§ 6. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

1. The name and personality of the author. In the MSS. of the Greek Bible the author of our book is called Ἰησοῦς Σειράχ, or more briefly Σειράχ2 among the later Jews בן סירא, and so in the MSS. of the Syriac Bible בר סירא (or in a less authentic form בר אסירא, i.e. Son of the Captive).

The full name of the author is given in the body of the book, in 50:27, which in H appears as Simeon the son of Jeshua (Jesus) the son of Eleazar the son of Sira (in Hebrew שמעון בן ישׁוע בן אלעזר בן סירא).3 For this G has: Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Σειρὰχ Ἐλεαζάρου ὁ Ἰεροσολυμείτης (but 248 Complut. Sixtine 〉 Ἐλεαζάρου). In S this passage is omitted altogether; the Syro-Hexaplar has: Jesus the son of Sirach of Eliezer. The usual designation of the author in the Syriac MSS. of the Bible is: Jesus the son of Simeon.4

Now as the author’s grandson states explicitly in the Greek Prologue to his version of the book that his grandfather’s name was Jesus (Ἰησοῦς), it is likely that the name Simeon is an intrusion in the text of H this is made exceedingly probable when it is seen that the clause 50:27, as it appears in H, is overloaded; by the removal of שמעון בן symmetry is restored, and the line may be read with Smend:

לישזע בן אלעזר בן סירא׃

Of Jesus ben Eleazar ben Sira.

Thus the name of the author was Jesus, and his grandfather’s name Sira; the use of a grandfather’s (or earlier ancestor’s) name as a patronymic (with Ben prefixed) was not uncommon, especially when a father’s name was not sufficiently distinctive. The intruding Simeon may have been derived from 50:1 (the name of the High-Priest), and in this way may have come erroneously to be attached to the name of the author of the book.1

From the data supplied by the book itself it may be inferred that Ben-Sira was a professed student and teacher of ‘wisdom’. As a ‘scribe’ (he is described in the Prologue as ἀναγινώσκων = סופר)—for by this time ‘scribe’ and ‘wise’ had become amalgamated—he imparted instruction to young members of the Jerusalem aristocracy, who assembled in his ‘house of instruction’ (בית מדרש 51:23); and there, doubtless, he lectured on matters of jurisprudence, as well as ethics, in the manner congenial to the Teachers of the Law (cp. 23:11, 23). Ben-Sira, however, belonged to the earlier Sōferîm in whom the spirit pervading the Wisdom-Literature was still strong. Though possessed with a deep sense of Israel’s unique position among the nations, the class of teachers to which Ben-Sira belonged was animated by a broad and tolerant spirit that could take a genial view of life as a whole. This spirit pervades the book. It is marked by sound piety mixed with a thorough knowledge of human nature, and a sympathetic and cultivated appreciation of the amenities of the social side of life. Both the follies and the heroism of the fanatic are carefully avoided by Ben-Sira. When he sings the praise of the ideal scribe (39:1–11) we doubtless have in the description a piece of self-revelation of the author:

Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,

And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;

Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,

And is occupied with the prophets of old;

Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,

And entereth into the deep things of parables;

Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,

And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables.

Court life and foreign travel are part of his experience:

Who serveth among great men,

And appeareth before princes;

Who travelleth through the lands of the peoples,

Testeth good and evil among men.

It has been suggested that our author may have travelled as a young man, and at one time have been in the service of one of the Greek kings (successors of Alexander the Great), perhaps Ptolemy IV (220–204 b.c.). During these experiences, it would seem, he encountered much personal danger:

In my journeying I have seen much,

And many things have befallen me:

Often was I in danger even unto death,

But was preserved … (34:11–12).

The opening verses of chap. li refer, in a tone of unusually deep feeling, to deliverance from a grievous danger which seriously threatened the author’s life. This may have been, as has been suggested, some peril of a political kind, possibly connected with his life at court or with his responsible public life. He alludes in this passage more than once to ‘cunning lips’ and ‘framers of lies’, the result of whose machinations was that his

Soul drew nigh unto death …

And I turned about on every side, yet there was none to help me.

The author’s relation to contemporary Jewish life, as revealed in his book, could not be better summed up than in the words of Edersheim. ‘The book of Ben-Sira’, he says, ‘represents an orthodox, but moderate and cold, Judaism—before there were either Pharisees or Sadducees; before these two directions assumed separate form under the combined influence of political circumstances and theological controversies. In short, it contains, as yet undistinguished and mostly in germ, all the elements developed in the later history of Jewish religious thinking. But beyond all this the book throws welcome light on the period in which it was written. If we would know what a cultured, liberal, and yet genuine Jew had thought and felt in view of the great questions of the day; if we would gain insight into the state of public opinion, morals, society, and even of manners at that period—we find the materials for it in the book Ecclesiasticus.’1

2. The date of composition of the Book. The two crucial factors for determining the date of the book’s composition are (a) the identity of the High-Priest Simon, who is the subject of the eulogium in ch. 50; and (b) what is meant by ‘the thirty-eighth year’ in the Prologue of the Greek translation?

(a) Simon I or Simon II? With whom is the Simon son of Jochanan (so H: but G Onias), mentioned in 50:1 f., to be identified? From the glowing description which is given by Ben-Sira of this High-Priest it has been surmised, with considerable plausibility, that our author wrote of one whom he had actually seen officiating in the sanctuary. The Simon referred to has been identified with ‘Simon the Just’ (שׁמעון הצדיק), who, again, is identified by some scholars with Simon I, son of Onias I, and grandson of Jaddua (he flourished 310–291 or 300–270 b.c.), according to others with Simon II (219–199 b.c.) son of Onias II. As far as Ben-Sira’s description is concerned it would fit either of these identifications. The question of date must be determined on other grounds.

Josephus (Ant. 12. 2. 5) relates of Simon I that, on account of his piety, he was surnamed ‘the Just’. Reference to Simon II is made in Ant. 12. 4. 10 f. Herzfeld identifies the ‘Simon the Just’ (שׁמעון הצדיק) of Pirqe Aboth 3:1 with Simon II, and fixes the date of his high-priesthood as 226–198 b.c. (Zunz 221–201 b.c.); see Dr. C. Taylor’s note on Aboth 2:1. Derenbourg also (Essai sur l’histoire el la géographie de la Palestine, p. 46 f.) argues strongly in favour of the identification of Simon the Just, whose memory is preserved in Rabbinic tradition, with Simon II. It is this Simon, according to Derenbourg, who is the subject of Sirach 50. Josephus’ application of the epithet (‘the Just’) to Simon I is a mistake.

(b) The date in the Prologue. An explicit indication of date is given in the Greek Prologue written by the translator as a preface to his Greek translation of the book. In this the translator says he came to Egypt ‘in the thirty-eighth year ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου Βασιλέως’. This, it is true, has been taken by some scholars to mean in the thirty-eighth year of the translator’s age ‘under king Euergetes’. If this were right it would be impossible to say what date is meant, as we have no other means for determining when the translator was born, or which king Euergetes is referred to. As there is no particular reason why the translator should have stated his age in this context, it is natural to interpret ‘the thirty-eighth under king Euergetes’ as referring to the thirty-eighth regnal year of the king so named. This limits the reference to the two Ptolemies, among the Egyptian kings, who were called Euergetes: of these Euergetes I reigned only twenty-five years (247–222 b.c.), and is thus excluded; Euergetes II, surnamed Physcon, reigned in all fifty-four years, partly as joint king (170–145) and partly as sole king (145–116). Reckoning from this king’s accession his thirty-eighth regnal year would be 132 b.c. It may be concluded, therefore, that the translator reached Egypt in this year, and completed his translation of the book some few years later (between 132 and 116; see the note on line 15 of the Prologue in the following commentary).

The translator calls the author of the original book his πάππος, a term which may be interpreted in its usual sense of ‘grandfather’.2 The composition of the original book of Ben-Sira may, therefore, be assigned to the first quarter of the second century b.c. (200–175 b.c.). The author would thus have been a younger contemporary of the High-Priest Simon II, and could have witnessed a service on the Day of Atonement in the temple in which Simon took part. The tone of the references to Simon in ch. l suggests that when Ben-Sira wrote Simon had been dead for some time. This rather suggests a date about 180–175 b.c. for the actual composition of the book. As there is no allusion in the book to the events that led up to the Maccabean conflict the date cannot well be placed later than 175 b.c.

The internal evidence of the book itself favours the suggested date—specially the traces of Greek influence on the thought; notably the personification of Wisdom (cp. esp. ch. 24), and the acquaintance shown with Greek customs, such as the use of music at feasts (35:3–6).

Recently, however, a much earlier reckoning for the date in the Prologue has been proposed on new grounds and maintained by Mr. J. H. A. Hart.3 Hart thinks it incredible that a Jew from the outside world should have visited and stayed for any length of time to work in Egypt in the reign of Euergetes II, who was notoriously hostile to Jews, and, in fact, to all foreigners. He accordingly proposes to interpret the date in the Prologue as follows: the preposition ἐπί—though he allows that it is sometimes used in Greek translations of Hebrew date-specifications in a pleonastic sense = of, and that this usage can be paralleled from the papyri and inscriptions (e.g. the Rosetta stone)—is not, as it is used in the Prologue, without definite significance, and merely a meaningless part of an established formula. While admitting that the words might conceivably mean the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes II, yet the number ‘may equally well belong to some familiar and therefore unspecified era’, and that this is the common Egyptian era which begins with the accession of each king and ends with his death. Ptolemy Philadelphus (284–247 b.c.) was succeeded by Euergetes I in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of the former, i.e. Euergetes I ascended the throne in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Philadelphus (247 b.c.). The formula in the Prologue therefore means that the grandson of Ben-Sira came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the era of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but after Euergetes I had come to the throne. Thus, according to Hart, the younger Ben-Sira came to Egypt in the year 247 b.c., and stayed there during the whole reign of Euergetes, till his death in 222 b.c.1 These results would necessitate placing the composition of the original book of Ben-Sira at least a century before the commonly received date (i.e. 300–275 b.c.).

Hart’s arguments are unconvincing. In particular he seems to exaggerate the hostility of Ptolemy Physcon to the Jews in Alexandria. The Jews were persecuted for a time by this king, not on account of their religion, but for political reasons. ‘With the establishment of order, peace was doubtless restored to the Jews also.’2 Willrich, indeed, has given good reasons3 for believing that this Ptolemy was far from being hostile to the Jews in general. It has been shown that he possessed many Jewish officials, and that the Jews prospered and increased in Egypt under his rule exceedingly. The proposed explanation of the date is also anything but convincing. If the translator wished to say that he arrived in Egypt in the year which concluded the reign of Philadelphus and was marked by the accession of Euergetes (I) he might have written ‘in the thirty-eighth year of Philadelphus ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως’. But it is difficult to imagine him writing at least twenty-five years after the era of Philadelphus had come to an end:4 ‘in the thirty-eighth year ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως’. On Hart’s own showing a new era had intervened (that of Euergetes I); why then should not the first year of this era have been specified distinctly, if it was meant? Further, Hart’s criticism of the very strong examples adduced by Deissmann5 of the independent use of ἐπί in such date-specifications cannot be said to impair their cogency. The internal evidence of the book, as well as the character of the diction of the original Hebrew, also points to a later date than 300–275 b.c.