The ‘aids’ here mentioned are such as might otherwise escape notice.
W. Nowack, Die Sprüche Salomo’s u.s.w. (a recast of Bertheau’s commentary in the Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch), 1883; H. Deutsch, Die Sprüche Salomo’s nach der Auffassung im Talmud und Midrasch dargestellt und kritisch untersucht (erster Theil, 1885); Bickell, ‘Exegetisch-kritische Nachlese: Proverbien und Job,’ in Zeitschr. fur kathol. Theologie, 1886, pp. 205-208; Aben Ezra’s commentary on Proverbs, edited by Chaim M. Horowitz, 1884; Loewenstein, Die Proverbien Salomo’s, mit Benutzung älterer und neuerer Manuskripte, 1837 (text and commentary in Hebrew, with German metrical version; contains valuable contributions to a more critical Massoretic text from the papers of W. Heidenheim); M. Heidenheim, ‘Zur Textkritik der Proverbien,’ in his Vierteljahresschrift for 1865 and 1866; Lagarde, Anmerkungen sur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien, 1863; Grätz, ‘Exegetische Studien zu den Salomonischen Sprüchen,’ in his Monatsschrift, 1884; Dijserinck, ‘Kritische Scholien,’ in Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1883, p. 577 &c.; Oort, ‘Spreuken I.-IX.,’ in same periodical, 1885, p. 379 &c.; Böttcher, Aehrenlese, part iii., 1865 (contains 39 pages on Proverbs); Mühlau, De proverbiorum Agur et Lemuel origine, 1869; Bruch, Weisheitslehre der Hebräer, 1851; Hooykaas, Gesch. van de beoefening der Weisheid onder de Hebreen, 1862; Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese, 1844 (includes Talmudic proverbs; comp. the older works of Drusius, 1590-1, and Brüll’s supplement in his Jahrbücher, 1885); Delitzsch, art. ‘Sprüche Salomo’s,’ in Herzog-Plitt’s Real-Encyklopädie, ed. 2, vol. xiv.; and the works of Oehler and Schultz on Old Testament Theology (the former in Clark’s Library).
THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH.
CHAPTER I.
THE WISE MAN TURNED SCRIBE. SIRACH’S MORAL TEACHING.
The inclusion of Sirach within our range of study, as an appendix and counterpart to the canonical Book of Proverbs, requires no long justification. The so-called ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ is in form and colouring almost as much Greek as Hebrew, and has no place in a survey of the wisdom of Palestine. But the ‘Wisdom’ more modestly ascribed to the son of Sirach is a truly Israelitish production, though as yet none but the masters of our subject have recognised its intrinsic importance. Whence comes this prevalent neglect of a work still known as ‘Ecclesiasticus’ or a ‘church-book’? Doubtless it has fallen in estimation from being combined with books more difficult to appraise fairly and consequently regarded with suspicion. The objection which some Jewish doctors entertained to recommending parts of the Hagiographa has been felt by many moderns with regard to the Apocrypha. The objection is too strong and general not to have some foundation, but it implies an unhistorical habit of mind. Granted that the Apocryphal writings of the Old Testament belong in the main to a period of outer and inner decadence (though the noble Maccabean days may qualify this); yet periods of decadence are often also periods of transition to some new and better thing, which cannot be understood or appreciated without them. Ewald has suggested the title of ‘intermediate writings’ (Zwischenschriften[[254]]) as a substitute for Apocrypha, to indicate that transitional character which gives these books so high a value for the student of both Testaments.
The book now before us—the largest and most comprehensive in the Wisdom-literature—is one of these ‘intermediate writings,’ but in what sense beyond the most superficial one remains to be seen. It is mentioned here first of all because of the proof which it gives of the great literary force of the canonical Book of Proverbs. But no product of literature could maintain itself as Sirach has done if it were a mere imitation; Sirach, not less than the Wisdom-books of the Old Testament proper, is at least a partial reflection of the life of the times. Its date indeed has been disputed. Suffice it to say here that the author was, beyond reasonable doubt,[[255]] a contemporary of ‘Simon the high priest, the son of Onias.’ Now there were five high priests who bore the name of Simon or Simeon, two of whom, Simon I. (B.C. 310-290) and Simon II. (B.C. 219-199), have by different critics been thought of. The weight of argument is in favour of the second of the name, who was certainly the more important of the two, and who is referred to in the Talmud under the name of Simeon the Righteous.[[256]] This is in accordance with the Greek translator’s statement in his preface that he was the grandson of the author, and we may conjecturally fix the composition of the book at about 180 B.C. The translator himself came into Egypt, as he tells us, in the 38th year of king Euergetes[[257]] (comp. Luke xxii. 25). Now Euergetes II. Physkon, who must be here intended, began to reign jointly with his brother Philometor B.C. 170; his brother died B.C. 145, and he reigned alone for twenty-five years longer (till B.C. 116). Hence the translator’s arrival in Egypt and possibly the translation itself fall within the year 132. The object of his work, we gather from the preface, was to correct the inequalities of moral and religious culture (παιδεία) among the Jews of Egypt, by setting before them a standard and a lesson-book of true religious wisdom.
Let us pause a little over these dates. It has been well observed by Mommsen that the foundation of Alexandria was as great an event in the history of the people of Israel as the conquest of Jerusalem. It must indeed have seemed to many Israelites more fraught with danger than with hope. Never before had Paganism presented itself to their nation in so attractive a guise. Would their religion exhibit sufficient power of resistance on a foreign soil? The fears, however, were groundless; at any rate, for a considerable time. The forms of Egyptian-Jewish literature might be foreign, but its themes were wholly national. Even in that highly original synthesis of Jewish, Platonic, and Stoic elements—the Book of Wisdom—the Jewish spirit is manifestly predominant. In Palestine there was also a Hellenic movement, though less vigorous and all-absorbing than in Egypt. Without a spontaneous manifestation of Jewish sympathy, Antiochus Epiphanes would never have made his abortive attempt to Hellenise Judæa. Girt round by a Greek population, the Palestinian Jews, in spite of Ezra’s admirable organisation, could not entirely resist the assaults of Hellenism. It is probable that not merely Greek language, but Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of the clearest Jewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of acknowledged fact in asserting that the ardour of Judæan piety, at least in the highest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra’s, and in ascribing this to Greek influences. The high priest Simeon II.,[[258]] surnamed the Righteous (i.e. the strict observer of the Law), of whom so glowing an account is given by Sirach (chap. i.), is the chief exception to this degeneracy; yet he was powerless to stem the revolutionary current even within his own family. His cousin Joseph was the notorious farmer of the taxes of Palestine, who by his public and private immorality[[259]] sapped the very foundations of Jewish life, while two of Simeon’s sons, Jason and Menelaus, became the traitorous high priests who promoted the paganising movement under Antiochus. It is well known that many critics refer the Book of Ecclesiastes to the period immediately preceding this great movement. The deep and almost philosophical character of the unknown author’s meditations seems to be in harmony with this date. On the other hand, there is the well-ascertained fact that the Book of Sirach shows no trace of really philosophical thought; it is little more than a new version of the ordinary proverbial morality. It is to this book, the ‘Doppelgänger des kanonischen Spruchbuchs,’ as Schürer calls it, the work, as a Greek writer puts it, of an attendant (ὀπαδός) of Solomon, that these pages are devoted. Nothing is more remarkable (and it ought to make us very deliberate in determining dates upon internal evidence) than the appearance of such a book at such a time.
The name of the author in full is Joshua (Jesus) ben Sira (Sirach),[[260]] but he may be called Sirach for shortness, this being the form of his family-name in the Greek translation. He tells us himself that he was of Jerusalem; that from his youth up his desire was for wisdom; that he laboured earnestly in searching for her; and that the Lord gave him a tongue for his reward (l. 27; li.) Sirach, in fact, is one of those ‘wise men’ to whom was entrusted so large a part of the religious education of the Jewish people. The remarkable fact that ‘wise men’ exist so long after the time of their prototype Solomon, proves that their activity was an integral part of the Jewish national life. The better class of ‘wise men’ gave an independent support to the nobler class of prophets. With their peremptory style, the prophets would never have succeeded in implanting a really vigorous religion, had not the ‘wise men,’ with their more conciliatory and individualising manner of teaching, supplemented their endeavours. The Babylonian Exile introduced a change into the habits of the ‘wise men,’ who, though some of them used the pen before the overthrow of the state, became thenceforward predominantly, if not entirely, writers on practical moral philosophy. Such was Sirach. He is not indeed a strictly original writer, nor does he lay claim to this. This is how he describes the nature of his work (xxxiii. 16)—
I too, as the last, bestowed zeal,
and as one who gleans after the vintage;