§ 1. SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK

Ben-Sira’s Book of Wisdom belongs, together with the Book of Job, a number of the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Solomon (so-called), to the Ḥokmah or Wisdom Literature of the Hebrews. This literature represents the development of the crude philosophy of more ancient times, a philosophy which sought by means of proverbs and fables to express the results of reflections concerning the general questions of life. Such proverbs and fables were not necessarily of a religious character; see, e.g., Judg. 9:8–15 (Jotham’s parable), 2 Sam. 5:8, 20:18; but they tended to become so more and more (cp. Jer. 31:29, Ezek. 18:2); this is well exemplified by such parables as those contained in 2 Sam. 12:1–4 (Nathan’s parable of the ewe lamb), and Isa. 5:1–4 (the parable of the vineyard); and ultimately all wise sayings, upon whatsoever subjects they were uttered, came to have a religious content inasmuch as it was taught that all wisdom emanated from God. Ben-Sira, therefore, as a constructor of wise sayings, belonged to the class of Sages or Ḥakamim (‘wise men’) who already in the days of Jeremiah occupied a recognized position alongside of the priests and the prophets: ‘For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise (ḥakam), nor the word from the prophet’ (Jer. 18:18). So that in presenting his book to his people he is making a justifiable claim when he says:

I, indeed, came last of all,

As one that gleaneth after the grape-gatherers:

I advanced by the blessing of God,

And filled my winepress as a grape-gatherers.

33:16–18 [ = G 36:16a and 36:20–22]).

The claim is modestly urged; but Ben-Sira, while whole-heartedly admitting his indebtedness to earlier sages, clearly reckons himself as one of the ‘grape-gatherers’, i.e. as one of the Ḥakamim, like the authors of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, though the last in the succession.

A notable feature in our book is that it offers many examples of expanded proverbs; a little essay, as it were, is constructed on the basis of a proverb. A good example of this is 38:24–39:11; here the proverb, or text of the essay, is:

The wisdom of the scribe increaseth wisdom,

And he that hath little business can become wise.

Then Ben-Sira proceeds to expatiate upon these words by giving a number of illustrations showing that those who are occupied with ordinary trades and professions cannot possibly find the requisite leisure which must be possessed by those who would acquire wisdom (39:25–35); and the essay concludes with an eloquent description of the ideal seeker after wisdom, thus presenting the positive side of his thesis.

Although Ben-Sira exhibits no great signs of originality there is plenty of individuality in his book; this is shown chiefly (in addition to what has just been said about the expansion of the proverb into the essay) by the use he makes of the Old Testament Scriptures. He does not merely quote from the Old Testament, but he utilizes the words and teaching of the inspired writers as the authority for what he has to say, and then proceeds to set forth his own ideas upon a given subject. An instructive example of this may be adduced. Ben-Sira’s teaching on death and the hereafter is identical with that of the Old Testament, but in 41:1–4 he offers some thoughts upon the subject of death which are evidently quite his own. He shows that two views concerning death exist among men; to those who are living at ease and prosperity the thought of death is bitter, but it is welcome to such as are in sickness and adversity, who are broken and have lost hope. Then he goes on to utter a word of comfort to those to whom the thought of death is painful, by saying that it is the destiny of all men, and that it is the decree of the Most High; he concludes by reminding them also that:

In Sheol there are no reproaches concerning life.

For the rest, the book contains a large collection of moral maxims and sage counsels regarding almost every conceivable emergency in life; if the majority of these appear to be merely moral, it has to be remembered, as already pointed out, that to Ben-Sira the apparently most secular forms of wisdom partake of something religious fundamentally, because all wisdom is in its multifarious and varied expressions so many offshoots of the one primeval Wisdom which emanates from God. These maxims and counsels are applicable to people in every condition of life; a large proportion of them deals with the ordinary, every-day relationships between man and man, whether in regard to the rich or the poor, the oppressed, the mourners, &c., &c.; rules of courtesy, behaviour at table, politeness, respect for one’s betters, and many other similar topics, abound. Ben-Sira’s intimate knowledge of human nature meets one at every turn, and is certainly one of the most instructive features of the book. It was clearly Ben-Sira’s object, in writing his book, to present to the Jewish public of his day an authoritative work of reference to which recourse could be had for guidance and instruction in every circumstance of life. In doing so, however, Ben-Sira makes it his great aim to set forth the superiority of Judaism over Hellenism. For some time previously the Hellenistic spirit had been affecting the Jews both in Palestine and in the Dispersion, and though there was immense good in the wider mental horizon fostered by this spirit, yet there can be no doubt that Hellenism had assumed a debased form in Palestine,1 and a true Jew, such as Ben-Sira was, rightly felt bound to oppose its extension in the best way he could, namely, by offering something better in its place. Nevertheless, Ben-Sira was himself not unaffected by the Hellenic genius, probably unconsciously; and his admiration for Judaism of the orthodox, traditional type is unable to conceal altogether the newer tendencies of thought brought into existence through that Greek culture by which he, too, had become possessed. The results of the past and the beginnings of a future development were still in juxtaposition—not amalgamated, but as yet not separated, nor were their further sequences in view. Alike the close of the old and the beginnings of the new are side by side in Ecclesiasticus. The former reaches back to the early times of Israel’s glory; the latter points forward to that direction which was to find its home and centre, not in Palestine, but in Alexandria.’2 The traces of the influence of Greek modes of thought to be found in our book are not seen in definite form, but, as one would expect where the influence was at work unconsciously, they are to be discerned rather in the general outlook and conception; what is perhaps the most striking example of this is the way in which virtue and knowledge are identified; this is a distinct Hellenic trait, and is treated in the book as axiomatic. In the past, human and divine wisdom had been regarded as opposed, whereas, owing to Greek influence, both in our book and in the Wisdom Literature generally, it is taught that wisdom is the one thing of all others which is indispensable to him who would lead a godly life. The evil of wickedness is represented as lying in the fact that wickedness is foolishness, and therefore essentially opposed to wisdom. On the other hand, the Jews were faithful to the Law, the ordinances of which were binding because it was the revealed will of God; and, therefore, in order to reconcile this old teaching with the new teaching that wisdom was the chief requirement of the man of religion, wisdom became identified with the Law: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’; by the ‘fear of the Lord’ is meant, of course, obedience to His commands, i.e. the observance of the Law. These words express what is, in truth, the foundation-stone of the Wisdom Literature, and this identification between wisdom and the Law formed the reconciling link between Judaism and Hellenism in this domain. Nowhere is this identification more clearly brought out than in the Book of Wisdom and in Sirach. This fully explains why Ben-Sira, following herein, without doubt, many sages before him, divides mankind into two categories, the wise and the foolish, which correspond respectively to the righteous and the wicked.

But while there is no sort of doubt that traces of Hellenic influence are to be discerned in the book, there is a danger which must be guarded against of seeing them where they do not exist. Ben-Sira has here and there thoughts which at first sight look like traces of Hellenic influence, but are not so in reality; they are independent parallels, but have not otherwise anything to do with Greek culture. For example, the following might well appear at first sight to be an echo of Epicurean philosophy:

Give not thy soul to sorrow,

And let not thyself become unsteadied with care.

Heart-joy is life for a man,

And human gladness prolongeth days.

Entice thyself and soothe thine heart,

And banish vexation from thee:

For sorrow hath slain many,

And there is no profit in vexation.

Envy and anger shorten days,

And anxiety maketh old untimely.

The sleep of a cheerful heart is like dainties,

And his food is agreeable unto him (30:21–25).

But quite similar thoughts are found in a fragment of the Gilgamesh epic found on a tablet written in the script of the Ḥammurabi dynasty (2000 b.c.), and published by Meissner in the Mittheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1902, Heft 1. On p. 8, col. 3, line 3, we read:

… Thou, O Gilgamesh, fill indeed thy belly;

Day and night be thou joyful,

Daily ordain gladness,

Day and night rage and make merry;

Let thy garments be bright,

Thy head purify, wash with water,

Desire thy children which thy hand possesses …1

There are other passages which might likewise seem to manifest the influence of Greek philosophy; in some of these it may well be that this is actually the case;2 but it is well to be on one’s guard, lest what appears to be a Hellenistic note is in reality nothing more than a parallel. While the Judaic elements in the book preponderate to an overwhelming degree, tinges of Hellenic influence are to be discovered here and there.