 75, 106, 110, 112, 153n, 177, 177n, 178, 185, 216n, 217, 225, 226, 229, 232, 233n, 235, 236 scriptoria 24 scriptures (-al)  16, 108, 166n, 177, 222 scrolls  1, 22, 23, 24, 24n, 25, 26, 28, 30, 56, 71n, 72, 108, 110, 129n, 235 Scymnus 139n Second Temple Judaism 11, 12, 45, 45n, 52, 56n, 65, 73, 94, 96, 97, 107, 146n, 175, 186, 187, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 215n, 218, 219, 221, 222, 222n, 223n, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 236 (for specific Second Temple texts see index of ancient sources) sectarian 219 Seleucid(s) 7, 7n, 13, 60n, 78, 85, 105, 109, 165n, 177, 181, 185, 195, 229 Sennacherib 80, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 95, 109 Septuagint (LXX) 38n, 42n, 46, 48n, 53n, 57n, 116n, 154, 154n, 194 servant  88, 103n, 196 Seth 137n shame 194n Sharav wind 140 Shavuot 45, 116 Shem  137n Sheol  92n, 144, 149, 154, 159, 161, 163, 166, 166n, 169, 172, 182 signs 38, 42, 43, 44, 46, 122, 132, 141 silence 144, 161, 169 Siloam Tunnel  83, 84, 84n, 85, 86 silver  167, 168 Silwan 221 Simon II 1n, 7, 13, 13n, 14, 14n, 48, 63, 64, 65, 69, 75, 78, 79n, 84, 85, 86, 101, 106, 106n, 107, 109, 116 118, 122n, 137, 165n, 181, 204, 204n, 233 Simon, son of Jacob 66n sinners  176, 177, 190, 209, 210n

289 Sirach (general) 1, 5, 38n, 39n, 51n, 59, 61 skin diseases 201, 202, 213, 217 sky (see heavens) Slavonic 6 snow 114, 119, 120, 121, 127, 127n, 128, 128n, 129, 130, 131, 132, 138n, 140 social location 3, 15, 74, 75, 233 Solomon 92, 105, 106, 139 sphere(s) of operation 8, 18, 77, 109, 143, 170, 173, 180, 185, 229, 232, 233, 234, 237 spices 100n, 101, 176n, 200n, 201 stars 111, 117, 120, 138n, 197n status  52, 52n, 194, 195, 197n, 210 statute 49, 57, 58, 148, 156, 157, 160 Stoicism 170, 175, 179, 183, 185, 233 stools  24, 25 storms (all kinds) 114, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 125n, 126, 127, 127n, 140 students 9, 74 study 26, 72 style 3, 6, 7, 18, 74, 87, 87n, 93, 142, 155, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 Suetonius 26, 30n Sukkot  45 sun 81, 92, 93, 111, 117, 129, 138n, 142, 197 Syria 13n Syriac (general) 5, 39n Syro-Phoenicia 13 tables 25, 71, 71n, 108, 110 tablets 23, 30, 45, 56, 71, 160n Talmud (-ic) 189n, 215n Targum (-ic) 70, 70n, 125, 125n, 159 taxes 7 teach (-ing) 16, 71, 74, 169, 197n, 219 teachers 13, 14, 25, 28, 74, 106, 177, 178n, 225, 226, 233n technology 8, 30, 72, 236 Temple of Jerusalem 14n, 27, 28n, 35, 35n, 44, 44n, 57n, 68, 86, 99, 100, 101, 101n, 105, 106, 109, 155, 196, 200, 200n, 201, 202, 204n, 205, 205n, 206, 207, 216, 216n, 218, 229, 230, 233, 235 temples 14n, 27, 28n, 178n, 201, 206, 221n, 222, 223, 229, 233n Tetragrammaton 54, 64, 160n, 212, 213 textual dependence 9, 12, 19, 36n, 170, 172n, 174, 175, 183, 207 textual reuse (definition) 16

290 Theodotus 3 Theognis 9, 9n, 11 theology (-ical) 53n, 66n, 70n Thoth 197n Thucydides 70, 108, 211, 221, 222 thunder 114, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 130, 138, 140 Tobiads 180 tombs 52n, 176, 177, 221, 221n Torah 15, 59, 146, 147, 159, 160, 160n, 164, 175, 217 trade 13n, 22, 73n, 176, 178, 219 tradespersons 226, 228, 230, 231 (see also craftspersons) translation 11n, 23, 26 translator of Sirach (grandson) 5, 7, 26, 27, 59, 62, 69n, 86, 117, 165, 166, 166n, 180n, 200 translators 73 transmission 2, 13n, 23, 26, 56, 72, 236 travel  11, 129n, 140, 180 treasures 149, 168, 169 Ugarit (-ic) 36, 36n, 213 unguents 190, 200, 200n, 201, 202 Ut-napištim 35, 178, 178n variants 13n, 26, 48, 50n, 55n, 56, 89, 95, 129n, 146, 193n, 235 Vetus Latina 5n, 38n Villa dei Papiri 25n, 28n, 71n Virgil 30n, 70, 110, 139n visions 68, 116, 122, 196 wax tablets 23, 30, 71 wealth 28, 71n, 155, 178n, 190, 197n, 206, 206n

Index Of Subjects weather 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 132, 140, 141, 197n wicked (-ness) 40, 46, 101, 106, 122, 143, 144, 149, 156, 162, 163, 163n, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 180, 182, 184, 211, 222 winds 114, 120, 121, 123n, 125n, 126, 126n, 127, 127n, 138n, 140, 224 wine 97, 102, 102n, 103, 197, 214, 215 wisdom 9, 12, 24, 30, 31, 63n, 65, 72n, 102, 103, 139, 140, 142, 149, 167, 168, 169, 172, 174, 174n, 175, 177n, 179n, 180, 183, 194, 195, 197, 198n, 199, 200, 202, 203, 208, 225, 226, 228, 229 Wisdom (personified) 72n, 100n, 118, 202n wise 11, 144, 168, 189, 195, 202, 207, 208, 226, 229 wood 25, 56n, 189, 198, 199, 202, 216 wooden boards 26, 74 wooden holders 71n wordplay 84, 88, 89, 91, 116n, 128, 165, 168, 169, 194n, 199n, 205n worms 201, 222, 224 writers (see authors)  writing 8, 15, 24, 25, 30, 31, 70, 71, 71n, 72, 74, 108, 110, 169, 184, 232, 233, 234, 236 (see also composition) writing tools 15, 21, 22, 26, 30, 71n Xenophon 168, 180n Yehud 215n Zadok 67n Zadokite view 35n, 68 zeal (-ous) 48, 49, 53, 54, 54n, 66, 67, 75 Zimri  47, 57, 67, 67n, 74 Zion 16, 80, 81, 87, 93, 141

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 47 1 112n6, 118, 123n60 1:12 196, 196n53, 198 1:27 70 1–11 36 3:14 166 6–8 35n14 6–9 34–36, 41–42, 73, 159 6:3 41, 159, 160 6:9 39, 41, 162 6:8–9 43 6:12 41n39 6:13 41n39, 159, 159n73, 160 6:17 41, 41n39 6:18 42 6:19 41n39, 70 7:2 70 7:3 70 7:6 41 7:9 70 7:10 41 7:16 41n39 7:21 41n39 8:17 41n39 9 116 9:1–17 35n14 9:1–20 35n14 9:4 41n39, 46 9:8–17 42–44 9:9 42, 44 9:11 41–42, 44n46 9:11–16 42 9:12 43, 65 9:13 112, 116n15 9:13–14 116 9:14 116n15, 116n17 9:15–17 41n39 9:15 41n39 9:16 43, 116 9:28 41, 51n70 12:11 63 14:5 90n46 15:15 182

17:21 42n40 18:12 41n39 19:11 90n46 20:5 104n116 20:17 203n78 21:23 162 22:15–18 36n20 25:20 70n160 26:3–5 36n20 30:31 186n2 43:3 41n39 43:5 41n39 43:34 194, 194n42 45:5 209n99 47:18 41n39 49:5–7 68 Exodus 2:24 42n40 6:25 48n58, 53 9:14 90n46 9:15 90n46 9:22 120 9:23 130 9:24 120 9:26 120 9:28 120 13:21–22 121n38 15 55n86 15:25 196, 198–99 15:25–26 199, 228, 231 15:26 198, 213, 222n160 16:14 130n97 20:5 163 21:19 186n5 23:23 90n46 25:2 57 25:6 100n92 25:8 49n67 28:3 65n139 29:9 57–58 30 99–100 30:7 100n92 30:25 200n69 30:34 100n92

292 Exodus (cont.) 30:34–35 100–1 30:35 101 31:6 65n139 31:11 100n92 35:15 100n92 35:21 57n95 35:25 65n139 35:29 57n95 36:8 65n139 37:29 99–100 38:1 100 39:38 100n92 40:27 100n92 Leviticus 100n92 1:1–17 206n88 1:17 206n88 2 205, 205n86, 206 2:1–3 207n91 2:1–16 206n91 2:2 205 2:3 205 2:4–10 206n91 2:4–7 205 2:9 205 2:13 101n99 2:15 205–7 4:25 70n160 5:7–13 206 11 215–17 11–15 215–18, 230, 235 11:7 70 12 215, 217 12:8 206 13–14 201–2, 216 13–15 199, 204n83, 209, 217 13:2–3 209 13:9–10 209 13:46 214 14:1–57 216 14:2–3 209 14:4 216 14:6 216 14:48 209 15:19–33 217 16:13 121n38 16:34 57n96

Index Of Ancient Sources 19:14 158n65 24:5–9 205 24:7 205–6 Numbers 100n92 6:24–27 222n160 10:34 121n38 12:1–15 212, 216 12:10–13 213 12:13 213 14:12 90n46 14:14 121n38 15:38 206n88 17:23 131 18 60n106, 74 18:7 53 18:19 101n99 18:23 57–58 18:23–24 63 19:18 214 21:9 86n31 22–24 163 25 48, 52, 56, 60, 63, 67, 74 25:1–15 47–48, 54 25:7–15b 48 25:7 52, 55, 56 25:10–13 48 25:10 52 25:11 54 25:11–13 47, 59 25:12 59 25:12–13 53 25:13 57–58, 65 25:23–24 54 31:6 48n58, 52 Deuteronomy 107 4:45 90n46 5:24 62 6 127n81 14:8 70 21:23 164 22:12 206n88 28:21–29 203 28:22 90n46 29:29 168 32:1–43 55, 127n81 32:2 127n81

293

Index Of Ancient Sources 32:15 55 32:24 127–28 Joshua 6:3 118n32 10:10 91n49 10:11 123, 123n62 12:7 90n46 13:14 62–63 18:7 63 22:9–34 48n58 Judges 53 5:2 57 5:9 57 9:8–9 124n67 1 Samuel 4:19 48n58 4:21 62 5:6 90n46 7:10 91n49 8:13 200n69 13:4 90n46 14:3 48n58 16:18 53 15:32 154 17:9 90n46 17:58 61 21:14 119n39 28:7–25 214 2 Samuel 1:21 116n15 7:13 58, 61 7:16 58, 61 11:8 194, 194n42 22:8 123n62 22:15 91n49 22:16 123n62 1 Kings 107 1:1–4 186n2 8:39 155 8:64 60 17:17–24 161 19:2 104n116

2 Kings 107 6:14 118n32 6:18 90n46 8:29 214 9:15 214 11:8 118n32 18:3 91 18:4 86 18:5 92 18:6 91 18–20 88n39 18–21 78 19:6 88 19:14 89n42 19:14–19 89–90 19:16 88n38 19:28 88 19:35 90 20:1–11 92 20:3 91 20:4–6 91 20:5 91 20:10–11 92n58 20:12–19 93 20:20 83–84 21:6 214 22:11 103 22:19 104 Isaiah 107, 236 1:9 96 1:11–17 205 1:18 129 2:1 93n61 5:11–14 102 5:17 53 6:5 154 10:21 53 10:32 87, 87n35 11:1–3 94n68 11:2 53, 93n61 11:11–12 41 11:12 206n88 13:7–8 88–89 13:8 88 14:22 162, 162n93 17:2 154 17:7 116

294 Isaiah (cont.) 18:4 122 18:6 121 19:1 121 22:9–10 84 22:9–11 87 24:16 206n88 26 145n10 26:14 214 28:1 154 28:17 94 29:6 112, 120, 123–24, 126–27, 132 30:30 120 36:1–37:38 87 36–39 78, 84, 88n39, 95, 96 37:3 154 37:6 88 37:14 89n42 37:15–20 89 37:17 88n38 37:20 89–90, 95, 235 37:29 88 37:36 90 38 92, 213, 230 38:1–39:8 87 38:3 91 38:4–5 91 38:5 97 38:8 92n58 38:9–20 92n59, 154, 158, 163, 169–70, 172, 180, 184 38:12 159 38:13 159 38:15 92n59, 154 38:18 92n59, 144, 161n89 38:18–19 161 38:19 144, 163, 168–69 38:20 181 38:21 213 39:1–8 93 40–66 141 40:3 108n123 40:21–24 112, 141 40:22 118–19, 126, 138 40:22–24 118 40:24 126 40:29 157

Index Of Ancient Sources 40–55 93 42:5 119 42:9 94 43:18–19 159 44:24 119 45:7 105n118 45:19 94 46:3 41 48:16 94 50:22 120 51:3 119 51:9 119n36 51:16 119 53 145n10 53:5 103–4 56:2–3 93 56–66 93 57:9 200n69 60:8 121n54 61:1 94n68 61:3 87, 93 66:15 120 Jeremiah 8:22 214 12:13 103n111 23:19 127 30:13 196 30:23 127 32:27 54 35:27 54 46:11 196 Ezekiel 1 116, 141 1:8 116n17 1:22–26 118 1:28 116, 122 6:6 122 7:2 206n88 8:11 121n38 13:11 123 13:13 123 13:18 154, 214 13:20 128n83 14:14 40n31 30:3 122 30:21 196, 214

Index Of Ancient Sources 34:25 58 37 145n10 38:22 123 43:2 62 47 196 47:12 196, 198, 228 Hosea 6 145n10 12:2 193n35 13:14 154, 154n35 Amos 1:14 127 6:6 98n84, 103, 103n111 Jonah 1:4 127 1:12 127 Micah 5:7–8 41 Nahum 1:2–10 112, 124, 124n65, 132, 141 1:3 126, 132 1:5 124 1:8–9 40, 44 1:8 40 3:17 129 Habakkuk 3:5

128, 141

Zephaniah 1:15 122 Zechariah 3:2 222n160 9:13–14 127, 132 9:14 126–27 11:10 122 12:4 90n46 Malachi 2:5 57, 58 3:1 108n123 3:24 90n46

295 Psalms 48, 107 1–90 136 6:5 144n6 7:10 64 8:6 65 16 144, 145n10 18:8 123n62 18:13 120 18:15 91n49 18:16 123n62 18:26 198n60 19:9–10 102n106 20 205n86 20:2–6 205n86 20:4 205n86 23:4 158 24:4 204, 204n83 24:8 53 28:1 144n6 29 112, 132, 138 29:1 117 29:1–2 117 29:3 63 29:7 120, 124 29:8 124, 132 33:7 121 35:15 164 37:37–38 171n137 39 157n57, 171, 172n138, 180 39:4–6 158 49 144 50:22 64 51:9 129 65:7 123n62 69:15 144n6 71:20 166n111 72:2 65 73 144 78:4 116 78:12 116 80:15 64 88:3 144n6 88:11 214 89:13 126 89:15 155 90:12 65 91 222n160 91–150 48, 132, 136–37

296 Psalms (cont.) 97:2 155 98:1 116 101:2 104n116 102 137n106 103 136 103:20 64 104 48, 111–12, 132, 136, 138, 141, 142n118, 155n43, 235 104:1 117, 139n113 104:2 119, 119n37 104:3 121, 122 104:3–4 126 104:5 155, 155n43 104:7 123, 125, 132 104:8 86n32, 129 104:12 122n55 104:13 121 104:14 131 104:15 214 104:17 122n55 104:32 123 105 136 106 48, 55, 56, 74, 136–37, 141, 235 106:1 64 106:23 48n60, 55–56, 203n78 106:28–31 48 106:30 48n60, 55, 203n78 106:31 65 106:48 137 115:2 64 116:14 64 116:18 64 118:1 64 118:2 64 118:3 64 118:4 64 118:25 64 119:29 64 119:76 64 119:108 64 121:6 186n2 122:8 64 124:1 64 129:1 64

Index Of Ancient Sources 130:1 144n6 134 137n106 135:7 120–21 143:7 144n6 146 136 146:10 137n106 147 48, 111–12, 132, 136, 138, 141, 142n118, 235 147:1–17 140 147:8 131 147:15 125 147:16 128, 130–31 147:18 125 148 111–12, 132, 136, 138, 141, 142n118, 235 148:1–12 139n113 148:1–16 117 148:5 125 148:8 120, 127–29 Proverbs 168, 170n130, 172–74, 183–85 1:7 162 1:25 161 1:30 161 2:4 168 2:7 202n75 3:7–8 203 3:8 189n19 3:14 167–68 5:3 102 5:11 182, 182n190 6:23 161, 161n83 8:13 88 8:14 202n75 8:27 118 10:7 167 10:8 65n139 10:14 168 11:7 157 11:26 163 11:29 65n139 15:31 161 16:18 88 16:21 65n139 16:22 162 17:10 198n60 17:24 198n60

Index Of Ancient Sources 17:27–29 155 17:28 169 18:3 163–64, 167 18:24 155 20:9 204n83 22–24 183 22:11 204n83 22:17–18 183 22:17–21 26 23:29 154 24:5 198n60 24:13 102, 102n106 24:24 163 25:2 63 25:16 102, 223 25:27 102 26:18 120 27:5 161 29:15 161 30:7 169 30:15–16 112n6 30:18–20 112n6 30:24–31 112n6 Job 144, 144n8, 168, 172n138, 173, 184–85, 235 1–20 170 3 182 3:8 163 3:11 160 3:13 161 3:16 160 3:20–21 154 3:21 169 4:17 116 5:3 162–63 5:7 128 6–7 172n138 6:12 166 6:18 166 7 182 7:6 158, 165 7:11 154, 161 7:15 157, 157n63 8:7 171n137 8:13 166 9:4 65n139 9:7 125

297 9:8 119 9:4–10 112, 119 9:22 156 9:22–24 162 10:1 154 10:3 162 12:16 202n75 13:6 161 13:20 169 14:1 158, 168 14:11 165 14:12 161 15:31 166 17:3 167 18 157, 162, 164–65, 170–71, 180, 182, 184 18:5–21 162–64 18:7 157 18:12 157 18:17 167 18:17–21 167 18:19 162, 163 18:20 158–59 18:21 162–63, 167 19:25–27 145 20:10 157 20:19 173 20:29 156, 161–62 21 157, 170–71, 180, 182, 184 21:7–8 171 21:23 155, 160 21:23–26 158, 170–72 21:24 160 21:25 154 21:26 159 22 164, 171 22:14 118 23:3 155 23:4 161 26 111n2 26:1 119n36 26:7 166 26:8–9 122n56 27 164–65, 171 27:7–16 164 27:14–16 164 28:18 167–68 28:23–26 138n111

298 Job (cont.) 31:2 193, 193n39 33:19–33 212 34:34 198n60 35:10 116 36–41 132, 138–39 36:6 129 36:9 210n103 36:13–14 166 36:24 117, 117n23 36:24–37:24 111, 139n113 36:32–33 125n74 36:33 125 37:1 130 37:1–6 125 37:2 130, 130n94 37:2–3 123 37:2–5 132 37:3 206n88 37:6 128–30, 132 37:9 121, 126–27 37:11 122 37:15–16 122 37:16 121 37:17 126 37:22–23 117 37–41 112, 138 37:24 65n139 38 138n111 38:1 127 38:13 206n88 38:22 120–21, 129 38:25–26 132 38:27 131 38:28–29 130 38:29 130 38:37 122n56 38–39 112 38–41 111n2 40:5 169 40:6 127 40:16 157 41:9 158 42:10–17 145 42:12 171n137 Song of Songs 2:3 102n106 5:16 102n106 8:6 128

Index Of Ancient Sources Ruth 1:1 61 Qohelet 168, 173–75, 178, 183, 185, 235 1:2 165 1:3–4 182 3 207 3:3 207, 207n92 3:19–20 159, 165–67 3:19 165 3:20 165–66 4:12 178n173 6:3 157n58, 160, 160n80 6:6 157–58, 160 6:9 158 6:12 165 7:1 167 7:2 156–59 9 193n39 9:1–12 156, 170, 172, 180 9:2 156, 156n51 9:2–5 157–58 9:3 156n51 9:5 156 9:7–9 178n173 9:9 159, 165, 193 9:10 161, 161n84, 176 9:11–12 156n51 10:1 200n69 11:9 158 12:5 176, 176n162 12:8 165 Esther 5:6 102 Daniel 1 223 9:27 206n88 12 145n10 Ezra 3:11 64 8:2 48n58, 53 9:8–9 209n99 Nehemiah 3:8 83–84, 200n69 12:45 204n83

299

Index Of Ancient Sources 1 Chronicles 107 2:3–15 61 6:4 48n58 15:4 68 16:34 64 23:28 68 29:20 63–64 2 Chronicles 107 2:15 193n34 13:5 101n99 13:10 68 16:4 200n69 16:12 186, 213, 218n143 17:16 57 22:6 214 28:27–29:3 95n70 29:2 91 29:3 84 29–30 86, 95n69 29–32 83 30:18 64 30:19 204n83 32:1–22 83 32:3–5 83 32:2–8 83 32:3–8 83 32:5 84, 91 32:5–8 83 32:20–22 90 32:21 90 32:24 203n77 32:24–26 92 32:25 88 32:30 83–84, 89–90 32:31 93 34:27 104 35:23 103 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 26 4:18 63 6:2 162 6:26 121n52 10:5 94n64 10:24 202n75 11:16 195n46

1QSb 3:26 60 3:28 159n73 CD (Damascus Document; 4Q266–4Q273) 41, 168, 218n140 1:2 159n73 1:4–5 41 2:3 202n75 2:14–4:12a 41 8:8 121n52 8:18 160 10:6 130n92 13:8 94n64 14:8 130n92 19:32 160 4QDb 2:12 162 1Q19 (Aramaic Book of Noah)

45

1QH (Hodayot) 96 1.7.18 65n140 1.12 120n42 3.6 127n80 3.8 124 5.8 162 6.11 65n140 9.9 119 11.13 195n46 11.21 130n92 14.6 65n140 14.15 128n84, 131 16.6 128n84 16.10 128n84 17.24 161 18.31 128n84 1QpHab 1:11 160 4:7 118n32 1QIsaa 109 37:20 (col. 30, l. 25) 89–90, 95 1Q23 179n174

300

Index Of Ancient Sources

1Q27 (1QMyst) 1.1.3 94n64 1Q33 (1QM) 165n103 6:3 120n42 9:11 206n88 10:11–16 138 10:12 121, 122n58 10:12–16 118n31 10:13 118 12:9 122n58, 138n110 13:8 209n99 17:5 94n64 2Q26 179n174 4QNumb (4Q27)

48n60

4QKings (4Q54)

95, 95n70

4QTime (4Q215a) 1.2 202n75 1.11 202n75 4Q216 (4QJuba) 5.7 5.8

123n60, 138n110 123n60, 138n110

4Q219 (4QJubd) 21:19 166 21:20 128n84 4Q222 (4QJubg) 3.2

128n84

4Q234 (Exercitium Calami A)

56n94

4QpGena (4Q252) 1.5.4

45n50, 65n140

4Q84 (4QPsb) 136n103

4Q258 56n94

4QPsd (4Q86) Col 1 l. 5

48, 136, 141–42 137

4QChron (4Q118)

95, 95n70

4Q286 (4QBera) 3:4 122n58, 138n110 3:5 138n110

4Q162 102 4Q154 1:2

63

4QBibPar (4Q158) 1.9 65n140 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) 56n94 4Q175 (4QTestimonia) 56n94 4Q179 (4QapLama) 1.2.8 126n76 4QAgesb (4Q181) 1.2.3 63 4Q185 1.1.10

128n85

4Q203 179n174 4QTobite (4Q200) 2.9 168

4QMysteries 158–59 4QRP (4Q364–367)

55, 69, 70n157

4Q365 (4QRPc) 100n94 12a–b ii 100n93 12a–b ii, l.6 100 4Q370 (4QAdmonFlood) 1.7 116 4Q380–4Q383 61 4Q381 (4QapPsb) 14:2 120, 120n45, 122n58, 138n110 24:5 61 4Q385a 4:6

88n39

4Q387 2.ii.8

88n39

301

Index Of Ancient Sources 4Q389 8.ii.9

88n39

4QMa (4Q491) 11.2.13 56

4Q393 3:8

124

4Q501 (4QapLamb) 5 126

4Q394 (MMT e) 218n140 1.4.79 163

4QDibHama (4Q504) 7.9

168

4QShirShabba (4Q400) 1.i.2

54

4Q530 11:2

35n17

4QShirShabbd (4Q403) 1.i.25

4Q531 17:2

35n17

63

4QShirShabbf (4Q405) 18:2

60

4Q409 1.i.8

54

4Q414 13:3

58n100

4Q415 (4QInstra) 2 ii 4

121n52

4Q417 (4QInstrc) 2 i 14–16 4 ii 3

58n100 128n84

4Q418 (4QInstrd) 9:13 28n36 34:2 127n80 43:4 130n92 69.ii.7 94n64 127.3 128nn84–85 148.ii.6 158 4Q424 1.12

166

4Q436 1.10 205 4Q473 (S) 2.6

128n85, 138n110

4Q525 (4QBeat) 3.2.1 205n84 3.2.6 130n92 15:5 128n85 15:6 128n85 4Q488a 7.ii.3

88n39

4Q530–532 179n174 4Q560 219 5QKings

95, 95n70

pap6QKings

95, 95n70

8Q8 179n174 11Q5 (11QPsa) 48, 54, 133, 136–37, 141–42, 235 26:14 119 28:7–8 54 28:7 54 154:11 100n95 Hymn 1–9 138 Hymn 8 119 Hymn 8–9 120, 121 ApZion 141 11QShirShabb (11Q17) 1:6 63 1:7 63 11QT (11Q19) 47:9

193n34

Early Jewish Literature Aramaic Levi Document 66, 66n144, 108 5:3 67n144 6:3 67n144 13 68 Ascension of Isaiah

94, 95, 95n71

1 Baruch 4:30–5:9

16, 141

302 2 Baruch 48:4 138n111 59:5 112, 138, 138n111 Ben Sira Prologue 5–14 26 1:1–3 138n111 2:13 59n105 3:11 62 3:12–13 181 3:15 131 3:16 88n39 3:22 94, 168 3:27 124 3:28 211–22 4:21 194n43 4:24 169, 171n137 5:7 190n26 6:5 102 6:20 60 6:37 65, 130n91 7:6 195n49 7:17 104n115 7:29 60n109 7:31 60n109 7:36 171n137 8:2 62, 195n49 8:4 195n49 8:7 145, 157, 159, 172, 181 8:8 195 8:12 62 9:9–10 102n108 9:13 158, 167 9:18 62 10:3 86, 121n52 10:9 145 10:9–18 145 10:10 211 10:11 181, 181n187, 214 10:25 198n61 11:1 195 11:3 122n55, 195n48 11:13 130 11:20 122n55 11:21 130 11:25–27 171n137 11:28 162, 171 12:4 174n149

Index Of Ancient Sources 12:18 124 13:9 195n49 14:11–19 145, 156, 161, 181 14:12 155, 161, 169 14:17 157n59 14:16 161, 169 14:18 156 14:20 130n91 15:18 53n74 16:3 162, 171, 171n137 16:6 128, 193n37 16:7 69 16:8 162, 190n26 16:19 125 17:2 193, 193n39 17:3 181 17:27–28 161, 169 18:11 59n105 18:12 59n105 18:19 211 18:21 211 19:2 102n108 20:19 101n101 20:30–31 169 20:31 169n128 22:15 101n101 22:22 88n39 22:27–23:6 63 24 35n15, 102 24:5 118 24:10 87n36 24:10–11 87n37 24:11 87n37 24:15 100nn96–97 27:21 211 28:3 211 30:15–17 211 31:1 181 31:9 180n180 31:11–13 180n180 31:21–22 211 31:22 181 32:8 100n96 32:10 53n74, 120 32:12 127 32:20–21 122n57 32:23 122 33:3 53n73, 124

Index Of Ancient Sources 33:10 181 33:14–15 170 34:1–2 121n52 34:1–8 223 34:12 102n108 34:13 59n105, 193n37 34:21 126n75 34:23 181 34:25–31 102n108 35 205 35:2 205 35:4–6 103n109 35:5 102n108 35:7 205 35:13 54n84 35:16 205 36:1–17 165 36:2 127n80 36:8 53n73 36:14 63 36:18 87n37 36:18–19 87n37 36:19 87n36 36:21 53n73 36:27 129n89 37:7 124 37:15 104n115, 208n95 37:25–26 193, 193n39 37:26 169 37:27–31 188, 223, 227 38:1 190n28, 193–94, 203, 207, 210 38:1–2 229 38:1–3 196, 208 38:1–4 193 38:1–15 19, 186–93, 198, 208, 211, 213, 215n129, 218n141, 226–31 38:1–8 186, 202 38:2 193–95, 199n66, 207, 218n143 38:2–3 194, 226 38:3 190n28, 194–95 38:4 100n97, 104n115, 190n28, 196–99, 208–9, 218n143 38:4–8 208 38:5 192n31, 196, 198–99

303 38:6 198–99 38:6–7 199n66 38:7 99n91, 189n14, 200–2 38:8 189n14, 190n25, 202 38:9 104n115, 181, 202–3 38:9–12 187, 208 38:9–15 186, 202, 205 38:10 89n41, 203–5 38:10–11 202 38:11 192n32, 205–7 38:11–12 207 38:12 203, 207, 229 38:12–23 203 38:12–15 200, 203 38:13 189n14, 203n78, 207–8, 209n99 38:13–14 207 38:13–15 181, 208 38:14 104n115, 189n14, 196, 208–9, 221 38:15 190n27, 209–10, 231 38:16–23 145, 188, 221, 226, 228 38:18 228 38:20 121n52, 170n130 38:21 157n59, 161, 181 38:22 157 38:23 170n130, 181 38:24–34 226 38:32 226 38:24–39:11 194n40, 226, 229–30 38:33 226, 233 39:1 31 39:2 233 39:12–35 111, 130, 139, 141 39:23 101n101 39:26 101n101, 102n108, 140, 181, 215 39:28 125, 127n80 39:29 120, 123, 125n69 39:30 111 39:32 59n105 39:33 181 40 152 40:1 193n37 40:3–41:13 144n4 40:4 131n101 40:5 158 40:6 211

304 Ben Sira (cont.) 40:9–10 211 40:10 40, 116n18 40:11 165 40:14 204 40:15 130n95 40:16 130n95 40:17 167 40:18 152 40:18–20 103 40:19 170n130 40:21 103n109 40:28 153, 159, 172 40:28–41:3 153 41:1 145n9, 152–55 41:1–2 144, 155n46, 181, 41:1–3 157 41:1–4 153nn31–32, 154, 169, 170–72, 177 41:1–15 19, 92n59, 143–44, 145–53, 156, 162, 165, 167, 170–74, 177, 181, 183–84, 230, 235 41:2 155–58, 160 41:3 58, 144, 155–59, 160, 167, 172–73, 184 41:3–4 172 41:4 145n9, 152, 157, 157nn58 and 64, 159–61, 169, 172, 181, 214 41:4–10 172 41:4–15 171 41:5 157n57, 162–63 41:5–9 145, 167, 169 41:5–10 153nn31–32, 181 41:5–11 144 41:5–13 153 41:6 163 41:6–7 163 41:7 153, 163 41:8 160, 160n76, 181 41:8–9 164–65, 180–81 41:9 163–64 41:8–10 143 41:10 153, 160, 163, 165–66 41:10–11 156n52, 167 41:10–13 143n1 41:11 165, 166–67, 181–82 41:11–13 153nn31–32, 177

Index Of Ancient Sources 41:12 153, 167–68 41:12–13 168, 172 41:13 153, 168, 172, 181–82, 193, 193n39 41:14 153, 153n32, 168–69, 172, 181 41:14–42:8 172 41:14–15 145, 145n9, 153, 168–69 41:15 168–69 41:16 152, 172 41:19–20 152n22 41:22 126n75 42:2 160 42:9 152 42:14 126n75 42:15 63, 116 42:15–16 139n113 42:15–17 117 42:15–43:32 19, 111, 111n2, 116, 127n81, 138–39, 197n57 42:16 63, 116 42:17 63 42:24–25 170 43:1 129, 204n83 43:1–10 111 43:1–26 111 43:2 139n113 43:3 60 43:4 125 43:6 139 43:9 117n21, 129n89 43:11 88, 114n12, 116–17, 126–27, 139n113 43:11–19 19, 48n61, 111–16, 120, 124, 131–32, 138–42, 155n43, 230 43:11–33 112 43:12 53n74, 117, 118–19, 121n54 43:13 53n74, 114n12, 118–24, 132, 138n110 43:13–19 111 43:13–20 111 43:14 114n12, 121–22, 126, 138n110 43:15 84n23, 114n12, 121, 122–23, 123n62, 132, 138n110 43:17a–16a 114n12, 123–26

Index Of Ancient Sources 43:17a–17b 132 43:16b–17b 114n12, 116, 118, 125–27, 140 43:17cd 127–29, 131 43:17c–19 132 43:18 127n81, 129–30, 132 43:18–22 127, 127n81 43:19 101n101, 128, 130–31 43:20 86, 140 43:21 125 43:22 140 43:23 49n68, 119n36 43:23–24 140 43:27 170 43:27–33 130, 139n113 43:29 53 43:32 139 44:1 63 44:3 53 44:5 103n109 44:9 170n130 44:13 39–40, 170n130 44:14 181 44:16 34n10 44:17 37–42, 116n18 44:17–18 19, 32–45, 47, 72, 116 44:18 37–39, 41–44 44:20 41n40, 44 44:22 41n40 44:23 41n40 44:24 44 45:1 170n130 45:1–5 69 45:3 84n23 45:5 41n40 45:6 58 45:6–22 54, 63 45:9 118 45:11 170n130 45:12 131n101 45:14 100 45:15 41n40 45:16 57n96, 100 45:18 54n80, 89 45:18–19 69 45:23 49–52, 54–55, 57, 61n114, 74, 104, 203n78 45:23–24 47, 54, 69

305 45:23–26 19, 33, 47, 49 45:24 41n40, 49–51, 57–60, 62–63 45:25 41n40, 49–51, 58, 60–65, 137n107 45:25–26 63–64, 69, 74, 79n8, 105 45:26 49–51, 53, 65, 65n141, 66, 66nn142–143, 68, 104 46:2 124, 170n130 46:5 89, 104n115 46:5–6 123 46:6 132 46:7 104 46:8 59 46:11 170n130 46:16 89, 104n115 47:4 124 47:5 89 47:9 103n109 47:11 41n40, 58, 87n37 47:15 104n115 47:17 103n109, 127n80 47:20 62 47:22 40 47:23 121n52 48 78n5 48:1–49:16 78n5 48:5 145, 161 48:9 127n80, 145 48:15 62 48:17 84–85, 95n69, 109, 125n70 48:17–25 19, 53, 77–79, 95, 109, 169 48:18 84, 87–88 48:19 88–89, 124 48:20 89, 89n41, 95, 104n115, 109, 204, 235 48:20–21 80n17 48:21 83, 90 48:22 62, 80n18, 84n23, 91–92, 109, 137n107 48:22–23 80n19, 92 48:23 92 48:24 53, 87, 87n36, 93–94 48:24–25 79, 93–94 48:25 88, 93–94

306 Ben Sira (cont.) 49:1 97–103, 109, 170n130 49:1–3 19, 77–78, 94, 97–103, 109 49:1–4 99n88 49:1–7 99 49:1–13 99 49:2 97–94 49:3 97–105 49:4 62, 97, 99n88, 104n117, 105–6, 160 49:4–7 99, 101–2 49:4–8 99n89 49:9 40, 60 49:13 170n130 49:16 137n107 50 109 50:1 60n109 50:3 85, 86 50:1–7 116n17 50:1–24 85 50:6–7 122n57 50:7 116, 116n17 50:16 60n109 50:18 103n109 50:22 63–64 50:22–24 63, 69, 79n8 50:23 65 50:24 35, 44, 48 50:25–26 69, 165 50:27 52, 87n37 50:28 65, 130n91 51:12 62, 87n36 51:13 89n41 51:14 129n89 51:18 54 51:20 204, 204n83 51:23 72n168 51:23–30 177n165, 194n40 51:28 28n36 51:30 181 1 Enoch 97, 108, 111n2, 138, 165n103, 210n105, 212 1–36 138 7:1 197n59 7:1–3 219 8:3 120, 197n59, 219

Index Of Ancient Sources 11:1–2 120n46 14:8 120 37–71 138 46:3 96n76 48:1–4 96n76 62:2–3 96n76 67:8–13 219 69:16–24 112, 120, 138 72–82 138 83–90 138 2 Esdras 106 13:10 96n76 4 Ezra 95n71 4:5 112, 138, 138n111 5:26 112, 138 5:36 138n111 Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar) 45–46, 210n105 vi 2–xi 14 46 x 12 46n52 x 13 46n52 x 15 46n52 xi 17 46 xii–xvii 46 Giants, book of

35n17, 178–79

Josephus 45–47, 96n79, 107–8 Ag. Ap. 1.7 96 A.J. 67 1.1–2 26 1.67–108 46 1.75 47 1.103 46 4.131–154 67n148 4.147 67n149 4.156 67 4.159–162 67n148 4.303 55n86 5.104–113 67n148 5.119 67n148 7.110 67n150 8.11 67n148

307

Index Of Ancient Sources 9.257–10.36 96 9.276 96 10.20 90n48 10.35 96, 97 10.36–47 106 10.48–80 106 12.350–52 215n127 17 222n161 20.224–241 68 Jubilees, book of 12, 45–46, 66, 66n144, 108, 164–65, 197n58, 210n105, 212 1:7 41n40 5:1–6:38 45, 199 5:7–8 138n110 5:19 45 6:15–17 116 6:15–28 45 6:29–32 116 6:29–38 45 9 46 10:10–14 219 15:21 41n40 30:5–18 66n144 31:13–17 68 32:1–9 68 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 28:1–4 67 47:1–2 67 1 Maccabees 164 1:52 181 2:24–27 67 3:5–8 181 5:55–62 215n127 7:14 68 2 Maccabees 66, 164 9:5–28 222n161 12:40 214 3 Maccabees 6:31 154–55 4 Maccabees 18:14 96n76

Philo of Alexandria Contempl. 1.45.300–304 67 1.45.305–314 67n151 1.45.306 67 Deus 86

47

Her. 56.275–257, 292 182n192 Joseph 11.62

227n180

Leg. 1.33.107 182n192 3.61 227n176 QG 1.87–100 47 2.1–65 47 2.43 96n78 Sacr. 3.8–10

182, 182n193

Vit. Mos. 1:300–304 75 Psalms of Solomon 8:14–17 96n76 17:23–24 96n76 17:29 96n76 17:35–37 96n76 18:7–8 96n76 Wisdom of Solomon 210n105 1:1–2:5 182 2:1–5 182 3 182n191 7:17–21 138–39 14:15 160n81 Sibylline Oracles 45–47 1.65–124 46 1.125–146 46 1.137–146 46 1.147–198 46 1.282–318 46 Testament of Job

210n105, 212

308

Index Of Ancient Sources

Testament of Judah 24:5b–6a 96n76 Testament of Levi 18:7

96n76

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 210n105, 212 Tobit 210n105, 219 1:6 68 2:10 213 4:17 176–77 13:9–18 16, 141 Rabbinic Literature Ab. R. Nathan 37

70n159

Arakh. 16b

161n85

b. Berakhot 54a 123n59 60a 187n5 Gen. Rab. 10

200n67

Ibn Ezra, On Exodus 21:19

186n5

m. Kiddushin 4:14

186n5

m. Mikw. 8:1

123n59

m. Sanhedrin 10a

222n160

Maimonides Treatise on Poisons and Their Antidotes 1:6 212n114 2:2 212n114 Sifra Qedoshim Sifre Numbers

70 68n152

t. Onq. Exodus 15:26 t. Onq. Numbers

213n121 68n152

Tosefta Sanhedrin 7

70n159

New Testament Matthew 5:8 205n84 10:2–3 52 21:12–13 201 Mark 1:2

108n123

Luke 108 1:1–4 183 1:3 26 John 2:15

201

Acts 12:23 222n161 22:3 67 1 Corinthians 15:12–58 182 1 Peter 5:4

65

Inscriptions CIJ

600 220 745 220 1110 220 1508 177, 177n163

JIGRE 34 176 35 161n82 38 176 39 65 40 161n82 74–48 176n161 79 161n82 87 161n82 90–94 176n161 93 161n82 96 161n82 102 161n82 103 161n82 104 161n82 132 161n82

309

Index Of Ancient Sources Magic Bowls M103 222n160 M117 222n160 M142 222n160 M155 222n160 M156 222n160 Manuscripts Codex Ambrosianus 39n29, 152n21, 192n33 Codex Sinaiticus 38n26, 153, 153n33 f.177b 190n28 f.183b 99n88 Cod. Mus. Brit. 12142 39n29 LDAB 178 LDAB 3864 LDAB 4013

180n181 180n181 180n181

P. Insinger 112, 139, 174, 179n175, 185, 197–98, 233–34 20:1 168 24:2 197 25:2 195n49 32 139 32:2 139 32:6 139 32:12 197 Classical Literature Aeschylus Fragmenta (Mette) Tetralogy 36 play B 154n39 Aristarchus Fragmenta 3.1

154n39

Catullus 68a 30n46 68a.33 24, 26

Cicero Ep. ad Atticum 8.11.7 70n162 8.12.6 70n162 9.9.2 70n162 4.10.1 71n162 4.14.1 70n162 13.31.2 70n162 De Oratore 24 Diocles, Diocles to King Antiognus 227n178 Epicurus Ep. Men. 124 Ep. Men. 124–125 Ep. Men. 124–127 Ep. Hdt. 81

184–85 172n140, 179 179 179n175 179

Eratosthenes 139n112 Euripides Chrysippus fr. 839, 8ff. 165 Oedipus fr. 734 168 Herodotus 108, 220n151 Histories 2.141 90n48 4.205 222n161 Hesiod, Works and Days 220n150 Hippocratic corpus Gynaikeia 214n124 On Decorum 226 Regimen 227n178 Sacred Disease 223 Homer Iliad 220n150 6.148–149 156 16.681 154n39 Horace Ars Poetica

24, 26, 30n46

310

Index Of Ancient Sources

Hymns of Isidorus

139, 139n113

Juvenal i 37

25n18

Lucretius DRN 6.495–534 DRN 3.870–893

139n112 179

Martial ii 43, 9 25n18 ix 60, 9 25n18 14.84 71n164 Philodemus, On the Gods xvi.18, 20–34 179 Plautus, Menaechmi 875

227n176

Pliny the Elder 108, 108n124, 110, 227n176 NH Preface 17 24, 30n43 Preface 21–23 24, 30n43 7.172 222n161 13.92 25n18 29.1–29 227n176 Pliny the Younger Letters 3.5.7 24, 26 9.27 168n124 Plutarch Alcibiades 7.1 Mor. 801a Tabletalk 731d

28n38 169n126 227n175

Quintilian 108n124 Inst. Or. X, 3, 31.27 23 Seneca, Epistle to Lucillus 95

227n176

Suetonius On Poets—Life of Vergil 22–25 26, 30

Sophocles Ajax 854 Philoctetes 797

154n39 154n39

Theognis 173–75, 179–80, 183–85 133–142 173n147, 183 181–182 172 425–428 173n147, 183 819–829 173 955–956 174n149 107–108 174n149 1007–1011 173n147, 183 1179–1180 173n147, 183 Thucydides 108 2:7 211, 222 47 211, 222 Virgil 110 Georgics 1.393–423 139n112 Xenophon, Mem. 11, 33

168

Ancient Near Eastern Literature AMT 76/1:4–7

221n157

AOAT 43.200 AOAT 43.202 AOAT 43.204 AOAT 43.255 AOAT 43.256

209n98 209n98 214n125 209n98 209n98

ARM(T) 10.129:1–20

214n125

Ahiqar 154

222, 222n159

Atrahasis Epic

35–36

BAM 381 iii 21–22 BAM 422 iii 5

214n124 214n124

BM 64526:26–31

214n125

Diagnostic Handbook 209, 217 Eridu Genesis 35n17

311

Index Of Ancient Sources Gilgamesh, epic of 35, 173, 175, 178 x.1–105 178 x.185–xi.320 178 Sumerian King List

35–36

SpTU 1.34:29 209n98 SpTU 1.59:12 214n124 SpTU 1.59:14 214n124 SpTU 4.153:1 214n124 SpTU 4.153:7 214n124 TDP 42 r. 34 TDP 84:39–40 TDP 104 iii 12 TDP 111 i 35 TDP 122 iii 7–9 TDP 226:82

209n98 214n124 209n98 209n98 221n157 221n157

Egyptian Literature Ankhsheshonqy 173–75, 179, 184–85 viii.8 173 Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus 209, 216–17 Instruction of Amemenope 183 3:9–13 183 Maxims of Anij

174

Satire of the Trades

231

Tale of the Poor Man in Nippur 195