Burton - Mack - Wisdom - and - The - Hebrew - Epic - Ben - Sira's - Hymn - in - Praise - of - The - Fathers (1985) PDF

Wisdom
and the
Hebrew
Epic
Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism
Edited by
Jacob Neusner
Wisdom
Ben Sira's
Hymn in and
Praise of
the Fathers the
Hebrew
Epic
Burton L. Mack
The University of Chicago Press

Chicago and London
BURTON L. MACK is professor of New Testament in the School of
Theology, Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont Grad
uate School.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637

The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
© 1985 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 1985
Printed in the United States of America
94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 54321
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mack, Burton L.
Wisdom and the Hebrew epic.
(Chicago studies in the history of Judaism)

Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Bible. O.T Apocrypha. Ecclesiasticus XLIV-L-
Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series.
BS1765.2.M32 1985 229'.406 85-8564
ISBN 0-226-50049-7
T o JONATHAN Z. SMITH,
whose imaginative discourse
makes thinking about religion
possible
I will again make instruction
shine like the dawn.
Sirach 24:32
I will hide no secret from you.

Wisdom 6:22
Contents
List o f Tables x
Preface xi
Introduction 1
Part 1
Literary Analysis: Heroes 1 The Profile of the Hero 11
and History 2 The Structure o f
„ History 37
Part 2
Rhetorical Considerations: 3 Reading: In the Place O f
Reading and Writing Praise 6 9
4 Writing: The Glory o f the
Scholar-Sage 89
Part 3
Hermeneutic: Text and 5 The Hymn as Jewish and
Cultural Contexts Hellenistic Text 111
6 Wisdom as Text and
Texture 139
Conclusion 173
Appendices 189
Notes 215
Bibliography 241
Subject Index 251
Index to Biblical Texts
Cited 2 5 9
ix
Tables
1. The Pattern of Characterization 24

2. The Structure o f the Hymn 38
3. The Pattern o f Characterization as Encomium 130
4. The Structure o f the Hymn as Wisdom Myth 164
5. The Two Proems 191
x
Preface
Ben Sira's hymn landed on

m y desk four years ago and arrested m y attention in the course
o f a general reading o f Hellenistic-Jewish literature. I had b e e n
looking for t e x t s t o c h a r t that intersection o f cultures, J e w i s h
and Hellenic, within w h i c h a remarkable reflection on human
nature and social e x p e r i e n c e had b e e n generated. N o w I find
myself astonished at t h e scholarly labors B e n Sira's p o e m has
educed and sustained and at m y findings. I had thought t o
move quickly, from this t e x t t o others, through a cultural e p
o c h o f a history o f ideas. B u t t h e t e x t did n o t yield until I gave
it its rightful position at t h e c e n t e r o f t h e intersection I sought
t o understand. As all t h e o t h e r t e x t s piled up around it on m y
desk, t e x t s that I discovered formed the framework o f B e n
Sira's intellectual world, his h y m n t o o k its place upon another
desk as w e l l — h i s own.
I've imagined his study a bit m o r e tidy than m i n e , but filled
nonetheless with all those things befitting a scholar's w o r k
shop. T h a t I hadn't e x p e c t e d . I had wanted t o bridge the dif
ference o f t w o thousand years by studied reconstructions o f
what we've c o m e t o call history. B u t history turned t o O n c e
upon a time, B e n Sira's time. A n d there, working with his o w n
xi
xii PREFACE
texts, tracing out the lines from o n e t o t h e o t h e r in quest o f

that sense o f things h e called wisdom, was a scholar I could
recognize as s o m e o n e like myself. I had known, o f course, o f
his achievements as a p o e t — t h a t his hymn was on m y desk,
having c o m e so long a way, was p r o o f enough. B u t that he was
a scholar also, and that h e k n e w himself t o b e o n e — t h u s I
c a m e t o see t h e social situation o f his c o m p o s i t i o n — g a v e m e
courage t o p r o c e e d with yet a n o t h e r round o f readings o f his
text. This t i m e the heroes o f his h y m n w e r e n o t t h e only
human figures in m y view. It was n o w B e n Sira with w h o m I
was engaged. I sought t o understand h o w he had managed
such a reading o f his t e x t s and times, with what purpose he
wrote, and for w h o m .
I discovered something o f what I think was his way with
words, his inventions, and his achievement. H e n c e this book. I
wouldn't call it a b o o k o f wisdom, t o b e sure, and t h e r e the
difference b e t w e e n B e n Sira's w o r k and m i n e c o m e s clear. B u t
it would not do t o let that difference keep o n e from pondering
the similarities. B e n Sira claimed m o r e for his p o e m than I do
for m y s t u d y — m a i n l y because h e w r o t e as a scholar-the
ologian and I write m e r e l y as a scholar o f human h i s t o r y — b u t
both o f us started with o u r several sets o f texts and, aided by
imagination, sought t h e intersection o f their lines in s o m e
comprehensive view. T h u s m y study also is a scholarly in
vention, although n o t o n e B e n Sira himself might have r e c o g
nized. T h a t is because m y reading o f his p o e m takes it up into
the imaginative discourse about history, literature, and religion
appropriate t o t h e m o d e r n academy.
It is J o n a t h a n Z . S m i t h w h o has taught m e h o w important it
is t o acknowledge the discourse o f t h e academy as a product o f
the scholarly imagination. It is also S m i t h w h o has made m e
aware that t h e categories w e use for understanding religious
phenomena need t o b e tested by rigorous investigation o f texts
in specific social-historical c o n t e x t s . This is especially so in t h e
case o f texts from o t h e r times and cultures, lest w e miss the
"social l a b o r " o f the peculiar form o f " m e d i t a t i o n " on a soci
ety's patterns o f practice that religion is. I've tried t o see B e n
Sira's powerful p o e m , a m y t h i c reading o f his o w n cultural
PREFACE xiii
history, as such a meditation o n his social system. I trust m y

reading has b e e n rigorous enough, even though imaginative,
and that it will e n h a n c e appreciation for B e n Sira's o w n kind o f
inventive labor as well.
T h a t J a c o b Neusner has a c c e p t e d m y study for publication
in this series is reward indeed. His o w n w o r k has exemplified
time and t i m e again t h e value o f a critical way with texts for
J e w i s h history. H e has called regularly for an investigation o f
texts that will o p e n t h e m o u t upon their place in history and
let us see their function within specific social settings. T h a t he
has judged m y w o r k o n Sirach t o b e a contribution t o this
program is very gratifying, and I wish t o express m y thanks t o
him.
T o t h e Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, w h e r e m y
studies w e r e pursued and m y w o r k supported, I also wish t o
say thank you. I a m indebted t o David Seeley for a penetrating
reading o f t h e manuscript, and C h a r Matejovsky and D e b b i e
D e G o y e r , masters o f the magical machines, will not b e forgot
ten for their labors.
Introduction
T h i s b o o k is about a r e m a r k
able p o e m w r i t t e n by a J e w i s h priest in Jerusalem in 1 8 0 B . C . E .
T h e p o e m traces t h e illustrious leaders o f Israel's history, b e
ginning with Noah and ending with t h e high priest Simon, and
it opens with t h e author's a n n o u n c e m e n t " I will n o w sing
their praise." H e r o e s and history j o i n e d in this way set this
t e x t apart. It is t h e earliest p o e m o n r e c o r d in w h i c h figures o f
Israel's epic are presented as t h e sole subject o f a literary c o m
position expressly t o b e eulogized. It is found t u c k e d away in a
m o s t unlikely p l a c e — a b o o k o f ethical instruction in the m o d e
o f H e b r e w wisdom. Since t h e older traditions o f H e b r e w
wisdom do n o t betray an interest in Israel's epic history, t h e
c o n t e x t is surprising. N o r do t h e earlier wisdom texts prepare
us for a reading o f an epic history that c o m e s t o a c l i m a x in
praise o f a high priest offering sacrifice o n a high holy day.
T h a t is because, i f t h e conventional scholarly consensus is
right, m o s t H e b r e w wisdom was e i t h e r uninterested in o r c r i t
ical o f t h e cult. S o t h e p o e m is a m o s t interesting t e x t , and its
presence in a wisdom b o o k is quite u n e x p e c t e d . H o w t o a c
c o u n t for its being t h e r e , h o w t o read it with understanding,
1
2 INTRODUCTION
and h o w t o assess t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f its achievement are the

goals o f this investigation.
T h e p o e m is k n o w n as the " H y m n in Praise o f the F a t h e r s . "
It has long b e e n recognized by scholars as an important t e x t ,
for it reflects a m o m e n t in J e w i s h history w h e n significant
cultural changes w e r e taking place. T h e author w r o t e at the
crucial m o m e n t o f transition from Ptolemaic t o Seleucid
hegemony o f Palestine, and j u s t before the shattering events o f
167 B . C . E . that unleashed the troubled history o f the M a c c a -
bean revolts. T e m p l e and T o r a h , high priests and k i n g s — t h e s e
were the centers around w h i c h conflicts raged. Violence at
tended t h e repeated attempts t o take, defend, and exercise the
powers residing in the political and religious institutions. B u t
the battle lines shifted in keeping with ideological positions,
and for these the issue was o n e o f authority: T o r a h on the o n e
hand as c o d e , constitution, tradition, o r epic history; paideia on
the o t h e r as the spirit o f Hellenic culture, values, and social
organization. T h e suspicion has always been that B e n Sira's
hymn in praise o f the fathers was c o m p o s e d by an a u t h o r fully
aware o f his world and sensitive t o this emerging conflict.
1
T h e r e is, in fact, a great deal k n o w n about B e n Sira. His
book o f wisdom is a precious d o c u m e n t from a period that has
left us little o t h e r written legacy. It has been pored over r e
peatedly by scholars seeking a reconstruction o f this period o f
history. In t h e course o f these readings, as m u c h has been
learned about B e n Sira and his b o o k as has been learned from
t h e m about their times. T h e author's political preferences have
been discerned, his attitude toward S e c o n d T e m p l e institu
tions determined, and his activity as a schoolmaster made plau
sible. M o s t have regarded B e n Sira as a conservative, loyal t o
T o r a h and T e m p l e , cautious about Hellenism and about Cyni
cal views o f J e w i s h piety and wisdom. B u t the picture is m o r e
c o m p l e x than that, for t h e marks o f paideia upon his b o o k are
also very clear. His learning was broad, and his t e x t s w e r e
many. His intellectual and literary accomplishments reveal a
man o f great cosmopolitan erudition. His b o o k is a crossroads
o f the cultural traditions c o m p e t i n g for his times.
Ben Sira's p o e m about the fathers belongs t o his turbulent
INTRODUCTION 3
milieu, but t h e specific way in w h i c h it relates t o it has b e e n

very difficult t o understand. E v e n its place in its n a r r o w e r
literary c o n t e x t , its function within B e n Sira's b o o k o f wisdom,
has never b e e n a c c o u n t e d for. I f t h e h y m n could be shown t o
c o h e r e , t o sustain essential lines o f c o n t a c t with B e n Sira's
b o o k and its explicit c o n c e r n s , a m o s t interesting configuration
o f ideas would r e s u l t — h e r o e s and history; history and wis
dom; wisdom and T o r a h ; T o r a h and T e m p l e ; T e m p l e and
H e l l e n i s m — j u s t that bewildering m i x o f ideas, traditions, and
institutional ideologies that d e t e r m i n e d t h e times. I f it would
be possible t o place this t e x t amid t h e s e m a n y " t e x t s , " t o see it
open o u t o n t o its c o m p l e x social world, t h e n read it as a sin
gular m o m e n t o f reflection u p o n and comprehension o f its
author's t i m e — t h a t would b e t o understand it.
It is a curiosity o f t h e scholarly tradition that such little
effort has b e e n devoted t o solving t h e problems o f t h e hymn.
Only o n e monograph, t h r e e articles, and o n e dissertation that
2
have addressed t h e t e x t directly are k n o w n t o m e . Several o f
t h e r e c e n t monographs o n Sirach as a w h o l e have avoided any
3
study o f t h e h y m n at a l l . T h e reasons, perhaps, are t h e diffi
culties o n e e n c o u n t e r s w h e n approaching t h e t e x t with critical
questions. T h e literary c r i t i c is confronted with an unfamiliar
genre and hardly k n o w s h o w t o begin. T h e historian sees only
a hymn t o t h e pious and finds it impossible t o discern any
relation t o types o f piety actually in evidence for t h e period.
Clearly w e have a difficult t e x t o n o u r hands.
T h e p o e m consists o f a p r o e m , followed by a long series o f
poetic units, each devoted t o o n e o f t h e heroes. T h e s e units are
o f uneven length, and they are j u x t a p o s e d , for t h e m o s t part,
without transitional statements. O n e has t h e impression m e r e
ly o f a collection o f little p o e m s , a list o r catalog o f Israel's
leaders. T h e question is w h e t h e r t h e collection as a w h o l e
shows any principle o f selection o r o f structure at all, beyond
that o f a series. I f history is being recast, reread, what holds it
together? W h a t might be t h e p o e m ' s purpose in reading that
history as a series o f illustrious leaders? T h e call t o praise these
heroes is explicit enough. B u t t h e very notion o f singing praises
t o the human figures o f Israel's history strikes o n e as strange,
4 INTRODUCTION
given the usual assumptions about J e w i s h reluctance t o reify

the human creature. Even i f o n e w e r e t o b r a c k e t that consid
eration for a m o m e n t , however, the reasons for praise would
be unclear. O n e seeks in vain the customary marks o f great
human achievement in these m e n , for instance. T h e only m o d
els available for comparison from B e n Sira's time are given
with the G r e e k encomiastic literature. Scholars have always
sensed s o m e vague relationship in this regard. B u t the closer
the reading o f t h e hymn, the m o r e difficult it is t o determine
from such a comparison e x a c d y w h a t it is about these m e n
that is d e e m e d w o r t h y o f fame and glory. It is hardly the
Hellenic arete.
T h a t the last h e r o in line is S i m o n seems t o provide s o m e
clues. T h e history is read right into B e n Sira's present, and the
t h e m e o f glory seems t o r e a c h an appropriate climax there. B u t
this said, the question o f the t e x t ' s intention bursts the bounds
o f understanding o n c e again. Although the hymn does appear
t o intend s o m e signification o f B e n Sira's o w n religious-social
setting, what that significance m i g h t b e is e x t r e m e l y hard t o
tell. B y w h o m would the h y m n have been read, and o n what
occasions? W o u l d it have been effective, and by what imagina
tive means? T h e s e are the questions raised by the t e x t for the
critical scholar. T h e y have seldom been asked, m u c h less
resolved.
I decided t o tackle this t e x t because I thought it important.
I suspected that it stood near t h e beginning o f what was t o
b e c o m e an intense preoccupation with the notion o f the spe
cial man in all t h e forms o f Judaism entering the G r e c o - R o m a n
period. I was intrigued by the possibility that this p r e o c c u p a
tion might have b e e n influenced by Hellenistic anthropology
and its heroic ideals. T h a t the h y m n was written by a J e w i s h
sage, versed in t h e traditions o f wisdom, also teased m y fancy.
Jewish wisdom and G r e e k paideia had long been scholarly c o n
cerns o f mine. T o explore a m e e t i n g o f these t w o influential
cultures in a t e x t dated from the middle o f the Hellenistic age
appeared t o b e an attractive task. I f the hymn could b e e x
plained by placement in this cultural climate, a bit o f history
might b e b e t t e r understood.
INTRODUCTION 5
I approached t h e t e x t as a scholar trained in t h e traditions

o f biblical criticism, dissatisfied, however, with the limited
horizons o f understanding customary t o this field. It was, I
thought, t h e inadequacy o f traditional biblical criticism in g e n
eral t o read a t e x t specifically in relation t o its contigent, c o m
plex social c o n t e x t that a c c o u n t e d for its failure in the case o f
B e n Sira's hymn. W h a t appeared t o b e needed was a larger
frame o f reference t o help w i t h t h e phrasing o f questions. T h i s
I discovered t o b e in t h e making in r e c e n t discourse in the
academy. T h e r e it has begun t o b e thought that in o r d e r t o
understand a t e x t , it m u s t b e seen as part o f a larger system o f
signs. T h e insight c o m e s from t h e early scholars o f structural
linguistics, o f course. B u t it n o w pervades studies across t h e
range o f t h e humanities and h u m a n sciences seeking relations
among t h e several fields. T h i s discourse is learning t o treat
religion and culture, literature and society, as c o m p l e x , inter
related systems o f signs. Regarding t h e m as " t e x t s , " the schol
arly endeavor is t o " r e a d " t h e m together, "translating" from
system t o system, and so c o m e t o understand their " m e a n i n g . "
It is quite t r u e that academic study along these lines has n o t
succeeded in reducing t h e insight t o a workable theory o f s o
cial formation. T h e r e is n o comprehensive m o d e l for t h e inte
gration of, say, religion and society as semiotic systems. N o r is
there an adequate general t h e o r y o f t h e social function o f liter
ature. B u t t h e basic insight about h o w signs take their meaning
in relation t o o t h e r signs in a system o f signs has effected
significant advance. T h e goal is a m o r e comprehensive under
standing o f t h e h u m a n cultural enterprise.
Intrigued by this discourse, I thought t o test its basic insight
by an exegesis o f a single t e x t . T h e results have been gratifying,
and they are presented here. B u t t h e problems o f approach,
b o t h t o t h e reading o f t h e t e x t and t o t h e writing o f the study,
have been horrendous. A comprehensive reading o f the t e x t
could n o t b e done in a single set o f operations. Instead, a series
o f explorations had t o be undertaken, each with a specific set
o f intertextual relationships in view. T h e t e x t ' s o w n structure
o r system o f signs had t o be discovered. T h i s composition then
was set in relation t o ( 1 ) its several J e w i s h precursor texts; ( 2 )
6 INTRODUCTION
its several Hellenistic precursor t e x t s ; ( 3 ) the systems o f signs

called wisdom and paideia, taken b o t h separately and together,
systems that shaped the hymn's intellectual t e x t u r e ; ( 4 ) the
social structure o f S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism that it m i r r o r e d
and addressed; and ( 5 ) t h e t e x t o f B e n Sira's b o o k o f wisdom,
which yielded t h e clue t o t h e hymn's m y t h i c rationale. E a c h
exploration had t o follow the traditional norms o f responsible
scholarship t o begin with, and t h e old hermeneutical circle
w o r k e d its way t o constrain and c o r r e c t the readings by turn.
B u t each o f t h e individual studies in t h e t e x t ' s relation t o o t h e r
texts also demanded its o w n mid-course correctives t o t h e
study as a whole. S o t h e circles o f reflection w e r e e x t r e m e l y
difficult t o control. T h i s was so even though the several studies
were c e n t e r e d o n a single t e x t .
M y thesis is that the p o e m does sustain relations with all o f
these o t h e r " t e x t s , " and that these relations can b e d e m o n
strated. T h e p o e m takes its place creatively and intentionally,
deriving its meaning in relation t o its social world and its c u l
tural milieu. T h a t meaning is available t o us also, t o t h e e x t e n t
that w e b e c o m e imaginative readers o f those o t h e r t e x t s as
well. Specifically, t h e p o e m demonstrates marvelous mastery
o f patterned poetic description o f t h e individual figures, a
careful balancing o f hero-types t o achieve a unified structure
for the whole, and a m o s t skillful development o f plot, which
works with t h e m e s and h e r o sequences t o achieve a significant
and celebrative climax. T h e discovery o f the author's study
desk, o f his use and abuse o f precursors, and o f his readers at
their reading did n o t destroy t h e p o w e r and beauty o f the
hymn, but its rhetoricity was disclosed. It is a c h a r t e r t e x t , a
mythic etiology o f S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism c e n t e r e d in the
covenants that undergird t h e priesthood. It is B e n Sira's fan
tasy, o f course, h o w h e w a n t e d t o see the world, with the
T e m p l e at its c e n t e r , a w o r l d intended by G o d , actualized in
Israel's history forever m o r e . It is also a " m e d i t a t i o n , " t o use a
term that J o n a t h a n Z . S m i t h has pressed into service for m y t h
and ritual studies, on the incongruity B e n Sira saw b e t w e e n the
vision o f Israel given with its scriptural traditions and t h e a c t u
alities o f its social institutions and history o f his o w n time.
INTRODUCTION 7
H o w t o transcribe this study has been m y subsequent di

lemma. T h e circles o f relationships hardly allow for a single
point o f departure. S o I've c h o s e n t o ask the reader t o e n t e r in
naively, beginning with s o m e simple observations on the text.
I've tried t o arrange a s e q u e n c e o f demonstrations that follow
somewhat t h e several studies o n the t e x t ' s relation t o o t h e r
texts. B u t these are perspectives, and they m u s t pile up and be
taken finally t o g e t h e r i f o n e wants a comprehensive view. In
order t o lead t h e reader along, I've tried t o recapture the in
ductive m o o d and let the discoveries c o m e o n e by one. T h e
final chapter yields t h e clue that solves t h e mystery and makes
it possible t o see h o w it all hangs together. Reflections o n the
investigative process are given at the beginnings o f chapters
and major sections. T h e s e m a y serve as guides t o the reader,
glances at t h e treasure m a p that o n e should keep in mind. I
hope the ruse o f taking the way o f discovery sustains the ap
propriate anticipation through t o the end. I've found it t o be a
rewarding study, full o f surprises. I share it with the reader
with a set o f anticipations o f m y own.
B u t before w e begin, t w o scholarly acknowledgments are
due. T h e first has t o do with the history o f scholarship on
Sirach in general. I a m deeply indebted t o it, and assume its
labors at every turn. I've n o t b e e n c o n t e n t with any notion o f
mine about the t e x t e x c e p t after debate with the traditional
scholarly rubrics and archives. In the course o f this schol
arship, many e x t r e m e l y helpful observations have been made
about t h e hymn in praise o f t h e fathers. T h o u g h m o s t have
o c c u r r e d as asides within t h e c o n t e x t o f o t h e r studies, I've
learned from t h e m all and found m o s t t o be helpful, many
borne out by m y o w n analyses. T h u s the hymn has been seen
as a novel rewriting o f Israel's history that moves beyond pre
cursor t e x t s , emphasizes the covenants, and reflects cultic in
terests, on the o n e hand; and on the other, it has frequently
been c o m p a r e d with the G r e c o - R o m a n genre De viris illustri-
4
bus. M y o w n w o r k shows these observations t o b e c o r r e c t ,
and I have acknowledged specific indebtedness in notes along
the way.
T h e o t h e r recognition appropriate here has t o do with the
8 INTRODUCTION
state o f the t e x t . Readers m a y b e aware o f t h e exceedingly

c o m p l e x p r o b l e m o f establishing a H e b r e w t e x t for Sirach.
T h e y m a y also k n o w about its early translation into G r e e k by
B e n Sira's grandson and t h e debate about t h e value o f t h e
G r e e k t e x t s e x t a n t for reconstructing t h e H e b r e w t e x t s w e
5
h a v e . T h e manuscript traditions are messy, an indication that
Sirach was frequently appropriated in t h e immediately subse
quent centuries. T h e labor required t o establish t h e t e x t s is a
cause for deep appreciation. T h e G r e e k is n o w available in the
Gottingen Septuagint edited by J o s e p h Ziegler, and a m o s t
convenient edition o f this t e x t parallel with t h e H e b r e w t e x t s ,
together with t h e Syriac and Latin versions o n t h e page, has
been published by F r a n c e s c o Vattioni. I have used Vattioni for
m y work. R e f e r e n c e t o t h e H e b r e w t e x t , however, has been
made only in exceptional cases, and t h e n mostly in t h e notes in
regard t o certain terms. I have supplied pointing and followed
the c o d e for transliteration suggested by t h e Society o f Biblical
Literature. F o r t h e English translations appearing in t h e study I
have followed, for t h e m o s t part, that o f B o x and O e s t e r l e y
because o f its literal quality.
A bibliography o f w o r k s consulted is provided. A few e x -
egetical demonstrations thought t o be tedious within t h e nar
rative discourse o f t h e study, b u t important for readers w h o
may wish t o follow t h e course o f m y j u d g m e n t s , are given in
Appendices.
Literary
Analysis:
Heroes and
Part 1
History
The Profile of
the Hero l
The glorious figures o f Isra

el's history are t o b e praised. S o begins the hymn.
Let me now hymn the praises o f men o f piety,

O f our fathers in their generations.
No little glory did the Most High allot them,
And they were great from the days o f old.
( 4 4 : 1 - 2 ; emphasis mine)
Piety (hesed) and glory (kabod) have been j o i n e d and are said t o
reside in the singular figures about t o be described. T h e s e m e n
are well k n o w n — " o u r fathers in their g e n e r a t i o n s " whose
greatness has been recognized from times immemorial until
the present day. T h e poetry is strong, and the reader is swept
up at first into t h e m o o d created by t h e subtle call t o j o i n the
author in singing their praises.
This may b e the reason for the shifts that o c c u r in the G r e e k
translation. B e n Sira's grandson caught the m o o d and phrased
it for G r e e k ears t o hear:
Let us now sing the praises of glorious men,

Even our fathers by generation;
11
12 LITERARY ANALYSIS: H E R O E S AND HISTORY
The Lord established much glory,

His majesty from ever.
(emphasis mine)
T h e problem o f praising piety is solved by erasure. B u t the

aura o f glory c a n n o t be resisted. T h e translator joins in, taking
his place in the first person plural and laying implicit claim t o
having seen and sung, read and rewritten, the powerful poem.
B u t n o w t h e problem is t h e glory itself. T h e second distich
makes it clear that the majesty in view is really the Lord's.
T r o u b l e d apparently about j u s t these t h i n g s — p i e t y and
glory, glorious m e n and the glory o f t h e L o r d — t h e translators
o f the N e w English Bible p r o c e e d e d with m o r e caution, seek
ing some c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n the H e b r e w and the G r e e k .
B u t the notion o f the h e r o could n o t b e given up.
Let us now sing the praises o f famous men,

The heroes o f our nation's history,
Through whom the Lord established his renown,
And revealed his majesty in each succeeding age.
(emphasis mine)
Hasidim, fathers, great ones, glorious ones, h e r o e s — t h e

designations multiply even as attempts are made t o m a k e m o r e
precise what it is about these m e n that o n e is called upon t o
see. W h a t shall w e call them? T o ask the question is t o admit
that w e do n o t know. W e have n o n a m e , no definition, mainly
because this special kind o f h e r o appears in B e n Sira's hymn
for the very first time. It is a n e w creation, imagined by a clear
poetic vision and presented t o the world as a study o f the
human face in Israel's history. T h i s image is proposed as c o m
plement o r substitute for all that's g o n e b e f o r e — t h e ways in
which the J e w s have storied their epic figures and the ways in
which the G r e e k s have delineated their anthropological ideals.
As n e w configurations taking their place amid competing p r o
files, B e n Sira's great m e n have n o c o m m o n name. I f w e want
to k n o w what makes t h e m great according t o B e n Sira, we
need t o find a way t o see t h e m clearly, looking through his
eyes. H o w are they like, h o w different, from o t h e r alternative
T H E PROFILE O F THE H E R O 13
views, either o f the figures o f t h e H e b r e w epic o r o f the G r e e k

ideal types? Is t h e r e a n e w profile o f greatness? Is there a pat
tern o f characterization that B e n Sira has employed t o recast
all o f these figures from Israel's epic history for his hymn o f
praise? T h a t is the question t o b e addressed in this first c h a p t e r
o f our study.
APPROACHING THE T E X T
The Literary Context
T h e r e are several ways o n e might imagine approaching o u r

t e x t in order t o ask what it is that makes its epic figures great
and w o r t h y o f praise. O n e way would b e t o read it in its
literary c o n t e x t as the final section o f B e n Sira's b o o k o f
wisdom. This would have t h e advantage o f coming t o the t e x t
as the author intended his readers t o do. T h e reader would
already have been informed about piety, about the Lord's g l o
ry, and about B e n Sira's o w n summary o f the types o f great
m e n t o be praised. Immediately preceding the hymn there is a
strong p o e m in praise o f the Lord's creation. It begins with the
a n n o u n c e m e n t " N o w I will call t o m i n d the works o f t h e
L o r d " ( 4 2 : 1 5 ) . It ends with t h e affirmation " T h e L o r d has
made everything, and has given wisdom t o the hasidim ( 4 3 : 3 3 ) .
T h e n follows the p r o e m t o t h e hymn ( 4 4 : 1 - 1 5 ) , which c o n
tinues the earlier t h e m e o f t h e glory o f t h e L o r d but shifts the
locus o f its manifestation from creation t o history. N o w the
heroes are in view, and t h e p r o e m sings about their many
accomplishments, their rewards, and their glorious m e m o r y .
This prepares the reader for t h e long p o e m t o follow, which
takes up each h e r o in turn by n a m e and concludes with the
festive description o f Simon officiating at the temple o n the
Day o f A t o n e m e n t ( 4 4 : 1 6 - 5 0 : 2 4 ) .
Approaching the t e x t in this way, that is, by reading it in its
literary c o n t e x t , it is difficult t o determine exactly at what
point o n e has e n t e r e d into the sphere o f the p o e m ' s influence.
T h e notion o f glory is firmly in place from 4 2 : 1 6 on, but it is
being imagined t h e r e in the orders o f the created world. T h e
not-so-slight problem o f shifting one's focus t o the arena o f
human history w i t h o u t losing sight o f that glory is addressed in

4 4 : 2 ( " N o little glory did t h e M o s t High allot t h e m " ) and
w o r k e d o u t in t h e generalizing descriptions o f t h e p r o e m that
follow. It is t h e r e t h e t h e m e s o f wisdom, power, and h e r o i c
exploits are introduced. T h e s e m o v e s appear t o b e e x t r e m e l y
important i f the reader o f t h e r o s t e r o f t h e illustrious ones is
not t o misunderstand.
T h e literary linkage o f t h e t e x t with t h e preceding h y m n t o
creation does help with t h e p r o b l e m o f w h e r e in t h e world
" g l o r y " is t o be seen and h o w it is t o b e understood. W h e t h e r
in creation o r in history, it is t h e Lord's glory that is manifest.
O n e might begin an investigation with this observation, t o b e
sure, for t h e pattern o f depicting divine wisdom as manifest
first in creation, then in history, o c c u r s repeatedly throughout
the b o o k and could conceivably b e brought t o bear upon the
question o f h o w wisdom and glory are t o be attributed t o t h e
1
great m e n praised in t h e h y m n . B u t this essentially theological
affirmation, though very important as a clue t o B e n Sira's
larger vision o f the o r d e r o f things, is simply inadequate for
getting started. It alerts us t o t h e need t o k e e p t r a c k o f t h e
m o m e n t s in t h e descriptions o f these m e n that are called
glorious m o m e n t s , b u t it c a n n o t help us understand w h y those
m o m e n t s are called glorious t o begin with. S o m e profile o f
description is needed t o give t h e p r o p e r perspective.
Many scholars therefore have started with the p r o e m ( 4 4 : 1 -
15). It is there that t h e a u t h o r lists t h e kinds o f illustrious m e n
he has in mind. B u t even a cursory reading o f t h e p r o e m in
relation t o t h e p o e m that follows quickly stumbles upon c e r
2
tain incompatibilities b e t w e e n t h e t w o a c c o u n t s . T h e wisdom
o f the illustrious ones, for instance, is highlighted in t h e p r o
em, but it plays almost n o role at all in the succeeding c h a r a c
terizations. T h e p o e m includes priests among the illustrious
ones and emphasizes their glory. B u t t h e p r o e m does n o t m e n
tion priests at all in its r o s t e r o f hero-types. I f o n e begins with
the proem, then, t h e questions o n e is apt t o ask o f t h e p o e m
will be determined by discrepancies like these. T h e p r o e m e s
tablishes t h e pattern o f characterization, and o n e will seek t o
find it reflected in t h e p o e m . Scholars w h o have pursued this
T H E PROFILE OF THE HERO 15
line o f inquiry have succeeded only in demonstrating how

m u c h the t w o t e x t s m u s t b e s t r e t c h e d in order t o achieve the
fit. S o w e need t o find s o m e o t h e r way t o begin. W e shall
c o m e back t o t h e problems o f glory and wisdom, creation and
history, p r o e m and p o e m later on.
The Midrashic Comparison
A second approach c o m m e n d s itself as soon as it is seen that

the p o e m draws upon o t h e r t e x t s . Comparison perhaps could
highlight the differences b e t w e e n these texts, and in the dif
ferences the n e w could b e seen. Isn't the p o e m a midrash on
the epic history? Taking up t h e p r o e m at 4 4 : 1 6 , one senses
immediately that a m o d e o f composition is in play quite differ
ent from the wisdom poetry that precedes it. T h e poetry o f the
3
hymn is still strong and follows the usual style o f parallelism.
It may even b e considered stronger than m u c h o f the p r e c e d
ing poetry, i f o n e marks the tensions o f the heightened style
and pungent description. B u t t h e overriding impression is that
4
one is in the presence o f scriptural language. A n o t h e r t e x t ,
the t e x t o f t h e epic history, is being evoked purposefully even
as the p o e m proceeds on its way, carrying the reader along by
its o w n powerful imagery.
T h e sense that o n e is recalling biblical episodes is b o t h il
lusory and real. It is real because the statements that are made
about the heroes are traceable t o scriptural loci. It is illusory,
however, because t h e several individual statements used t o
paint the picture o f a h e r o have been selected from various
scriptural loci and frequently c o m b i n e disparate textual a c
counts. T h u s the reader is actually caught in the space b e t w e e n
t w o texts, t h e old and t h e new. W h a t is achieved is a n e w
characterization. T h e procedure is a kind o f proto-midrash, a
midrash that anthologizes b o t h in the sense o f collecting and
combining disparate descriptive details and in the sense o f
using the language o f t h e scriptural accounts anthologically in
the n e w poetic vision. T h e precursor t e x t that is being evoked
is quite c o m p l e x and may be as vast as the entire corpus o f
Jewish literature available t o t h e author. T h a t " t e x t " would b e
difficult t o c o n t r o l in any comparative study.
Nevertheless, a kind o f comparison may eventually b e possi

ble and should b e attempted. Selection has taken place, and in
that process, t h e author has revealed his interest in only c e r
tain details. W e r e it possible t o m a r k that interest, arrange
those details, the rationale for selection might c o m e into view.
B u t t o be certain about it, a comparison o f the texts can p r o
ceed only by degrees. W e c a n n o t b e certain o f the precursor
t e x t o r texts until w e ' v e analyzed the p o e m and traced the
relationships. Even then, supposing t h e r e are several t e x t s , sev
eral J e w i s h histories and the suspicion o f Hellenic models as
well, the comparative process would have t o begin precisely
with the shape o f the p o e m , and n o t the o t h e r way around.
T h a t B e n Sira k n e w the five books o f Moses, the histories, and
the prophets in s o m e arrangement is clear from the c o m m e n
5
taries and mongraphs that have cited the many parallels. It
has been assumed that this arrangement was already very close
t o the T a n n a c h as w e have it, and s o m e very general c o m
parative observations have been allowed t o help with early
judgments about t h e structure o f the poem. B u t the real w o r k
o f comparing t h e p o e m with its precursor texts can only c o m e
after it has been determined what it is about the p o e m that
calls for comparison in the first place.
The Literary Structure
This leaves us alone with the t e x t . It consists o f a series o f

poem units, in m o s t o f w h i c h a single figure is described. T h e
question is w h e t h e r this series is m o r e than a list, and w h e t h e r
the individual units betray any pattern o f characterization. It
would be helpful t o k n o w w h e t h e r the p o e m was c o m p o s e d
with any plan in mind, and w h e t h e r it is possible t o tell w h e r e
in the greatness o f the heroes lay for the author. T h e r e are t w o
ways t o proceed.
O n e would b e t o trace o u t the sequences from beginning t o
end, looking for indications o f a m o v e m e n t o r plot within
which units are i n t e r c o n n e c t e d , t h e m e s developed, and so
forth. This approach would test the unity o f t h e composition,
its c o h e r e n c e , and its overall structure. Although I will argue
that such a pattern does exist, it is n o t possible t o trace it out
T H E PROFILE OF T H E HERO 17
unless t h e functions o f t h e heroes are first carefully defined.

This is because t h e main principle o f continuity in the overall
schema is t h e significance o f t h e sequences o f different types o f
hero. Since t h e p o e m is built upon a series o f heroes, each with
his o w n n a m e and particular identity, plot development c a n n o t
be achieved by following o n e c h a r a c t e r o r set o f characters
through t h e story o r history that t h e p o e t wants t o retell. B e n
Sira w o r k e d with types o f heroes o r functions o f heroes in
history and used t h e devices o f type r e c u r r e n c e , success and
failure o f type functions, juxtapositions, comparisons, escala
tions, and so forth, in o r d e r t o delineate the course o f " t h e
h e r o i c " from beginning t o e n d in a systematic way.
It is necessary, therefore, t o w o r k o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r types o f
the heroes before proceeding t o t h e overall pattern o f history
achieved. T o d o this, I have followed a rather simple p r o
cedure, t h e s e c o n d option referred t o above. I t o o k the indi
vidual units o f t h e p o e m as a set and analyzed the o c c u r r e n c e
o f c o m m o n features in t h e details o f characterization. I dis
covered a pattern o f seven c o m p o n e n t s . T h i s general pattern
was then analyzed with r e s p e c t t o subtypes as specific varia
tions o f the general pattern, and I found that five subtypes
emerged, each associated with an " o f f i c e " (patriarch, priest,
judge, prophet, king). It was with t h e peculiarities o f these
official subtypes o f t h e heroes n a m e d and h y m n e d that B e n
Sira could w o r k t o turn a serialized p o e m into a specific and
c o h e r e n t review o f Israel's history.
Before w e c o n t i n u e , t w o i m p o r t a n t judgments have b e e n
made that n e e d t o be acknowledged. T h e s e judgments are
about the set o f heroes that belong t o the p o e m , t h e set used
t o determine t h e h e r o e s ' profile. T h e first is that Simon the
high priest belongs t o t h e set, even though many scholars have
argued that he should n o t b e included in a " h y m n t o the
fathers." T h e reasons for including him are given in appendix
B . T h r e e o t h e r passages, o n t h e o t h e r hand, have n o t been
included. T h e s e are t h e m e n t i o n o f E n o c h in 4 4 : 1 6 ; the de
scription o f Elijah in 4 8 : 9 - 1 1 ; and t h e section o n E n o c h ,
Joseph, S h e m , Seth, E n o s , and Adam in 4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 . T h e s e s e c
tions appear t o b e later additions t o the hymn, do n o t c o r r e
spond t o t h e pattern o f characterization, and disturb the
symmetry o f t h e overall structure and plan. T h e r e are g o o d

reasons for deleting t h e m , including manuscript evidence, and
these reasons are given in appendix C .
T H E GENERAL PATTERN O F CHARACTERIZATION
A casual reading o f t h e p o e m will n o t stumble upon any

profile o f t h e h e r o i c c o m m o n t o all o f t h e figures hymned. T h i s
is because t h e poetry is vivid and t h e descriptions fascinating.
T h e repeated evocation o f scriptural accounts in t h e descrip
tions creates in t h e m e m o r y o f t h e reader a full epic b a c k
ground against w h i c h t h e n e w p o e t i c depictions appear t o
sharpen individual profiles r a t h e r than type them. O n l y w h e n
o n e begins t o w o n d e r wherein, precisely, t h e greatness o f these
figures lies for B e n Sira is o n e led t o closer readings. T h e first
close reading will probably c o n t i n u e t o treat each figure inde
pendently and seek literary clues t o elucidate his particular
virtue, achievement, o r m a r k o f greatness. B u t this approach
fails because t h e affirmations o f glory never seem t o be a c
c o u n t e d for in relation t o any particularity about t h e individual
under consideration. Finally, however, and quite unexpectedly,
o n e discerns aspects o f characterization c o m m o n t o all o f t h e
figures and discovers that B e n Sira understood the glory o f
these figures t o reside in a particular configuration o f those
c o m m o n aspects. It is this configuration that I have called t h e
6
pattern o f characterization. T h e seven c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e
general pattern are ( 1 ) a designation o f office, ( 2 ) m e n t i o n o f
divine approbation o r election, ( 3 ) a reference t o covenant, ( 4 )
mention o f t h e person's c h a r a c t e r o r piety, ( 5 ) an a c c o u n t o f
the deeds, ( 6 ) reference t o t h e historical situation, and ( 7 )
mention o f rewards. T h e study o f this list o f c o m p o n e n t s will
show that it is t h e c o n c e p t o f office that determines t h e pat
tern as a whole. Since t h e several offices play significant roles
in the development o f t h e hymn, they may be regarded as
subclassifications o f t h e general n o t i o n o f office itself.
It will b e helpful t o flesh this pattern out in s o m e detail.
T h e r e are specific nuances t o e a c h c o m p o n e n t that determine
its function within t h e pattern. O n l y by working o u t these
interrelationships will t h e profile gain that specificity o f c h a r -
acterization needed in o r d e r t o determine B e n Sira's notion o f

greatness. A detailed exegetical accounting for the derivation
o f the profile would be tedious and distracting. Readers in
terested in a partial a c c o u n t o f this w o r k will find it in appen
dix D . A summary a c c o u n t will be given here in the form o f an
integrative s k e t c h — B e n Sira's profile o f the hero.
Office
O n e is t e m p t e d t o overlook at first the frequent m e n t i o n o f

a hero's office in the hymn. T h e m o s t obvious and striking
thing about the h y m n is that e a c h o f the great ones is i n t r o
duced by n a m e , and o n e looks immediately for particularities.
T h a t a certain figure is a prophet, priest, judge, o r king appears
t o be t o u c h e d upon almost in passing. T h e s e designations o f
social roles are so traditional as t o appear insignificant in the
c o n t e x t o f a h y m n in praise o f select individuals.
B u t this assumption turns o u t t o be wrong. T h e assignment
o f a figure t o an office is so consistently emphasized that o n e
must ask w h e t h e r it is n o t t h e office that makes the m a n for
Ben Sira. An office is expressly m e n t i o n e d for o n e half o f the
figures hymned, and it is assumed for the rest. It is even the
case that the characterization o f c o m p l e x figures, such as S a m
uel, is achieved by attributing m o r e than o n e office t o them. S o
a figure's office is an essential c o m p o n e n t in the pattern o f
characterization. It is his office that sets a person apart from
others classed according t o o t h e r offices, and it is his perfor
m a n c e in a particular office that can distinguish him from o t h
ers in the same class.
This means that B e n Sira reflected upon the various social
roles depicted in Israel's epic and historical literature. Office
has b e c o m e a g e n e r i c category within which these roles are
subsumed. T h e s e roles are constitutive for B e n Sira's c h a r a c
terization o f Israel's great leaders. T a k e n as a set, they may also
be constitutive for his view o f t h e structure o f J e w i s h society.
As strange as it m a y seem, it is the office a given figure holds
for which he can b e praised. T h e greatness o f these heroes is
directly related t o the great significance o f these offices. All o f
the offices are "glorious," including those o f prophet and
priest, a notion m o s t curious i f greatness is being measured o n

a G r e e k model.
Election
O u r curiousity is provoked further by the fact that these

great figures are being praised as well for their election t o
these offices. This notion is emphasized repeatedly throughout
the hymn, and it applies t o all o f the offices. It is as i f their
greatness had nothing t o do with achievement. It is the divine
choice o f these figures for their offices that is the glorious
m o m e n t they represent.
T h e terminology used t o express the idea o f election varies.
In some cases, a particular form o f election seems t o b e c h a r a c
teristic o f those in a given class. T h u s it is the prophets w h o
are said t o be " f o r m e d in the w o m b . " T h o s e in o t h e r classes
are frequently said t o b e "found," "chosen," "separated
o u t " — a l l variations o n the t h e m e o f election. W i t h o u t divine
initiative, a figure would not be included in the roster o f the
great ones. T h e r e appears t o be s o m e grand design in Israel's
history for which these leaders have been chosen t o play c e r
tain roles.
Covenant
This impression o f a grand design is strengthened with the

observation that the notion o f covenant belongs t o the pattern
o f characterization as well. B e n Sira has expressly emphasized
the establishment o f covenants with the founding figures for all
o f the offices e x c e p t that o f the prophets (for w h o m the notion
"formation from the w o m b " serves as substitute). It could
appear, then, that participation in the covenants was a special
case, reserved for founders, and o f n o special significance for
later figures. This view would be wrong, however. N o t only is
there a necessary relation b e t w e e n the covenants and the es
tablishment o f offices, it is the idea o f covenant upon w h i c h
the continuity o f office is founded. Each holder o f an office is
therefore directly related t o the e n a c t m e n t and terms o f the
covenant upon w h i c h that office is based. T h u s it can b e said at
the very end o f the hymn that it is the " c o v e n a n t o f Phineas"

that ensures the high priestly office for Simon and his descen-
dents forever ( 5 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) . T h e terms o f a covenant set the
standard by w h i c h t h e holder o f an office can b e judged. W i t h
this possibility o f making j u d g m e n t s about h o w well a certain
figure fulfills the covenantal terms o f his office, o n e might
e x p e c t that great achievements will be the m a r k o f the hero's
glory after all.
Virtues
O n e does e x p e c t in a h y m n o f praise that noble qualities will

be mentioned. B e n Sira's h y m n is n o exception. T h e language
o f virtues characteristic for these great leaders is in evidence
everywhere. O n e would think it possible t o m a k e a classifica
tion o f virtues important t o t h e author and t o determine the
way in w h i c h they have been used t o characterize particular
figures or offices. Such an endeavor founders, however, and
one is required t o take a n o t h e r reading. T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f
observations that can b e made.
For example, specifically ethical virtues are lacking, even
though o n e might have looked for an emphasis upon such
virtues as wisdom, obedience, and righteousness in a hymn
written by a teacher-sage. S o l o m o n is the only one said t o be
wise ( 4 7 : 1 2 ) , and he turns o u t t o be a figure o f e x t r e m e l y
ambiguous virtue. T h e only figure called " r i g h t e o u s " is Noah
( 4 4 : 1 7 ) , and that characterization is given with the scriptural
account ( G e n . 6 : 9 ) . Nothing m o r e is made o f it. As for the
virtue o f obedience, it is m e n t i o n e d expressly only o n c e . T h e
instance refers t o Abraham's obedience t o circumcision as a
sign o f the covenant made with him ( 4 4 : 2 0 ) .
T h e r e are, however, m a n y attributions o f what one might
call religious virtues. Perhaps it is piety that would be e m p h a
sized in a h y m n t o t h e hasidim. B u t only o f Joshua and Josiah is
hesed m e n t i o n e d expressly, and then it is not a m a r k o f c h a r
acter, but the quality o f an action t o w h i c h reference is made
( 4 6 : 6 ; 4 9 : 3 ) . This agrees with the ancient H e b r e w meaning o f
the term: loyalty o r solidarity in a social role. T h e r e is, in fact,
no clear evidence anywhere that ascriptions o f religious virtues
t o these heroes intend a delineation o f what the G r e e k s would

call character (ethos, arete). T h e attributions are simply made,
affirmed without rationalization o r illustration. It is rather t h e
case that the affirmations o f religious virtues tend t o support
another claim altogether, that is, the " v i r t u e " o f these leaders
lay in a single f u l f i l l m e n t — t h e fulfillment o f their offices.
O n c e this is seen, the several designations o f religious virtue
can be reduced t o t w o main types, " s t r e n g t h " and "faithful
ness." T h e s e t e r m s o c c u r w i t h greatest frequency, and they are
able t o subsume o t h e r t e r m s w i t h similar intent, such as "zeal
o u s , " " l o y a l , " and so forth. It does appear that the ascription
o f religious virtues t o these leaders serves primarily t o c h a r a c
terize the quality o f their leadership, their performance in of
fice. T h e y are understood t o b e " v i r t u o u s " only in this respect.
Deeds
W e can turn n o w t o t h e m o s t forceful aspect o f the poem.

It is that great and glorious deeds are r e c o u n t e d in number.
The achievements o f these m e n have been recognized as
worthy o f praise. T h e p o e m is n o t simply a series o f portraits
o f officials in their place and garb. T h e y are all m e n o f action,
and the consequences o f their actions are significant—signifi
cant as historical events.
W h e n o n e seeks t o t r a c e these deeds t o m e n o f superior
endowment, extraordinary skill, o r resolute strength, however,
one quickly loses one's way, for the glorious deeds r e c o u n t e d
are also typed according t o office. Prophets perform miracles
and give prophecies; kings build temples and defend the city;
priests minister and perform sacrifices; judges lead t o war; and
Moses (an office sui generis, as w e shall see) teaches. T h e fa
thers perform n o deeds at all. As with the virtues, characteriza
tion is still determined by t h e function o f the office.
^ Because the p o e m draws upon the scriptural accounts for its
data, there is great diversity in the description o f deeds from
figure t o figure. This gives t h e reader the impression that indi
vidual characterization is intended. T h e impression is n o t un
important, for the variety o f specific deeds and special c i r c u m -
stances gives the p o e m c o l o r and t e x t u r e and allows the reader

t o consider e a c h individual n a m e d on his o w n merits. T h u s the
"sacrifice" o f Phineas, for lack o f other, m o r e appropriate
data, is the slaying o f t h e Israelite with the Midianite woman.
B u t all o f the deeds are typed, and all o f the deedtypes are
related t o official functions. T h e great m e n are great perform
ers only o f deeds appropriate t o their office. T h e p o e m is n o t
in praise o f human figures w h o have w o n their right t o fame by
personal achievements. T h e s e m e n are great because they have
faithfully performed the functions o f those social offices o r
dained in divine covenant as constitutive for the
"congregation."
Historical Setting
It n o w b e c o m e s clear w h y a figure's setting o r place in

history is so frequently m e n t i o n e d . It t o o belongs t o the pat
tern o f characterization. O n e might think that a brief descrip
tion o f scene o r c o n t e x t would b e incidental t o the depiction
o f an illustrious o n e in a series o f illustrious ones. B u t because
these m e n are praised for the reasons they are, the people for
w h o m the offices are ordained must b e in view. It is in relation
t o the well-being o f the people that the performance o f the
official functions can be judged. T h e social setting against
which these leaders and their deeds have significance is always
painted the same. It is the dark side o f Israel's h i s t o r y — t r i a l ,
sin, violence, enemies, destruction. It is the plight o f the p e o
ple and the bleak background o f threat that set the illustrious
leaders off. T h e i r m o m e n t s o f greatness reconfirm the grand
design o f the covenants and carry the reader through a study
o f the official ministries.
Rewards
T h e reader is therefore astonished t o find that the leaders

are repeatedly said t o have been rewarded for their deeds and
virtues. B u t t h e n it turns out that their " r e w a r d s " are ( 1 ) the
b e s t o w m e n t upon t h e m o f their glorious offices, and ( 2 ) the
h o n o r they receive from t h e people because o f that glory; so
TABLE 1. THE PATTERN OF CHARACTERIZATION
1
1. Office: Father ( 4 ) Moses (1) Priest (3) Judge (6) Prophet (8) King (4)
2. Election: found ( 2 )2
found
chosen chosen (1) chosen (1)
3
anointed (1) anointed (1) (anointed) (1)
formed (1) formed (2)
24
set apart (1)

3. Covenant: blessing/ law priesthood kingship
promise
4. Piety: righteous (1)
faithful (1) faithful faithful (1)
strong (strong) (1) strong (2) strong (1) strong (1)
(zealous) (1) zealous (1)
pious (1) pious (2)
meek truthful (1) obedient (1)
merciful
5. Deeds: teaching teaching (1)
sacrifice (3)
miracles miracles (1) miracles (3)
(act of act of act of act of
judgement/ judgment/ judgment/ judgment/
salvation) salvation salvation salvation
(i) (2) (S) (2)
visions/
prophecies (3)
(defense/ defense/ defense/
restoration) restoration restoration
(2) (3) (3)
6. Setting/ destruction (1)
Context:
trial (1) (oppression)
25
jealousy (1)
sins (2) sins (1) sins (3) sins (3)
enemies enemies enemies
(1) (2) (2)
7. Reward: inheritance (1) inheritance (3) land (2)
glory glory (3)
honor honor (3) honor (3)
Notes
1. Parentheses under "office" give number in the class.
2. Numbers in parentheses elsewhere give incidence of occurrence.
3. Parenthetical characteristics indicate ascriptions that may be incidental.
the circle closes intact. T h e r e are n o rewards that c o m e from

great personal achievements in pursuit o f a noble, h e r o i c ideal.
B u t there is glory nonetheless, and glory in abundance. It is the
glory invested in the offices o f Israel by God's design, decree,
and continuing manifestation o n the o n e hand, and o n the
other, it is the glory attributed t o the leaders in Israel by the
people w h o recognize t h e fulfillment o f the covenantal pur
poses in their leadership.
This pattern o f characterization is summarized in table 1.
T h e reduction o f c o m p l e x p o e t i c material makes it necessary
to use brief designations. S o m e o f these are interpretive, giving
a general t e r m t o c o v e r a variety o f descriptive details found t o
be functionally similar. B u t m o s t are a shorthand reference t o
the actual c o n t e n t o f t h e characterizations. Each office has
been assigned a separate c o l u m n in order t o enable c o m
parisons among the several offices as subtypes o f the overall
pattern. T h e significance o f these variations will be discussed
below.
T H E CONFIGURATIONS OF THE PATTERN
The Special Characteristics of Each Office
T h e discovery o f the general pattern o f characterization sat

isfies certain questions with regard t o B e n Sira's notion o f
greatness, but it is hardly sufficient i f one wants t o investigate
the structure o f the h y m n as a whole. O n e is still left with a
series o f heroes depicted similarly. In order t o discern the sig
nificance o f the collection as a set, it will be necessary to have
the particular profiles o f each office clearly in mind. T h a t is
because the p o e m is given structure by the placement o f c e r
tain offices in a carefully w o r k e d out set o f relationships t o the
others. Since each office is a subtype o f the general pattern o f
characterization, it will be a simple m a t t e r to sketch o u t its
particular profile. This will b e done, however, with an eye to
peculiar o r n o t e w o r t h y attributions t o individual figures. P e c u
liar attribution o f an official characteristic is one o f the devices
frequently used to give a distinctive place to an individual in
7
the s e q u e n c e .
T h e Fathers
T h e fathers include t h e figures o f Noah, Abraham, Isaac,

and J a c o b . T h e y are " f a t h e r s " in t h e sense that they are under
stood t o b e t h e progenitors o f certain g e n e r i c classifications o f
humanity within w h i c h all people may b e c o u n t e d as descen-
dents. T h e divine covenants o f promise w e r e established with
them, t h e effect o f w h i c h is understood t o b e a continuing
determination o f t h e classes o f humanity before G o d . B e c a u s e
o f divine approval o f his righteousness and the divine promise
t o spare humanity " f o r his s a k e , " Noah represents all h u m a n
kind as those w h o are privileged t o be alive without threat o f
cataclysmic destruction. Abraham represents the division o f
humanity into " n a t i o n s " for w h i c h t h e r e is a great potential t o
find divine approval, understood on t h e basis o f Abraham's
acts o f o b e d i e n c e and o f G o d ' s promise t o " b l e s s " t h e nations
"in his s e e d . " Isaac represents t h e line in w h i c h God's promise
t o Abraham is r e n e w e d , and in J a c o b a nation emerges that is
understood t o b e t h e locus for t h e divine manifestation o f that
blessing. O n l y in t h e case o f Abraham are any deeds r e c o u n t e d ,
and that is in keeping with his double function as father o f t h e
covenant o f promise and as e x a m p l e o f o n e w h o accepts t h e
law as t h e standard o f righteousness. O n l y with Noah and
Abraham is t h e divine election based upon human right
eousness. Isaac receives t h e promise " f o r t h e sake o f Abraham
his f a t h e r " ( 4 4 : 2 2 ) , and Israel is blessed without m e n t i o n o f a
reason at all. T h e y are glorious as fathers o f the covenants o f
promise, and their " r e w a r d , " o r " i n h e r i t a n c e , " is b o u n d up
with t h e destinies o f their descendents and the continuing
efficacy o f t h e promises. It is n o t said o f t h e m , as it is said o f
others in t h e h y m n , that they received glory and h o n o r in their
8
own times.
T h e Priests
T h o s e n a m e d as priests are Aaron, Phineas, Samuel, and

Simon. Samuel is a c o m p o s i t e figure w h o is designated as a
priest because o f his a c t o f sacrifice, w h i c h occasioned a victo
ry over t h e Philistines ( 4 6 : 1 6 ; cf. 1 Sam. 7 : 9 ) . His inclusion
shows that B e n Sira saw the performance o f sacrifice as defini

tive for the priestly office. It also shows that he wanted t o keep
track o f the priestly office through t h e period o f Israel's transi
tion from wilderness t o kingdom. Phineas's act o f "sacrifice" is
the slaying o f the Israelite with t h e Midianite woman, that is, a
curious combination o f priestly and warrior functions. This is
an interpretation o f the statement in Num. 2 5 : 1 2 - 1 3 that b e
cause o f his deed, w h i c h " m a d e a t o n e m e n t for the people o f
Israel," the " c o v e n a n t o f a perpetual p r i e s t h o o d " was given t o
him.
Taking Aaron, Phineas, and S i m o n t o g e t h e r as a class, it is
possible t o see the particular pattern o f office B e n Sira had in
mind. T h e priesthood is based upon a covenant made with
Aaron; the special office o f high priest is established by c o v e
nant with Phineas. W i t h Simon that covenant is understood t o
continue in force ( 5 0 : 2 4 ) . T h e primary priestly function is t h e
performance o f sacrifice, and the sacrifice o f major significance
is the making o f atonement. B e y o n d this, there is special in
terest in the vestments as manifestations o f the divine bestowal
o f office and glory. It is important that this glory is recognized
by the people ( 4 5 : 2 0 ; 5 0 : 5 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 2 0 ) . Neither great deeds n o r
special virtues appear t o be constitutive.
T h e Prophets
T h e prophets as a class are distinguished primarily by their
great deeds, which manifest their peculiar function as agents o f
the destinies o f kings and kingdoms. T h e y have a special form
o f election ( " f o r m e d from t h e w o m b " ) and are zealous and
faithful in character. T h e r e is n o prophetic covenant although,
as will be shown, the line o f prophets is understood t o begin
with Moses. T h e r e is m a r k e d interest in the prophetic function
9
o f "anointing" persons t o be priests, kings, and p r o p h e t s . O f
particular significance is the e x t e n t t o which prophetic agency
is understood t o have been t h e means by which the j u d g m e n t s
o f history t o o k place. T o Samuel's prophecy is attributed the
power " t o blot out iniquity" ( 4 6 : 2 0 ) ; Elijah " r e d u c e s " Israel
( 4 8 : 2 ) ; and Jerusalem is said t o have been laid waste "by
(beyad) J e r e m i a h " ( 4 9 : 6 ) .
T h e Kings
T h e kings and rulers have as their primary function the

defense o f t h e civil and religious institutions. T h e y are praised
for temple building, fortification o f the city, and support o f the
cult. A peculiarity o f the office o f kingship, in distinction t o all
the o t h e r offices, is t h e fact that there are b o t h " g o o d " and
" b a d " kings. T h e bad kings are n o t m e n t i o n e d by name, but
they are m e n t i o n e d ; t h e g o o d kings are praised in contrast t o
them. W i t h kings, then, t h e r e is the problem o f sin. Even t w o
o f the g o o d kings are acknowledged t o have sinned. David's sin
is said t o have b e e n "put a w a y " ( 4 7 : 1 1 ) ; but Solomon's sin
"brought w r a t h upon his d e s c e n d e n t s " ( 4 7 : 2 0 ) . T h a t is why
piety is so important as the appropriate virtue o f a king. T h e r e
is a covenant o f kingship established with David, and S o l o m o n
is said t o have succeeded him " f o r his s a k e " ( 4 7 : 1 2 ) . B u t there
are conflicting statements as t o w h e t h e r and h o w this covenant
is understood t o remain in effect for all time. In 4 7 : 2 2 , it
appears that the line o f David will n o t b e cut off. B u t in 4 5 : 2 5 ,
there is a distinction m a d e b e t w e e n the covenant and inheri
tance o f Aaron, w h i c h belongs t o all his descendents, and the
covenant and inheritance o f David, w h i c h passes only t o a
single son. W h a t this m a y m e a n exactly is n o t clear, but the
general intention seems t o b e the superiority o f the covenant
with Aaron and Phineas in respect t o its m o d e o f continuity
and it assurance o f perpetuity ( 4 5 : 2 4 ) . Hezekiah is said t o have
"held fast t o t h e ways o f D a v i d " ( 4 8 : 2 2 ) , but there is n o m e n
tion o f David o r a covenant o f kingship in the rest o f the hymn.
Figures with Multiple Office
T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f religious office is a determining factor in

B e n Sira's patterns o f characterization, and many o f the indi
vidual figures m a y b e classed quite easily as representatives o f a
particular office. Nevertheless, several o f the m o s t important
figures are characterized by designations and functions taken
from m o r e than o n e office. T h e question is w h e t h e r such c o m
posite characterization can b e shown t o have purpose in terms
o f B e n Sira's overall plan. Several o f the m o r e important c o m -
posite figures will have t o be analyzed with this question in

mind.
Moses as T e a c h e r , P r o p h e t , and R u l e r
Ben Sira has n o t n a m e d an office for M o s e s , and it appears

that h e may have singled him o u t as o n e w h o holds an office
sui generis. It is i m p o r t a n t t o ask about this. T h a t M o s e s is
given a p r o m i n e n t place in t h e series is indicated by t h e fact
that h e stands b e t w e e n t h e fathers "issuing from Israel" and
the establishment o f t h e specifically religious offices in Israel.
His virtue, piety, h o n o r , and glory are highly accentuated; h e is
"beloved o f G o d and m e n " and " m a d e glorious as G o d " h i m
self ( 4 5 : 1 - 2 ) . H e is fully described in t e r m s o f t h e pattern o f
characterization, with t h e e x c e p t i o n that a covenant is n o t
mentioned. B u t in its place, t h e r e is an e x t r e m e l y detailed and
explicit a c c o u n t o f t h e revelation o f G o d and t h e law M o s e s
received. H e is the only o n e t o see G o d ' s glory himself and t o
have had placed in his hands by G o d the " l a w o f life and
understanding." T h i s determines his uniqueness in t h e series.
It also accounts for t h e various functions that are ascribed t o
him. T h e s e functions indicate that Moses was understood as
teacher and prophet.
His function as t e a c h e r is based upon t h e reception o f t h e
law and is explicitly m e n t i o n e d at t h e conclusion o f t h e p e r -
icope in t h e s t a t e m e n t o f purpose: " t h a t he might t e a c h His
statutes u n t o J a c o b , and His testimonies and j u d g m e n t s u n t o
Israel" ( 4 5 : 5 ) . B u t i f this is so, o n e wonders what has b e c o m e
o f the office o f t e a c h e r in t h e subsequent history o f Israel's
great leaders. W e have already n o t e d that t h e typology o f t h e
hasidim given in t h e p r o e m is n o t easily correlated with t h e
series o f characterizations that follow in t h e hymn. In t h e p r o
em, it is clear that t h e literati hold a place o f honor. I f o n e
includes t h e description o f t h e sage in 3 9 : 1 - 1 1 as an indication
o f B e n Sira's high regard for t h e teacher, it is all t h e m o r e
noticeable that o n e finds n o emphasis in t h e hymn o f praise o f
those w h o fulfill t h e office o f t h e teacher-sage. S o l o m o n ' s
wisdom is m e n t i o n e d , o f c o u r s e , but it had t o do with "song
and story and riddle," through w h i c h h e b e c a m e famous and
by w h i c h he astounded t h e nations ( 4 7 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . H e is n o t cast

as a teacher.
T h e r e is, however, m e n t i o n o f a teaching function for Aaron
that agrees e x a c t l y with that described for Moses, and it is
probably h e r e that o n e may see t h e beginning o f a resolution t o
o u r problem. In Sir. 4 5 : 1 7 , it is stated that G o d "gave him His
c o m m a n d m e n t s and invested him with authority over statute
and j u d g m e n t ; that h e m i g h t t e a c h His people statutes, and
judgments u n t o t h e children o f Israel." H e r e the function o f
teaching has b e e n assigned t o t h e office o f t h e priesthood.
Because this is understood, t h e r e is n o n e e d o r place for a
separate office o f t h e t e a c h e r among those w h o define Israel's
religious-institutional history. M o s e s is t h e t e a c h e r par e x c e l
lence, in t h e sense that he m a d e k n o w n t h e knowledge o f t h e
law t o Israel at t h e beginning. B u t t h e office he founds in o r d e r
t o institutionalize this function is n o t that o f t h e teacher, but
that o f t h e priest.
This is emphasized by B e n Sira in yet a n o t h e r way. At t h e
beginning o f t h e section o n Aaron, it is G o d w h o raises up
Aaron, M o s e s ' b r o t h e r , and bestows upon him the priesthood
as a perpetual office ( 4 5 : 6 - 7 ) . T h i s is followed by the descrip
tion o f Aaron's glorious investiture by G o d . B u t later o n
( 4 5 : 1 5 ) , t h e a c c o u n t o f M o s e s anointing his b r o t h e r t o t h e
priesthood in Leviticus 8 is taken as t h e occasion w h e n the
"eternal c o v e n a n t " with Aaron was established. T h u s it is clear
that B e n Sira sees t h e priesthood itself as instituted by Moses.
T h a t the priesthood assumes and continues M o s e s ' function as
teacher is certainly in keeping with this view.
T h a t M o s e s anoints Aaron m a y b e taken as a sign o f a n o t h e r
official function attributed t o him, t h e function o f the prophet.
F o r B e n Sira at least, anointing is something the prophets do.
Besides this act, t h e r e are t h r e e o t h e r indications that M o s e s
was understood t o stand at t h e beginning o f the line o f proph
ets. His mighty deeds and his strength in the presence o f t h e
king ( 4 5 : 2 - 3 ) are " p r o p h e t i c " functions. In Sir. 4 6 : 1 , J o s h u a is
said t o b e a " m i n i s t e r o f M o s e s in t h e prophetic office." It is
probable that G o d ' s revelation t o M o s e s has been aligned with
the prophetic motifs o f vision and special knowledge.
Less clear is w h e t h e r M o s e s is perceived t o fulfill the role o f

king. In Sir. 4 5 : 3 , after the m e n t i o n o f his being e m b o l d e n e d in
the presence o f t h e king, it is stated that " G o d put him in
c o m m a n d (Siwwdh) o f t h e p e o p l e . " This certainly may refer t o
the function o f a king-ruler. B e n Sira is conspicuously a m
bivalent about the office o f kingship per se and has c h a r a c
terized the rulers o f the restoration in terms used for the
earlier kings. In the case o f Simon, the duty o f ruling is as
sumed by the high priest. It appears, then, that B e n Sira may
have seen the kings as holding an office that obtained for a
chapter o f Israel's history, the function o f which, however, had
its origins before that time in M o s e s and continued after that
time in the office o f t h e high priest. I f this is so, M o s e s may
have been understood t o incorporate in a single individual
original aspects o f all the m a j o r o f f i c e s — p r o p h e t , priest-
teacher, and ruler.
M o s e s ' " o f f i c e " then would be sui generis, for the revelation
o f the law needed n o repetition, and the combination o f func
tions h e represented do n o t define a single pattern o f c o n t i n u
ing office. T h e s e functions, however, w e r e not discontinued,
but w e r e assigned t o o t h e r offices, which preserved them
within the system o f official ministries. T h u s it is that M o s e s '
characterization is fully in keeping with the pattern o f c h a r a c
terization in general. It is c o m p o s i t e o n purpose; every e l e m e n t
and function can be a c c o u n t e d for in relation t o the office
theme.
Phineas as Priest and P r o p h e t
Phineas is problematic, since the story about him is hardly

indicative o f the priestly role and has been described in terms
that are m o r e appropriate t o t h e characters and deeds o f the
prophets. B u t it is the story from scripture with which B e n
Sira had t o work. It was important t o B e n Sira because o f its
mention o f a covenant and its interpretation as "making a t o n e
m e n t for the people o f Israel" ( N u m . 2 5 : 1 0 - 1 3 ) . It was here
too, possibly, that a scriptural and covenantal claim for a line
1 0
o f high priests in B e n Sira's t i m e was founded (cf. 5 0 : 2 4 ) .
B e n Sira does praise Phineas for his zeal, strength, and piety
("his heart p r o m p t e d h i m " ) , aspects o f c h a r a c t e r n o t ascribed

t o Aaron and Simon. B u t h e emphasizes t h e covenant o f a t o n e
m e n t and high priesthood that begins here. In the first distich,
m o r e o v e r , Phineas is called " t h i r d [in his l i n e ] " ( 4 5 : 2 3 ) , w h i c h
can hardly b e understood o t h e r than as a reference t o his being
11
third in t h e series M o s e s - A a r o n - P h i n e a s . I f w e take all fac
tors into a c c o u n t , t h e c o m p o s i t e nature o f Phineas's c h a r a c
terization is understandable and does n o t s e e m t o detract from
B e n Sira's consistent interest in t h e patterns o f particular
offices.
T h e Judges
Joshua, Caleb, and t h e judges are very difficult t o align with

particular patterns o f office. T h i s is probably because o f their
roles as figures o f transition w h o take t h e people into t h e land.
W i t h the prophets, they share in t h e deeds o f miracles; with
the kings, in t h e designations o f piety; with the priests, t h e fact
that they " t u r n away w r a t h from t h e assembly, and cause t h e
evil report t o c e a s e " ( 4 6 : 7 ) . T h e c o m p o s i t e characterization
did n o t hinder B e n Sira from saying that J o s h u a was a " m i n i s
t e r o f M o s e s in t h e p r o p h e t i c office" ( 4 6 : 1 ) , and it is clear that
he has emphasized p r o p h e t i c characterization throughout. B u t
the judges do n o t c o n f o r m t o t h e pattern o f prophetic office in
their aspects as warriors, n o r in their leadership o f the people
into the land. T h e s e t w o functions set t h e m apart, and it m a y
be significant that in relation t o t h e description o f each o f
these functions, B e n Sira has added a purpose: " t h a t all the
d o o m e d nations m i g h t k n o w that t h e L o r d was watching over
his people's b a t t l e s " ( 4 6 : 6 ) and " t h a t all t h e people o f J a c o b
might k n o w h o w g o o d it is t o be a devoted follower o f t h e
L o r d " ( 4 6 : 1 0 ) . T h e s e are singular statements and m a k e o f
these figures t h e only " e x a m p l e s " t o b e found within the
hymn. T h a t being the case, they d o n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o the de
velopment o f t h e particular patterns o f t h e offices o f institu
tional religion. W h e t h e r they describe an office in their o w n
right and w h a t B e n Sira's interest in t h e m may b e — o t h e r than
in terms o f his historical s c h e m a — a r e questions for w h i c h w e
may n o t find an adequate answer. T h e y characterize a figure
which appears t o have b e e n imitated in later hasidic and e s -

chatological m o v e m e n t s ; but t h e r e is little in B e n Sira's b o o k o f
wisdom that would suggest that h e understood Israel t o be in
need o f such leaders in his o w n time.
Samuel as P r o p h e t , J u d g e , and Priest
Samuel is a fully c o m p o s i t e figure, designated expressly as

prophet, j u d g e , and priest ( 4 6 : 1 3 ) and described in t e r m s o f
functions taken from each office. As judge, he is said t o have
" c o m m a n d e d t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n " ( 4 6 : 1 4 ) ; as priest, t o have of
fered sacrifice ( 4 6 : 1 6 ) ; and as prophet, t o have "established t h e
kingdom," " a n o i n t e d p r i n c e s , " and "declared u n t o t h e king
his w a y " ( 4 6 : 1 3 , 2 0 ) . His primary office is clearly that o f t h e
prophet, and h e serves in t h e series as t h e o n e from w h o s e
time t h e office o f t h e king emerges. Saul, however, t h e specific
king o n e e x p e c t s in reference, is n o t m e n t i o n e d by n a m e , and
it is therefore appropriate that in t h e figure o f Samuel s o m e
form o f each o f t h e t h r e e classical offices be reflected, includ
ing that o f t h e ruler. It is probably this interest in t h e c o n
tinuity o f official roles in t h e historical development o f Israel
that has d e t e r m i n e d t h e c o m p o s i t e characterization. T h a t B e n
Sira has n a m e d t h e t h r e e offices and ascribed t o Samuel func
tions appropriate t o e a c h indicates the combination is pur
posive.
David as King and W a r r i o r
In addition t o David's characterization as a king and praise

for his p r o p e r stance t o w a r d t h e cult, a description o f him as a
brave warrior is also given (defending the flocks against lions
and bears; defending t h e people against Goliath [ 4 7 : 3 - 5 ; cf. 1
Sam. 1 7 : 3 6 ] ) . T h i s agrees with t h e scriptural a c c o u n t and is
appropriate t o t h e hymn. H e is t h e only king w h o is described
as a warrior, b u t h e shares this function with his precursors,
the judges, and thus represents t h e transition from conquest t o
defense, preparing for t h e t i m e o f peace w h e n S o l o m o n can
build the t e m p l e ( 4 7 : 1 3 ) .
Simon as Priest and King
T h e last figure in t h e series is also composite in c h a r a c

terization, and it is h e r e that t h e purpose in ascribing several
official functions t o a single figure m a y b e tested m o s t clearly.
Simon is, o f course, t h e high priest, and t h e lengthy descrip
tion o f his vestments and liturgical performance on t h e D a y o f
A t o n e m e n t shows that his glory is related t o that office ( 5 0 : 5 -
2 1 ) . It is an exceptionally fine poetic narrative o f t h e rite,
creating a brilliant picture o f t h e splendor o f Simon, sur
rounded by t h e o t h e r priests, his " b r o t h e r s " and " s o n s , " also
glorious, and in t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e " w h o l e congregation o f
Israel," w h o respond t o t h e t r u m p e t s by falling d o w n t o w o r
ship t h e L o r d and receive his blessing as Simon names t h e
Name. B e c a u s e this blessing is t h e "pardon o f G o d " ( 5 0 : 2 1 ) ,
the depiction o f t h e high priest making a t o n e m e n t for t h e
people w h o are g a t h e r e d around him in postures o f praise and
worship provides a powerful c l i m a x t o t h e hymn. This resolves
the question o f threat that has provided t h e p r o b l e m - c o n t e x t
for the entire series o f figures from Israel's history. T h e n e x t
question is w h e t h e r S i m o n ' s office also is understood t o c l i m a x
the series o f religious offices and functions that the h y m n has
developed.
The answer m a y b e found in t h e introductory section
( 5 0 : 1 - 4 ) and t h e concluding h y m n o f blessing ( 5 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) ,
which B e n Sira has used t o frame t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e high
liturgical m o m e n t . In t h e introduction, Simon is identified as
" t h e son o f J o h a n a n , t h e priest," in w h o s e t i m e several things
are said t o have taken place. T h e y include t h e renovation and
fortification o f t h e t e m p l e , t h e building o f the wall " w i t h tun
nels for p r o t e c t i o n like a king's p a l a c e , " and digging a reser
voir. It concludes by saying " H e t o o k thought for his people
against robbers, and fortified t h e city from the e n e m y . " B e n
Sira was careful n o t t o claim t h e office o f t h e ruler-king for
Simon, but it is clear that h e wished his readers t o understand
that t h e primary functions o f t h e k i n g — b u i l d i n g and defense
o f the city and t e m p l e — w e r e t o be associated with him.
36 LITERARY ANALYSIS: H E R O E S AND H I S T O R Y
In the concluding h y m n o f blessing, it is also possible t o see

allusions t o designations that w e r e important in t h e descrip
tion o f earlier figures and offices. T h e blessing addresses G o d ,
" w h o exalts m a n from t h e w o m b , " a combination o f terms
that the reader will associate with the idea o f election in
general and with t h e prophets in particular ( w h o s e special
form o f election is "from t h e w o m b " ) . Generalized and applied
t o the people, t h e m o t i f appears n o w in a " d e m o c r a t i z e d "
form. T h e prayer continues for " w i s d o m " and " p e a c e " within
and among t h e people, qualities m e n t i o n e d as present in Isra
el's history only during t h e t i m e o f Solomon. T h e n it concludes
with the request that G o d ' s m e r c y be established with Simon
and t h e covenant o f Phineas b e raised up for him forever. T h e
evocation o f t h e reign o f S o l o m o n , a t i m e o f peace during
which the office o f t h e p r o p h e t is not m e n t i o n e d , and t h e
attribution o f t h e functions o f t h e kings t o S i m o n strongly
suggest that t h e high priesthood is understood as the c o n t e m
porary and sufficient locus o f all o f Israel's religious offices. It
seems clear that B e n Sira saw it as a c l i m a x and fulfillment o f
Israel's glorious history as a whole.
The Structure ^
of History
In t h e course o f t h e analysis, I
have m a d e frequent reference t o various relationships among
the offices and figures that suggest an overall structure t o the
hymn. T h e series o f great m e n presented in the hymn is m o r e
than a listing o f examples. It moves in strict chronological
order with m a n y indications o f sequences and successions that
appear t o b e o f significance for its development b o t h as a liter
1
ary composition and as a reading o f Israel's history. In this
chapter, t h e structure o f t h e h y m n will be outlined, its nar
2
rative plot explored, and its view o f history discussed.
T H E STRUCTURE OF THE HYMN
T h e overall pattern o f the hymn has been oudined in table 2,

enabling us t o make some general observations about its units,
themes, structure, and sense o f development. T h e table c o n
sists simply o f a list o f t h e figures m e n t i o n e d in the h y m n
according t o t h e s e q u e n c e in w h i c h they o c c u r . Headings indi
cate the development o f certain t h e m e s in relation t o the of
fices and can be organized in such a way as t o reveal the
balanced structure o f t h e h y m n as a whole. T h e "history o f
prophets and k i n g s " is presented in a double c o l u m n because
37
TABLE 2. THE STRUCTURE OF THE HYMN
Establishment of the Covenants

Promises and Blessings
Noah
Abraham
4
Isaac
4
Israel
The Law
4
^Moses
The Priesthood
1
Aaron
4
(David)
Phineas
The Conquest of the Land
\
Joshua
Caleb
Judges
History of Prophets and Kings
Samuel (+ (Saul) (-)
Nathan (+) David ' (+)
I
Solomon (+ -)
i
(-)
(Rehoboam)
(-)
(Jeroboam)
Elijah (-)
Elisha (-) (4)
Isaiah (+) Hezekiah (+>
Josiah (+)
Jeremiah (-) Kings of Judah (-)
Ezekiel (+)
Restoration
Zerubbabel
Jeshua
Nehemiah
Climax
Simorf
Prophets: 4- = saving function; — = judgmental or destroying function.

Kings: + = honorable; — = dishonorable.
—> = express mention of some form of succession.
38
T H E S T R U C T U R E O F HISTORY 39
o f the m a r k e d t e n d e n c y in t h e h y m n t o j u x t a p o s e a prophet
and a king.
The Establishment of the Covenants
T h e first seven figures have in c o m m o n the t h e m e o f c o v e

3
nant and thus m a y b e seen t o constitute a literary u n i t . It is
true that a covenant is n o t m e n t i o n e d for Moses, but as the
recipient o f t h e revelation o f the law he is clearly assigned an
essential position among the founding figures. An indication
that B e n Sira has intended this series as a unit is the m e n t i o n o f
the covenant with David at t h e e n d o f the unit ( 4 5 : 2 5 ) . This
passage is o u t o f place chronologically and does n o t b e c o m e
the occasion for David's description and praise, which follow
in place later ( 4 7 : 1 - 1 1 ) . A t that later point, there is allusion t o
his "rights o f royalty" ( 4 7 : 1 1 ) , but n o discussion o f the c o v e
nant. Covenant is m e n t i o n e d at 4 5 : 2 5 , immediately after the
description o f Phineas and t h e covenant o f the high priest
hood, b o t h as an a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f yet another covenant
that is t o be included among " t h e c o v e n a n t s " (cf. "His c o v e
nant was with David also") and as a statement o f contrast
between the covenants o f David and Phineas that ascribes
4
some superiority t o that o f P h i n e a s . A n o t h e r indication o f the
literary closure o f the unit is t h e addition o f a prayer o f bless
ing upon Phineas that his " p r o s p e r i t y " and " p o w e r " may nev
e r cease ( 4 5 : 2 5 b - 2 6 ) . This may be c o m p a r e d t o the similar
blessing o f Simon with w h i c h the h y m n is concluded ( 5 0 : 2 2 -
2 4 ) . W i t h the praise o f Phineas, then, the first major section o f
the hymn c o m e s t o a close. It has t o do with the covenantal
basis o f the divine promises and blessings and the e m e r g e n c e o f
the special offices within Israel by means o f which those bless
ings will be actualized. In M o s e s , the functions o f all the classi
cal offices w e r e begun, but it is clearly t h e priestly office itself
that enjoys the privilege o f being founded during this period o f
covenant establishment.
The Conquest of the Land
Joshua, Caleb, and t h e judges are figures o f a period o f

transition and are t o b e considered together. T h e t h e m e o f
their sequence is o f Israel c o m i n g into its inheritance in the

land. W e have seen that t h e c o m p o s i t e characterization o f
Joshua and Caleb is in keeping with this historical function.
T h e y are b o t h warriors and carriers o f the official functions
from t h e earlier period o f foundation into the period o f the
kingdom. T h e b r i e f m e n t i o n o f t h e judges as a class ( 4 6 : 1 1 — 12)
may be taken as a conclusion t o this interim series and c o m
pared with t h e m e n t i o n o f the twelve prophets as a class that
concludes t h e series o f t h e prophets ( 4 9 : 1 0 ) .
The History of Prophets and Kings
T h e second m a j o r b l o c k o f figures has t o do with t h e history

o f the prophets and kings. T h i s is an exceptionally fine review
o f the history o f Israel from t h e establishment o f the kingdom
t o the postexilic restoration, and it manifests several significant
narrative m o v e m e n t s . Seen as a unit within the series o f
praised leaders, it manifests an overall structure as well. T h e r e
is a m a r k e d t e n d e n c y t o correlate prophets and kings. In e a c h
list, there are seven individuals and o n e collective designation
(the twelve prophets; t h e kings o f J u d a h ) . Significantly, only
four o f the kings are m e n t i o n e d by n a m e , those w h o are found
t o be honorable and praiseworthy (David, Solomon, Hezekiah,
Josiah). T h e o t h e r four are n o t m e n t i o n e d by name, presum
ably because they w e r e found n o t t o be w o r t h y (Saul, R e -
hoboam, J e r o b o a m , kings o f J u d a h ) . O f the prophets, five are
described as having performed functions that w e r e basically
constructive (Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the twelve),
three as having performed functions that w e r e basically de
structive (Elijah, Elisha, J e r e m i a h ) . O n e o f the prophets ( S a m
uel) and o n e o f t h e kings ( S o l o m o n ) c o m b i n e both positive and
negative functions. T h e t w o lists may b e correlated and bal
anced in terms o f the values that B e n Sira has assigned t o each
o f the figures (see table 2 ) .
The Restoration
T h e period o f the restoration is prepared for by the positive

function assigned t o t h e twelve prophets ( " w h o recovered
J a c o b t o health, and delivered him by confident h o p e " 4 9 : 1 0 )

m e n t i o n e d at the e n d o f t h e series o f prophets and kings. It
consists o f t h r e e figures (Zerubbabel, Jeshua, N e h e m i a h )
whose glories and deeds restore those o f the honorable kings
and w h o are correlated t o t h e t h r e e judges o f the period o f t h e
conquest.
The Climax
T h e c l i m a x o f t h e h y m n sets t h e description o f Simon o f f as

a unit by itself, w h i c h singularly concludes the series. T h e
structure o f the series o f units as a w h o l e may b e visualized in
the following numerical sequence:
7 + 1
7 - 3 - ~ 3 - l
7 + 1
This pattern o f literary units provides an e x t r e m e l y well-bal

anced structure b o t h t o t h e h y m n as a composition and t o t h e
history it recounts. It consists o f three m a j o r units (Establish
m e n t o f the Covenants, History o f Prophets and Kings, Cli
mactic H y m n in Praise o f S i m o n ) and t w o transitional units
(Conquest o f t h e Land, R e s t o r a t i o n ) in chiastic o r c o n c e n t r i c
correlations. It m a y b e viewed architectonically by regarding
the first unit as a foundation, t h e last unit as capstone. It m a y
also b e viewed in t e r m s o f narrative o r historical development
with beginning, middle, and end. I f t h e beginning o f t h e story
is understood as plan o r mandate, t h e middle history may b e
seen as t h e struggle t o fulfill that mandate, and the ending as
the resolution o r actualization o f the quest. In either case,
aspects b o t h o f structure and o f narrative development are
combined. T h i s n o t e w o r t h y combination o f pattern and m o v e
m e n t needs n o w t o b e explored. T h e place t o begin is w i t h
those literary devices by w h i c h B e n Sira expressly relates t h e
units sequentially.
T H E CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION
W i t h i n the overall structure o f t h e hymn, as well as within

the major literary units, t h e r e are repeated indications o f sig-
nificant sequences and successions, which provide the hymn

with a sense o f m o v e m e n t . In this section, several o f these
indicators will be observed, and the principle o f succession
determined.
Serialization
W e can begin with t h e observation that, within the larger
literary units, t h e r e is frequently a serialization that links t o
g e t h e r several figures according t o a t h e m e . This serialization
can be demonstrated for e a c h o f the five major literary units,
but the discussion here will be limited t o the first unit o f seven
figures and the middle unit with its history o f the prophets and
kings.
T h e first series o f seven figures is replete with developmen
tal schemata. T h e m o s t obvious is t h e subseries from Abraham
t o J a c o b . It is held t o g e t h e r by t h e t h e m e o f the promise o f
blessing, which according t o B e n Sira is r e n e w e d with Isaac
"for t h e sake o f A b r a h a m " and " c o m e s t o r e s t " o n J a c o b ' s
head. I f o n e adds t h e figure o f Noah t o m a k e a series o f four
and notes the express m e n t i o n o f the classes o f humankind in
regard t o each, a second t h e m a t i c development may b e seen. It
is the m o v e m e n t o f promise from all humankind t o all nations
t o Israel. A t this point, M o s e s is introduced, t h e r e being n o
r o o m in the first series o f seven for any o t h e r potentially signif
icant figures b e t w e e n J a c o b and M o s e s (e.g., Melchizedek o r
the twelve patriarchs). M o s e s is said t o "spring f r o m " Israel
( 4 5 : 1 ) and b e c o m e s the first o f a n o t h e r subseries o f three,
which runs from him through Aaron t o Phineas (cf. 4 5 : 1 5 ,
where Moses anoints Aaron, and 4 5 : 2 3 , w h e r e Phineas is said
t o be the "third in the l i n e " ) . T h u s there is a series o f seven,
composed o f a single figure ( N o a h ) , plus t w o sets o f three,
joined together by t h e m e s that m a k e o f t h e m a unit. T h e o b
vious t h e m e s are those o f covenant and office formation. T h e
not-so-obvious but equally important t h e m e is the promise o f
blessing. T h e negative promise ( " n o t t o destroy h u m a n k i n d " )
and the positive promise ( " t o bless t h e nations") c o m e t o rest,
not only in Israel, but m o r e specifically in the office o f t h e high
priesthood. T h e r e it is realized in t h e act o f making a t o n e m e n t
(cf. 4 5 : 1 5 , w h e r e Aaron's c o v e n a n t is " t o minister t o G o d , . . .

and t o bless His people in His n a m e " ; and 4 5 : 2 3 , w h e r e Phi-
neas's covenant is related t o his making " a t o n e m e n t for t h e
p e o p l e " ) . T h e r e is thus a c o h e r e n t theology determining the
composition o f this first unit. It has t o do with s o m e problem,
some threat t o h u m a n well-being t o be resolved in the priestly
office and lifted from t h e people in t h e priestly blessing (cf.
4 5 : 1 5 ; 5 0 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) . T h i s theology o f promise and blessing will
be discussed below.
Serializing does n o t play as significant a role in the s e c o n d
major unit o n t h e prophets and kings, although the t h r e e h o n
orable kings are m e n t i o n e d as a unit in 4 9 : 4 , and the three
rulers o f t h e restoration are handled as a unit in 4 9 : 1 1 - 1 3 . B u t
there are o t h e r principles at w o r k that determine t h e se
quences and t r a c e o u t a patterned m o v e m e n t . T h e primary
t h e m e is t h e well-being o f Israel, focused in the c h a r a c t e r o f
the king. T h e evil kings are n o t m e n t i o n e d by name, but they
and their effect upon t h e people are clearly acknowledged at
three places in t h e history: at t h e beginning, w h e r e the "iniq
uity" that Samuel's p o s t h u m o u s p r o p h e c y "blots o u t " is a
clear allusion t o Saul ( 4 6 : 2 0 ) ; in t h e discussion o f the series o f
evil kings o f Israel that culminated in t h e destruction o f the
N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m ( 4 7 : 2 3 - 2 4 ; 4 8 : 1 5 ) ; and in t h e passages o n
the evil kings o f J u d a h w h o caused t h e destruction o f J e r u s a
lem ( 4 9 : 4 - 6 ) . Against this b a c k g r o u n d and within this history,
the three g o o d kings and S o l o m o n are placed and praised.
Correlating t h e prophets with this history, their functions as
agents o f j u d g m e n t and salvation are given.
Samuel is an agent b o t h for t h e establishment o f the king
d o m and for j u d g m e n t s upon its enemies and first king. O f the
rest, the t w o prophets associated with g o o d kings are r e c o g
nized as agents o f grace. Nathan served u n d e r David and, while
his " s e r v i c e " is n o t described, his "putting a w a y " o f David's
sin is ( 4 7 : 1 1 ; cf. 2 Sam. 1 2 : 1 3 ) . Isaiah "added life u n t o the
king," Hezekiah, and " c o m f o r t e d the m o u r n e r s in Z i o n "
( 4 8 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) . B u t Elijah, Elisha, and J e r e m i a h are all understood
t o have served u n d e r evil kings: Elijah and Elisha in Israel,
J e r e m i a h in J u d a h (he is n o t associated with Josiah in the
hymn). T h e i r function is therefore o n e o f judgment. Elijah

" r e d u c e d " the n u m b e r o f Israel, "heard judgments o f ven
geance in H o r e b , " and " a n o i n t e d kings for r e t r i b u t i o n " ( 4 8 : 2 -
8 ) . J e r e m i a h was t h e agent through w h o m the city was burned
after the corrupt kings had given their glory t o a strong nation
( 4 9 : 5 - 6 ) . It may therefore be quite significant that in the m e n
tion o f Ezekiel and the twelve prophets that immediately fol
lows ( 4 9 : 8 — 1 0 ) , a n o t e o f h o p e is sounded. O f Ezekiel it is
related that h e saw a vision o f t h e chariot, an image appropri
ate t o the exilic c o n t e x t and t h e t h e m e o f hope. And o f the
twelve prophets it is said, " [ T h e y ] recovered J a c o b t o health,
and delivered him by confident h o p e " ( 4 9 : 1 0 ) . T h a t the twelve
prophets are deliverers is striking b o t h as a hermeneutical
j u d g m e n t and as a conclusion t o the list o f prophets in the
hymn. This passage is followed immediately by a description o f
the deeds o f restoration by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and Nehemiah.
T h e r e is, then, a series o f prophets c o m p o s e d o f t h r e e w h o
are clearly agents o f j u d g m e n t upon Israel (Elijah, Elisha,
J e r e m i a h ) and t h r e e w h o are agents o f grace and h o p e (Nathan,
Isaiah, Ezekiel). T h e series is headed by a prophet w h o c o m
bines b o t h functions (Samuel), and it ends with the twelve w h o
" r e s t o r e " and " d e l i v e r " J a c o b . T h e balance is even, the c o r
relation with the series o f t h e kings and rulers clear, and the
sequential development significant. In contrast t o the serializa
tion o f the first seven figures o f t h e hymn, which c h a r t e d a
constructive development c o m i n g t o climax in the covenant
and office o f the high priesthood, the serialization o f the
prophets follows a see-saw pattern that corresponds t o the
narrative t h e m e o f failure/restoration in the quest t o actualize
the covenant plan. T h a t t h e sequence o f positive and negative
m o m e n t s c o m e s t o rest at the e n d on a positive and hopeful
note indicates that the oscillations o f this interim series have
not destroyed the potential for fulfillment.
Sequence and Succession

In addition t o serialization, w h i c h gives b o t h structure and
m o v e m e n t t o the composition, t h e r e are several o t h e r devices
that B e n Sira has employed t o create a sense o f sequence and

succession in t h e h y m n and t o unite its several literary units.
Sequence is frequently n o t e d in terms o f chronological
placement in the series. T h u s Nathan arose after Samuel ( 4 7 : 1 ) ,
Solomon after David ( 4 7 : 1 2 ) , and the kings o f folly after Sol
o m o n ( 4 7 : 2 3 ) . T h e evil kings led the people into sin until Elijah
arose ( 4 8 : 1 ) ; after he was taken, then Elisha was filled with the
spirit ( 4 8 : 1 2 ) . T h e corrupt kings o f J u d a h forsook the law until
they c a m e t o their end ( 4 9 : 4 ) , and so on. This type o f s e q u e n c
ing indicates that B e n Sira's view o f history is n o t devoid o f
chronology, but it is used primarily t o place the principle fig
ures o f the history in relation t o o n e another in a series o f
significant sequences. T h e history is read only in relation t o
these figures-in-sequence and does n o t b e c o m e a subject t o b e
recounted in and for itself.
Sequence b e c o m e s succession w h e n certain notions o f c o n
tinuity are perceived. In the hymn, there are several such n o
tions at w o r k , all interrelated t o achieve an overall sense o f
m o v e m e n t and purpose, for e x a m p l e , in the m e n t i o n o f a s u c
cession from father t o son. T h i s is expressed in the sequences
Abraham-Isaac ( 4 4 : 2 2 ) , D a v i d - S o l o m o n ( 4 7 : 1 2 ) , and S o l o m o n
and his sons ( 4 7 : 2 3 ) . It is assumed in the sequence Isaac-Jacob
( 4 4 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) , and M o s e s is said t o "issue f r o m " Israel ( 4 4 : 2 3 ) .
T h a t this type o f succession can be understood t o transfer the
p o w e r and promise o f the predecessor's office o n t o the s u c
cessor has been m a d e explicit in t w o ways. In the sequence
Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, the promise itself has been objectified
and passed along ( 4 4 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) . In t h e cases o f Isaac and Sol
o m o n , there is explicit reference t o their important position
being " f o r t h e sake o f (baabur) their fathers ( 4 4 : 2 2 ; 4 7 : 1 2 ) .
" F o r the sake o f could simply be a justification for inclusion
in the series, o f course. F o r Isaac neither deed n o r virtuous
character is m e n t i o n e d , and S o l o m o n is the o n e king included
in the list o f kings and rulers praised whose sin and its effect
on Israel's history must b e m e n t i o n e d as well. B u t the phrase
also o c c u r s in a statement about Noah's effectiveness for his
descendents ( " F o r his sake there was a r e m n a n t " [44:17]).
Here it carries the c o n n o t a t i o n o f cause o r m e r i t (cf. the paral

lel statement " A n d by reason o f the covenant with him the
flood ceased"). It is difficult, therefore, not t o think that s u c
cession is being understood in t e r m s o f some c o n c e p t i o n o f
effective promise o r influence that is determinative for the
successors.
T h e t e r m that has sometimes been translated as " s u c c e s s o r "
5
(tahalip) should also b e m e n t i o n e d h e r e . It is used as a desig
nation o f N o a h ( 4 4 : 1 7 ) , Elisha ( 4 8 : 8 ) , and in parallel with
"blessing" as the function o f t h e n a m e for judges that is in
volved in m e m o r y for their children ( 4 6 : 1 2 ) . It does n o t appear
as a noun in the H e b r e w scriptures before Sirach. T h e verb
form in t h e Hifil (yahalip) means " t o sprout again" (cf. J o b
14:7). F o r Noah, " r e n e w e r " o r perhaps " c o n t i n u a t o r " would
be appropriate. B u t as used o f Elisha, the meaning is clearly
" c o n t i n u a t o r " o r " s u c c e s s o r . " Elijah is told, " Y o u anointed
kings for retribution, and a p r o p h e t as successor in jour place"
(tahtejka). T h e double c o n n o t a t i o n o f successor (in relation t o
the predecessor) and effective agent (in relation t o c o n t e m p o
raries and descendents) is n o t e w o r t h y as an indication o f the
principle o f p o w e r o r influence that is understood t o reside in
the meaning o f succession itself.
T h a t Elisha was " a n o i n t e d " t o be a successor alerts us t o
another c o n c e p t that B e n Sira m a y have recognized as an indi
cation o f succession. T h a t t h e prophets anoint kings (Samuel,
4 6 : 1 3 ; Elijah, 4 8 : 8 ) probably means for B e n Sira that the office
o f the king is derived from and dependent upon the agency o f
the prophet. This would b e in itself an important consideration
for B e n Sira's understanding o f kingship, but w h e t h e r o n e
should speak o f succession here is n o t clear. Succession is c e r
tainly the intention in the case o f Elijah-Elisha, o f course; but
since it is the only instance o f such a relationship b e t w e e n t w o
prophets, it is difficult t o generalize here too. T h a t Moses
anointed Aaron, however, m o s t probably signifies succession
( 4 5 : 1 5 ) . It is the only m e n t i o n o f a relationship b e t w e e n t h e m
and is followed later by the statement that Phineas was the
"third in l i n e " ( 4 5 : 2 3 ) .
It should be noted, though, that n o n e o f these conceptions
o f succession has b e e n used consistently in relation t o any

series o f offices. It would b e difficult t o do so with the proph
ets. It is possible that t h e r e is a c o n c e p t i o n o f a " l i n e " o f
6
p r o p h e t s . B u t e a c h is apparendy e l e c t e d individually, " f o r m e d
in the w o m b , " and so derives his office and place in the s u c c e s
sion directly from G o d . W i t h t h e kings after Solomon, b o t h
the ideas o f succession and descent seem t o evaporate. O n l y
Hezekiah is placed in relation t o David, but in terms o f being
strong "in t h e ways o f D a v i d " ( 4 8 : 2 3 ) , n o t in terms o f s u c c e s
sion o r covenant.
Divine Intention and Promise
It is clear that B e n Sira has employed a variety o f m e c h a

nisms in o r d e r t o achieve t h e sense o f m o v e m e n t with w h i c h
he has invested his hymn. T h e m a t i c patterns that govern the
construction o f given series, temporal and genealogical s e
quences, and various indications o f succession all attest t o his
express interest in sequential relationships that can guarantee
the c o h e r e n c e and continuity o f t h e structured history as a
whole. B u t n o n e o f these several mechanisms for achieving
m o v e m e n t has b e e n used consistently o r developed program-
matically. This means t h e principle o f continuity, i f indeed
there is o n e , must b e discovered by an analysis o f the structure
and m o v e m e n t o f the w h o l e , giving due consideration t o the
pattern o f characterization itself as that which provides c o n
tinuity and the sequence o f t h e offices as that which provides
for the sense o f development.
This means the c o n c e p t i o n o f office itself can b e adduced in
support o f the thesis that the idea o f succession was important
for B e n Sira. T h e evidence is found in the particular patterns o f
characterization for each o f t h e offices. T h a t an individual fig
ure is described in t e r m s functionally similar t o those used o f
others, produces the sense o f continuity o f an office, whose
holder acts as a tradent, that is, o n e in a series o f successions.
In tracing the derivation o r origin o f each o f the offices t h e m
selves, however, it is clear that e a c h is related t o a founding
m o m e n t o f covenant o r election. This founding moment,
moreover, does m o r e than m e r e l y inaugurate o r establish a

significant social role o r function; it invests that function with
divine purpose c o n c o m i t a n t with the divine intention for the
well-being o f the people as an ordered community. Office b e
comes a given in o n e sense, a potentiality in another. Based
upon divine covenant its status is quasiontological, that is,
based " o u t s i d e " empirical-social history. It can be "filled" only
when the divine intention is actualized by means o f it. T h i s
means that the principle o f m o v e m e n t within the structure o f
the hymn and its view o f history m a y actually be an assumed
theologumenon. F o r B e n Sira, this divine intention appears t o
be manifest in t h e promise o f blessing given at the beginning
with the covenant with Abraham, and actualized at the end
with the blessing o f the L o r d that Simon offers. I f this is so, as
will be argued below, the principle o f continuity and m o v e
m e n t that gives the h y m n b o t h its architectonic structure and
its sense o f dramatic purpose m a y be located ultimately in the
conception o f t h e divine promise as that which can actualize
the potentiality o f " o f f i c e " and " c o v e n a n t . "
T h e notion o f promise is certainly not obvious as a narrative
t h e m e in B e n Sira's hymn. B u t it is introduced at t h e beginning
and appears t o b e foundational for the development o f the
notions o f covenant, office, and their purposes. I f o n e sees that
the notion o f promise mediates categories o f intentionality and
actuality, b e c o m i n g a t e r m for potentiality, it can also b e seen
that, as a historical and literary category, the idea may deter
mine just such a developmental s c h e m a as w e have in B e n
Sira's hymn. T h e promise given with the structure o f c o v e
nants and offices cannot be reduced either t o history o r t o
ideality. It expresses, rather, a guaranteed potentiality-to-be-
actualized. T h e pattern o f the covenantal offices does not, o f
itself, impell any historical o r literary development o f a dra
matic o r " q u e s t " nature. B u t as a depiction o f divine intention
and promise, it does call for construction o f the pattern (first
unit), the agon o f actualization (middle unit), and the celebra
tion o f fulfillment (final unit). It is n o w possible t o ask m o r e
specifically about B e n Sira's understanding o f sacred history.
T H E CONCEPTION OF SACRED HISTORY
The Recasting of the Scriptures
T h e hymn reveals an impressive acquaintance with the

scriptures and t h e major m o v e m e n t s o f Israel's history. It b e
gins with Noah but assumes even t h e n a prehistory. T h e n it
follows the patriarchs, the events in the wilderness (with a
brief allusion t o t h e E x o d u s ) , t h e e n t r a n c e into the land, the
histories o f Israel and Judah, t h e exiles and the destruction o f
Jerusalem, and the restoration. T h e order is strictly chronolog
ical. T h e use o f the scriptural data is " c o r r e c t " in terms o f
ascriptions, relationships, and settings being properly attrib
uted.
Nevertheless, n o n e o f the m a j o r events, periods, and devel
opments is taken as a subject in its o w n right. T h e r e are large
blocks o f material passed over without mention: the antedilu
vian period, t h e twelve patriarchs, t h e Exodus story itself, and
the return from exile. O t h e r m a j o r chapters o f the history are
acknowledged but n o t developed: t h e wilderness is acknowl
edged o n c e as t h e setting for t h e threat o f Korah's company t o
Aaron ( 4 5 : 1 8 ) . B u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f the wilderness-way,
neither Moses n o r Phineas is placed there, and the themes o f
testing and miracles in the wilderness are n o w h e r e t o be
found. T h e period o f t h e restoration is also only acknowledged
in that Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and Nehemiah are praised. B u t
there is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e historical period as one o f the r e s t o
ration o f anything lost o r destoyed and n o indication that their
w o r k should b e understood in such a c o n t e x t .
T h e reason for this apparent lack o f interest in many o f the
major chapters o f Israel's history is, o f course, that B e n Sira
proposes a h y m n in praise o f t h e great leaders, n o t a history o f
the people. And yet, t h e series o f great leaders is a reading o f
that history, and the people are always in view. This means the
n e w reading that is achieved will recast the scriptural tradi
tions, even in respect t o the history o f the people. I f the well-
being o f the people is dependent upon the divine offices and
the faithfulness o f their holders, their history will n o w b e given
in the history o f these leaders. I f that history is intended as a

history o f salvation, that is, as a development o f offices and t h e
succession o f officers in w h i c h and t h r o u g h w h o m well-being
has c o m e for t h e people, large portions o f the history o f the
people themselves can n o longer b e relevant.
T h u s t h e history m u s t begin with the promise t o Noah, and
the antediluvian period can receive only an allusion as t h e c o n
t e x t o f trouble and threat ( c u r s e ) for humanity. O f t h e pa
triarchs after Abraham, it is i m p o r t a n t only t o k n o w that t h e
blessing is upon t h e m . T h e E x o d u s and the w i l d e r n e s s - w a y —
understood either as significant chapters in the history o f t h e
people o r as paradigms for salvation events—signify t h e test
ing o f t h e people by Y a h w e h , and they therefore m u s t b e rein
terpreted. O n l y t h r e e threatening events from t h e wilderness
period c o m e into view. T h e first is t h e threat t o Aaron's office
by Korah's c o m p a n y , w h o m B e n Sira calls " s t r a n g e r s " ( 4 5 : 1 8 ) .
Here t h e test is put, n o t t o t h e people, but t o the office o f the
priesthood. T h e s e c o n d is the n e e d for Phineas's " a t o n e m e n t "
for the children o f Israel. T h e occasion for the action ( t h e
Israelite taking a Midianite w o m a n ) is n o t r e c o u n t e d , and o f
Phineas it is said that " h e stood in t h e breach for his p e o p l e . "
H e r e t h e people are t h e recipients o f t h e benefits o f a priest's
sacrifice o f a t o n e m e n t . T h e third instance is the response o f
the people t o the r e p o r t o n t h e land (Num. 1 4 : 1 - 1 0 ) . T h e
hymn says that t h e congregation rebelled ( 4 6 : 7 ) , w h i c h c e r
tainly puts t h e m in a bad light momentarily. B u t J o s h u a and
Caleb " s t o o d firm," it says, " t o turn away wrath from t h e
assembly, and t o cause t h e evil r e p o r t t o c e a s e " ( 4 6 : 7 ) . In t h e
n e x t set o f t w o distichs it appears, m o r e o v e r , that they w e r e
set apart from t h e people in o r d e r " t o bring t h e m into their
i n h e r i t a n c e " ( 4 6 : 8 ) . T h e people o f t h e wilderness-way have
been portrayed as a congregation w h o s e well-being is c a r e d for
in the faithful fulfillment o f its offices by its leaders.
I f w e w e r e t o c o m p a r e this finding with t h e history o f t h e
prophets and kings that follows, it would be possible t o argue
that the threat t o the people has b e e n transferred t o t h e later
period and has b e e n focused upon t h e c h a r a c t e r o f its kings. It
is n o t that t h e kings are described as being tested. B u t they are
the ones, o f all t h e figures in t h e hymn, w h o s e potential for

failure is emphasized and w h o s e achievements have b e e n cast
in terms o f t h e virtue o f piety. T h e y and their office are by
definition u n d e r j u d g m e n t with regard t o piety and o b e d i e n c e ;
they are symbols o f testing. And t h e consequences o f their
unfaithfulness are shared fully by t h e people, b o t h in t e r m s o f
characterization (sin) and destiny (destruction and exile). After
Solomon, " w h o brought w r a t h upon his p r o g e n y " so that " t h e
people b e c a m e t w o s c e p t o r s " ( 4 7 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) , t h e history is essen
tially that o f t h e foolish and c o r r u p t kings " w h o sinned and
made Israel t o s i n " ( 4 7 : 2 3 ) . T w o interludes o f prosperity are
associated w i t h t h e g o o d kings Hezekiah and Josiah. B u t even
here, t h e r e is a m a r k e d r e l u c t a n c e t o attribute salvation t o t h e
king. Hezekiah is praised because h e fortified t h e city, but
under seige it was t h e people w h o called u n t o G o d , w h o saved
t h e m by t h e hand o f Isaiah ( 4 8 : 1 8 - 2 1 ) . Josiah was "grieved at
o u r backsliding, and put an e n d t o t h e vain a b o m i n a t i o n s "
( 4 9 : 2 ) , b u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f a t i m e o f peace and pros
perity u n d e r his rule. Instead, t h e history o f t h e kings o f J u d a h
w h o "forsook t h e law till t h e e n d " is summarized, culminating
in t h e burning o f t h e holy city ( 4 9 : 4 - 6 ) .
T h e n e x t indication o f t h e well-being o f t h e people is in t h e
m e n t i o n o f t h e twelve prophets w h o " r e c o v e r e d J a c o b t o
health, and delivered h i m " ( 4 9 : 1 0 ) . T h e n follows the descrip
tion o f t h e restoration builders, but without any reference t o
the people. T h e y are clearly in view o n c e again, however, in
the final picture o f Simon's ministry. " H e t o o k thought for his
people against r o b b e r s " ( 5 0 : 4 ) , ascended t o t h e altar o f majesty
"in the presence o f t h e w h o l e congregation o f Israel" ( 5 0 : 1 3 ) ,
and descending, "lifted up his hands upon t h e whole c o n
gregation o f Israel," w h o receive from him t h e blessing and
pardon o f t h e L o r d ( 5 0 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) .
I f the sacred history has b e e n moving t o this climax and t h e
welfare o f t h e people is understood t o b e assured only by
means o f t h e p r o p e r description and fulfillment o f the high-
priestly office, t h e r e can b e n o r o o m for a restoration o f t h e
c o m m u n i t y o n t h e basis o f t h e acts o f t h e rulers alone, n o r o n
the condition o f t h e people's o w n o b e d i e n c e and righteousness
(cf. by way o f contrast t h e D e u t e r o n o m i c address, " I f . . .

t h e n " ) . T h e history o f t h e people has been subsumed c o m
pletely in t h e history o f Israel's offices and leaders, with priests
" u p " and kings " d o w n . "
The Glory of Israels Leaders
T h e t h e m e o f glory is o n e o f t h e m o s t consistently e n c o u n
tered and striking characteristics o f the hymn. Its source is
surely t o b e found in t h e priestly traditions o f scripture and
Second T e m p l e theology, w h e r e " g l o r y " (kabod) is used as a
t e r m for t h e majesty and manifestation o f God. T h e glory o f
the L o r d is manifest b o t h in creation and in events o f deliv
erance in history, but its special locus in the priestly theologies
was understood t o b e in the cult, especially as a t e r m for the
divine presence in t h e t e n t o r temple. T h a t B e n Sira used this
term t o express the grandeur o f the select leaders o f Israel's
history is m o s t amazing. In t h e proem, B e n Sira may have
anticipated the reader's reaction by the judicious statement
that these m e n w e r e "great in glory, the M o s t High's p o r t i o n "
( 4 4 : 2 ) . T h e i r glory can b e a c c o u n t e d for, that is, in terms o f
bestowal o r election and thus n o t appear out o f keeping with
the divine aretalogical aspect o f t h e hymn. Nevertheless, that
Yahweh's glory is n o w b e s t o w e d upon and manifest in the
majesty o f these human figures indicates a m o m e n t o u s shift in
the conceptuality o f history and anthropology. T h e glory in the
Lord, traditionally manifest in t h e history o f the cult, is n o w t o
be seen in the succession o f illustrious l e a d e r s — s p e c i a l m e n ,
set apart, through w h o m the salvation o f Israel is t o be a c t u
alized and t o w h o m it is n o w possible t o offer a hymn o f praise.
History n o w revolves around t h e m and moves in the s u c c e s
sion o f their offices. It is a covenant history, marked by p r o m
ise, actualization, continuity, and glory, manifest in the
ministries o f saviors. B u t what exactly is this glory and this
ministry that moves and molds t h e people's history?
The Blessing and the Promise
W e have seen that the t h e m e o f t h e blessing appears t o have

been developed creatively in t h e hymn. T h e priestly pardon
can be identified with t h e priestly blessing in t h e conclusion,

thus fulfilling t h e promise o f the blessing t o Abraham at the
beginning o f t h e hymn ( 5 0 : 2 0 — 2 1 ) . W h a t are the consequences
o f this for B e n Sira's view o f convenant history?
T h e promise o f blessing given t o Abraham was found by B e n
Sira in the c o n t e n t o f t h e Lord's covenant with him (cf. the
sequence from 4 4 : 2 0 t o 4 4 : 2 1 and the " t h e r e f o r e " ) . It is this
covenant and t h e covenant with Aaron that are the m a j o r
foundations upon w h i c h Israel's history is t o b e constructed.
The covenant w i t h Noah is t h e negative statement o f the
promise and t h e c o n t e x t for understanding the significance o f
that given t o Abraham. T h e covenant with David is criticized
and c o m p a r e d unfavorably w i t h that o f Phineas, whose c o v e
nant is simply the special office within the priesthood o f
Aaron, and t h e revelation o f t h e law t o Moses is n o t under
stood expressly as a covenant. B y emphasizing and joining t o
g e t h e r the covenants o f Abraham and Aaron, B e n Sira an
nounced a program.
T h e blessing promised t o Abraham has t w o aspects. O n the
o n e hand, it has t o do with t h e formation o f Israel from his
seed. This aspect o f the promise is considered fulfilled w h e n
the blessing rested o n J a c o b . H e was the "first b o r n " and from
him c a m e t h e twelve tribes o f Israel ( 4 4 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) . O n the o t h e r
hand, the promise has t o do with the resolution o f s o m e
human dilemma, the negative statement o f which had been
signified in Noah. This aspect is n o t as clearly expressed, but it
is implied in t h e sequence from Noah t o Abraham. Nev
ertheless, the promise t o Abraham is " t o bless the nations in
his s e e d " ( 4 4 : 2 1 ) , and b o t h the immediate c o n t e x t and the
subsequent development o f the t h e m e o f blessing as a t o n e m e n t
indicate that this aspect is equally important for B e n Sira. Isra
el thus b e c o m e s the place w h e r e the blessing resides, but h e r
function is t o answer t o the problem o f sin and judgment. T h a t
function is fulfilled in t h e final scene.
The Theme of Location
Following the development o f the history o f Israel with the

t h e m e o f location in mind, o n e can chart its progress by draw
ing a series o f c o n c e n t r i c circles, beginning with a large sphere
and moving t o w a r d a central focus. T h e story begins with all

humanity and t h e w h o l e earth in view, and the promise t o
Abraham's seed will be cast in t e r m s o f t h e eventual inheri
tance o f t h e w h o l e earth as well ( 4 4 : 1 8 , 2 1 ) . " H e r e " it is,
presumably, that Israel is f o r m e d ( 4 4 : 2 3 ) , M o s e s receives the
law, Aaron and Phineas t h e covenants o f t h e priesthood. I f n o t
" h e r e , " in t h e vaguely visualized totality o f the world, then
nowhere, for t h e r e is n o o t h e r precise location o r setting given
for these m o m e n t o u s events. A m o s t amazing space o r p l a c e —
simply the people and their founders in focus against t h e dark
background o f t h e w o r l d in its vastness.
In t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e judges, " t h e l a n d " c o m e s into view,
and here it will be that t h e history is first localized. B u t in t h e
history o f t h e prophets and kings, it is clear that the city is t h e
c e n t e r o f c o n c e r n , and at t h e c e n t e r o f the city, it is t h e t e m p l e
and its cult upon w h i c h t h e m a j o r interest focuses. As the
hymn concludes, then, t h e city has been fortified, t h e temple
built, and the high priest has been placed in its precincts,
" c o m i n g forth from the s a n c t u a r y " ( 5 0 : 5 ) , making "glorious
the c o u r t o f t h e s a n c t u a r y " ( 5 0 : 1 1 ) , t o offer sacrifice and bless
(pardon) t h e people. All Israel is gathered around as t h e c o n
gregation, as are the priests, the "sons o f Aaron in their g l o r y "
( 5 0 : 1 3 ) . " H o w glorious h e was w h e n he l o o k e d forth from the
t e n t " ( 5 0 : 5 ) , and in t h e blessing, " h e glorified himself with the
name o f the L o r d " ( 5 0 : 2 0 ) . H e r e o n e finds the people located
in the land ( 5 0 : 1 9 ) , at the city, in t h e c o u r t o f the temple. H e r e
one finds also t h e place w h e r e t h e office o f glory is performed.
In the ministry o f that office, t h e pardon o f G o d in t h e blessing
is central. T h u s b o t h aspects o f t h e promised blessing are ful
filled in this scene.
T h e people are " t h e w h o l e congregation o f Israel" ( 5 0 : 2 0 ) ,
that is, descendents o f Abraham, t h e children o f promise. T h e
priests are t h e "sons o f A a r o n , " children o f the priestly c o v e
nant w h o "bless the p e o p l e " ( 4 5 : 1 5 ) . T h e high priest is a de-
scendent o f Phineas ( 5 0 : 2 4 ) making a t o n e m e n t for t h e sins o f
the people. T h e t h e m e s o f covenant, progeny, blessing, and
office c l i m a x here. It is t h e c l i m a x t o w a r d which t h e entire
history has b e e n moving. Its glory is manifest in the figure o f
Simon the high priest, w h o s e " p l a c e " is at the c e n t e r o f it all in

the sanctuary, w h o s e office effects the formation o f the c o n
gregation o f Israel, and w h o s e deed mediates the promised
blessing o f G o d t o the people.
The Fulfillment
I f this thesis is c o r r e c t , t h e r e is a strong sense o f historical
fulfillment implied in t h e final scene. N o t only is the history o f
Israel followed right into B e n Sira's o w n time, but the resolu
tion o f all o f the m a j o r t h e m e s suggests that the history o f
promise and formation finally is being actualized. T h e sense o f
celebration and the m o t i f o f praise support this view. T h e
scene reveals a very positive and optimistic assessment o f B e n
Sira's Israel as the people o f G o d . T h e concluding hymn o f
blessing shows that B e n Sira was n o t unaware o f the question
o f the future with its potential threat t o the present arrange
ment: " M a y His m e r c y b e established with Simon, M a y he
raise up for him the covenant o f Phineas, M a y n o o n e be cut
off from him, M a y it be t o his seed as the days o f h e a v e n "
( 5 0 : 2 4 ) . B u t from the future nothing m o r e need be hoped for
than that which is already fulfilled here.
T h e Israel that is actualized is, o f course, the congregation
o f the temple cult. All o f t h e m a j o r motifs and themes in the
hymn, as well as s o m e o f the elements in the pattern o f c h a r a c
terization, have been d e t e r m i n e d by cultic conceptions, c o n
cerns, and language. T h e t h e m e s o f glory, piety, sacrifice, and
a t o n e m e n t are obviously derived from this c o n t e x t . T h e rela
tion o f covenant t o office and the functions and formations o f
the particular offices are also evidence for cultic concerns. T h e
hymn and its interpretation o f Israel's history can in fact be
understood as a reading o f t h e scriptures through the eyes o f
one whose picture o f Israel-as-it-should-be is already given in
the final scene. T h i s picture has determined the constructions
that have been put upon t h e past. T h e result is e x t r e m e l y
creative and startling in its n e w c o n c e p t u a l l y . It portrays the
history o f the deeds o f G o d and the responses o f his people as a
dynamic development o f cultic theocracy. T h e m o v e m e n t is
highly structured and well balanced, showing that a single
order has been superimposed o n t h e otherwise manifold and

disparate events o f biblical history. T h e schema is organic in
one sense, graphic in another. T h e r e is m o v e m e n t o r g r o w t h
from beginnings that reveal intentionality (promise) and p o
tentiality ("to t e a c h , " "to b l e s s " ) , through a process o f forma
tion and struggle t o realize t h e ideal image, t o a final achieve
m e n t in w h i c h t h e m o d e l o f t h e cult is actualized.
T h a t h u m a n figures stand at t h e c e n t e r o f this m o d e l and
are invested with t h e glory o f its divine purpose, functions, and
actualization is a n e w and daring c o n c e p t i o n . B u t this t o o can
b e seen as a projection upon all t h e hasidim figuring in t h e
history o f t h e special characterization o f t h e high priest h i m
self, through his role as high priest and especially with regard
to his role o n t h e D a y o f A t o n e m e n t . H e it is w h o enters into
the presence o f t h e L o r d , shares in his glory, and mediates his
m e r c y t o t h e people. I f this reading is right, the h y m n may
have functioned as a m y t h i c c h a r t e r for S e c o n d T e m p l e J u d a
ism.
T H E H Y M N I C H I S T O R Y AS M Y T H
O u r thesis has b e e n that B e n Sira understood t h e c o n t e m

porary form o f S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism as an appropriate
climax t o Israel's covenantal history. O n l y so has it been possi
ble t o a c c o u n t for t h e pattern o f characterization, t h e overall
structure, and the express intentionality o f his hymn. W e have
also seen that t h e history has b e e n cast in such a way that
actualization o f its reality and a c k n o w l e d g m e n t by t h e c o m m u
nity can b e claimed for B e n Sira's o w n time. It is a strange view
o f history indeed, without interest in sequential development
at the level o f contingent social-historical event. E a c h event is
described as a m o m e n t o f manifestation o f glory. B u t each
event also has been given a m o m e n t o f promise o r potentiality
that points t o a still m o r e comprehensive and c o m p l e t e m a n
ifestation. It is w h e n the several m o m e n t s are seen in relation
t o o n e a n o t h e r that t h e full significance o f any particular event
is realized. T h e h y m n i c history, then, is t o be taken as a whole,
in the structure o f w h i c h t h e c o m p l e t e d manifestation is
achieved.
Since the structure o f the h y m n is architectonic, each par

ticular event o f manifestation takes its place within the whole
as an elemental c o m p o n e n t . E a c h event is related t o each o f
the o t h e r events in t w o ways, however, depending upon the
level at w h i c h t h e reading takes place. I f o n e reads the s e
quences diachronically, disparate events can be related t o o n e
another as an accumulation o f m o m e n t s leading t o the final
manifestation. I f o n e reads t h e sequences synchronically, the
several m o m e n t s can b e related t o o n e a n o t h e r as compatible
and interchangeable signs in a single system o f signs that m a n
ifests completeness. Since b o t h o f these readings are appropri
ate t o the history, it can be seen that any given event m a y be
read as a sign o f s o m e m o m e n t o f actualization within the
structure o f t h e c o m p l e t e d system o r as a sign o f a m o m e n t o f
potentiality for m o v e m e n t t o w a r d completion. I f the c o m p l e t e
system is the structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y with its
arrangement o f institutions and offices organized around the
temple cult and the role o f the high priest, the purpose o f the
hymn appears t o b e given. It is a reading o f Israel's history in
just such a way as t o disclose therein the evolutionary stages o f
the actualization in human-social formations o f an essentially
ahistorical theocratic-cultural ideal. This view o f Israel's histo
ry can b e designated " m y t h i c . "
The Synchronic View
In o r d e r t o develop this suggestion, w e should look m o r e

closely at the h y m n i c history as a c o h e r e n t synchronic s t r u c
ture. T h e point has already b e e n made that as a reading o f
Israel's scriptural history, the hymn reveals a high degree o f
intentional selectivity. It should b e emphasized that this selec
tion is m a r k e d by an e x t r e m e efficiency. O n l y the figures and
the n u m b e r o f figures w e r e chosen that w e r e necessary t o
achieve the balanced structure intended.
T h e figures w e r e chosen in keeping with their values as
holders o f the offices that structure the covenant community.
In this ideal configuration, t h e r e is a clear notion o f the c o m
munity itself as a people and congregation determined by a
divine election and blessing. T h i s aspect o f the structure o f the
covenant c o m m u n i t y is signified in t h e h y m n primarily in t h e

fathers. T h e y are foundational figures b o t h for t h e h y m n i c his
tory that begins with t h e m and for t h e image o f t h e t h e o c r a t i c
structure t o be e r e c t e d . W i t h o u t t h e m and t h e special c h a r
acter o f t h e h u m a n c o m m u n i t y they represent, t h e superstruc
ture o f t h e t h e o c r a t i c ideal would have n o place t o appear.
W i t h four deft strokes, however, t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y
does appear, carefully delimited and focused, emerging from
the undifferentiated and c h a o t i c mass o f humanity, in t h e first
four figures o f t h e hymn.
T o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t h e o c r a t i c ideal belongs, also, t h e
notion o f a m e d i a t o r w h o stands high above the people,
providing for t h e m a central authority and access t o t h e tran
scendent Divine. This structuring principle appears n e x t in t h e
hymn in t h e figure o f M o s e s . As a c o m p o s i t e figure, h e r e p r e
sents t h e ideal archetype o f all those as yet undifferentiated
offices that m u s t appear in t h e process o f t h e structure's a c t u
alization. T h r o u g h him, t h e c o m m u n i t y also receives t h e foun
dational " t e x t " that will d e t e r m i n e its special character. T h i s
appears in t h e revelation o f t h e law.
W i t h t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e law, an aspect o f mediation c o m e s
into view that acknowledges t h e potential disparity b e t w e e n
the ideal and t h e empirical, a disparity that m u s t be resolved in
the process o f actualization. It is t h e priesthood as t h e highest
office within t h e people, and t h e high priesthood as t h e highest
office within t h e priesthood, that will mediate that disparity.
T h e priests are derived from t h e M o s a i c ideal. T h e y depict t h e
form o f the office o f mediation that will b e appropriate t o the
structure o f t h e c o m m u n i t y in its actuality, recognizable in its
empirical manifestations.
W i t h t h e presentation o f t h e priests, the essential c o m p o
nents o f the structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y are given.
O n e is already able, therefore, t o anticipate t h e final s c e n e o f
the hymn and t o recognize what is depicted there. T h a t o f
course is exactly what t h e reader is e x p e c t e d t o do. B u t t h e full
significance o f t h e correlation, its implicit verification o f t h e
legitimacy o f t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e institutions, is realized only
when it is seen that b o t h Aaron and Phineas belong still t o t h e
archetypal o r d e r o f ideality. W i t h t h e m , it is true, t h e office

emerges that will d e t e r m i n e t h e shape o f t h e empirical and
actualized c o m m u n i t y in a way that t h e offices o f t h e fathers
and M o s e s d o not. B u t its significance h e r e is in its p l a c e m e n t
in t h e foundational e p o c h o f covenants established with t h e
first seven figures. T h e high priesthood has emerged, as w e
have seen, as t h e final image in a series that has m o v e d through
several shifts o f focus as t h e structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u
nity c o m e s into view. T h e unfolding o f this structure c o n
stitutes a founding e p o c h , b u t it is important t o see that t h e
events o f this e p o c h take place in n o specific t i m e o r place. T h e
picture c o m e s into view against t h e dark and undifferentiated
background o f all t i m e and all space, w h i c h is t o say, " b e f o r e "
involvement w i t h a particular history o r location. Its function,
then, is t h e manifestation o f t h e formation o f t h e t h e o c r a t i c
c o m m u n i t y , and t h e structure that it reveals is an essentially
transcendent and eternal order. It is, in t h e language o f t h e
phenomenology o f religion, t h e sacred o r d e r imagined by t h e
religious c o m m u n i t y and narrated in its myths.
T h a t t h e r e are j u s t seven figures c h o s e n for this narrative
function m a y n o w b e given additional consideration. The
n u m b e r seven, as is well k n o w n , functioned for t h e J e w s o f
B e n Sira's t i m e as a c o d e for c o m p l e t i o n , b o t h in its c o n n o t a
tion o f quality (perfection) and in its connotation o f t i m e (full
cycle). W e n o t e d in earlier discussions that t h e first seven fig
ures form a unit by virtue o f t h e m a t i c development and formal
periodizing. It can n o w b e suggested that this unit o f material
is c o d e d as well by t h e n u m b e r seven, and in such a way as t o
enhance its capacity as an expression o f ideality and c o m p l e
tion. It is balanced, as w e have seen, in t h e structure o f t h e
hymn by t h e concluding s c e n e in w h i c h a r e - e n a c t m e n t o f this
originary sacred o r d e r is depicted. T h a t t h e r e is only o n e such
scene focused on only o n e official figure does n o t destroy t h e
balance at all. In t h e e m e r g e n t image o f t h e sacred order, t h e
focus finally c o m e s t o rest o n t h e figure o f t h e high priest as
the holder o f t h e office that is t o structure t h e covenant c o m
munity in its empirical manifestation. S i m o n holds that office
and is understood, therefore, t o actualize t h e entirety o f t h e
sacred o r d e r manifest in t h e first seven figures. A t t h e level o f

numerical c o d e , t h e balanced correlation o f the n u m b e r seven
with t h e n u m b e r o n e achieves an additional significance. T h e
n u m b e r o n e also represents t h e idea o f perfection, but in t e r m s
o f unity o r singularity. T h u s t o c l i m a x t h e hymnic history with
this scene, w h i c h suggests a fulfillment o f its covenantal inten
tions, does n o t violate t h e numerical code.
Still t o b e a c c o u n t e d for, however, are the middle sections
o f the hymn. T h e s e consist o f t h r e e units, t w o units o f t h r e e
transitional figures each and a large middle section that relates
the history o f t h e prophets and kings. T h e balanced structure
o f the h y m n as a w h o l e is clear from these observations, e s
pecially w h e n it is seen that t h e middle section itself is an
internally balanced c o n s t r u c t i o n in w h i c h seven prophets and
seven kings are placed against o n e another. W h a t do these
units c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e overall structure o f the h y m n and its
function as myth?
T h e t w o units o f transition (judges and restoration figures)
bracket the middle section and t h e r e b y c r e a t e a literary unit at
the c e n t e r o f t h e hymn. T h i s middle unit holds t h e first and
last units apart and mediates b e t w e e n them. If, as w e have
seen, t h e first unit o f t h e h y m n creates the ideal image o f t h e
covenant c o m m u n i t y and t h e final scene depicts its actualiza
tion in t i m e and place, it is already possible t o anticipate t h e
t h e m e o f t h e middle section. It will have t o do with t i m e and
place and t h e process by w h i c h t h e ideal sacred o r d e r b e c o m e s
actualized in human society. T h e t h e m e o f place is given i m
mediately in t h e first unit o f transition. It is " t h e l a n d " into
which t h e judges lead t h e people. T h i s is given even g r e a t e r
specificity in the ensuing section: in t h e land, it is t h e city with
its temple that b e c o m e s t h e locus for t h e struggle for actualiza
tion o f t h e ideal. T h i s struggle is, m o r e o v e r , within the arena o f
human time o r history, thus introducing the second t h e m e . At
the conclusion o f this section, in t h e s e c o n d transitional unit o f
the t h r e e restoration figures, t h e resolution o f the process o f
actualization has been achieved in respect t o specific h u m a n
time and place, and t h e stage is set for t h e final ritual scene.
W e have referred t o t h e middle section as t h e history o f t h e
prophets and kings, and it is clear that in terms o f narratve

setting for e a c h o f t h e subunits, historical events are in view.
B u t it has b e e n n o t e d also that certain events necessary for a
full and continuous historical a c c o u n t are missing, and that a
high degree o f selectivity and systematization is in evidence.
T h e significance o f these findings for t h e hymn's synchronic
structure can n o w b e suggested.
T h e characterization o f t h e t w o sets o f transitional figures is
composite in t e r m s o f office and ambiguous in terms o f t h e
architectonic structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y . T h e i r
functions are therefore appropriate only t o periods o f transfor
mation from o n e e p o c h ( o f history), o r d e r ( o f reality), o r level
( o f structural systems) t o another. E a c h set carries a single
aspect o f t h e process o f actualization t o completion (location in
the land, security o f t h e city and t e m p l e ) . T h e r e are t h r e e
named in each period o f transition, a numerical c o d e appropri
ate t o reiterative fulfillment and t h e distribution o f effective
function. T h e y are necessary b u t provisional figures, signifying
only those t e m p o r a r y m o m e n t s at t h e beginning and t h e e n d o f
the conflict c r e a t e d by t h e c o m i n g - i n t o - t i m e - a n d - p l a c e o f t h e
ideal order.
In t h e section o n t h e prophets and kings, then, this conflict
is portrayed in t e r m s o f bifurcation within t h e structure o f t h e
covenant c o m m u n i t y itself. Oppositions b o t h within it and in
relation t o its external e n v i r o n m e n t are acknowledged and
specified, and t h e dynamics by w h i c h these are t o be resolved
are studied. T h e bifurcation is what o c c u r s in t h e e m e r g e n c e o f
the t w o offices o f p r o p h e t and king. E a c h o f these may be
understood t o b e an aspect o f t h e ideal mediator ( M o s e s ) , d e
rived from that figure by a process o f differentiation. T h e divi
sion takes place immediately following t h e period o f transition
in w h i c h t h e ideal pattern is m e r g e d with the o r d e r o f human
time and place. It m a y be taken t o signify t h e dysfunctionality
that o c c u r s b e t w e e n vision ( p r o p h e t s ) and h u m a n achievement
(kings), o r b e t w e e n logos and praxis.
It may be recalled that t h e r e w e r e n o deeds performed by
t h e figures o f t h e foundational e p o c h , e x c e p t the sacrifice o f
Phineas. In t h e first period o f transition (judges), on t h e o t h e r
hand, it is precisely t h e grand and glorious deeds o f valor in

war that are characteristic. W i t h t h e kings, deeds o f achieve
m e n t c o n t i n u e t o b e normative, but they are n o w evaluated by
a c o d e that distinguishes constructive deeds from destructive
ones. T h i s c o d e , however, is n o t available t o t h e kings directly;
it is rather t h e prophets w h o bring j u d g m e n t s t o bear upon
their deeds and call for actualization o f the divine intentions.
Thus t h e bifurcation o f vision and achievement sets up a d o u
ble system o f oppositions appropriate t o t h e t h e m e o f conflict
b e t w e e n t h e ideal and t h e empirical. T h e first set o f opposi
tions is that b e t w e e n prophets and kings and their significa
tions; t h e s e c o n d is that b e t w e e n constructive and destructive
m o m e n t s that o c c u r in t h e c o u r s e o f repeated encounters.
T h e r e are seven prophets and seven kings in all, plus a c o l
lective designation for e a c h at t h e e n d o f t h e series. In t h e final
collective designation o f t h e kings, they are seen c o m i n g t o
their e n d ( 4 9 : 4 ) ; in t h e final collective designation o f t h e
prophets, t h e n o t e o f h o p e and deliverance is sounded ( 4 9 : 1 0 ) .
These statements d o n o t resolve t h e dialectic b e t w e e n t h e
prophets and t h e kings as such, for b o t h are functional only
within this unit o f t h e covenant history, and within it, t h e c o v e
nant c o m m u n i t y has n o t b e e n actualized. B u t t h e final state
ments do allow t h e opposition t o c o m e t o rest with the
prophets and their vision and hope. I f n o w , by means o f a
second transformation (restoration), t h e hoped-for vision is r e
alized, t h e opposition then will b e resolved, and in such a way
as t o e n h a n c e t h e meaning o f that realization as nothing less
than t h e full integration o f t h e h u m a n social o r d e r with t h e
transcendental ideal. T h i s can b e appreciated and celebrated
the m o r e because t h e conflicts and potential divisions that a c
company that m e r g e r have b e e n disclosed completely and sys
tematically, for t h e double series o f seven indicates c o m p l e t i o n
and is structured systematically. T h e y have been disclosed as
threats inherent within t h e c o m m u n i t y because the integration
o f leadership functions requires an integration o f vision, in
stitutional formation, and p o w e r difficult t o achieve. Outside
the c o m m u n i t y , t h e r e are o t h e r c e n t e r s o f human p o w e r that,
if it does n o t achieve its o w n integration, can destroy it.
In t h e s e c o n d transition and final scene, however, t h e inte

gration is shown t o have been accomplished. T h e office that is
crucial for this m o v e is t h e high priesthood. This office has
been noticeably absent in t h e history o f t h e prophets and
kings, j u s t as they are n o longer in evidence in the final forma
tion. W e have seen the e x t e n t t o w h i c h the depiction o f S i
m o n , though singularly that o f t h e high priest, integrates
nonetheless those aspects o f t h e o t h e r offices that continue t o
be appropriate for t h e final configuration. T h e bifurcation o f
leadership functions in prophets and kings has been o v e r c o m e ,
and the ideal that e m e r g e d in t h e foundational e p o c h has final
ly been actualized within t h e o r d e r o f human history. Simon
stands in t h e covenant o f Phineas and performs the sacrifice o f
a t o n e m e n t in t h e intended place and at the intended time. H e
wears t h e robes o f Aaron and thus displays t h e imagined glory
o f the originary investiture. H e enters into the sanctuary and
reappears before t h e people, an act o f mediation that embodies
the ideal seen only in M o s e s ' glory. T h e promises t o t h e pa
triarchs are manifesdy realized in the "presence o f the whole
congregation o f Israel" ( 5 0 : 1 3 ) , which gathers to see the glory, hear
the name, and receive the blessing and pardon o f the Lord. All o f
this is included in t h e a c c o u n t , but only this. It is the precise
function o f this s c e n e t o realize t h e originary plan in t h e s p e c
ified and central e n a c t m e n t o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e institutions
o f B e n Sira's o w n time.
The Diachronic Reading
T h e synchronic reading emphasizes b o t h the balanced s t r u c

ture o f t h e h y m n and t h e various interrelationships o f terms
that this allows. B u t even as a system o f signs, it has b e c o m e
clear that the h y m n is n o t at all a structure in stasis. Even the
ideal image o f t h e structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y c r e
ated by the a c c o u n t o f the first seven figures evolves by a series
o f moves that relate these figures t o o n e another, n o t merely as
a construction o f disparate, accumulated parts, but generically.
Each figure is seen t o b e derived from its precursors as a m a n
ifestation o f an aspect o f that w h i c h implicitly belongs t o t h e
covenant pattern c o m i n g into view. It is as i f this series o f

moves was achieved by a set o f lenses, each with a p o w e r that
enables a yet deeper and m o r e sharply focused penetration o f
the reality t o b e disclosed. I f in t h e final figure a high priest
(Phineas) and a specific a c t o f sacrificial a t o n e m e n t are settled
upon, it does n o t m e a n that t h e preceding perspectives are n o
longer in view. T h u s t h e structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y
even as ideality contains within itself a dynamic m o m e n t . It is
the structure o f a promise-that-will-be-fidfilled, a seed-that-
will-take-shape, a plan-that-will-be-constructed.
In the overall structure o f t h e hymn, then, this dynamic
works at a n o t h e r level. T h e evolutionary m o v e m e n t may be
understood as t h e process by w h i c h t h e ideal (the dynamic)
structure is actualized in t i m e and place. This assumes, o f
course, a certain logic o f sequences, which introduces a di-
achronic aspect t o t h e structure. T h e structure continues t o be
balanced in spite o f this; only so can t h e c o m p l e t e correlation
o f the levels o f reality b e maintained structurally ( S e c o n d T e m
ple institutions/originary p a t t e r n / t h e literary structure o f t h e
hymn itself). B u t it is a s t r u c t u r e - i n - m o v e m e n t . It is charged
with an impulse that will generate, that wills the generation o f
these correlations. It has t h e capacity t o sustain bifurcations
and oppositions among its structural elements and t o resolve
them in the drive toward concretization. It is this forward
thrust that gives t h e h y m n its narrative quality and makes it
possible t o include Israel's history in t h e claim being made for
the S e c o n d T e m p l e institutions ( t h e full incarnation o f divine
intentionality for J u d a i s m ) .
O n e might even argue that it was t h e history itself, under
stood in terms o f covenant and promise, that created t h e n o
tion o f a dynamic archetype. This, o f course, would be true,
but it would not a c c o u n t fully for t h e creative reflection that
must be posited for this achievement. T h e history may have
imbued B e n Sira's c o n c e p t i o n o f pattern with the notion o f
dynamic evolution, but it is his predeliction for structuring
that has selectively systematized t h e history. His rereading o f
the history has effectively erased t h e a c c o u n t and significance
o f all events that intervened and has c o n n e c t e d those selected
for inclusion in t h e hymn. F o r B e n Sira, t i m e is therefore n o t a

continuous series o f contiguous events in t h e social history o f a
people. It is seen only in t e r m s o f m o m e n t s in which the divine
intentionality is manifest at s o m e point in its evolution toward
concretion. History has b e e n structured and therefore spa-
tialized. In this m o v e , a systematic correlation o f space and
time has been achieved in a single grasp.
It is this understanding o f o r d e r that marks B e n Sira's h y m n
as myth. It is intended as an a c c o u n t o f those events that relate
the evolution o f t h e coming-into-being o f the divine and e t e r
nal intentions for t h e structure o f t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y as
it is constituted in B e n Sira's o w n time. It b e c o m e s the m y t h
by means o f w h i c h that glory may be recognized as present in
the ritual e n a c t m e n t o f t h e covenant and c o m m u n i t y on the
Day o f A t o n e m e n t . T o participate in that ritual is t o celebrate
the actualization o f t h e originary pattern. Given the conflicts
necessarily suffered and o v e r c o m e in t h e process o f actualiza
tion, as r e c o u n t e d by t h e m y t h , t h e claims that are implicitly
made for this ritual m o m e n t are enormous. T h e act is taken t o
be that t o w a r d w h i c h all t i m e has moved; the high priest, the
o n e around w h o m all space has aspired t o be organized; the
scene, as the final a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e divine intentions for
human social structuring. B o r r o w i n g categories from M i r c e a
Eliade, w e may understand t h e h y m n t o have achieved a c o n
7
ceptual, systematic correlation o f c o s m o s and h i s t o r y .
T h e h y m n began, as w e have noted, with a section praising
God's works in creation. T h i s was followed by a recounting o f
the manifestations o f his glory in Israel's history. In t h e final
scene, it is therefore n o t insignificant that Simon is described,
when he appears from t h e sanctuary in his glorious robes, as
the very reflection o f creation's splendor: " L i k e the sun shin
ing on the t e m p l e o f the M o s t High, and like the rainbow
becoming visible in the clouds. Like a flower on the branches
in the days o f t h e first fruits, and as a lily by the w a t e r - b r o o k s "
( 5 0 : 5 - 1 1 ) . T h e glory t o be seen is j u s t that this correlation has
been a c h i e v e d — t h e glory o f G o d ' s works in the order o f c r e
ation reflected in t h e glory o f his purposes actualized in the
order o f h u m a n history.
Rhetorical
Considerations:
Reading and
Part2
Writing
Reading: In
the Place of
Praise
3
Two patterns have e m e r g e d

in the course o f o u r analysis. T h e heroes have a profile; t h e
history has a structure. E a c h pattern functions in relation t o
the other, taking its significance from t h e o t h e r by means o f an
interlocking system o f signs. U n e x p e c t e d l y , t o g e t h e r they form
a m y t h i c foundation o n w h i c h t o imagine the edifice o f S e c o n d
T e m p l e institutions.
I f the study w e r e left at this point, however, it could easily
be misunderstood as an e x e r c i s e in abstractions. I f the patterns
are really t h e r e , and i f they do have social significance, it would
be helpful t o a c c o u n t for that significance in s o m e o t h e r way.
This can be done e i t h e r by demonstrating their exemplary sig
nificance for s o m e structuralist t h e o r y o f culture o r by a fur
t h e r exploration o f t h e h y m n ' s relationship t o cultural (liter
ary) and social history. T o find t h e place o f the t e x t within its
o w n cultural c o n t e x t , its relationship to o t h e r texts and sys
tems o f signs needs to be determined. I f a sufficient n u m b e r o f
intertextual relationships can be determined, this will serve
b o t h as a clarification and verification o f t h e t e x t ' s literary
structures and as an index to its significance as a particular
translation, transformation, and articulation o f those systems
69
70 RHETORICAL CONSIDERATIONS: READING AND W R I T I N G
o f signs already available in its cultural c o n t e x t . It is this ap

proach that will be pursued in part 3.
B u t t o c o m p r e h e n d t h e significance o f the t e x t in its c o n
text, an additional exploration is required. W e n e e d t o c h e c k
o u r o w n reading o f t h e t e x t against plausible reconstructions
o f the way it m a y have b e e n read by those whose t e x t it was. A
way m u s t b e found t o imagine b o t h t h e a c t o f reading and t h e
act o f writing it as m o m e n t s meaningful t o those w h o w e r e
already well read in t h e systems o f signs fundamental t o their
culture. B y imagining t h e t e x t ' s authorship and audience in a
specific social setting, m o r e precision can be given t o questions
about t h e way in w h i c h it gains significance in relation t o o t h e r
texts. In this m a n n e r , t h e a c c u r a c y o f o u r literary analysis can
be c h e c k e d . T h e question is w h e t h e r t h e t e x t can b e under
stood as a plausible r h e t o r i c in its o w n c o n t e x t . I f w e find it
possible t o position it in this way, a n o t h e r perspective o n t h e
hymn's relationship t o o t h e r " t e x t s " will have been gained as
well, because a precise social setting can itself be regarded as a
system o f signs within t h e cultural c o m p l e x . Relationships e s
tablished h e r e will allow us t o r e c o n s t r u c t yet a n o t h e r " t r a n s
lation" o f signs and so d e t e r m i n e their meanings.
DIDACTIC AND DEVOTIONAL MOMENTS
T h e r e are t w o features o f t h e h y m n that w e need t o a c c o u n t

for and c o m b i n e in any assessment o f its social setting and
function. T h e first m a y b e called its didactic character, evi
dence for w h i c h is given in t h e s c o p e o f its historical review,
the development o f t h e m e s , t h e descriptive m o d e o f m u c h o f
its discourse, t h e patterning o f characterization, and the i m
plicit etiological purpose. T h e r e is great learning invested in
this composition, and it is put forth clearly as a review and
recitation o f familiar material with specific interpretive theses.
T h e reader is asked t o listen, understand, and b e instructed.
B u t t h e r e is a s e c o n d feature o f t h e h y m n that certainly may
be called liturgical, that is, an invitation t o respond in postures
appropriate t o public religious occasions. This is manifest in
the incipit ( t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f intention for praise), t h e di-
READING: IN T H E P L A C E O F PRAISE 71
vine aretalogical form, its association with t h e preceding h y m n

t o t h e Lord's creation, t h e language o f cult and piety through
out, t h e m o v e m e n t t o a final s c e n e o f ritual celebration, and
the inclusion o f t w o blessings, o n e o f w h i c h forms t h e c o n c l u
sion t o t h e h y m n itself. T h e r e is deep religious fervor here, and
the reader is invited t o share in it.
I f w e ask about t h e appropriateness o f this h y m n in c o r p o
rate worship, however, o r about its feasibility in a purely di
dactic setting, w e can see immediately its limitations. A purely
liturgical function is m a d e improbable by its descriptive style,
length, and especially by its t h e m e — t h e glorification o f pious
men. A purely didactic function is made improbable by its
heightened sense o f assertion and authority, its manifestation
o f religious certitude and c o m m i t m e n t , and its invitation
throughout t o h o n o r , glorify, and praise. W h a t , then, is its
function and w h e r e is it placed?
T h e combinations o f liturgical and didactic m o d e s o f speech
in a poetic composition, a c o m b i n a t i o n reminiscent o f t h e di
dactic Psalms, suggests a m o d e o f reflection that might b e
called meditation. T h e r e is a sense o f distance from active and
actual participation in c o r p o r a t e worship. Y e t t h e m o o d o f the
worshipper, t h e m e m b e r o f t h e congregation, continues t o set
the t o n e for b o t h t h e c o m p o s i t i o n and t h e appropriate reading
o f this piece. T h e reflection is studied, focused, and controlled
by this m o o d , and yet it is discursive. T h e r e is repeated invita
tion t o pause, take n o t e , and c o m e again t o see and assent t o
the glory o f this powerful history. It is a piece appropriate for
religious meditation, perhaps as preparation for worship; it is
literature o f reflection that invites b o t h understanding and
praise. W e m a y thus b e guided in o u r a t t e m p t t o understand
the way in w h i c h t h e heroes o f t h e h y m n are intended t o be
taken and its structured history affirmed.
T H E READER'S DISTANCE FROM THE HEROES
T h e discovery o f a general pattern o f characterization in t h e

hymn raises t h e question o f its function for t h e individual
reader. O n e is t e m p t e d t o think o f it as a m o d e l o f piety for
72 R H E T O R I C A L CONSIDERATIONS: READING AND W R I T I N G
personal emulation o r aspiration. B u t o u r study o f t h e pattern

has shown that it is hardly appropriate as a model for indi
1
vidual a c h i e v e m e n t . It is a study in ethos limited t o leadership
roles that are recognized as offices o f authority in t h e structure
o f t h e religious c o m m u n i t y . T h i s does n o t m e a n that such
depiction is incapable o f idealizing strengths and virtues t o
which t h e average individual m i g h t also aspire. In t h e case o f
Abraham, as w e have seen, a rite and sign o f o b e d i e n c e has
been r e c o r d e d that is also required o f each J e w i s h male. B y
extension, m a n y o f t h e o t h e r religious virtues m e n t i o n e d in t h e
hymn would n o t be inappropriate for personal piety either.
T h u s the reader would see in t h e figures descriptions o f piety
that w e r e recognizable and highly valued as descriptions o f
J e w i s h religious piety in general. B y yet a n o t h e r extension, o n e
might even say that election itself could b e democratized in t h e
reading and seen as a reflection in t h e heroes o f a determina
tion effective for all J e w s . B u t j u s t at this point, it begins t o b e
clear that i f read this way, t h e pattern o f characterization func
tions as a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e religious identity o f t h e J e w i s h
people as already c o n s t i t u t e d by divine election and covenant.
Neither within t h e pattern itself n o r in t h e explicit m e n t i o n o f
a relationship o f j l i e c o m m u n i t y t o these figures is t h e r e any
possiblity o f seeing h o w o n e m i g h t c o m e t o achieve this ethos.
It is simply and already given, expressed by their election.
In the case o f t h e kings, t h e r e is a study o f t h e risk o f failure
in terms o f impiety, and o n e suspects that a standard o t h e r
than that o f election m a y b e in play. T h a t o t h e r standard may
be indeed s o m e form o f T o r a h piety that t h e perceptive reader
will n o d o u b t detect. B u t w e have n o t e d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h
an ideal o f righteousness in this sense is simply n o t in evidence
in t h e hymn, and in t h e function o f t h e office o f t h e king, it is
the fate o f the people that is described as at stake, w i t h o u t any
indication o f their responsibility o r c h o i c e in the m a t t e r . This
leaves us with an idealization that functions paradigmatically, i f
at all, for j u d g m e n t s o n e m i g h t m a k e about o t h e r holders o f
high social office.
T h e s e officers, then, are defined essentially in terms o f social
and institutional roles. In every case, they are figures through
w h o m t h e purpose and agency o f G o d for t h e constitution o f

the t h e o c r a t i c c o m m u n i t y is m e d i a t e d t o t h e people. B e c a u s e
the leaders are cast as mediators and benefactors for t h e well-
being o f t h e c o m m u n i t y , t h e people are depicted consistently
in relation t o t h e m as recipients o f their various ministries.
This means that identity is understood in social, c o r p o r a t e , and
institutional terms. T h e individual relates t o these great leaders
as o n e w h o already belongs t o t h e congregation o f the people,
a c o r p o r a t e entity w h o s e foundation and structure is c e l e
brated in t h e hymn. T h e leaders function at first and primarily
as holders o f offices that d e t e r m i n e t h e shape o f t h e religious
society. In reading t h e hymn, as B e n Sira suggests in t h e p r o
e m , the p r o p e r response t o t h e m e m o r y o f these great leaders
is, therefore, t o h o n o r and t o praise t h e m ( 4 4 : 8 , 1 5 ) .
T H E HEROES' EFFECT UPON THE READERS
B u t even i f this m u c h is s o — t h a t t h e heroization o f t h e

leaders is n o t intended t o set up a m o d e l o f piety for personal
emulation and achievement—questions remain about the
nature and purpose o f t h e h o n o r t o be a c c o r d e d t o them. T h i s
is especially troubling in light o f B e n Sira's explicit s t a t e m e n t
that the hasidim c o n t i n u e t o e x e r c i s e an effective influence
upon and for t h e people in his o w n time.
T h e crucial t e x t is in t h e p r o e m at 4 4 : 7 and is cited h e r e in
the translation o f B o x and Oesterley:
7 All these were honored in their generation,

And in their days had glory.
10 Nevertheless these were men o f piety,

And their good fortune shall not come to an end;
11 With their seed their prosperity remains sure,
And their inheritence to their children's children.
12 In their covenant their seed abides,
And their children's children for their sakes;
13 Their memory abides forever,
And their righteousness shall not be forgotten;
14 Their bodies were buried in peace,
But their name lives unto all generations.
15 The assembly recounts their wisdom,

And the congregation declares their praise.
Several themes developed in t h e h y m n are announced here:

honor, glory, progeny, inheritance, covenant, and piety. W h a t
is n e w is t h e programmatic s t a t e m e n t o f the continuing influ
ence o f these m e n within and for t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y c o m m u n i
ty. T h e t e x t consists essentially o f five ideas: their h o n o r and
glory, their heritage, their covenants, their m e m o r y , and their
praise.
Their Honor and Glory
T h e first s t a t e m e n t is that t h e fathers received h o n o r and

glory in their generations ( 4 4 : 7 ) . T h i s is a c o m m e n t o n t h e past
that may b e c o m p a r e d with t h e concluding statement about
their being praised in t h e present ( 4 4 : 1 5 ) . This combination o f
the t w o m o m e n t s o f praise creates a sense o f continuity. T h e
t h e m e o f h o n o r and glory a n n o u n c e d in the p r o e m is traceable
throughout the hymn. It o c c u r s mostly in keeping with the
assertion that these glorious men were recognized and
honored as such by their contemporaries. This is a very bold
and striking interpretation o f t h e past. It combines an idealiza
tion o f the past with a remarkable notion o f glory. Glory in this
view is recognizable b o t h by the leader and by his c o n t e m p o
raries. W e might call it an objectification o f presence. Glory,
according t o this view, is n o t t h e product o f a subsequent
generation's idealization o f the past, as i f B e n Sira w e r e simply
attributing glory and h o n o r t o these leaders. T h e glories o f the
past are at first r e c o u n t e d as m o m e n t s o f full recognition "in
their g e n e r a t i o n . " T h e reader is addressed as o n e looking on,
called t o recognize that it was so. As the hymnic a c c o u n t
moves into B e n Sira's o w n present, glory is indeed manifest for
him in the office o f Simon ( 5 0 : 4 , 1 1 , 2 0 ) . T h e r e is a sense,
then, in which glory itself is understood as an effective princi
ple o f continuity within the history, for it has been manifest
consistently throughout that history in the series o f special
men.
T h e response required o f t h e reader is therefore quite c o m -
plex. T h e notion o f glory itself is dialectical with regard t o the

relationship it announces b e t w e e n h e r o and c o m m u n i t y ( o n e
has glory only in being glorified) and is therefore unstable as a
concept. T h e reader is asked, however, n o t only t o imagine
such m o m e n t s occurring in the past, but t o understand as well
that the recital o f these imaginative m o m e n t s in the present
also constitutes a glorification o f t h e heroes. F o r B e n Sira t o
make present the figures o f t h e past for the reader in the act o f
glorifying t h e m , and at the same t i m e t o describe that past in
m o m e n t s o f objective glorification, destroys the perception o f
history according t o developmental schemata and substitutes
the notion of a continuous (though dynamic) presence
throughout all time. It will b e important t o keep this in m i n d
as o t h e r statements about t h e effective influence o f the pious
are explored, statements that appear m o r e beholden t o an e m
pirical reading o f the history.
Their Heritage
T h e s e c o n d idea expressed in the p r o e m is that the g o o d

fortune, prosperity, and inheritance o f the pious continue t o
2
exist as possessions o f their descendents ( 4 4 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) . I f taken
3
literally, there is nothing in t h e hymn t o w h i c h this can r e f e r .
It expresses a view o f material reward for virtue that reminds
one o f an earlier s t a t e m e n t in t h e p r o e m about "stalwart m e n ,
solidly established and at peace in their o w n e s t a t e s " ( 4 4 : 6 ) .
T a k e n together, these t w o statements reflect a social and e c o
n o m i c c o n c e r n for the security o f property, a c o n c e r n that B e n
Sira certainly m a y have shared. T o address this c o n c e r n , m o s t
probably aristocratic and conservative but possibly political as
well, by appeal t o legacy from the hasidim is a striking claim
and may indicate the degree t o w h i c h B e n Sira understood the
history and model o f S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism t o include given
social structures and e c o n o m i c institutions. H o w it might be
that the e c o n o m i c form o f B e n Sira's society could be imagined
as legacy from those praised in the hymn is difficult t o see. In
the tradition o f t h e Hellenistic e n c o m i u m , it is true, a person's
achievement o f goods and property was recognized as appro
4
priate for e u l o g y . B u t in the school traditions o f philosophical
ethics, the relationship b e t w e e n goods (ta agatha) and virtue

5
(arete) had b e c o m e exceedingly p r o b l e m a t i c . I f B e n Sira was
influenced here by a Hellenistic convention, it has been c o m
bined with the J e w i s h idea o f inheritance. I f this combination
o f ideas derived from a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c c o n c e p t i o n o f the
relationship o f piety t o the inheritance o f the land, a bridge
might b e posited that could m a k e s o m e sense o f B e n Sira's
assertions. B u t this sense is n o t expressed, and it would b e in
any case difficult t o correlate with t h e kind o f piety attributed
t o the leaders hymned. W e are left, then, with a simple claim
o f legacy curiously unhelpful for o u r question about the m a n
n e r in which these special m e n c o n t i n u e t o exercise influence
in the c o m m u n i t y . B u t it is clear that t h e effectiveness o f the
sacred history ( n o t i c e the plural " t h e i r " at 4 4 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) is under
stood in relation t o the social and e c o n o m i c structures o f the
time.
Their Covenants
T h e third idea expressed is that the descendents o f these

m e n continue in their covenants ( 4 4 : 1 2 ) . T h e t h e m e o f c o v e
nant is fully developed in the hymn, as w e have seen. As a
theological idea, it contains within itself the notions o f origin
ary m o m e n t and continuous promise. I f the effective influence
o f these m e n has t o d o with t h e continuing validity o f t h e
divine covenants with t h e m , the principle o f continuity and
agency is ultimately that o f divine initiative and faithfulness.
This is an e x t r e m e l y c o m p l e x notion in its o w n right, provid
ing as it does, n o t only a certain view o f G o d , but a theological
claim about a people's continuity in history. T h a t b o t h o f these
notions are contained within t h e singular c o n c e p t o f covenant
as that which continues makes it possible t o see h o w this c o n
cept can be correlated with that o f glory. T h e idea o f covenant
is certainly at w o r k , and it is very important as an indication o f
the essentially priestly theological frame within which B e n Sira
6
stands. B u t i f this is so, the effectiveness o f the m e n - s o -
praised in the hymn is qualified as functional t o this t h e -
ologumenon. This is fully in keeping with our discussion o f the
pattern o f characterization.
T h e claim m a d e at 4 4 : 1 2 is that the progeny o f these m e n

do continue t o be c o u n t e d among those included in the origi
nal intention o f t h e covenant. In c h a p t e r 2, it was argued that
the t h e m e s o f covenant promise and genealogical descent an
n o u n c e d in the first section o f the h y m n w e r e conjoined c r e
atively again in t h e concluding scene. T h i s agrees w i t h t h e
assertion h e r e and lends further support t o o u r c o n t e n t i o n that
B e n Sira's purpose in the h y m n was t o create a theological
charter for a specific form o f Judaism in which the temple
institutions stood at t h e c e n t e r o f a c o m p l e t e social system.
B u t the phrase " f o r their s a k e s " ( 4 4 : 1 2 ) alerts us t o the fact
that this c h a r t e r is n o t t o b e expressed e x c e p t in terms o f the
efficacy o f those m e n o f glory with w h o m the covenants w e r e
established and in and through w h o m they continued t o b e
manifest and actualized. O u r question about the m o d e o f this
effectiveness has b e e n answered theologically by t h e reference
to covenant, b u t it has n o t b e e n answered in such a way as t o
account for t h e form o f the hymn.
Their Memory
T h e fourth idea is that the hasidim continue and will c o n

tinue to be remembered (44:13-14). Here, finally, we
e n c o u n t e r a s t a t e m e n t that m a y have direct relevance for o u r
question about the function o f the hymn itself. T h e m e n t i o n o f
burial, n a m e , and m e m o r y is t o b e understood at first as a
c o m m o n form o f expressing a general J e w i s h aspiration. T h e
aspiration has, o f course, deeply religious significance and
grows out o f the theological c o n c e p t i o n o f the covenant p e o
ple. It has been understood traditionally as the J e w i s h analogue
to Hellenic c o n c e p t i o n s o f apotheosis o r immortality. T o be
r e m e m b e r e d implies the c o n t i n u a n c e o f the community. R e
membering itself is, in this specific sense, a m o d e o f perception
characteristic o f h u m a n existence. As a category o f historical
continuity and influence, then, m e m o r y can be understood t o
function in analogy t o the c o n c e p t s o f glory, inheritance, and
covenant. It is objectified here in B e n Sira's statement insofar
as it is " t h e i r m e m o r y " that is said " t o abide forever."
In t h e hymn, t h e r e is also repeated m e n t i o n o f this motif.
78 R H E T O R I C A L CONSIDERATIONS: R E A D I N G AND W R I T I N G
T o have a n a m e and a m e m o r y is o n e way in w h i c h a glorious

leader may b e said t o have received his reward. B e n Sira was
also careful n o t t o m e n t i o n t h e names o f those found u n w o r
thy o f depiction as ideal leaders. T h i s carefulness alerts us t o
the function o f the h y m n itself in t h e propagation o f t h e m e m
ory o f these glorious m e n and shows that B e n Sira was aware
o f that c o n t e m p o r a r y function. As with their glory and c o v e
nants, so with t h e names o f these great men. T h e hymn's m o d e
is that o f historical description, but its function is t o facilitate
the leaders' m e m o r y in t h e present time. H o w exactly this m a y
be intended is n o t indicated h e r e ( 4 4 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) , but in the i m m e
diately succeeding statements additional significant clues are
given.
Their Praise
T h e fifth and final s t a t e m e n t that B e n Sira makes about the

effective influence o f t h e m e n o f piety is that " t h e assembly
recounts their wisdom, and t h e congregation declares their
praise" ( 4 4 : 1 5 ) . H e r e it is that a c o n c r e t e setting (assembly,
congregation) and specific actions (recounting, praise) are
mentioned as particular occasion and means for the c o n t e m
porizing o f the m e m o r y o f the glorious men. This is very help
ful because it indicates a c o r p o r a t e and religious c o n t e x t
within w h i c h the a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f the greatness o f these
m e n takes place. I f w e w e r e able t o be m o r e precise about this
occasion, and especially about the role that B e n Sira's hymn
might play in relation t o it, o u r questions about the way the
influence o f the great m e n was effected for the individual and
the congregation could finally b e addressed.
T h e problem with B e n Sira's statement is that, even i f w e
take it literally, w e d o n o t k n o w t o what occasion it may have
referred. Middendorp has analyzed the t w o terms for assembly
in Sirach (gahal, 'edah) and c o n c l u d e d that b o t h are used t o
refer t o public gatherings o f the people in Jerusalem for essen
tially political functions after t h e m a n n e r o f the Hellenistic
1
ekklesia. H e notes that B e n Sira's grandson may have dis
tinguished b e t w e e n the t w o , in that ekklesia is used t o translate
8
gahal, whereas synagoge is used t o translate 'edah. This would
prove helpful, however, only i f w e had o t h e r evidence for the

existence o f a synagogue-like institution in second-century
Palestine, and i f w e k n e w also that the t e r m synagoge (instead
o f proseuche) was c u r r e n t in t h e second century in Egypt as a
technical designation for s o m e e x t r a - t e m p l e J e w i s h institution
o f a religious nature, either in t h e Diaspora o r in Palestine.
Neither bit o f information is available t o us, however, which
means that B e n Sira's usage is probably in keeping with older
scriptural usage in w h i c h n o distinction is made b e t w e e n the
9
t w o t e r m s . B u t is Middendorp's conclusion about the essen
tially political nature o f these gatherings acceptable in the light
o f 4 4 : 1 5 and 3 9 : 1 0 ?
Reviewing t h e references t o these terms in Sirach as a
whole, o n e is struck by t h e degree t o which it is one's wisdom
1 0
that is said t o b e o f paramount importance in this c o n t e x t .
Middendorp understands the references t o wisdom t o refer t o
the rhetorical demands for wise and considered speech appro
priate t o a deliberative body. H e argues, n o t only for the p r a c
tice o f rhetoric appropriate t o t h e deliberation and jurispru
dence o f these assemblies, b u t also for the practice o f e n
comiastic speeches in analogy t o Hellenistic declamation. F o r
this period, Hellenistic influence o n t h e structure and political
function o f such an ekklesia is, o f course, probable. B u t it is n o t
at all clear, n o r probable, that J e w i s h practice would have
therefore c o n f o r m e d in every way with Hellenistic analogues.
T h e evidence from B e n Sira is that even a very open apprecia
tion o f Hellenistic models o f social governance, education, c u l
tural forms, and thought has n o t destroyed essentially J e w i s h
concerns for t h e o c r a c y , T o r a h , tradition, and wisdom.
W e may assume, surely, that the J e w i s h practice o f rhetoric
in jurisprudence, for instance, would have been determined by
the particular nature and requirements o f J e w i s h law. Since
the only evidence w e have for anything that can approximate
the Hellenistic e n c o m i u m for this period is B e n Sira's hymn
itself, e x t r e m e caution m u s t b e exercized in the question about
the practice o f declamation strictly o n the G r e e k model. T h e
hymn as w e have analyzed it does n o t correspond fully t o the
form o f the Hellenistic encomiastic speech, n o r does it share in
those cultural and anthropological assumptions that set t h e

stage for declamation. B u t t h e telling consideration h e r e is that
ultimately t h e congregation itself is said t o r e c o u n t t h e wisdom
o f the pious and declare their praise. It is also t h e congregation
that declares t h e praise o f t h e sage himself ( 3 9 : 1 0 ) . It is this
corporate dimension t o t h e a c t that is n o t illuminated suffi-
ciendy by Middendorp's thesis and that therefore calls for an
o t h e r consideration.
T H E A S S E M B L Y AS T H E P L A C E O F P R A I S E
T h e r e are t h r e e aspects o f this occasion that m u s t be a c

c o u n t e d for and c o m b i n e d in any compelling thesis. T h e first
has t o do with t h e nature o f t h e assembly itself; t h e second
with t h e linguistic-literary form in w h i c h the pious are r e
called; the third with t h e nature o f t h e praise attributed t o
them. E a c h o f these aspects is difficult t o determine, especially
if taken up separately. B u t taken together, a plausible g r o u p o f
settings can actually b e imagined. O u r task is t o relate t h e
discussion about the assembly t o a consideration o f t h e nature
o f the m e m o r y and praise made possible by the hymn.
W e may begin with t h e observation that B e n Sira's h y m n is
composed entirely o f biblical material. T h e assumption might
be, therefore, that t h e primary occasion for r e m e m b e r i n g these
historical figures would have o c c u r r e d in the reading o f t h e
scriptures at certain times o f assemblage. It is unfortunate that
we k n o w even less about t h e place and e x t e n t o f scriptural
readings among the J e w s o f Palestine during this period than w e
do about t h e forms o f religious assemblage themselves. T h e
evidence from Nehemiah 8 and 9 has been taken t o indicate that
T o r a h was read publicly during this period, at least on t h e days
11
o f high festival and p i l g r i m a g e . B e n Sira does n o t m e n t i o n
such an occasion. B u t it is clear from t h e evidence in Sirach itself
that T o r a h was k n o w n , studied, and interpreted at this t i m e as a
basis for J e w i s h e t h i c , jurisprudence, and i f Middendorp is
correct, for constitutional law respecting S e c o n d T e m p l e in
12
stitutions. Certainly t h e biblical stories w e r e k n o w n as well,
recalled and retold in s o m e way by t h e people. It is probable
also, that T o r a h was read as epic c r e d o in s o m e form o n certain

religious occasions (cf. t h e h o m i l e t i c summary in Nehemiah 9 )
o r even within t h e course o f instruction in s o m e school setting.
If so, the m e n t i o n o f these figures would have o c c u r r e d in t h e
normal course o f t h e reading, and it would b e t o that occasion
that B e n Sira refers. H e would n o t b e saying, necessarily, that it
was the practice o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o n such occasions t o eulogize
the heroes formally. N e i t h e r would his s t a t e m e n t have t o m e a n
that the scriptural a c c o u n t s in w h i c h these m e n figured w e r e
understood by t h e c o m m u n i t y as eulogistic in intention. H e
would b e saying that it was o n these occasions that t h e m e m o r y
o f these m e n was kept alive in t h e " c o n g r e g a t i o n " and that o n e
might view t h e congregation's activity o n these occasions as
"recounting their wisdom and declaring their praise." This
would mean, o f course, that B e n Sira's statement would be
taken, n o t as literally descriptive, but as an interpretive asser
tion. Is this plausible?
It has been argued that t h e didactic intention o f the h y m n
determines its appropriateness as a meditation and preparation
for worship. B y focusing n o w u p o n its midrashic character, w e
can see that o n e aspect o f its didactic capacity has t o do with
an interpretive rereading o f t h e scriptures from a certain point
o f view. Insofar as m e m b e r s o f t h e people-as-congregation
shared this interpretive reading with B e n Sira, a possibility
given with t h e reading o f t h e h y m n itself, B e n Sira's statement
about " r e c o u n t i n g their wisdom and declaring their praise"
would b e apt. It would b e an assertion o f t h e influence o f the
hymn o n those o t h e r occasions in w h i c h T o r a h was recited o r
recalled. It would n o t have t o refer t o the use o f the h y m n
itself as a c o m p o n e n t o f religious service, n o r o f any specific
practice o f T o r a h reading as intentional eulogy. It would indi
cate rather t h e effect c r e a t e d by t h e correlation o f the T o r a h
and the h y m n in t h e m i n d o f t h e reader o n any occasion o f
recitation o r recall.
B u t i f this is so, t h e a c t o f praise t o w h i c h B e n Sira refers
also m u s t be understood essentially as a response t o such a
recitation, a response that therefore c o m b i n e s b o t h reflective
and liturgical m o m e n t s . It m u s t also c o m b i n e appropriate c o n -
siderations o f b o t h the h u m a n and the divine aspects o f the

hymnic history. In b o t h its H e b r e w and G r e e k connotations,
" p r a i s e " is capable o f expressing j u s t such a combination o f
m o m e n t s . In the G r e e k (epainon, epainein), the notion is essen
tially a designation o f eulogistic speech with reference t o
worthy figures. In the H e b r e w (fhillah, hillel), the appropriate
object is G o d and the divine manifestations. It is the H e b r e w
connotation, o f course, that alerts o n e t o the need for thought
ful consideration, lest o n e b e t e m p t e d t o take t h e t e r m in
strictly Hellenistic connotation. As liturgical response to
hymns and the reading o f the scripture, however, praise may
merge in the H e b r e w with t h e n o t i o n o f blessing (barak). Bless
ing does o c c u r in this sense in Sirach b o t h at the e n d o f the
creation hymn in c h a p t e r 3 9 ( 3 9 : 3 5 ) and at the end o f the
hymn in praise o f the fathers ( 5 0 : 2 2 ) . This blessing ( 5 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) ,
which begins with reference t o G o d but continues as prayer
for the continuity o f Phineas's covenant with Simon, follows
immediately upon those verses in w h i c h the priestly blessing
and pardon are described. H e r e the themes o f the promise o f
God's blessing t o Abraham and the priestly functions o f bless
ing and a t o n e m e n t w e r e found t o be conjoined in the climactic
scene as Simon "glorified himself with the name o f the L o r d "
(50:20).
It may n o w be suggested that the daring shift in perspective
in B e n Sira's composition, w h e r e b y the human figures o f Isra
el's history can b e glorified and praised, probably t o o k place in
the c o n t e x t o f priestly reflection about the c o n t e m p o r a r y cult.
In this c o n t e x t , a correlation o f t h e notions o f glory, blessing,
and praise was possible that, understood as a cultic m o m e n t o f
divine manifestation, priestly office, and congregational r e
sponse, could mediate b e t w e e n ascription t o the divine and
description o f the h u m a n exactly as w e have found it t o o c c u r
in the hymn. T h e h y m n i c descriptions o f Israel's leaders as
glorious would have been possible, according t o the view, as
projections upon t h e m o f the glories o f the high priest himself
in his performance o f high liturgical functions.
It should be noted, though, that in the final scene, t h e p e o
ple do n o t actually praise Simon. It is B e n Sira w h o praises him
in his description o f t h e scene. T h i s description does suggest

that the people are in the p r e s e n c e o f Simon's glory, and t h e
reader m a y c o n c l u d e that t h e people recognize it. B u t it is
important t o see that this conclusion o c c u r s at the level o f the
reading o f t h e hymn. T h u s B e n Sira's praise, b o t h o f Simon and
o f all the leaders, is accomplished precisely in t h e composition
o f the h y m n ( 4 5 : 5 ) . W h e n h e asserts in the proem, then, that
the congregation declares their praise ( 4 4 : 1 5 ) , it must be praise
13
in keeping with t h e function o f t h e h y m n i t s e l f . T h e r e is, in
fact, a s t a t e m e n t m a d e within t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e hymn itself, at
the end o f t h e p r o e m , that is intended t o attest t h e leaders'
glory by asserting that it is recognized by the congregation. B u t
the actual occasion o f t h e reading o f t h e h y m n takes place, n o t
during congregational worship itself, but in a displaced setting
o f instruction and meditation.
I f the praise o f w h i c h B e n Sira speaks is j u s t that praise
enabled by his hymn, it m u s t contain t h e m o m e n t o f reflection
and assent that t h e hymn's interpretive and didactic functions
entail. It is this m o m e n t that allows the t e r m t o be used at all
in reference t o Israel's leaders and that gives the t e r m its c a
pacity t o evoke Hellenistic thought and practice. B u t it does
not cease for this reason t o b e a fundamentally religious a c t
that is d e t e r m i n e d by its pre-displacement setting in " t h e c o n
gregation," a religious c o m m u n i t y constituted liturgically. T h e
reflective m o m e n t is what happens t o t h e heroes w h e n their
m e m o r i e s are recalled by t h e c o m p o s e r and readers o f this
hymn as m e m b e r s o f that congregation. I f t h e m o m e n t o f c o m
position and meditation takes place in s o m e setting o t h e r than
that o f a temple l i t u r g y — i n , say, s o m e scholarly and instruc
tional s e t t i n g — i t does n o t m e a n that t h e idea o f the congrega
tion is n o longer applicable. T h e meditation itself is upon the
structure o f t h e religious c o m m u n i t y and its history. T h e a c t o f
praise is attributed t o t h e c o m m u n i t y precisely because the
meditation c a n n o t take place outside it. T h i s means, finally,
that the c o m m u n i t y effectively mediates t h e significance and
glory o f t h e leaders t o t h e individual. T h i s is fully in keeping
with o u r analysis o f t h e pattern o f characterization and s t r u c
ture o f t h e hymn. T h e heroes are depicted only in relation t o
the c o m m u n i t y and its history. T h e individual is n o t placed in

direct relation t o these great m e n but stands at a distance from
them as a m e m b e r o f t h e congregation. T h e act o f praise is
possible only o n t h e basis o f incorporation within t h e c o m m u
nity, and t h e effectiveness o f t h e glorious ones is realized in t h e
act o f praise, w h i c h acknowledges thereby t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s
o w n t h e o c r a t i c foundation and existence.
PRAISE AND POLITICAL H I S T O R Y
W e have e n c o u n t e r e d a rather c o m p l e x rhetoric in o u r at

tempt t o understand t h e function o f B e n Sira's hymn. T o
praise Israel's leaders as t h e h y m n suggests, o n e m u s t read t h e
hymn, o f course. B u t for that reading t o w o r k its way, at least
t w o o t h e r occasions m u s t b e in t h e picture. O n e is a public
occasion for t h e reading o f t h e scriptures themselves. T h e
o t h e r is t h e public occasion o f high-priestly performance. T o
distinguish these t h r e e m o m e n t s in t h e act o f praise called for
by the hymn is t o n o t i c e its essentially reflective nature. It is
also t o n o t i c e the t e x t ' s dependency upon o t h e r systems o f
signification, as well as its manipulation o f them. T h e purpose
o f this recasting o f these prior " t e x t s " is t o c o m b i n e t h e m in
another, m o r e comprehensive system o f signs, that is, t h e
hymn's o w n system o f signs. T h u s T e m p l e and T o r a h have
been integrated in a single version o f Israel's history by t h e
text's careful selection o f details from each system. T h e a c t o f
praise called for by t h e n e w vision requires s o m e perception on
the part o f t h e reader o f this accomplishment.
B u t is it possible that yet m o r e must be in view? I f o u r
reading o f t h e h y m n is right, m o r e than Israel's epic histo
riography has been appropriated and m o r e than t h e high holy
Day o f A t o n e m e n t has been reflected upon. I f t h e hymn is a
mythic c h a r t e r for S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism, the function o f its
invitation t o praise m a y b e m o r e c o m p l e x than w e have imag
ined. W e m u s t therefore assess its significance in relation t o
the larger c o n t e x t o f social and political history in the Palestine
o f B e n Sira's time.
Middendorp has e x p l o r e d B e n Sira's relationship t o t h e p o
litical structures and events in J e r u s a l e m during his t i m e and
concluded that h e stood with those w h o favored the position

o f Simon II over those w h o sought o t h e r configurations o f
1 4
power. Simon's position, briefly, was t o a c c o m m o d a t e the
foreign powers ruling J e r u s a l e m as long as J e w i s h institutions
such as the gerousia, courts, and temple could continue t o
function on t h e basis o f M o s a i c law. H e was therefore able t o
support Antiochus III as p o w e r shifted from the Ptolemies t o
the Seleucids. O t h e r s , however, represented by the Tobiads, at
first t o o k the side o f the Ptolemies, with whose g o v e r n m e n t
they had strong relations, then sought t o take advantage o f the
Seleucids' desire t o Hellenize t h e political structures o f J e r u s a
lem in order t o e n h a n c e their o w n positions o f p o w e r within
the international political and e c o n o m i c order. T h e i r political
p o w e r in J e r u s a l e m is indicated by the fact that Onias III,
successor t o Simon II, t o o k their position, thus setting the
stage for the massive religious and political conflicts that c e n
tered on the temple and the office o f the high priesthood.
Middendorp has argued convincingly that B e n Sira favored
Simon's position. H e was partial neither t o the Ptolemies n o r
t o the Seleucids. O f course, h e was n o t threatened by their
rule as it had been e x p e r i e n c e d up until the time o f Simon II.
T h r e a t would o c c u r only in s o m e m o v e t o integrate the r e
ligious and political powers o f the city on the basis o f a
Hellenistic nomos. As for openness t o Hellenistic thought and
culture in general, B e n Sira's b o o k reveals the marks o f an
erudite cosmopolitan, confident in his ability t o a c c e p t and
understand his world in a way that supported his deep r e -
15
ious p i e t y .
This position, dependent as it was upon the relative autono
m y o f the temple institution as it was privileged t o exist at the
turn o f the second century, could n o t have been maintained in
the immediately subsequent decades. This being the case, the
hymn must n o w appear as a preposterous claim made in the
face o f all odds o f impinging historical vicissitude. I f he c o m
posed the hymn after Simon's death, as the descriptions in Sir.
5 0 : 2 - 3 would lead o n e t o believe, h e cannot have been un
aware that the institution o f t h e high priesthood was in dan
ger. W h a t then are w e t o m a k e o f such a composition?
T h e thought that t h e r e m a y have been an e l e m e n t o f apolo

gy, i f n o t political program, in t h e writing is difficult t o sup
press. Middendorp has n o t found any evidence o f a political
program as such in Sirach. B u t h e has n o t e d t h e curious lack o f
expressly t h e o c r a t i c formulations in t h e b o o k and has c o n
cluded that B e n Sira was being e x t r e m e l y cautious in this r e
1 6
gard. Kings are m e n t i o n e d throughout, o f course, as befits a
wisdom b o o k , and it does appear that for B e n Sira, a king is a
king w h e t h e r in Israel's history o r among t h e nations o r as
foreign sovereign in c o n t e m p o r a r y Palestine. T h e c o n c e p t is
accepted, and t h e fact o f royal p o w e r acknowledged. B u t it is
not justified o r glorified in any way, e x c e p t in t h e c o n t e x t o f
the specific function assigned t h e king in t h e h y m n i c history.
T h e wisdom sayings about kings in general, as well as about
taking positions in t h e service o f t h e king, express a deep res
ervation about t h e influence royal p o w e r has b o t h upon the
1 7
society as a whole and upon its individual m e m b e r s . T h e rule
1 8
is a c c e p t e d — " a s is t h e king, so are t h e p e o p l e " — b u t this is
hardly a basis for hope, though it may allow for t h e inclusion
o f traditional wisdom, w h i c h takes t h e form o f advice t o t h e
king.
It m u s t therefore appear all t h e m o r e significant that B e n
Sira assigned t h e only royal function w o r t h y o f glory, t h e e s
tablishment and defense o f t h e c i t y - t e m p l e , t o t h e high priest
Simon. I f this analysis o f t h e intention o f the h y m n is c o r r e c t ,
the t h e o c r a t i c ideal for t h e covenant c o m m u n i t y is fully c o n
stituted in this office and t h e r e is n o longer any n e e d for an
o t h e r kind o f king as well. T h i s appears t o b e cheating a bit o n
B e n Sira's part, in that t h e function o f t h e kings w h o w e r e
actually ruling Palestine is missing from his picture. O n e would
e x p e c t that u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , this problem o f t h e bi
furcation o f p o w e r would have t o b e addressed and reflected in
the hymnic depictions. B u t t h e r e is n o indication in t h e hymn
either that t h e high priest's p o w e r was, say, destined t o expand
until o n e day kings in Palestine would be n o m o r e o r that the
high priest's sphere o f authority was recognized t o b e limited
t o a religious o r d e r separate from t h e king's. It is this, then,
that creates t h e h y m n ' s anomaly.
Insofar as it glorifies t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e institutions r e p r e

sented by Simon, it could b e taken as a political program, o f
course, but only within t h e c o n t e x t o f an internal J e w i s h de
bate about t h e nature o f t h e high priesthood, and then only by
making its point negatively, that is, by glorifying Simon's spe
cifically religious significance w i t h o u t addressing t h e question
o f h o w far his authority m i g h t b e imagined t o e x t e n d o u t into
the e c o n o m i c and political structures o f t h e community. T h i s
hardly would have b e e n sufficient as political manifesto, even
though as a d o c u m e n t w r i t t e n from an implicidy political
point o f view, its m y t h i c claims would have registered an
amazing degree o f seriousness and c o m m i t m e n t in its support.
So the h y m n appears t o b e something m o r e , something else.
It is in t h e office o f t h e high priest that all is at stake. T h e lack
o f polemical overtones in t h e h y m n and the celebration and
glorification that c l i m a x in t h e final s c e n e speak, then, for a
piety that, even though t h e t r o u b l e s o m e problem o f kingship
and kingdom was recognized as real, preferred t o see in t h e
religious o r d e r a sufficient arena for c o v e n a n t - c o m m u n i t y a c
tualization. T h i s means from o u r point o f view that t h e m y t h i c
claim was itself an idealization o f t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e institu
tions. T h e y w e r e being glorified, n o t o n t h e basis o f t h e actual
state o f affairs in Palestine, b u t in spite o f them.
This achievement bespeaks deep piety and profound learn
ing at t h e same time. It is t o b e understood as the w o r k o f o n e
w h o had his place within t h e institutional structures o f t h e
religious c o m m u n i t y as scholar and sage. T h e p o w e r o f its
implicit claim is based upon its audacious affirmation and its
intellectual achievement. A priest and scholar, schooled in t h e
traditions o f T o r a h and wisdom, would be the appropriate
office, a priestly school t h e appropriate c o n t e x t . It is perhaps,
after all, a wisdom c o m p o s i t i o n , b o r n o f t h e strange capacity
that J e w i s h wisdom teachers s e e m e d t o possess, t o affirm
God's wisdom and t h e reality o f his c r e a t e d order-for-good in
spite o f all evidences t o t h e contrary.
Writing: The
Glory of the
Scholar-Sage
4
I f o n e w e r e t o imagine B e n
Sira's view o f his w o r l d iconographically, the final scene from
the hymn would probably d o m i n a t e t h e foreground. N o t high
lighted in t h e picture, but acknowledged in o n e way o r an
o t h e r by disclosures and assumptions, m o s t o f the obvious
features o f J e w i s h social life would b e t h e r e in the background.
Estates and libraries, assemblies and courts, priests and s c h o l
ars, c o m m e r c e and c o n f l i c t s — a l l o f it is there, assumed, and
s o m e o f it is partially seen, bustling around the temple in t h e
c e n t e r o f o n e ' s vision. W h a t B e n Sira does n o t have in t h e
picture, however, is any clear depiction o f the larger
Hellenistic world within w h i c h S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism had t o
fight for its e x i s t e n c e . In t h e first sections o f t h e hymn, t h e r e
was a dark background against w h i c h t h e glorious figures and
m o m e n t s w e r e painted. B u t in t h e final scene, and in B e n Sira's
b o o k o f wisdom as a w h o l e , o n e has trouble catching sight o f
the kings and c o m m a n d e r s , interests and ideologies, conflicts
and intrigues that w e r e threatening t o destroy his social world.
This shifts o u r attention t o t h e o t h e r side o f the rhetorical
equation, away from t h e reader o f B e n Sira's p o e m and o n t o
the author himself. I f h e invested t h e interest in the c o m p o s i -
89
tion o f this h y m n that m a y be suspected from its rhetorical

potential, w h e n c e t h e literary and mythological resources t o
do so? W h e n c e the c o m m i t m e n t s and energies t o sustain its
view in spite o f the realities o f its c o n t e x t ? Can it be that t h e r e
is m o r e t o the h y m n than has b e e n discovered, something
about it that could support its obvious invitation t o celebrate
the glory it sings, even though o n e k n e w , surely, that t h e vest
ments and foundations o f t h e high priesthood represented by
Simon w e r e t h e subjects around w h i c h ruthless political forces
raged? In short, w h e r e is t h e m y t h i c vision anchored?
T h e suggestion has b e e n m a d e that B e n Sira's place was in a
temple school. T h i s accords with a consensus o f scholarship,
even though t h e r e is little evidence for such an institution at
1
the time e x c e p t for B e n Sira's o w n b o o k o f w i s d o m . It would
be helpful t o k n o w m o r e about this school, and about B e n
Sira's activity as a scholar-sage at w o r k within this c o n t e x t —
his haunts, his library, his desk and students, his place within
the social structures, and his authority as o n e w h o could dare
such a composition and h o p e for its hearing. I f o u r thesis about
the hymn's intentionality is c o r r e c t , interest in its a u t h o r is n o t
idle curiosity. I f it is possible t o see m o r e clearly the a u t h o r at
his work, o n e might b e able t o see m o r e deeply into t h e
hymn's promises and purposes. B u t it is n o t possible t o begin
with t h e hymn for this investigation because, as w e have al
ready noted, t h e role o f t h e teacher, though modeled at t h e
beginning o f t h e h y m n by M o s e s , drops from sight in its subse
quent study o f t h e social roles in Israel's illustrious history.
This means that B e n Sira's role as t e a c h e r is not in view in t h e
scene that sets t h e foreground for o u r picture o f his world. B u t
though the t e a c h e r is n o t in view, h e is within hearing as t h e
author w h o lets t h e reader stand beside him, looking on at that
grand scene. So author, hymn, and religious occasion are inti
mately conjoined. S o m e w h e r e outside t h e picture, t h e author
takes his stand. W e n e e d t o find that place and t o locate it in
relation b o t h t o t h e final s c e n e o f t h e hymn and t o the larger-
world within w h i c h that scene takes place.
T h e r e are t h r e e sets o f literary clues at o u r disposal for this
exploration. O n e set has t o do with general observations from
WRITING: T H E GLORY O F THE SCHOLAR-SAGE 91
B e n Sira's b o o k about his learning. A n o t h e r is given with a fine

p o e m about t h e scholar-sage in Sir. 3 9 : 1 - 1 1 . T h e third is t h e
relationship o f B e n Sira's picture o f the scholar-sage in Sir.
3 9 : 1 - 1 1 t o his depiction o f t h e hasidim in the p r o e m t o the
hymn.
T H E M A R K S O F B E N SIRA'S L E A R N I N G
B e n Sira's b o o k o f w i s d o m has long b e e n recognized as a

c o m p e n d i u m o f rich learning. T h i s study c a n n o t be the place
t o e n t e r into any detailed discussion o f its t h e m e s o r c o n t e n t ,
although aspects o f its teaching will b e taken up in t h e final
chapter. B u t o n e point can b e m a d e that will advance o u r
quest. An amazingly broad s c o p e o f literatures m u s t have been
read and mastered by t h e a u t h o r o f this b o o k . T h e s e literatures
include b o t h H e b r e w and Hellenistic t e x t s . B e n Sira's acquain
tance with T h e o g n i s , as well as with Stoic and Cynic c o m
2
monplaces has b e e n s h o w n . His knowledge o f Hellenistic
literary genres, including m a x i m collection, hymn, e n c o m i u m ,
3
biography, and history is in e v i d e n c e . H e reproduced and
reinterpreted a Hellenistic h y m n t o Isis, c o m b i n e d G r e e k m a x
ims creatively with H e b r e w proverbs, and found a way t o r e
4
late wisdom mythology with t h e H e b r e w s c r i p t u r e s . T h e r e is
less clarity a m o n g scholars about the b o o k ' s arrangement o f
materials. Middendorp, especially, has argued for its loose ar
rangement and its appearance in stages. B u t close reading d e
tects blocks o f material in t h e m e units, and t h e b o o k as a
5
whole m a y b e structured by a sound organizational p r i n c i p l e .
It is quite possible that it is arranged o n t h e model o f a hand
6
b o o k for teachers in t h e Hellenistic s c h o o l s .
B e n Sira's thorough knowledge and critical reading o f t h e
H e b r e w scriptures also c a n n o t b e doubted. T h i s reading e x
tends far b e y o n d t h e literature o f H e b r e w wisdom and t h e
T o r a h o f M o s e s , as t h e analysis o f t h e h y m n in c h a p t e r 5 will
show. N o t only are t h e later historical writings in his library,
but he uses language in t h e depiction o f t h e heroes that reflects
the Psalms and Prophets as well. And in every case o f allusion,
reminiscence, and appropriation o f t h e m e s , the author's c r e
ative hand is t o b e discerned.
T h e impression o n e receives from reading the b o o k without

consideration for t h e author's library, however, is that t h e
compositions are his own. H e does not cite precursors; n o r
does h e express his indebtedness t o o t h e r literatures in the
normal course o f writing. His w o r k is set forth as his o w n
wisdom, and it is m a r k e d by a mastery o f literary skills in the
creation o f a fine poetry. B u t w h e n o n e takes n o t e o f the
evidence for his extensive scholarship, his accomplishments as
an author begin t o take o n another, r a t h e r exciting, dimension.
H e n o w can be seen as a m a n o f letters upon whose desk a full
range o f t h e literatures o f t h e Hellenistic age w e r e w e l c o m e .
This openness t o Hellenistic culture expands t h e borders o f
B e n Sira's world beyond t h e picture he paints o f it. It shows
him t o have been a m u c h m o r e c o m p l e x person than w e may
have thought, and it suggests that t h e texts that m e e t in his
hymn o f praise may belong t o a cultural fabric m u c h m o r e
intricately woven than w e have yet discerned. W e m u s t n o w
trace o u t s o m e o f those textual appropriations in t h e c o m p o s i
tion o f t h e hymn. B u t first, w e n e e d t o see i f o u r suspicions are
correct. W e n e e d t o k n o w i f B e n Sira would agree, i f h e has
acknowledged anywhere t h e s c o p e o f his undertaking. H e may
have d o n e that in a fine p o e m about the scribe, t o w h i c h w e
n o w turn.
IN PRAISE O F T H E S C H O L A R - S A G E
In Sir. 3 9 : 1 - 1 1 , B e n Sira has given a description o f t h e

scribe at w o r k that contrasts him with those w h o ply t h e
trades. T h e t e x t is as follows, given h e r e in translation based
upon that o f B o x and Oesterley:
1 Not so he that applies himself to the fear o f God

And to set his mind upon the Law o f the Most High;
W h o searches out the wisdom o f all the ancients,
And is occupied with the prophets o f old;
2 W h o heeds the discourses o f men o f renown,
And enters into the deep things o f parables;
3 Searches out the hidden meaning o f proverbs,
And is conversant with the dark sayings o f parables;
W R I T I N G : T H E G L O R Y O F T H E SCHOLAR-SAGE 93
4 W h o serves among great men,

And appears before princes;
W h o travels through the lands o f the peoples,
Tests good and evil among men;
5 W h o is careful to seek unto his Maker,
And before the Most High entreats mercy;
W h o opens his mouth in prayer,
And makes supplication for his sins.
6 If it seem good to God Most High,
he shall be filled with the spirit o f understanding.
He himself pours forth wise saying in double measure,
And gives thanks unto the Lord in prayer.
7 He himself directs counsel and knowledge,
And sets his mind on their secrets.
8 He himself declares wise instruction,
And glories in the Law o f the Lord.
9 His understanding many do praise,
And never shall his name be blotted out:
His memory shall not cease,
And his name shall live from generation to generation.
10 His wisdom does the congregation tell forth,
And his praise the assembly publishes.
11 If he live long, he shall be accounted happy more than a
thousand;
And when he comes to an end, his name suffices.
As t h e description unfolds, t h e scholar and his activity are

introduced as taking place within t h e sphere o f piety. T h e
t h e m e o f t h e scholar's piety frames t h e whole by the m e n t i o n
o f his "fear o f G o d " at t h e beginning ( 3 9 : 1 ) and the h o n o r he
receives in t h e congregation at t h e end ( 3 9 : 9 - 1 0 ) . Imbedded
within t h e p o e m are additional notices about his prayer for
m e r c y ( 3 9 : 5 ) , t h e divine s o u r c e o f his inspiration ( 3 9 : 6 ) , and
his preoccupation with t h e law ( 3 9 : 1 , 8 ) . T h u s his piety is
shown t o be t h e s o u r c e o f his wisdom and t h e controlling
motivation that guides his activity as a scholar. This activity is
outlined in a s e q u e n c e o f t h r e e general m o v e m e n t s . T h e first is
his quest for understanding ( 3 9 : 1 - 5 ) ; t h e second is his r e c e p
tion o f t h e spirit o f understanding from G o d ( 3 9 : 6 ) ; t h e third is
his transformation into o n e w h o is able t o provide for others
the wisdom he has found ( 3 9 : 7 - 8 ) .
This three-part s c h e m a is easily recognized as the quest for

wisdom that ultimately c o m e s from G o d . In J e w i s h wisdom
literature, t h e s c h e m a is found dramatized in several ways.
W i s d o m may b e objectified, described as hidden and as the
object o f human quest, o r it m a y b e depicted as seeking o u t
7
those w h o will recognize and receive i t . I f t h e focus falls upon
the human figure, t h e quest itself may be dramatized o r the
schema may simply take the form o f exhortations e m b e d d e d
among o t h e r wisdom sayings and instructions " t o s e e k " after
8
w i s d o m . B u t t h e wisdom writings before Sirach are r e m a r k
ably cautious about depicting a s c e n e o f resolution t o the
quest. In those cases in w h i c h wisdom is said t o be achievable,
the m e r e assertion that it is so seems t o b e the point. H o w o n e
actually c o m e s t o find it, however, is conspicuously absent
from the earlier literature. T h a t in B e n Sira's hymn a resolu
tion t o the question is claimed by the scholar must b e regarded
as m o s t remarkable. H o w was it understood t o have been
achieved?
Research as the Quest for Wisdom
In the scholar's quest for wisdom, t h e objects and means o f

scholarly research are given. T h i s immediately shifts attention
from the s c h e m a o f the wisdom m y t h and focuses it upon
modes o f learning that are quite familiar. T h e scholar is p r e o c
cupied with the study o f literature o n the o n e hand and the
accumulation o f observations about the political and social
arena o n the other. T a k e n together, these activities define a
Hellenistic c o m m o n p l a c e o n the learned man and thus appear
too mundane as vehicles for the quest for divine wisdom. T h a t
the scholar's research is n o t understood t o b e misguided, h o w
ever, is evident. N o t only is t h e first t e x t cited the law o f t h e
M o s t High, the eventual result o f the research will b e n o n e
other than the scholar's o w n c o m i n g - t o - s p e e c h as the author
o f just such texts as h e has b e e n reading.
T h e r e are several observations that can be made about those
texts. First, there is a trace o f canonicity in the listing o f t h e m ,
noticeable initially in t h e priority given t o the law and by the
mention o f the wisdom o f the ancients and the prophets. This
has been taken t o refer t o an early classification o f J e w i s h

9
scriptures along t h e lines o f t h e later canonical v i e w . H o w e v
er, t h e list does n o t c o n c l u d e with these t h r e e corpora. It
continues with t h e discourses o f famous m e n , specific forms o f
wisdom composition, and t h e n moves easily into t h e category
o f e x p e r i e n c e w o n in t h e international scene. T h i s s c e n e is also
presented as a " t e x t , " that is, as an articulation o f " g o o d and
evil among m e n " that t h e scholar also m u s t learn t o " r e a d "
( " t e s t , " 3 9 : 4 d ) . T h u s t h e scholar's c a n o n is n o t conceived as
closed. T h e m o s t that o n e m i g h t say is that it is weighted at t h e
top and devolves through layers o f o t h e r t e x t s o f lesser signifi
cance. B u t this view t o o , though it might b e appropriate in
s o m e respect, fails t o see t h e significance o f the range o f t e x t s
as a whole. I f it ends with t h e h u m a n situation itself, t h e range
o f texts is ultimately being d e t e r m i n e d by a notion o f t h e a r t i c
ulations that disclose that situation. This means that t h e " t e x t "
o f the human situation has a fundamental place in t h e scholar's
canon. T h i s should c o m e as n o surprise t o scholars o f t h e
literatures o f wisdom. T h e n o t e w o r t h y p h e n o m e n o n is t h e
combination o f observation, wisdom t e x t s , and T o r a h that B e n
Sira's resources present.
O n e needs t o n o t i c e also that t h e m a n n e r o f designation o f
these texts is very general, n o t specific, with the e x c e p t i o n o f
the " L a w o f t h e M o s t H i g h , " t o w h i c h w e shall return. T h e
wisdom t e x t s , w h i c h scholars have taken t o refer t o J e w i s h
wisdom literature, are called " t h e wisdom o f all t h e a n c i e n t s " ;
the discourses are simply those " o f famous m e n " ; and t h e
prophets are those " o f o l d . " It would n o t b e unthinkable that
if indeed B e n Sira has intended these designations t o refer
primarily t o t h e J e w i s h corpora, h e has purposefully phrased
t h e m in such a way as t o allow association with Hellenistic
classifications o f literary activity and g e n r e as well (legislation,
philosophy, poetry, histories, collections o f aphoristic wis
d o m ) . Nevertheless, h e has n o w h e r e acknowledged any in
debtedness t o Hellenic authors.
T h a t these o b j e c t s o f t h e scholar's investigation are under
stood as authored t e x t s is also t o b e noted. T h e r e is specific
mention o f " t h e a n c i e n t s , " t h e prophets, and " m e n o f r e -
n o w n . " I f t h e subsequent m e n t i o n o f parables, proverbs, and

riddles is m a d e w i t h o u t indication o f authorship, it does n o t
mean that they are n o t perceived also as c o m p o s e d speech,
that is, as authored t e x t s available for investigation. T h e a n o
nymity o f Hellenistic gnomological collections was n o t taken
to m e a n that they w e r e n o t authored. T h e y w e r e , in fact,
understood t o have b e e n a u t h o r e d by ( t h e ancient) sages. T h i s
view o f texts as compositions, and its corollary that t h e scholar
reads t h e m b o t h as e x e g e t e o f o t h e r s ' w o r k and as o n e w h o
aspires t o take his place a m o n g o t h e r authors, introduces t h e
conditions for a n e w and specific p r o b l e m in t h e transmission
o f J e w i s h wisdom, indeed o f J e w i s h thought and literature as a
whole. W i t h t h e consciousness o f authorship, the stage is set
for the notion that culture is tradition, that questions o f au
thority m u s t be resolved in t e r m s o f literary accomplishments.
Only here, with t h e e m e r g e n c e o f t h e idea o f authorship, can
one speak properly o f a " w i s d o m tradition." Before B e n Sira,
as far as w e can tell, t h e r e was n o wisdom tradition in t h e
sense o f scholars' awareness o f precursors as authors and o f t h e
w o r k o f interpretation as t h e price for taking one's place in t h e
line as tradent and a u t h o r in o n e ' s o w n right. N o w , with au
thority recognized as authorship, tradition begins and struggle
begins. T e x t s b e c o m e t h e field o f exploration and conflict.
T h e y contain t h e wisdom that has b e e n found, but they belong
to others w h o s e t e x t s they are until o n e has appropriated
them. W h a t o n e seeks is their wisdom. B u t it m u s t be w r e s t e d
from t h e m as from those w h o have captured a treasure and
will n o t let it g o . A n o t h e r ' s wisdom is at first hidden from
those w h o read his t e x t s , seeking t o understand them.
T h u s these authored t e x t s are enigmatic, as is t h e human
scene as t e x t . T h e scholar's task is t o search t h e m out, e n t e r
into t h e m , converse with t h e m , and b e c o m e o c c u p i e d by
them. W h a t he seeks t o find in t h e m is meaning, wisdom. T h i s
meaning is hidden in their depths. As a critical reader, t h e
scholar will a t t e m p t t o analyze these t e x t s and discover t h e
wisdom that is beneath and beyond t h e m all. H e r e , then, is the
hermeneutical program as well as t h e principle o f t h e scholar's
canon. All o f these t e x t s are " w i s d o m t e x t s . " T h e y form a
canon o f disparate genres held t o g e t h e r by the scholar's c o m

m o n investment in them. H e will study t h e m t o win a single
vision. T h a t single vision, m o r e o v e r , will encompass the deep
structure o f things that orders all reality from G o d and his
world o f creation t o human g o o d and evil. I f he succeeds, h e
will have o v e r c o m e . N o longer is he e x e g e t e and scholar m e r e
ly, interpreting t h e t e x t s o f others. H e will m a k e those words,
those t e x t s , his o w n and find a voice for himself as an author.
T h e result o f this research, then, overlooking for the m o
m e n t the hiatus o f inspiration, will b e that the scholar himself
c o m e s t o speech. T h e forms in w h i c h this speech will b e c o m
posed are, m o r e o v e r , familiar t o us as forms o f wisdom speech:
wise sayings, advice, knowledge, and instruction. In verse 7,
the scholar is described "setting his m i n d on their s e c r e t s , "
which shows the degree t o w h i c h his o w n wisdom is still un
derstood t o b e related t o his reading o f t h e t e x t s o f others. T h e
question is w h e t h e r h e will b e c o m e a critic o f o t h e r s ' texts o r
an author in his o w n right. It appears that he will b e c o m e an
author. T h e secrets o f his precursors are n o w his own. H e will
" p o u r " t h e m " f o r t h " in speech. This speech b e c o m e s , as w e
shall see, a n o t h e r t e x t , his o w n composition.
The Spirit of Understanding

W e m a y return n o w t o t h e middle section o f the p o e m , in
which the scholar receives t h e "spirit o f understanding" from
God. At first reading, this section appears t o emphasize the
piety o f the scholar as it manifests itself in the midst o f the
scholarly endeavor itself. T h a t o f course is so. B u t the nature o f
this piety is m o s t unusual. I f w e c o m p a r e t h e marks o f the
scholar's piety here with that depicted in the hymn in praise o f
the fathers, w e can begin t o see its peculiar configuration. In
the hymn, aspects o f piety w e r e attributed t o the great leaders
in keeping with the functions o f their offices. In the p o e m
about t h e scholar, it also appears that those aspects o f piety
attributed t o him are cast in ways that will enhance his o w n
special role and status. T h a t h e "applies himself t o the fear o f
G o d " could b e taken as a c o m m o n p l a c e , o f course, until it is
n o t e d that this m o t i f does n o t o c c u r in the hymn. It is proba-
bly t o be understood as a formulation in keeping with his

special status as wisdom's child. F o r t h e reader o f wisdom
1 0
texts, t h e fear o f t h e L o r d is the "beginning o f w i s d o m . " The
scholar's prayer for m e r c y also contrasts with t h e prayers r e
corded in t h e hymn. T h e r e t h e call upon G o d was for aid in
the fulfillment o f high covenantal office for the people. It was
motivated especially by t h e n e e d t o perform grand and glori
ous deeds o f defence. H e r e t h e prayer is highly personalized,
not mediated by covenantal office. It takes place immediately
"before t h e M o s t H i g h " and is understood as a m o v e that m u s t
be m a d e in o r d e r t o c o m e t o speech.
T h e r e are t h r e e speech acts r e c o r d e d in verse 6 , and they
o c c u r in a specific and significant sequence. T h e first is t h e
prayer for m e r c y ; t h e s e c o n d is t h e speaking o f wisdom itself
( " i n double m e a s u r e " ) ; t h e third is t h e thanksgiving. This
means that the prayer for m e r c y and the prayer o f thanksgiv
ing frame t h e m o m e n t o f inspiration. W i s d o m speech is t h e r e
fore viewed as divinely inspired, as speech that is possible only
in the c o n t e x t o f prayer. B e c a u s e this is so, the scholar's prayer
is not merely t h e m a r k o f a general piety, but a personal claim
t o inspiration. T h e same is t r u e o f his preoccupation with
Torah. As a m a r k o f piety, orientation t o T o r a h is n o w h e r e t o
be found in t h e hymn. Naturally, t o " s e t one's m i n d u p o n "
T o r a h o r " t o glory in t h e L a w o f t h e L o r d " may b e taken as
customary ways o f designating piety in general. B u t spoken o f
this scholar, they m e a n something else. T h e y m e a n that t h e
T o r a h belongs t o t h e scholar as his special domain. T h e scholar
has invested T o r a h with canonicity, and thus his piety is p e c u
liarly that o f t h e sage.
In that h e is filled with t h e spirit o f understanding as a
benefaction from G o d , t h e scholar's piety is ultimately a special
form peculiarly suited t o his vocation. B y means o f it, h e can
lay claim t o immediacy o f vision, divine presence, and finally,
t o wisdom. T h i s resolves t h e quest in and among t h e many
enigmatic texts. Piety means that t h e scholar has prevailed and
n o w will take his place a m o n g t h e sages. Clearly t h e r e are
associations h e r e with older views o f inspiration by t h e spirit o f
Yahweh. O n e thinks immediately about the prophets and p r o -
11
phetic i n s p i r a t i o n . In the hymn, also, it was the prophet
whose vision was possible by t h e presence o f divine spirit. T h e
t e x t that the prophet read, however, was the human situation;
the logos that resulted had p o w e r t o create and t o destroy
12
kings and p e o p l e s . In the description o f the sage, vision is a
winning through t o the presence o f wisdom in and beyond the
texts, and t h e spirit is designated as the "spirit o f under
standing."
T h e c o n c e p t o f prophetic inspiration has been recast in t w o
ways. First, it has been evoked as a m o m e n t that o c c u r s in the
c o n t e x t o f prayer for m e r c y , thus verifying the scholar's piety
and making t h e claim for superior understanding. S e c o n d , this
m o m e n t itself has been cast as the bridge b e t w e e n research
and authorship. It has b e c o m e a claim t o having seen the divine
wisdom e n c o d e d in the scholar's t e x t s that h e himself may
n o w " p o u r f o r t h . " It would therefore n o t b e inappropriate t o
think here o f the Hellenic poet's m u s e o r o f the r o m a n t i c
13
sublime as phenomenological a n a l o g u e s . B u t because the
m o m e n t is so clearly that o f the scholar engaged with t e x t s ,
the appeal t o divine inspiration at this point implicitly trans
forms his relationship t o those texts. H e is, using the descrip
tion o f Harold B l o o m , the " l a t e r p o e t . . . w h o opens himself
t o what he believes t o b e a p o w e r in the parent p o e m that does
n o t belong t o the parent proper, but t o a range o f being j u s t
14
beyond that p r e c u r s o r . " T h i s p o w e r is manifest in t w o ways:
he n o w understands, and n o w h e can speak.
The Scholar as Author

T h a t the scholar is said t o c o m e t o speech should n o t b e
taken as evidence against his primary orientation t o texts. T o
c o m e t o speech is a r e c u r r e n t t h e m e in the b o o k as a whole. It
marks the highest achievement o f the scholar-sage and indi
cates the proper m e d i u m for his o w n effective function within
the c o m m u n i t y . Certainly it is true that as this function is
described, it is understood as a m o m e n t o f living speech in
which wisdom is disclosed. Y e t t h e r e is a curious failure in
Sirach as a w h o l e t o distinguish b e t w e e n written and oral
modes o f speaking. O n e n e e d only refer t o B e n Sira's introduc-
tion t o the hymn o f creation, w h i c h follows this a c c o u n t o f the

scholar's c o m i n g t o speech. H e promises himself t o m a k e his
instruction "shine f o r t h " ( 3 9 : 1 2 ) and asks the pious (his read
ers) t o " h e a r k e n " and lift up their voices with him ( 3 9 : 1 3 — 1 4 ) .
T h e n follows the "living s p e e c h " poured forth as a carefully
composed t e x t . At the end, he acknowledges that this is so:
" W h e n I considered it, I set it down in writing" ( 3 9 : 3 2 ) .
O n e way t o understand this would b e against the b a c k
ground o f the Hellenistic view o f t e x t s as scripts for reading
and hearing. B u t t h e r e appears t o b e m o r e involved than this.
In chapter 2 4 , wisdom is portrayed as coming t o speech and is
identified with the " B o o k o f t h e Covenant o f the M o s t High
God: the Law which M o s e s c o m m a n d e d " ( 2 4 : 2 3 ) . As t h e p o e m
continues, t h e b o o k itself is described as "filling m e n with
w i s d o m " ( 2 4 : 2 5 - 2 7 ) , and continuing the metaphor, the author
says, " I will w a t e r m y garden, . . . again pour forth teaching
as prophecy, and leave it for eternal g e n e r a t i o n s " ( 2 4 : 3 1 - 3 3 ) .
T h a t the " I " here is n o longer referring t o the personified fig
ure o f wisdom is made clear in t h e final lines: " L o o k and you
will see that I have n o t labored for myself only, but for all
those that diligently seek h e r " ( 2 4 : 3 4 ) . T h u s the scholar's
texts, b o t h those over w h i c h h e has labored and those he has
wrought, are wisdom t e x t s and thus inspired. As such, they are
described in terms o f living speech.
This notion is startling precisely because one o f the scholar's
books, the T o r a h , is actually attributed t o the " M o s t H i g h . "
W h a t this means for B e n Sira is n o t at all clear. H e n o w h e r e
says expressly that h e understands the T o r a h t o have been
written by G o d . B u t neither does he say, as Philo will later,
that the five books w e r e written by Moses. In the hymn, B e n
Sira says that G o d "placed in [ M o s e s ' ] hand the c o m m a n d m e n t
(miswah), even the law (torah) o f life and discernment; that he
might teach His statutes u n t o J a c o b " ( 4 5 : 5 ) . This is midrash
upon the story o f the tablets, t o be sure, and thus should n o t
be used naively t o elucidate B e n Sira's view on the larger c o r
pus. B u t the designation "law o f life" (torat hayyim) does ap
pear to broaden the reference t o allow for the inclusion o f
m o r e than t h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s . In Sir. 2 4 : 2 3 , the " L a w
which M o s e s c o m m a n d e d " is called " t h e B o o k o f t h e C o v e

nant o f t h e M o s t High G o d . " In Sirach, neither t h e t e r m T o r a h
n o r " t h e B o o k o f t h e C o v e n a n t , " can b e taken definitely as a
1 5
specific reference t o t h e five books o f Moses as c a n o n . But
o n e c a n n o t avoid t h e suspicion that s o m e close association is
being m a d e h e r e b e t w e e n t h e T o r a h o f G o d given t o M o s e s
and t h e b o o k s o f M o s e s that r e c o r d t h e epic B e n Sira has in his
hands and that t h e wisdom song interprets. I f the scholar
claims, therefore, t o read these b o o k s w i t h understanding, and
then c o m e s t o speech himself, the status o f that speech, his
o w n t e x t s , is given. H e is m o r e than a scribal interpreter. H e is
o n e w h o s e wisdom, as B e n Sira says, "increases w i s d o m "
( 3 8 : 2 4 ) . W e shall want t o ask later o n what this might m e a n
for the status o f his h y m n i c history as m y t h in relation t o t h e
T o r a h itself.
B E N SIRA AS T H E S C H O L A R - S A G E
T h e picture B e n Sira has given o f t h e scholar may be viewed

as the portrayal o f an ideal type. T h e larger literary c o n t e x t
( 3 8 : 2 4 - 3 9 : 3 5 ) shows that t h e scholar's w o r k is a profession
that may b e c o n t r a s t e d with t h e trades. T h e description itself
focuses upon j u s t those m a t t e r s essential t o distinguish the
profession and achieves a well-balanced profile o f the activity
by which t h e c o m m u n i t y can recognize t h e superiority o f a
given scholar within its midst. T h a t activity is defined as m a s
tery o f literary traditions and t h e composition o f wisdom writ
ings. W e may call this scholar a sage.
If w e b r a c k e t n o w those aspects o f the sage's piety that
reflect distinctly J e w i s h c o n c e r n s , w e can see that the depic
tion o f t h e scholar-sage includes m a n y features that invite
comparison with Hellenistic analogues. T h e picture itself is
B e n Sira's o w n c o n s t r u c t i o n , o f course, combining c h a r a c
teristics o f a n u m b e r o f Hellenistic types engaged in the trans
mission o f philosophical, literary, and educational traditions.
T h e resulting configuration m a y therefore be an idealization o f
a scholarly function with J e w i s h provenance in mind. It might
assume quite particular views o f canonicity, authorship, and
ethics and wisdom instruction. B u t indebtedness t o Hellenistic
modes o f learning is nevertheless t h e m o s t probable explana

tion b o t h for the idea o f such an ideal type and for the
e m e r g e n c e o f such a self-consciousness about social role within
the educational institutions o f Judaism.
T h e indebtedness t o Hellenism is indicated primarily in t h e
express combination o f scholarship, authorship, and t h e offer
ing o f i n s t r u c t i o n — a l l aspects highly prized in t h e Hellenistic
culture o f literature and paideia. T h e listing o f t h e scholar's
canon is an additional nuance o f Hellenistic consciousness
1 6
about literary c o r p o r a . T h e n o t i c e about "testing t h e g o o d
and evil among m e n " recalls a m o t i f particularly associated
17
with Cynic p r a c t i c e .
It is, however, in t h e m e n t i o n o f rewards for the scholar's
labors that the telling evidence for Hellenistic influence is
given. T h i s is t h e h o n o r t h e c o m m u n i t y is said t o give t o the
scholar-sage. Glory, fame, and memorial are deeply r o o t e d in
the Hellenic tradition as the goals o f heroic endeavor and the
reward for t h e achievement o f excellence. As the arena appro
priate t o t h e achievement o f e x c e l l e n c e shifted from battlefield
to the games, and on t o the polis and the gymnasium, t h e
literary forms appropriate t o the depiction and praise o f the
respective protaganists w e r e transformed as well. T h e moves
can be traced from epic poetry through the odes o f the lyric
poets t o the prose e n c o m i a o f historians and rhetoricians and
1 8
on t o t h e biographers o f t h e e m p i r e . T h e triad o f warrior,
king, and athlete as appropriate subjects for praise determined
the early formation o f t h e encomiastic tradition and continued
on through t o t h e lives o f kings and c o m m a n d e r s o f the R o
man era. B u t as the cultural ideals shifted first t o include, and
then t o prefer, those w h o figured as embodiments o f paideia,
philosophers, orators, and poets w e r e h o n o r e d with e n c o m i a
1 9
as w e l l . Praise and h o n o r w e r e involved always and, e s
pecially in t h e self-consciousness o f t h e lyric poets and t h e
composers o f prose e n c o m i a , under a double aspect. T h e first
aspect was t h e express purpose o f t h e composition t o achieve
h o n o r for t h e person praised o r sung. T h e second, r o o t e d in
the Hellenic penchant for c o m p e t i t i o n and t h e panegyric c o n
test as t h e occasion for such display, was the praise and h o n o r
sought by t h e author himself. It is this development that sug

gests a Hellenistic influence for B e n Sira's hymn o f praise for
the scholar-sage.
O n c e it is seen that this p o e m about t h e scholar-sage is
motivated by t h e e n c o m i a s t i c m o t i f in verses 9 - 1 1 , t h e goal
toward w h i c h t h e whole has m o v e d t o find its appropriate
climax, B e n Sira's b o o k itself m a y b e read again in a n e w light.
Especially noticeable n o w are, n o t only t h e sense o f authorial
performance in t h e exceptionally fine p o e t i c compositions
throughout, a performance m a r k e d consistently by great care
and t h e pride o f perfected a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , but also t h e fre
quency with w h i c h t h e motifs o f praise, glory, and fame are
used t o m a r k for his students that standard by w h i c h the
seeker after wisdom will b e k n o w n t o have arrived.
In t h e p o e m in praise o f t h e scholar, B e n Sira cannot, o f
course, m a k e reference t o himself. B u t as w e have seen, h e
moves immediately t o self-reference in t h e hymn in praise o f
creation and concludes with a n o t i c e that it is his o w n written
composition that h e has shared. T h r o u g h o u t the b o o k , his c o n
sciousness o f authority as scholar-sage is evident as well, e s
pecially in those cases w h e r e h e employs t h e first person for
heightened claims t o wisdom o r for the introduction o f h y m
20
nic m a t e r i a l . T h e apparent effacement o f self-reference in
the scholar p o e m should n o t b e taken, therefore, as an indica
tion that B e n Sira did n o t understand himself t o have aspired
t o , o r even achieved, the ideal. T h e fact that he created this
ideal type as an e n c o m i u m o f t h e scholar-sage may m a r k a
significant m o v e in t h e conscious conceptualization o f the
scholar's role in his time. T h i s role probably should be seen as
just coming into p r o m i n e n c e as a recognizable office within
the structure o f J e w i s h society. Its idealization is achieved, n o t
by archaizing, n o r by appeal t o ideational o r ontological invest
ments, but by reduction t o and c o n c e n t r a t e d focus upon those
aspects o f t h e scholar's m o m e n t that are seen t o be definitive.
T h a t m o m e n t is, o f course, significant in its claim t o divine
inspiration, and it is here, n o doubt, that B e n Sira's c o m f o r t
ableness with the psychology o f oriental wisdom comes
through. B u t t h e simple ease with w h i c h even this is depicted,
indeed t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h t h e w h o l e is blithely r e c o u n t e d ,
reveals t h e status o f this ideal as fully achievable. W e m a y take
it, then, as B e n Sira's self-portrait. H e was conscious o f being
21
an a u t h o r .
B E N SIRA A N D T H E H E R O E S
A striking feature o f t h e p o e m in praise o f t h e scholar m a y

n o w be noted. It is t h e degree t o w h i c h it corresponds t o t h e
proem o f t h e h y m n in praise o f t h e fathers. B o t h fall easily into
t w o m a j o r parts c o n n e c t e d by a transitional section, and b o t h
end with an a n n o u n c e m e n t o f m e m o r i a l in the assembly. In
part 1 o f t h e p r o e m , t h e types o f those t o be praised are listed
according t o their definitive virtues ( 4 4 : 3 - 6 ) ; in part 1 o f t h e
poem, t h e scholar is depicted according t o his definitive virtue
or occupation ( 3 9 : 1 - 4 ) . A transition is given in t h e p r o e m with
the n o t i c e that t h e r e w e r e others w h o received n o m e m o r i a l
( 4 4 : 7 - 9 ) ; in t h e p o e m , a transition is given with t h e n o t i c e that
the scholar prays and receives t h e spirit o f understanding
( 3 9 : 5 - 6 ) . It is this that constitutes t h e m a j o r difference b e
tween the sage and those w h o labor with their hands (cf.
3 9 : 2 4 , 3 1 - 3 4 ) . In part 2 o f t h e p r o e m , t h e lasting achievement
o f the pious leaders is given ( 4 4 : 1 1 — 14). In t h e p o e m , the
achievement o f t h e scholar-sage is a n n o u n c e d as t h e instruc
tion he can give ( 3 9 : 7 - 8 ) . B o t h passages end, then, o n t h e
t h e m e o f eternal r e n o w n , and t h e concluding distich for b o t h
is the same: " T h e assembly r e c o u n t s his [ t h e i r ] wisdom; the
congregation declares his [ t h e i r ] p r a i s e " ( 3 9 : 1 0 ; 4 4 : 1 5 ) .
This literary c o r r e s p o n d e n c e is all t h e m o r e suggestive w h e n
it is n o t e d that among those w o r t h y o f praise listed in the
proem, t h r e e o f t h e six are distinguished by their wisdom. W e
have had occasion earlier t o r e m a r k about this listing and t h e
fact that the promise t o w r i t e only in praise o f these leaders
did not seem t o be fulfilled in t h e h y m n itself. Such a discrep
ancy should not b e taken as an indication o f literary failure, o f
course. It is possible t o m a k e s o m e correlations b e t w e e n t h e
hasidim o f t h e p r o e m and the figures praised in the hymn. In
any case, t h e p r o e m is intended t o validate the notion that
there are m e n w o r t h y o f praise, n o t t o offer a p r o g r a m m a t i c
outline o f t h e typology t o b e followed in the hymn. Y e t t h e

listing is strangely disproportionate in its emphasis upon those
engaged in scholarly and literary activities. O f t h e t h r e e r e
maining types o f those w o r t h y o f praise, only t w o might fall
under t h e category "kings and c o m m a n d e r s " ( 4 4 : 3 a , 4 a ) . T h e
third, " m e n o f r e s o u r c e " ( 4 4 : 6 ) , appears t o have taken an e n
comiastic m o t i f and transformed it into a social role, a curious
construction. B u t it also could refer t o t h e scholar. T h e e n
comiastic m o t i f itself m u s t have been very closely associated
with t h e office o f t h e scribe-sage for B e n Sira. T h e r e f o r e it was
in reflection about t h e scholar's w o r k and social significance
that literary forms influenced by t h e Hellenistic e n c o m i u m
could b e employed.
B u t i f this is plausible, t h e social function o f t h e sage in
Jerusalem, indeed t h e status o f B e n Sira and his b o o k o f
wisdom themselves, m a y b e far m o r e significant for o u r u n d e r
standing o f t h e religious institutions o f t h e t i m e than his h y m n
has disclosed thus far. W e m a y r e t u r n n o w t o o u r thesis about
the hymn and its function as mythology o f t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e
institutions structured around t h e office o f t h e high priest. In
o u r analysis o f office and its significance for t h e narrative d e
velopment o f t h e hymn, w e n o t e d that among those m e n
tioned in t h e first series o f seven, M o s e s ' office appeared t o b e
the archetype that c o m b i n e d and unified aspects o f all those
offices later t o b e derived from it by processes o f differentia
tion and bifurcation. It m a y n o w b e recalled that in the subse
quent development o f those official f u n c t i o n s — f r a g m e n t e d in
the history o f t h e prophets and kings but resolved in t h e r e -
e m e r g e n c e o f t h e high priestly office o f S i m o n — o n e aspect o f
M o s e s ' office did n o t reappear. This was his role as teacher.
Given o u r thesis about t h e etiological and mythical function
o f the hymn, n o t only for t h e high priesthood, but for t h e
structure and constitution o f t h e t h e o c r a t i c c o m m u n i t y itself,
the failure t o include a m a j o r official function in t h e scene at
the end is troublesome. T h i s might b e a c c o u n t e d for in t w o
ways. O n e is that M o s e s and his office w e r e understood t o b e
only originary and foundational, n o t re-enactable in t h e a c t u
alized c o m m u n i t y . T h e o t h e r is that t h e transference o f t h e
responsibility t o t e a c h t h e statutes and j u d g m e n t s t o Aaron

( 4 5 : 1 7 ) was assumed t o c o n t i n u e in force as a priestly function
in the S e c o n d T e m p l e institutions and thus needed n o reitera
tion as long as t h e high priest was recognized as legitimate. B u t
it appears that elsewhere in B e n Sira's b o o k and earlier, t h e
reader will have already had ample opportunity t o ponder the
glories o f the scribe-sage, undoubtedly a priest, in regard t o his
place within t h e c o m m u n i t y .
This displacement m a y b e o f s o m e significance. In g e n r e ,
force, and implication for t h e social structure o f t h e religious
community, t h e p o e m in praise o f t h e scholar-sage belongs "in
the p i c t u r e " that it is t h e intent o f t h e h y m n t o depict. B u t t h e
poem does n o t o c c u r within t h e h y m n itself. Its place is o u t
side o f it in spite o f t h e fact that t h e Mosaic office is t h e
absolutely pivotal configuration for t h e originary pattern o f t h e
community, and that its o w n formation is based o n t h e m o
m e n t o f revelation and r e c e p t i o n o f t h e law as constitution for
the c o m m u n i t y . W h e n , therefore, in B e n Sira's description it is
his preoccupation with t h e law, r e c e p t i o n o f t h e spirit o f un
derstanding, and subsequent role as t e a c h e r within t h e c o m
munity that m a r k t h e scholar-sage for praise, o n e can hardly
avoid concluding that it is in t h e office o f Moses w h e r e t h e
priestly scholar-sage is t o stand.
This conclusion can be supported by a further considera
tion. W e saw that in t h e office o f t h e prophet a c o u n t e r p o i n t
t o the king was posited and that t h e marks o f t h e prophet
were essentially a capacity for vision and powerful speech. I f
now, in a form m o r e appropriate t o t h e cultic ideal, the s c h o l
ar-priest also is m a r k e d by vision and speech, the " p r o p h e t i c "
aspect o f t h e office o f M o s e s continues in force. T h e c o u n t e r
point has b e e n transformed, as it w e r e , by a double effacement
by the sage himself: ( 1 ) n o longer does h e stand in opposition
to the ruling office, for he h i m s e l f is a priest, and t h e high
priest is w o r t h y o f praise; and ( 2 ) h e n e e d n o t n a m e himself in
any case because i f he achieves his end, his n a m e will be r e
m e m b e r e d by the congregation.
Such effacement does n o t bespeak uncertainty about one's
role. T h e r e are clearly t w o offices o f constitutive significance
to be recognized by the c o m m u n i t y . B o t h are worthy o f praise

and memorial. T h e praise o f the o n e is dependent upon the
praise o f the other. F o r those w h o are ranked among B e n Sira's
students and readers, the glory o f the high priest cannot be
seen save through the sage's eyes and words. T h e didactic and
meditative aspects o f the hymn, which create that sense o f
distance from actual participation in t h e rite and allow it t o b e
seen through its p o e t i c depiction, n o w gain their full import.
T h e reader sees the scene, n o t as it is in its literality, but as the
poet-sage says that it is. H e t o o is n o t in the picture but stands
with the reader looking on, seeing t h e r e what he has seen by
virtue o f his studies in texts and his wisdom and words. Simon
is glorious only insofar as the wisdom and the words o f the
sage m a k e him so, j u s t as the scholar's texts are enigmatic until
the spirit o f understanding lets him produce another. B e n Sira
has discovered the p o w e r o f a poetic t e x t and the glory o f
authorship. His rather objective m a n n e r o f describing the
scholar's vocation should n o t mislead us. Acknowledgment o f
the significance o f the sage's profound authority and its social
implications are fully revealed in the displaced e n c o m i u m on
the ideal scholar and the resulting double effacement o f B e n
Sira's o w n authority as author within the community. T h e
office o f the priestly scribe c a n n o t be considered t o have
emerged only in B e n Sira's t i m e , o f course. B u t its transforma
tion via Hellenism into t h e office o f t h e teacher-sage, whose
authority rests ultimately on his scholarship, wisdom, and his
way with words, m a y b e a novum indeed.
Hermeneutic:
Text and
Cultural
Part 3
Contexts
The Hymn as
Jewish and
Hellenistic
5
Text
W e return n o w t o the h y m n
as a literary composition. Its obvious dependence upon t h e
J e w i s h scriptures has been noted, as well as its selectivity with
regard t o those figures and events helpful for its o w n purposes
and its interpretive distance from t h e scriptures upon which it
draws. It has been suggested that a study o f t h e t e x t ' s rela
tionship t o o t h e r t e x t s m i g h t tell us h o w this was achieved and
why. Something o f t h e w h y has been discovered by pursuing t h e
text's relation t o its social c o n t e x t . B u t t h e h o w is still t o be
explored. Perhaps a study o f t h e t e x t ' s relation t o its precursor
texts will help with this question.
In the description o f the scholar, features that could a c
c o u n t for a recasting o f a p r e c u r s o r literature w e r e noted. T h e
scholar's literary canon, though c e n t e r e d in the T o r a h , was
quite extensive, perhaps even including Hellenistic literatures
helpful for t h e task o f instruction in wisdom ethics, religious
values, and what m i g h t b e called their philosophical founda
tions. B e n Sira's knowledge o f certain Hellenistic literary tradi
tions has also b e e n m e n t i o n e d , and in t h e case o f the e n c o
mium, a g e n r e and its particular function has been identified as
a probable influence on his c o n c e p t i o n o f the scholar and his
111
112 HERMENEUTIC: T E X T AND C U L T U R A L C O N T E X T S
understanding o f his o w n work. W e must n o w focus upon the

composition o f the h y m n itself.
Specifically, those literatures read and studied by B e n Sira
need t o be identified, literatures that may have had direct
bearing upon the creation o f the hymn. W e shall begin with a
consideration o f the H e b r e w t e x t s , then m o v e t o a discussion
o f possible Hellenistic prototypes, and finally address the ques
tion o f the role o f wisdom t e x t s as well. T h e effort is directed
by the desire t o see m o r e clearly the particular lineaments o f
the hymn as a purposeful poetic composition, t o m a r k its in
debtedness t o precursor t e x t s , as well as t o determine its n e w
conceptualizations and creativity. T h a t creativity can be d e
fined as a m o m e n t o f its intertextuality.
PRECURSORS IN THE JEWISH TRADITION
T h e evidence from B e n Sira's b o o k as a whole is that, in

addition t o his preoccupation with the b o o k o f Proverbs, he
had read m o s t o f the H e b r e w corpus k n o w n t o us t o have been
extant. F o r the hymn, however, direct dependency is limited
almost entirely t o the P e n t a t e u c h and the historiographic liter
ature. It is possible, therefore, t o limit the study at this point t o
a consideration o f j u s t these texts.
The Pentateuch
T h e place t o begin is with B e n Sira's reading o f t h e P e n

tateuch. W e have n o t e d the p r o b l e m o f reference with respect
to his use o f the terms " T o r a h " and " B o o k o f the C o v e n a n t "
and the literature he intended t o designate by them. B u t this
uncertainty need n o t k e e p us from pursuing our investigation.
It is clear that B e n Sira did have what w e understand as the
Pentateuch before him as t e x t o r t e x t s among o t h e r texts. This
is d o c u m e n t e d in his use o f all five books in the composition o f
the hymn (as well as elsewhere in his b o o k ) . W h e t h e r he un
derstood these five b o o k as a unit and w h e t h e r it was that unit
that was intended by the designation " T o r a h , " are matters that
may o r may n o t be clarified t o our satisfaction. W e shall posit
such a unit in order t o investigate it as a possibility. In asking
about it, s o m e clarifications may emerge.
T H E H Y M N AS J E W I S H AND HELLENISTIC T E X T 113
T h e r e are references t o T o r a h as ethical c o d e in B e n Sira's

book. T h i s naturally raises t h e question o f a T o r a h piety in
Sirach, a piety that m a y have b e e n based upon a certain view o f
the books o f M o s e s . T h e D e u t e r o n o m i c redaction immediately
c o m e s t o mind. M a r b o c k , h o w e v e r , has found that those refer
ences t o T o r a h that could b e taken in t h e sense o f a D e u
t e r o n o m i c c o d e are few and that m o s t o f B e n Sira's ethical
1
instruction is put forth w i t h o u t appealing t o T o r a h at all. T h i s
suggests that B e n Sira found s o m e way t o correlate T o r a h ,
piety, and wisdom e t h i c o t h e r than o n t h e basis o f t h e P e n
tateuch as a b o o k o f ethical instruction. T h e r e is n o evidence
that he sensed any tension b e t w e e n what h e understood by
T o r a h as wisdom e t h i c and what h e understood by proverbial
and philosophical wisdom as ethical instruction. Because t h e r e
is n o evidence for a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c rationale for the P e n
tateuch as wisdom e t h i c , i f B e n Sira understood it as a founda
tional d o c u m e n t at all, h e m u s t have done so in s o m e o t h e r
way.
This might have been as constitution and c o d e for the S e c
ond T e m p l e institution, w h i c h also would have m e a n t a read
ing from a particular point o f view, in this case with cultic and
constitutional interests in mind. F o r this, t h e b o o k o f Leviticus
could have provided t h e m a j o r focus, supported o f course by
indications o f cultic c o n c e r n s throughout the Pentateuch as a
whole. T h e references t o t e m p l e , priesthood, t h e c o m m a n d
ments given t o Aaron ( 4 5 : 1 2 ) , and the importance o f cultic
piety throughout t h e b o o k indicate that t h e Pentateuch was
indeed understood essentially as cultic constitution. B u t even i f
this is so, it is important t o see that B e n Sira has not appealed
t o it expressly as such an authority n o r interpreted it primarily
with cultic legal codes in mind. F r o m Leviticus is taken only
( 1 ) certain aspects o f t h e description o f Aaron and his office for
use in t h e h y m n and ( 2 ) t h e c o m m a n d m e n t concerning love o f
one's neighbor as an instance o f wisdom e t h i c in the earlier
2
parts o f t h e b o o k . As m a n y have n o t i c e d , B e n Sira has also
taken several specifically cultic operations, including sacrifice
and a t o n e m e n t , and declared their efficacy t o be functional
within t h e practice o f a wisdom e t h i c alone (cf. 3 : 2 8 b ; 3 4 : 1 - 4 ;
4 0 : 2 4 b ) . T h e P e n t a t e u c h , then, was for B e n Sira m o r e than a

cultic c o d e .
A third possibility presents itself. It is a reading o f the P e n
tateuch, but especially o f Genesis and E x o d u s , as epic liter
ature. T h i s is suggested in t h e early accounts o f Adam ( 1 7 : 1 —
14; 1 5 : 1 4 - 2 0 ; cf. 4 0 : 1 - 1 7 ) , as well as in allusions t o t h e a c
c o u n t o f creation and o t h e r narratives o f Genesis and Exodus
3
throughout t h e b o o k . O n e has t h e impression that B e n Sira
was intensely interested in this material as an a c c o u n t o f pri
mordial events that d e t e r m i n e d and disclosed t h e basic c o n d i
tion o f human e x i s t e n c e . T h i s should n o t surprise us. T h a t is
what t h e P e n t a t e u c h essentially is. Given B e n Sira's knowledge
o f Hellenistic literature and learning, t h e probability is t h e r e
fore quite strong that h e recognized it as epic and regarded it
as significant mainly as an epic. B u t as is t h e case with t h e
study o f H o m e r i c epic in t h e Hellenistic schools, and especially
4
among the S t o i c s , B e n Sira's reading o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h is
marked less by an interest in t h e narrative and historical-
etiological features o f t h e epic than by a quest t o discover
therein traces and reflections o f certain c o n t e m p o r a r y philo
sophical and ethical c o n c e p t s . T h u s he merely assumed t h e
epic nature o f t h e T o r a h . H e n o w h e r e indicates that it was o r
should be read j u s t as narrative. Instead, it was t o be studied,
and t h e c o n c e r n s that w e r e t o guide t h e study are manifest.
T h e y have t o d o with ethical anthropology and the degree t o
which a wisdom view o f t h e w o r l d and o f the human situation
may be d e t e c t e d in t h e epic a c c o u n t o f the beginnings o f
things. T h u s t h e foci o f interest, w e r e o n e t o m a r k t h e places
in the P e n t a t e u c h taken up in Sirach for c o m m e n t , are those
human figures, beginning with Adam, in whose events the
human drama o f wisdom and ethics may b e discerned.
This at least is clearly t h e c o n c e r n in B e n Sira's reflections
upon Adam. In Sir. 1 7 : 1 - 1 4 , t h e divine bestowals upon t h e
human creature are listed and c o m e t o c l i m a x in t h e gift o f a
"heart t o understand" ( 1 7 : 6 b ) . T h i s gift corresponds t o t h e
bestowal o f wisdom upon all flesh "in m e a s u r e " in the opening
hymn o f t h e b o o k ( 1 : 1 0 a ) . It is this wisdom that allows the
recognition o f G o d ' s glory in c r e a t i o n ( 1 7 : 8 - 9 ) . T h e n , h o w e v

er, t h e gift o f t h e covenant, " t h e law o f life," is m e n t i o n e d
(17:11). It is g r o u n d e d in a n o t h e r m o m e n t o f revelation
( 1 7 : 1 2 — 1 3 ) , w h i c h corresponds in turn t o t h e gift o f wisdom
" w i t h o u t measure . . . t o t h e m that love H i m " in t h e opening
hymn ( 1 : 1 0 b ) . T h e ease with w h i c h t h e reflection upon Adam
is expanded t o include t h e covenant, a combination o f motifs
from Genesis and Exodus facilitated by a notion o f wisdom
that comprises b o t h knowledge and ethical capacities, shows
us that Adam is understood t o b e a symbol o f all humankind.
His typological significance is even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d in t h e
reflection in Sir. 1 5 : 1 4 - 2 0 . It m a y b e suspected t o have played
a role in anthropological-ethical formulations throughout t h e
book. In t h e h y m n in praise o f t h e hasidim, however, it is n o t
Adam but N o a h w h o stands at t h e beginning. Given o u r thesis
o f the epic nature o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h for B e n Sira and t h e fact
that h e had devoted considerable study t o t h e significance o f
Adam, h o w can w e explain t h e change?
B o t h t h e depictions o f Adam and the characterizations in
the h y m n s h o w that t h e epic figures have been cast as types.
This is normal for t h e study o f e p i c literature in t h e Hellenistic
period. B u t Adam is typed as t h e representative o f humankind,
while t h e hasidim are typed in t e r m s o f special roles, w h i c h w e
have called offices. T h i s distinction appears t o be important. I f
it w e r e pressed a bit further, in keeping with o u r thesis about
the function o f t h e offices for the structure o f the covenant
c o m m u n i t y , t h e relation o f Adam t o t h e hasidim would be that
o f all humankind t o t h e elect c o m m u n i t y . Noting that Noah is
a bridge figure, and that t h e covenant with him o c c u r r e d in
the "season o f d e s t r u c t i o n " as a sign that G o d would "not
destroy again all flesh" ( 4 4 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , w e can add the e l e m e n t
" h u m a n p r o b l e m a t i c / d i v i n e s o l u t i o n " t o t h e general distinc
tion b e t w e e n t h e t w o groups. It is true that B e n Sira has n o t
developed t h e narrative o f Adam's sin expressly, preferring t o
emphasize his h u m a n capacity for wisdom as a universal e n
d o w m e n t instead. B u t n e i t h e r has h e depicted Adam as a pri
mal figure o f ideal type (e.g., as a royal figure) in w h o m t h e
conditional aspects o f h u m a n e x i s t e n c e are o v e r c o m e . Adam

does stand for the positive capacity o f human beings for
wisdom and o b e d i e n c e ( G o d ' s yeser; 1 5 : 1 4 ) . B u t this does n o t
guarantee that wickedness will n o t emerge, as indeed B e n Sira
repeatedly acknowledges. Adam, in addition t o the gift o f c a
pacity for wisdom, is in n e e d o f t h e benefits the covenant (the
c o m m u n i t y ) can provide ( 1 7 : 1 1 - 1 4 ) . T h e hymn in praise o f
the hasidim is a reading o f t h e epic with this second benefit in
mind and thus c a n n o t begin with Adam.
In the hymn, only t h e first seven figures praised are taken
from t h e Pentateuch, but they constitute a unit with a particu
lar function within the development o f the hymn as a whole.
T h a t function has t o do with t h e establishment o f t h e c o v e
nants in a founding e p o c h before history in t h e land begins.
Can anything m o r e be inferred from this about the status o f
the Pentateuch for B e n Sira? I f o n e correlates B e n Sira's desig
nation o f T o r a h as the B o o k o f t h e Covenant ( 2 4 : 3 3 ) with the
observation that t h e P e n t a t e u c h provided only those first
seven convenantal figures for the hymn, the special status o f
the Pentateuch for him is given. H e has read it as epic, t h e first
chapter o f a genealogical history. T h e m y t h i c aspect o f the first
section o f t h e hymn, t o g e t h e r with its internal development o f
the covenants and their studied interrelationships, brings t o
mind t h e theogonies and anthropogonies at the beginning o f
5
Hellenistic histories and e n c o m i a . T h a t B e n Sira treated the
Pentateuch in j u s t this way indicates that, for him, its wisdom
was a function o f t h e way in w h i c h it could be read as origin
ary narrative o f the archetypal patterns o f human e x i s t e n c e
and the divine intentions for human community. It thus b e
comes the J e w i s h analogue and counterpoint t o Hellenistic
views o n the origins o f the human race.
The Priestly Redaction
It has been suggested that a reading o f the Pentateuch as

epic literature should occasion for us no surprise. This obser
vation may n o w be expanded t o suggest a place for B e n Sira in
6
a J e w i s h tradition o f epic historiography. T h e point o f depar-
ture is the degree t o w h i c h his hymn highlights those c o n c e r n s

known t o have determined t h e priesdy redaction o f the P e n
tateuch itself. In that redaction, Israel's epic was read o r r e
shaped as t h e history o f t h e covenants that founded Israel's
cult. T h e covenant with Noah was understood as the promise
and possibility for all humankind t o b e included in the e c o n o
m y o f divine favor. T h e promise t o Abraham was understood
primarily in terms o f t h e land that his seed would inherit. B o t h
the priestly w r i t e r and B e n Sira m e n t i o n as well the sign o f
circumcision, w h i c h began w i t h Abraham. Moses was r e c o g
nized as having received t h e law by audition and vision, a m o d e
o f revelation that K o c h sees as c o m i n g from an old theology o f
7
the t a b e r n a c l e . B u t in t h e priestly redaction, the focus is
rather on Aaron, w h o was ordained t o the priesthood, invest
ed, and given authority for cultic orders. O n Sinai, Yahweh's
glory was manifest in t h e sanctuary, and the first sacrifice was
performed. T h e people w e r e viewed as obedient recipients o f
the benefits o f these institutions, primarily the sacrificial means
for forgiveness and cleansing. W i t h the establishment o f the
cult at Sinai, institutional history began.
T h a t B e n Sira's h y m n reflects a view o f the Pentateuch very
m u c h like that o f t h e priestly r e d a c t o r indicates that the read
ing must have c o n t i n u e d in priestly circles as a tradition. In
some form, it b e c a m e available t o B e n Sira. In his reading,
M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e has been expanded and emphasized, the
covenants have b e e n interrelated systematically, the archaic
epoch has been dehistoricized, and t h e subsequent history has
been systematically interpreted as a t i m e o f struggle coming t o
resolution and c l i m a x only in B e n Sira's o w n time. T h e s e o f
course are the very features that distinguish his hymn as a n e w
reading and indicate its provenance in a n e w time and place.
The Histories and Chronicles
F r o m the figure o f J o s h u a on, the h y m n shows dependence

primarily upon the books o f J o s h u a , Samuel, and Kings. T h e r e
is, however, occasional indication o f acquaintance with C h r o n
icles, especially in the descriptions o f David, Solomon, and
8
S i m o n . It is probable, t o o , that B e n Sira k n e w t h e books o f
Ezra and Nehemiah, as t h e m e n t i o n o f Zerubbabel, J e s h u a , and
Nehemiah shows, even though t h e information about Z e r u b
babel and J e s h u a was available in Haggai as well. T h e question
is w h e t h e r anything m o r e can b e said about t h e way in w h i c h
he read them.
T h e r e are four aspects o f B e n Sira's t r e a t m e n t o f Israel's
history that c o m p a r e with Chronicles. T h e first is t h e way in
which h e clearly distinguishes b e t w e e n t h e acceptable and the
unacceptable kings. T h e s e c o n d is that David's significance is
seen t o lie primarily in his c a r e for and ordering o f t h e liturgy
o f the cult. T h e third is that his c o n c e p t i o n o f history includes
a recounting o f events right up and into his o w n time. T h e
fourth is that a rewriting o f t h e history o f Israel and J u d a h is
undertaken in support o f a cultic-institutional view o f p o s t e x -
ilic Judaism. It is plausible, then, that B e n Sira shared in a
traditional rereading o f t h e D e u t e r o n o m i c history o f Israel
along t h e lines o f that achieved by t h e chronicler.
B u t t h e differences b e t w e e n B e n Sira and the c h r o n i c l e r are
also significant. B e n Sira's selection o f acceptable kings is
smaller, numbering only three. S o l o m o n is important for B e n
Sira because h e built t h e t e m p l e and was associated with
wisdom. B u t h e is n o t included in the list o f faithful kings
because o f his sin, w h i c h is also recounted. T h e c h r o n i c l e r
avoids any m e n t i o n o f S o l o m o n ' s sins. T h e covenant with
David, though m e n t i o n e d by B e n Sira, is devalued in favor o f
the covenant with Phineas, w h i c h alone continues in force. F o r
the chronicler, all t h e o c r a t i c institutional validation is t r a c e d t o
the covenant with David. Chronicles is also m a r k e d by a nar
r o w Levitical interest for w h i c h B e n Sira gives n o evidence, so
that a totally different c o n c e p t i o n o f Israel's cult is revealed.
B u t the scope o f history in Chronicles, from Adam t o N e h e
miah, as well as its cultic-ethiological intention, shows it t o be
a precedent o f sorts for B e n Sira's hymn. Momigliano has dis
cussed the g e n r e o f historiography k n o w n as c h r o n i c l e and
9
placed it in t h e Hellenistic p e r i o d . It cannot a c c o u n t for the
grand design o f B e n Sira's hymn, but its availability as a r e c o g
nizable m o d e for recounting t h e history o f a local institution
(e.g., a city o r t e m p l e ) may have provided a framework within

which B e n Sira began t o work.
Ezra-Nehemiah
B e n Sira's knowledge and view o f Ezra-Nehemiah is m u c h
m o r e difficult t o ascertain. I f h e t o o k the information about
Nehemiah restoring t h e walls from this literature, which ap
pears t o be t h e m o s t probable assumption, his failure t o in
clude Ezra in the list o f great m e n and his apparent lack o f
interest in t h e history o f t h e restoration as such must indicate
some aversion t o this literature and these traditions. His failure
t o include Ezra is particularly interesting in light o f Ezra's role
as scribe and priest, exactly t h e role that B e n Sira praises and
knows himself t o hold. B u t as w e have seen, there m a y have
been reasons n o t t o include the scholar-sage among those
praised in t h e hymn, and this m a y have been enough n o t t o
have m e n t i o n e d Ezra.
Nevertheless, t h e r e are several considerations that indicate
m o r e may have been at stake. First, B e n Sira did n o t share in
the exclusivist notion o f J e w i s h identity and ethic reflected in
Ezra-Nehemiah. S e c o n d , t h e harsh j u d g m e n t upon the sins o f
the fathers and t h e people and t h e call t o repentance and t o
T o r a h piety that pervades this literature run c o u n t e r t o B e n
10
Sira's view o f Israel's h i s t o r y . Odil S t e c k has shown that the
covenant-renewal c e r e m o n y in Nehemiah 9 was shaped by a
homiletical program based upon what he calls a Deu-
11
teronomistic view o f h i s t o r y . H e has traced its influence as
living tradition through t h e period o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e and
shown it t o have been pervasive in m u c h o f the literature in
the form o f prayers, homilies, redactions o f the prophets, and
o t h e r literary forms. In this tradition, the exile was understood
as a j u d g m e n t o f Y a h w e h , deserved o n a c c o u n t o f the sins o f
Israel during the pre-exilic period o f the kingdom. This judg
m e n t continued in force u p o n the postexilic c o m m u n i t y and
called for a collective confession o f sin, repentance, prayer for
m e r c y , covenant-renewal, and obedience t o the law as p r e c o n
ditions for restoration. W i t h i n this schema, the pre-exilic
prophets as a class w e r e considered t o be sent by Y a h w e h t o
preach repentance, but they w e r e r e j e c t e d completely by t h e

people. Steele theorized that this theology was at h o m e first in
Levitical circles, t h e n among t h e later hasidim.
M a r b o c k has suggested that B e n Sira also stood within the
12
Deuteronomistic tradition. H e argues this because B e n Sira
shares with t h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t t h e understanding o f T o r a h as
instruction and wisdom ( D e u t . 3 3 : 1 ; 4 1 : 6 - 8 ) , as well as certain
o t h e r t h e m e s , for e x a m p l e , election, inheritance o f t h e land,
rest, t h e c o m m a n d m e n t t o love G o d , and so forth. It would
indeed be surprising i f B e n Sira did n o t share s o m e views with
D e u t e r o n o m i c traditions. H e correlated T o r a h with wisdom
and righteousness, k n e w about j u d g m e n t upon sins, and could
call for r e p e n t a n c e and t h e keeping o f t h e law. B u t his wisdom
ethic does n o t reflect a specifically D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c T o r a h
piety, and t h e telling point is that t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y form o f
the tradition demonstrated in S t e c k ' s w o r k is n o t in evidence
1 3
anywhere in B e n Sira's b o o k . S t e c k ' s finding agrees with ours
that a n o t h e r view o f history is at w o r k in t h e hymn, w h e r e the
sins that destroyed t h e kingdoms are attributed t o t h e kings.
T h e prophets are n o t r e j e c t e d by t h e people (though J e r e m i a h
is said t o have b e e n p e r s e c u t e d by t h e king [cf. 4 9 : 4 - 6 ] ) . T h e r e
is n o place in B e n Sira's c o n c e p t i o n for a collective confession
o f sins o r a T o r a h piety as preconditions for a restoration o f
Israel. T h e conclusion m u s t b e , therefore, that he c o n s t r u c t e d
his hymn without recourse t o a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c view o f Isra
el's history.
In summary, t h e h y m n demonstrates a certain reading o f
the H e b r e w epic and histories. It stands in the tradition o f t h e
priestly redaction o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h and shows s o m e formal
similarities t o t h e w o r k o f t h e chronicler. B u t its m o s t dis
tinctive features have n o t b e e n clarified by comparison with
these precursors. W e turn, therefore, t o a consideration o f
possible Hellenistic influence.
PRECURSORS IN HELLENISTIC LITERATURE
T h e r e are t h r e e forms o f Hellenistic literature with w h i c h

Ben Sira's h y m n has b e e n compared: historiography, biogra
1 4
phy, and the e n c o m i u m . All t h r e e may be traced back well
before the t i m e o f B e n Sira, and all three flourished during his

time and t h r o u g h o u t the Hellenistic period. O n the evidence
o f school handbooks, unfortunately e x t a n t m o s d y from later
centuries, all t h r e e genres w e r e m i n e d for educational pur
poses. It is plausible, therefore, that acquaintance with G r e e k
paideia in early s e c o n d - c e n t u r y Palestine would have involved
instruction in the reading o f these literatures. All share in the
Hellenistic preoccupation w i t h social roles o f leadership, c h a r
acterization o f ideal types, and portraits o f personages. Each, as
w e shall see, m a y have c o n t r i b u t e d something t o the c o m p o s i
tion o f the hymn.
Historiography
T h e question o f B e n Sira's indebtedness t o modes o f Helle

nistic historiography is m a d e difficult by the fact that as a
reading o f Israel's history, t h e hymn obviously continues a
Jewish tradition. B u t w e have n o t e d its uniqueness within this
tradition, and it is n o t improbable that s o m e features o f its
composition w e r e crafted o n t h e model o f the literary c o n v e n
tions o f Hellenistic historiography.
T h e evidence for a reading o f the Pentateuch as primordial
e p o c h is very suggestive as a case in point. In b o t h the tradition
o f e n c o m i a and in t h e development o f Hellenistic historiogra
phy, it was n o t unusual -to begin with an a c c o u n t o f archaic
15
origins. T h i s section o f t h e history included mythological,
legendary, and genealogical materials that w e r e intended t o
trace primordial origins. T o begin with originary accounts was
understood n o t m e r e l y as a claim t o tradition, although it was
occasionally articulated as such. It was also intended as defini
tional, a sort o f historical diaeretic that anchored the person,
the race, o r the culture. T h i s at least is evident in the later
Hellenistic historians (e.g., Diodorus Siculus and Nicolaus o f
Damascus, b o t h first c e n t u r y B.C.E.). F o r these later historians,
philosophical considerations w i t h a generally Stoic c o n c e r n for
universalistic anthropology, as well as reflection on the signifi
cance o f the R o m a n ecumene and the question o f cultural plu
16
rality, may have b e e n the m o s t immediate c o n c e p t u a l i t i e s .
B u t the p h e n o m e n o n o f archaizing is already in evidence p r o -
grammatically in t h e early third-century w o r k o f Berossus; and

it is present as well in t h e history o f Ephorus in t h e preceding
century, even though h e himself may have understood his
point o f origin, t h e r e t u r n o f t h e Heracleidae, t o b e n o t " m y
t h i c " but " h i s t o r i c a l . " B e n Sira's h y m n may be placed o n a
trajectory s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n t h e archaizing histories o f the
fourth and third centuries o n t h e o n e hand and t h e universal
histories o f t h e first c e n t u r y o n t h e other. H e did n o t share t h e
programmatic purposes o f a Diodorus Siculus, for they presup
pose t h e emerging R o m a n order. B u t similar predilections are
already in evidence, especially in that B e n Sira has found Stoic
anthropological and ethical c o m m o n p l a c e s helpful t o elucidate
his J e w i s h wisdom ethic. T h i s , t o g e t h e r with his reflections
upon Adam as definitional type for humankind, indicates a
reading o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h very m u c h like that o f t h e s o m e w h a t
later Hellenistic histories.
Historiography itself, in its Hellenic and Hellenistic forms,
was impelled from t h e beginning by cross-cultural e x p e r i e n c e ,
which evoked curiosity about o t h e r peoples as well as reflec
17
tion about cultural values and t r a d i t i o n s . W i t h i n this general
frame, even t h e so-called m i n o r histories o f local institutions,
based upon chronicles and archives, c a m e t o be cast as c o m
memorative a c c o u n t s o f their o w n illustrious traditions. T h e
consciousness o f cultural pluralism was the prevailing horizon
for all histories o f t h e period, and even w h e r e n o t explicit,
competition o f claims t o represent superior cultural values was
present. T h e r e is little in t h e nature o f an overt cultural c o m
petitiveness in B e n Sira's b o o k . B u t t h e r e are aspects o f his
hymn that appear as m i n o r historiography, and in this, a s e c
ond point o f comparison with Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y liter
ature may b e noted. His consciousness o f cultural pluralism is
reflected elsewhere in the b o o k , especially in t h e sayings about
kings and rulers; and his implicit claims for the archaic and
divine origins, as well as for t h e illustrious history o f t h e high
priesthood and its temple, bespeak a purpose n o t at all out o f
keeping with this function o f t h e historiography o f t h e Helle
nistic period.
T h a t h e reviewed this history primarily in terms o f leaders
and their contributions t o institutional history also is indicative

o f Hellenistic influence, as is t h e degree t o which conflict, war,
defeat, and victory provide t h e subthemes and arena for m u c h
o f the history from J o s h u a on. Kings, c o m m a n d e r s , wars, and
cultural conflict provided t h e basic and enduring ingredients
for Hellenic and Hellenistic historiography from the beginning,
even after topics and c o n c e r n s o f m u c h broader scope c a m e t o
be included. B e n Sira has n o t cast his history in a narrative and
descriptive m o d e , with discussions o f cultural conventions and
depictions o f personages at w a r in strange lands. B u t it seems
t o reflect a specifically Hellenistic assumption about rulers and
m e n o f p o w e r as the m a j o r vehicles o f history and thus as the
major figures o f historiography.
W e may summarize, then, by saying that certain aspects o f
B e n Sira's hymn do reflect acquaintance with Hellenistic histo-
riographic literature and gain their significance by participating
in the assumptions that gave this literature its purposes. T h e s e
purposes include studied assessment and c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f
the values o f a culture o r o f a subcultural institution in implicit
comparison t o o t h e r cultures. History was helpful t o this end
by providing descriptive data o f those leaders and functions
illustrative o f an institution's e x i s t e n c e and tradition. Insofar as
values could b e manifest in strong leaders and seen t o b e r e
peated throughout a history, b o t h a sense o f definition and a
quality o f endurance could b e achieved. Tracing such a pattern
back t o m y t h i c origins achieved even m o r e , namely, the
grounding o f those values in t h e o r d e r o f things understood t o
be originary, ideal, universal, o r divine. Historiography also
presented a means for describing cultural conflicts, accounting
for cultural change, and investigating cultural threats and o p
tions, as was evidenced already in the great histories o f the
fifth century. F r o m this point on, b o t h epic and chronicles as
prior modes o f recalling and recounting the past could be
taken up into a n e w reflection, w h i c h might be called a cultur
al anthropology. T h e definitional m o m e n t that was t h e object
o f the quest is t h e Hellenistic notion o f arete.
B e n Sira's hymn shares in these assumptions about histo
riography and in this quest for cultural and humanistic defini-
tion. B u t its particular pattern o f characterization, its a r c h i t e c

tonic structure, notion o f continuity, style o f description, and
other features are n o t crafted on the Hellenistic model. T h e s e
must b e a c c o u n t e d for s o m e o t h e r way. T h a t o t h e r way, it has
been suggested, calls for comparison with Hellenistic biog
raphic literature.
Biography
It is the m o s t obvious feature o f the hymn, namely, its m a n
ifest preoccupation w i t h characterizations o f the h u m a n agents
o f Israel's history, that has called for comparison with t h e b i
ographic literature o f t h e Hellenistic period. In o r d e r t o gain
some clarity here, it will b e necessary t o distinguish b e t w e e n
the generally pervasive biographic interests in t h e historio-
graphic and encomiastic literatures o n the one hand and the
beginnings o f biographic literature in t h e n a r r o w e r sense with
in the Aristotelian tradition on t h e other. Biographic literature
in this sense appears t o have e m e r g e d within the arena o f
competition among the philosophic schools o f the fourth c e n
18
tury and their c h i e f s p o k e s m e n . It consisted initially o f a n e c
dotal material that highlighted t h e personal characteristics o f
individual philosophers and teachers. It does n o t appear t o
have been encomiastic. Indeed, m u c h o f it was gossipy o r even
derogatory, designed perhaps at first as personal o r philosoph
ical polemic. At s o m e point, h o w e v e r , this type o f material was
recognized as being o f value for elucidating the relationship o f
a particular philosophy t o a particular m a n n e r o f life (bios). T h e
assumption was that a teacher's m a n n e r o f life should c o r r e
spond t o his philosophy. Stories about what h e had said o r
done, t o g e t h e r with b r i e f accounts o f his habits, personal c h a r
acteristics, sayings, and relationships with others, could b e c o l
lected in a kind o f portrait o f the m a n k n o w n t o have espoused
this o r that philosophical teaching. This emphasis upon per
sonalia and espousal o f a teaching sets this literature apart from
both historiography and e n c o m i a . In b o t h o f the latter, but
especially in historiography, personal touches, anecdotes, and
sayings might be used o n occasion. B u t the emphasis h e r e was
rather upon the description o f strong actions and the delinea-
tion o f qualities o f character, r a t h e r than upon personal philos

ophy and the integrity o f o n e ' s m a n n e r o f life. T h e difference is
due, n o doubt, t o t h e fact that historiography and e n c o m i a
were focused primarily o n kings and c o m m a n d e r s , for w h o m
deeds and achievements w e r e definitive; the biographies had as
their subjects philosophers, principally, for w h o m teachings
were definitive. As w e shall see, the items included in an e n
c o m i u m present a rather c o m p l e t e outline o f a person's life
and achievements without recourse t o the anecdotal material
characteristic o f t h e Peripatetic " l i v e s . " T h e s e lives w e r e n o t
biographies in t h e sense o f a full accounting o f the course o f a
person's life. T h e y w e r e at first merely collections o f disparate
" b i o g r a p h i c " materials. T h e r e w e r e numerous examples o f this
genre written t h r o u g h o u t t h e Hellenistic period, apparendy as
a tradition quite distinct from that o f t h e e n c o m i u m . Its sur
vival well into t h e R o m a n period is d o c u m e n t e d in the w o r k o f
Diogenes Laertius.
This tradition is n o t reflected in B e n Sira's t r e a t m e n t o f the
great m e n h e praises. T h e r e are n o anecdotes, personal t o u c h
es, o r interest expressed in an individual's personal c h a r a c
teristics. O n l y those items useful for a characterization in
keeping with official functions are included. T h e r e is, indeed,
n o place within t h e conceptuality o f office in the hymn for
consideration o f the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f one's espoused philos
ophy and one's m o d e o f life. In the case o f the scholar-sage,
the " o f f i c e " m o s t analogous t o the Hellenistic philosopher-
teacher, B e n Sira c h o s e n o t t o depict a specific scribe at all, but
t o cast up an ideal type.
Nevertheless, t h e r e is o n e aspect o f B e n Sira's hymn that
compares with the biographic literature. It is the t h e m e o f
succession, w h i c h is introduced repeatedly in a variety o f ways.
Succession does n o t appear t o have been an important notion
19
in Hellenistic historiography in g e n e r a l , but it did b e c o m e a
significant organizing principle for the biographic material
when it c a m e t o b e treated historically. It surfaces as program
in the title o f t h e w o r k o f Sotion o f Alexandria (Diadoche ton
philosophon), written roughly at the same time as B e n Sira's
hymn, and determines the g e n r e from that point through t o
the w o r k o f Diogenes Laertius. In this tradition, " s u c c e s s i o n "

refers t o t h e s e q u e n c e o f philosophers as heads o f schools and
conies t o b e used for charting t h e assumed derivative s e
quences o f t h e philosophical schools themselves, from a point
o f origin with Thales as t h e first sage o n through t h e entire
history o f their leadership. It is therefore based upon t h e n o
tion o f philosophy as tradition and works primarily with t h e
relationship b e t w e e n t e a c h e r and student, the student viewed
as successor and tradent o f t h e philosophy, t h e school viewed
as vehicle o f t h e tradition.
B e n Sira did n o t achieve such a c o h e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f
sequence as succession. N o r would this have been achieved
easily, given t h e variety o f offices, events, and history h e
needed t o integrate. It is therefore all t h e m o r e n o t e w o r t h y
that he found a variety o f ways t o introduce t h e n o t i o n o f
succession at telling points t h r o u g h o u t the hymn. Especially
interesting in this regard is t h e s e q u e n c e from M o s e s through
Aaron t o Phineas, " t h e third in l i n e " ( 4 5 : 2 3 ) , as well as t h e
notice that J o s h u a was a " m i n i s t e r o f M o s e s in t h e prophetical
office" ( 4 6 : 1 ) and t h e repeated emphasis upon t h e prophets as
those involved in activities that d e t e r m i n e d t h e sequences o f
20
leadership t h r o u g h o u t t h e h i s t o r y .
W e have had occasion t o w o n d e r about M o s e s ' office as
teacher, and w h e t h e r B e n Sira's h y m n indicates any reflection
about its continuation in t h e process o f t h e actualization o f t h e
covenant c o m m u n i t y . T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f Moses as t h e first o f a
line o f p r o p h e t - t e a c h e r s is n o t w o r k e d o u t expressly n o r c a r
ried through in t h e hymn, and t h e r e are several considerations
that may a c c o u n t for its improbability as a m a j o r t h e m e o r
organizing principle. O n e is t h e c o n t i n g e n c y that B e n Sira at
tributes t o t h e period o f t h e prophets in keeping w i t h his
mythic schema. T h i s militates against t h e t h e m e o f continuity,
say, o f T o r a h teaching from M o s e s through t h e prophets and
on into B e n Sira's o w n time. A n o t h e r is t h e difficulty o f super
imposing t h e tradition upon prophets understood t o b e , n o t
scholar-teachers, but visionaries. In that B e n Sira himself b e
c a m e conscious about what it means t o be an author and un
derstood t h e process o f creative c o m p o s i t i o n t o be t h e result
o f divine inspiration, his role falls s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n that o f

the prophet and that o f t h e scribe. His seriousness and creativ
ity as a t h i n k e r lies in t h e fact o f his noticing t h e task o f t h e
wisdom scholar and scribe as h e t o o k up such precursors as
Moses (and his vision and b o o k s ) and t h e prophets (and their
visions and u t t e r a n c e s ) . B u t t h e h y m n i c history did n o t p r o
vide B e n Sira with an opportunity t o study and trace this n e w
c o n c e p t i o n o f office b a c k t o M o s e s adequately. I f it had, a
rather painful reflection would have b e e n required in t h e at
t e m p t t o distinguish t h e uniqueness o f M o s e s as author in rela
21
tion t o B e n Sira h i m s e l f . S u c h a reflection o n the relationship
o f scribal and M o s a i c authorities did eventually o c c u r , and it
produced a m o s t creative solution among the Tannaim. B u t
this resolution could n o t take place, could n o t be used t o r e
write t h e history, as long as t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e m o d e l for
Judaism was dominant.
Nevertheless, t h e ideas o f authorship, teaching as tradition,
faithfulness t o a vision, and succession are all there in n u c e in
B e n Sira's b o o k and are carried quite far even in t h e hymn as a
m o t i f that underlines t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f sequence and c o n
tinuity in t h e series. T h i s m a y b e seen, therefore, as an early
appropriation o f a c o n c e p t from Hellenistic biographic liter
ature that was later t o be developed by o t h e r J e w i s h histo
22
riographers. As is well k n o w n , t h e principle o f a chain o f
tradition b e c a m e canonical with t h e Tannaim. In the tractate
Aboth, t h e prophets are t h e link in t h e chain that carried
T o r a h from M o s e s , J o s h u a , and t h e elders through t o t h e m e n
o f t h e great synagogue and o n t o t h e T a n n a i m at t h e end.
B i c k e r m a n n has argued convincingly that this s c h e m a is in
debted t o t h e idea o f succession w o r k e d o u t in the schools o f
philosophy and used t o organize t h e biographic literature in
23
the Peripatetic t r a d i t i o n .
It n o w appears that B e n Sira also was influenced by this idea
o f a succession o f philosophers, albeit at a very early point in
its conceptualization, and that h e used it, though quite halting
ly, as an organizing principle in t h e hymn. T h a t it o c c u r s at all
in t h e h y m n indicates that h e was aware o f the importance o f
Moses in ways analogous t o Hellenistic views o f the i m p o r -
tance o f the founders o f philosophical schools. T h e implica

tions o f this for determining the point at which cross-cultural
correlations began for t h e Hellenistic J e w i s h intellectual are
clear. T h e first correlations b e t w e e n the cultures would have
been discovered at the level o f paideia and wisdom as literary
and educational enterprises.
The Encomium
T h e indications are, then, that B e n Sira was acquainted with
Hellenistic historiography and biographic literature in s o m e
degree and that certain general features o f the h y m n w e r e
influenced by his knowledge o f this material. B u t m o r e than
this cannot be claimed. As historiography, the h y m n is m o s t
peculiar, and t h e r e is very litde in it analogous t o the Hellenis
tic biographic genre. W i t h t h e e n c o m i u m , however, t o which
we n o w turn, t h e results o f a comparison are quite different.
Here o n e finds numerous and substantive parallels in style,
form, c o n t e n t , and i n t e n t i o n — p a r a l l e l s sufficient t o warrant
the thesis that m a j o r aspects o f B e n Sira's hymn have been
crafted on the model o f this Hellenistic prototype.
T h e e n c o m i u m can be traced from its origins in Hellenic
epic, through significant developments in the lyric poetry o f
the classical period and t h e prose o f t h e first sophistic period,
and on through its flourishing as c o m m e m o r a t i v e speech dur
24
ing the Hellenistic p e r i o d . It was a form recognized as b o t h
literary and rhetorical, it was invested with formal and critical
theory in the schools, and it was found useful b o t h for c o m
memorative public occasions and for educational exercises. Its
purpose was t o praise the virtues o f persons and institutions
worthy o f c o m m e m o r a t i o n as those w h o incorporated the c u l
tural ideals. Its subjects w e r e originally epic heroes and victors
in the pan-Hellenic games; t h e n kings and c o m m a n d e r s , as
those upon w h o m an entire cultural tradition rested and in
w h o m its values w e r e o n c e again tested and reaffirmed; and
eventually, rhetors also and poets, philosophers, and others
with roles o f social significance w e r e taken up for eulogy, as
were cities, cultural institutions, and cultural and ethical values
themselves. T h e e n c o m i u m articulated t h e Hellenic aspiration

for e x c e l l e n c e , achievement, recognition, and reward. It was a
basic vehicle for t h e transmission and translation o f the
Hellenic spirit during t h e Hellenistic period. Its formal c h a r a c
teristics and rhetorical expectations w e r e familiar t o a wide
spectrum o f e x p e r i e n c e d listeners in t h e populace, both
Hellenes and Hellenists, wherever the institutions of
Hellenistic culture spread. It was a form for entertainment, but
with serious implications as well, inculcating in those w h o lis
tened t h e very virtues rehearsed in t h e c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f t h e
important personage o r institution.
It is n o t surprising, therefore, t o learn that B e n Sira was
quite familiar with t h e e n c o m i u m as a specific genre o f r h e t
orical composition. W e have already n o t e d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h
he c o m p o u n d e d t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s a c t o f praise by including t h e
scholar-sage alongside all o f t h e great leaders o f t h e past and
r e c e n t present as w o r t h y o f h o n o r and glory. This, as w e have
seen, was reminiscent o f e n c o m i a s t i c tradition and practice.
T h o u g h its ostensible purpose was obviously t o e n h a n c e t h e
image o f t h e c o m m e m o r a t e d person, t h e e n c o m i u m was also
understood t o b e an occasion for t h e display o f t h e rhetorical
skills o f t h e speaker. T h a t B e n Sira's scholar-sage receives glory
is fully in keeping with this convention. T h a t o n e o f his c o m
positions is an e n c o m i u m itself follows quite naturally.
T h e purpose o f t h e h y m n and t h e purpose o f the e n c o m i u m
are, at least formally, t h e same. T h i s is indicated clearly in t h e
express intention o f t h e a u t h o r t o sing praise ( 4 4 : 1 ) , as well as
in the repeated m e n t i o n s o f glory, fame, memorial, public r e c
ognition, acclaim, and festival occasions throughout t h e hymn.
O n the surface, then, t h e h y m n is clearly encomiastic in its
intention, and it is j u s t this feature o f the hymn that dis
tinguishes it from its J e w i s h precursors. Probing a bit further,
o n e can see that certain stylistic and compositional devices
have been employed that w e r e c o m m o n in, and definitive for,
encomiastic rhetoric. T h e use o f comparison, contrast, the
claim t o being unsurpassed, and an illustrious genealogy in t h e
depiction o f a person all a c c o r d with c o m m o n rhetorical p r a c -
130 H E R M E N E U T I C : T E X T AND C U L T U R A L C O N T E X T S
tice. Rhetorical questions, hyperboles, and exclamations o f awe

may also b e m e n t i o n e d as tropes especially appropriate t o the
encomium.
B u t the telling consideration is the degree t o ^vhich t h e
biblical figures have been cast according t o a c o m m o n pattern.
This indicates that t h e same c o n c e p t i o n o f the typical has been
superimposed upon all o f t h e biblical accounts and has g o v
erned t h e way in w h i c h characterization has been achieved.
Noting that t h e type reflected here is official, manifests its
virtues in great deeds, and is responsible for the well-being o f
the social order, w e can n o w suggest the source o f that pattern
o f characterization. It was c o n c e i v e d along the lines o f the
Hellenistic e n c o m i u m with its primary orientation t o social
leaders, kings and c o m m a n d e r s especially, in whose deeds o f
achievement t h e social o r d e r was understood t o have been
defended and preserved.
In order t o visualize t h e formal correspondence b e t w e e n the
Hellenistic e n c o m i u m and t h e pattern o f characterization in
B e n Sira's hymn, w e may summarize the main divisions o f the
e n c o m i u m as they are set up in table 3. This summary is based
upon discussions o f the e n c o m i u m in rhetorical handbooks
(technai) and the progymnasmata. It reproduces the major s e c -
TABLE 3. THE PATTERN OF CHARACTERIZATION

AS ENCOMIUM
ENCOMIUM PATTERN OF CHARACTERIZATION
1. PROEM
2. BIRTH/GENEALOGY 2.
3. ACHIEVEMENTS: ELECTION
A. PURSUITS 1.
OFFICE
B. VIRTUES 4.
PIETY
c. DEEDS 5.
DEEDS
D. BLESSINGS 3.
6. COVENANT
SETTING CONTEXT
4. CONCLUSION
A. DEATH 7.
B. MEMORIALS REWARDS
tions o f t h e s p e e c h form that m a y b e shown t o have shaped t h e

e n c o m i u m from t h e beginning, w e r e expanded upon during
the Hellenistic period, and c o n t i n u e d t o provide its oudine for
25
the R o m a n and Byzantine p e r i o d s .
A correlation with t h e pattern o f characterization in t h e
hymn can b e achieved by assigning each item o f t h e pattern t o
a corresponding t o p i c in t h e e n c o m i u m oudine. O n l y i t e m 6 in
t h e pattern o f characterization ( " s e t t i n g / c o n t e x t " ) is difficult
t o m a t c h . As discussed earlier, t h e setting is probably a func
tion o f t h e historicism o f t h e h y m n r a t h e r than o f its e n
comiastic intention, and thus it does n o t have an analogue in
the e n c o m i u m . B u t it is n o t o u t o f place, for the e n c o m i u m
regularly included m e n t i o n o f social c o n t e x t and tradition at
appropriate j u n c t u r e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e speech. T h e kind o f set
ting depicted in t h e h y m n , consistently a threat o f moral and
political destruction, is a t h e m a t i c m a t t e r related t o t h e hymn's
specifically J e w i s h and religious provenance.
T h e p r o e m o f t h e e n c o m i u m included m e n t i o n o f t h e per
son's n a m e , t h e occasion for t h e speech, and the author's a c
c e p t a n c e o f t h e task o f eulogy. A p r o e m for each figure has n o t
been included in t h e p a t t e r n o f characterization, but it is
important t o see that it could have been. Each hymnic unit
begins by introducing t h e person by n a m e with s o m e indica
tion o f his praiseworthiness. T h i s makes it possible t o speak o f
a formal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h t h e e n c o m i u m proem. One
should n o t e also that t h e o t h e r items included in an e n c o m i u m
proem, t h e s t a t e m e n t o f authorial intention and reference t o
occasional assemblage, are present in the p r o e m o f t h e h y m n as
a whole.
T h e s e c o n d section o f t h e e n c o m i u m had t o do with a per
son's birth and genealogy. T o p i c s appropriate for this section
w e r e t h e illustriousness o f o n e ' s nation, city, parents, as well as
one's genealogy, w h i c h could include legendary and divine an
cestors. T h i s was expanded in the later Hellenistic and R o m a n
periods t o include o n e ' s upbringing and education. In t h e
hymn, t h e r e is little interest in these kinds o f material because
there is little interest in t h e persons praised as individuals. B u t
just because t h e figures praised in t h e hymn are important, n o t
132 T H E H Y M N AS J E W I S H AND HELLENISTIC T E X T
as individuals, b u t as office holders, that is, as those w h o m a n

ifested the ideal type o f specific social functions, t h e t h e m e o f
election ( t o office) m a y b e seen as t h e appropriate correlate t o
the Hellenistic categories o f birth and genealogy. It represents
the specifically Jewish-religious counterpoint in keeping with
the hymn's larger m y t h i c and theological c o n c e r n s . In addition
t o the t h e m e o f election, o t h e r h y m n i c material having t o do
with one's birth, parentage, and genealogy belongs here also.
T h e r e is a noticeable emphasis upon this t h e m e throughout the
hymn, w h i c h does suggest a formal correspondence with the
encomium.
T h e third and m a j o r section o f t h e e n c o m i u m was t h e r e
hearsal o f qualities and achievements. T h e lists o f topics and
their classifications vary s o m e w h a t from handbook t o hand
book, as do the orders suggested for their development. A t an
early time in the tradition, a distinction may b e n o t e d b e t w e e n
a chronological arrangement o f o n e ' s achievements and a t o p
ical arrangement o f one's qualities o r virtues. L a t e r classifica
tions according to various typologies—for example, the
distinction b e t w e e n physical qualities and external resources
( " g o o d s " ) — a l s o c a m e t o b e used, sometimes t o simplify,
sometimes t o c o m p o u n d t h e p r o b l e m o f arrangement. B u t the
four items m e n t i o n e d in table 3 (pursuits, virtues, deeds, bless
ings) appear t o c o v e r the m a j o r c o n c e r n s and c o n t e n t o f the
e n c o m i u m throughout t h e Hellenistic period. U n d e r t h e topic
"pursuits" (epitedeumata), attention c a m e t o be focused upon
what w e would call one's vocation. This was thought o f in
terms o f roles such as " s t a t e s m a n , " "philosopher," and so on,
and thus corresponds t o o u r category " o f f i c e . " Naturally, the
offices o f significance for J e w i s h social history w e r e particu
larized for B e n Sira. B u t o n e suspects even so that w h e r e it was
possible t o m a k e a correlation b e t w e e n o n e o f these and s o m e
Hellenistic role, the similarities w e r e explored. This is e s
pecially noticeable in the case o f the judges as c o m m a n d e r s and
the kings.
T h e item designated " p i e t y " corresponds readily with the
delineation o f moral virtues in t h e e n c o m i u m . T h e repeated
mention o f " s t r e n g t h " as a n o t e w o r t h y quality in the hymn is
HERMENEUTIC: T E X T AND C U L T U R A L C O N T E X T S 133
especially reminiscent o f Hellenistic e n c o m i a , w h e r e physical

prowess, spiritual courage, and vocational authority and p o w e r
w e r e regularly m e n t i o n e d as w o r t h y o f praise. T h a t t h e form
o f piety praised in t h e h y m n is essentially a capacity t o b e
faithful t o o n e ' s calling-in-office, n o t a paradigm o f J e w i s h r e
ligiosity in general, supports t h e thesis that an e n c o m i u m p r o
totype is at work.
T h a t characterization is achieved in t h e hymn mainly by
means o f t h e recounting o f deeds is also an encomiastic trait.
In the tradition o f t h e e n c o m i u m , in distinction from t h e b i o
graphic tradition, characterization was achieved primarily by
means o f t h e narration o f deeds as achievements. S o m e o f t h e
deeds m e n t i o n e d in t h e hymn, for e x a m p l e , t h e fortification o f
the city, are Hellenistic c o m m o n p l a c e s in t h e encomiastic
26
tradition.
Under "blessings," natural and fortunate endowments
could b e given as well as a listing o f resources, property, and o f
all worldly signs o f success. It is n o t clear w h e t h e r these w e r e
understood primarily as gifts or achievements, and thus
w h e t h e r they should be discussed at the beginning o r at t h e
end o f t h e main section; but that they w e r e signs o f a person's
virtue, and thus praiseworthy, was n o t questioned. W e have
seen that in t h e h y m n also, those items listed under the c a t e g o
ry " r e w a r d " are actually e n d o w m e n t s . Indeed, the tension
here b e t w e e n reward ( o r a c h i e v e m e n t ) and e n d o w m e n t ( o r
gift) is so dialectical that even t h e basic e n d o w m e n t o f blessing
and covenant can b e described as w h a t o n e receives as reward
for virtue o r virtuous deed. T h e dialectic is heightened by
reading t h e h y m n against its J e w i s h precursors, with their t h e
ologies o f divine initiative and their anthropologies o f faithful
obedience. B u t a clearly sequential relationship b e t w e e n hu
man efforts and j u s t rewards was n o t characteristic o f t h e
Hellenistic e n c o m i u m either. In this respect, t h e hymn shares
what might b e called t h e mentality o f t h e e n c o m i u m , even
though t h e specific items m e n t i o n e d as rewards (covenant, in
heritance, land) are particularly J e w i s h values.
At t h e e n d o f an e n c o m i u m o n e ' s m a n n e r o f death and
memorials may b e m e n t i o n e d , as well as prayers offered. In the
pattern o f characterization o f t h e hymn, " r e w a r d s " include

memorials, glory, and honor. T h i s is a striking feature and the
most explicit similarity with t h e Hellenistic e n c o m i u m and its
ultimate purpose. D e a t h as a theological and philosophical is
sue was troublesome for B e n Sira, as evidenced elsewhere in
the book, and s o m e aspects o f that problem are n o doubt
related t o the availability o f Hellenistic views and reflections
27
on the q u e s t i o n . B u t h e could b e comfortable with t h e c o n
cept o f memorial and, in the h y m n , has emphasized this aspect
o f the death o f t h e p i o u s — a n idea in keeping b o t h with e n
c o m i u m practice and with J e w i s h anthropology. O n e also
might m e n t i o n in this regard that t h e t w o blessings that c o n
clude the praise o f Phineas ( 4 5 : 2 5 c - 2 6 ) and Simon ( 5 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 )
correspond nicely t o t h e prayers that conclude many Hellenis
tic encomia.
In a r e c e n t dissertation, T h o m a s L e e reviewed the question
o f B e n Sira's knowledge o f Hellenistic literary genres and c o n
cluded that it was the e n c o m i u m t o which h e was principally
indebted. Lee's thesis is that t h e hymn was B e n Sira's e n
c o m i u m o n S i m o n II, written t o persuade Onias III t o continue
in Simon's tradition. L e e presents an outline o f the m a j o r s e c
tions o f the e n c o m i u m with w h i c h t o c o m p a r e the structure o f
the hymn. In his analysis, the e n c o m i u m can b e divided into
four parts: t h e p r o e m , the genealogy (genos), the deeds (praxeis),
and the epilogue. H e was able t o correlate the hymn's p r o e m
and final blessing ( 5 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) with the p r o e m and epilogue o f
the e n c o m i u m outline. T h e main body o f the e n c o m i u m , that
having t o do with achievements, h e c o m p a r e d with the hymn
section o n Simon ( 5 0 : 1 - 2 1 ) . T h i s left the bulk o f t h e p o e m t o
be a c c o u n t e d for as the "genealogical" section. L e e could s h o w
that aspects o f t h e depictions, especially o f M o s e s , Aaron,
Phineas, and t h e kings, are indeed similar t o the description o f
Simon and that s o m e c o n n e c t i o n was intended. H e showed
also that a review o f one's ancient and historical ancestors did
pertain t o one's glory and was thus relevant as an e l e m e n t in
the Hellenistic e n c o m i u m . B u t in o r d e r t o understand the e x
tremely long series o f historical figures that the hymn gives,
Lee had t o point t o a n o t h e r g e n r e , t o what has been called a

Beispielreihe, a series o r collection o f examples. H e was able t o
show that t h e e x a m p l e series was compatible with the function
o f the genealogical section o f t h e e n c o m i u m , but the problem
o f the disproportionate space given t o t h e "genealogy" in the
hymn in relation t o t h e " a c h i e v e m e n t " o f Simon, h e could n o t
answer. T h i s leaves o n e uneasy with his thesis as a sufficient
explanation o f t h e structure o f the hymn.
Nevertheless, Lee's w o r k is very important, and his thesis
can b e a c c o m m o d a t e d . T h e e n c o m i u m pattern is in evidence in
each o f t h e smaller units o f t h e hymn and provides an explana
tion for t h e p r o e m at the beginning and t h e blessing at the e n d
o f the p o e m as a whole. Lee's study also supports several o t h e r
conclusions w e have reached. H e offers an additional explana
tion for the panegyric occasion that plays so large a role in t h e
final scene o f t h e hymn, a setting and description in agreement
with encomiastic tradition. H e argues for the necessity o f in
cluding the section o n Simon in t h e h y m n and sees the hymn
as a whole t o have its intended c l i m a x there. H e observes that
many o f t h e figures in the h y m n are described in ways that
appear t o b e similar t o t h e description o f Simon.
B u t j u s t h e r e the problem with Lee's thesis begins t o tell.
T h e reason the " g e n e a l o g y " section o f the e n c o m i u m is c o m
patible with an e x a m p l e series is that b o t h o f these literary
forms entail a review o f history for making their points. T h e
genealogy does this in o r d e r t o e n h a n c e the illustriousness o f
the personage eulogized. T h e e x a m p l e series seeks t o establish
the credibility o f a certain kind o f h u m a n achievement. B e n
Sira may have m o d e l e d his h y m n with an eye t o b o t h genres,
but neither literary form really is sufficient t o a c c o u n t for t h e
peculiar way in w h i c h his figures are characterized, linked, and
used t o trace a c o m p l e t e , s c h e m a t i c history. T h e structure o f
the p o e m w e have proposed indicates a larger purpose than an
e n c o m i u m o n Simon.
Simon is praised, t o b e sure. B u t the "genealogy" is n o t his
alone, n o r is all o f it relateable t o him as a personage, certainly
not, as Lee suggests, as a personage whose " c h a r a c t e r " is r e -
fleeted in all o f t h e preceding examples o f "fidelity t o t h e

28
commandments." It is r a t h e r his office that is in focus, n o t
simply as a given social role within a culture with a c o n
sistently paradigmatic history, but as a product o f that history
that recounts t h e costs o f its c o n c e p t i o n and actualization
within a c o m p l e x l y structured c o m m u n i t y . T h u s t h e p r o e m o f
the hymn does n o t m e n t i o n its telos in Simon's appearance o n
the great day. T h e p o e m begins with figures o f e x t r e m e l y
broad significance, develops its t h e m e s dynamically, studies t h e
interrelationships a m o n g t h e offices throughout Israel's histo
ry, and moves t o w a r d a conclusion about what it is t o w h i c h
all o f t h e history has b e e n purposefully moving. T h i s is m o r e
than e n c o m i u m , even though features o f the e n c o m i u m are
clearly in evidence throughout.
Placed at t h e intersection o f H e b r e w and Hellenistic liter
atures, B e n Sira's h y m n manifests an amazingly c o m p l e x inter-
textuality. W e have seen that B e n Sira was conversant with
Hellenistic historiography, biography, and the e n c o m i u m , but
that each provided models only for certain aspects o f t h e
poem. F r o m the emerging g e n r e o f universal history, B e n Sira
t o o k the notion o f t h e primeval e p o c h and read t h e early histo
ry in Genesis and Exodus in its light. H e read t h e subsequent
history o f Israel as a c h r o n i c l e o f events and leaders marking
Jerusalem's destiny. H e m a d e his selections on t h e basis o f
specific social roles and conflicts found t o be significant for the
institution o f t h e t e m p l e cult. His characters w e r e portrayed
on the pattern o f t h e e n c o m i u m and linked by t h e m e s taken
from t h e biographic histories o f t h e Aristotelian tradition. T h e
result is a p o e m with decidedly encomiastic traits. B u t it
should not b e called simply an e n c o m i u m , any m o r e than a
chronicle o r epic historiography. It is an epic p o e m that c a n n o t
be reduced t o any o f t h e genres thus far noted as p r e c u r s o r
literatures.
Since that is t h e case, a n o t h e r look at the hymn's a r c h i t e c
tonic structure is called for. T h e key t o its c o h e r e n c e and
mythic function has n o t yet b e e n discovered, that is, what it
was that called for t h e correlation o f history and e n c o m i u m t o
begin with. T h o u g h each p r e c u r s o r t e x t has been found t o
contribute something t o t h e composition, n o n e has provided a

rationale sufficient t o explain t h e hymn's evocative power.
Perhaps t h e r e is yet a n o t h e r " t e x t " with which the h y m n can
be c o m p a r e d , a t e x t that can clarify t h e particular configura
tion B e n Sira has given t o his epic poem.
Wisdom as
Text and
Texture
6
Or t h e partial alignments o f
hymn and p r e c u r s o r t e x t s t h a t w e have explored, n o n e has
been able t o elucidate t h e particular s c h e m a o f ordered history
that t h e h y m n presents, a s c h e m a that enabled the integration
o f t h e many t e x t s in a single vision. T h e question is w h e t h e r
the rationale for B e n Sira's creative intertextual and c r o s s -
cultural reading can be determined. W a s h e a reader o f yet
another kind o f t e x t , a t e x t available t o us as well for o u r o w n
exploration o f that rationale?
T h a t o t h e r " t e x t , " I w o u l d argue, is a " w i s d o m " way o f
viewing t h i n g s — a reading o f t h e w o r l d from a certain p e r
spective, d e t e r m i n e d and enabled by a certain way with words.
Concretely, that o t h e r t e x t is B e n Sira's b o o k o f wisdom itself,
and especially those p o e m s and hymns within it that achieve a
marvelous and m y t h i c self-reflection. In t h e m , certain basic
m o m e n t s in t h e m y t h i c p a t t e r n o f this particular reading o f t h e
world are disclosed. In t h e m , t h e a c t o f perception o f t h e
world has b e e n transposed i n t o m y t h and recited as a series o f
events in t h e e n c o u n t e r o f a personified wisdom with the
world. W e shall see that this p a t t e r n and this personification
provide us with t h e t e x t w e seek and that t h e m y t h o f wisdom
139
can a c c o u n t for t h e h y m n ' s m y t h i c structure and its t h e m e o f

glory.
T o read t h e h y m n as a wisdom m y t h is, o f course, a bit
unusual. T h e r e is n o internal evidence, linguistic o r referential,
that demands comparison with t h e wisdom hymns. O n t h e
basis o f all t h e conventional scholarly views o n wisdom, t h e
1
likelihood o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e is n o t g r e a t . In fact, it has al
ways been a puzzle that a h y m n i c history was included in a
b o o k o f wisdom at all. W i s d o m thought and language, insofar
as it has b e e n understood t o delimit a given horizon o f in
terests and c o n c e r n s within J e w i s h tradition, has n o t been as
sociated with theologies o f history, preoccupations with m i d
rash, theories o f prophecy, defense o f t h e culture, and so o n —
all obvious features o f t h e hymn. Nevertheless, o u r literary
analysis o f t h e h y m n and o u r a t t e m p t t o a c c o u n t for its c o m
position o n t h e basis o f its r h e t o r i c , assumed setting, and inter-
textuality have n o t disclosed t h e impulse o r vision that guides
its formation. N o r have they revealed that passion out o f w h i c h
the hymn attributes glory t o t h e pious. W e will a t t e m p t n o w
t o discover that passion and vision. I maintain that read as a
wisdom t e x t , all features o f t h e h y m n c o h e r e and are clearly
marked by a deep c o m m i t m e n t t o find a rational basis for
human social organization.
W I S D O M AS A M O D E OF T H O U G H T
W e have n o designation, o t h e r than the t e r m "wisdom"

itself, for that place and function within J e w i s h society taken
and played by a b o o k like B e n Sira's. It has been customary t o
speak about a " w i s d o m tradition" as i f t h e r e w e r e a social
institution o r literary tradition that traded mainly in wisdom as
a body o f knowledge and transmitted it as such. B u t r e c e n t
scholarship has found it necessary t o question the assumption
2
o f a wisdom tradition understood along these l i n e s . It has n o t
been possible t o identify a specific class o f sages w h o func
tioned primarily as tradents o f wisdom in any specific, c o n t i n
uous social setting within Israelite history. This means that the
analogy o f t h e prophetic, priestly, and Levitical traditions, for
instance, can n o longer b e used t o conceptualize t h e placement
W I S D O M AS T E X T AND T E X T U R E 141
and transmission o f wisdom as a separate stream o f philosophi

cal, theological, o r ideological thought as scholars have been
w o n t t o do. T h e r e does n o t appear t o have been any such
distinct and self-conscious program characteristic o f any par
ticular social institution invested with the c o n c e r n s o f sages
alone. As for t h e literature usually identified as wisdom t e x t s
(Proverbs, J o b , Q o h e l e t , s o m e psalms, e t c . ) , they singularly
lack placement and even c o n c e r n for placement in any specific
nexus o f cultural o r subcultural activity o f preserving and
transmitting wisdom itself. Until B e n Sira t o o k t h e m up as
precursor t e x t s , m o r e o v e r , nothing like a literary canon seems
t o have existed. N o author, seems t o have regarded previously
c o m p o s e d wisdom writings as literary precursors in a tradition
3
o f wisdom discourse at a l l . T h i s does n o t m e a n that the p h e
n o m e n o n o f wisdom discourse and thought in ancient and ear
ly Judaism is insignificant as a characteristic o f its culture. B u t
it does m e a n that w e m u s t reconceptualize its function as a
m o d e o f perception available t o (and perhaps determinative
for) the culture as a whole, n o t a special class o f scholars.
Gifted individuals in a variety o f settings and subcultural tradi
tions w e r e capable o f using such discourse creatively and r e
flectively. B u t as a m o d e o f discourse, wisdom was probably
m o r e pervasive in the culture than w e have imagined it t o be.
T o speak o f a m o d e o f wisdom discourse is, however, al
ready t o delimit the range o f reference t o the t e r m itself.
W i s d o m (hokmah), it should b e noted, can be used t o refer t o a
very broad range o f human skills, capacities, perceptions, and
behavior. It is a g e n e r i c t e r m for " k n o w l e d g e " o r " k n o w i n g "
and requires modification by attribution o r c o n t e x t in order t o
gain any specificity at all. T h u s o n e might speak o f m a n t i c
wisdom, craft wisdom, crafty wisdom, proverbial o r life wis
4
dom, ethical wisdom, and so o n . In each case, recognizable
experience and observable behavior might be understood as
evidence, and certain linguistic formulations o r genres might
b e c o m e customary for c o m m u n i c a t i o n and transmission o f the
knowledge claimed. W h e n , then, in the literature under dis
cussion, reference is m a d e t o wisdom, an e x t r e m e l y indetermi
nate linguistic sign is employed. T h a t reference is made at all
t o wisdom as an o b j e c t o f observation and thought is, o f

course, t h e problem. T h e question for us is w h e t h e r w e can
understand m o r e precisely what knowledge o r knowing in this
m o d e may have been.
W e may begin with t h e observation that at t h e basic level o f
proverbial speech forms, wisdom refers t o s o m e skill in t h e
assessment o f and response t o h u m a n and social circumstances.
This skill has t o do with t h e correlation o f c i r c u m s t a n c e with
convention in t h e interest b o t h o f preserving social c o n v e n
tions and o f achieving personal status and well-being within
the social order. T h u s w e speak o f wisdom from e x p e r i e n c e ,
articulated in proverb and available for utterance o r e n a c t m e n t
5
upon an appropriate o c c a s i o n . T h e proverb itself is a product
o f generalization from m a n y e x p e r i e n c e s and tends t o c h a r a c
terize human beings in t e r m s o f typical behavior. B u t t h e status
o f the typical is quite p r o b l e m a t i c , at least for c o n t e m p o r a r y
W e s t e r n mentality t o grasp, because it is merely descriptive
and related t o " c a s e s " instead o f t o " c a u s e s . " T h e cases t h e m
selves, though forms o f broadly universal human experiences,
are nevertheless culturally conditioned and assume a particular
cultural stability and ordering o f social life. Insofar as a proverb
distills what is at stake in t h e typical c i r c u m s t a n c e and refracts
from it options and c o n s e q u e n c e s , it itself is t h e wisdom
intended in linguistic form. T h e wisdom available in a proverb
can be taught and learned, provided that t h e social o r d e r r e
mains stable and t h e proverb's o w n linguistic occasions (for
being said, recalled, r e - e n a c t e d , reaffirmed) remain c o n v e n
tional and functional.
A collection o f proverbs, then, does represent an accumula
tion o f wisdom that has b e e n w o n by means o f certain m e t h
ods o f observation, testing, and classification. T h e definition o f
certain constants in a given social structure with its o w n pat
terns o f human behavior is involved. Its linguistic formations
are appropriate t o t h e preservation and c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f
these insights. As a m o d e o f thought, speech, and action widely
available t o a culture, proverbial wisdom can provide a way o f
making sense o f things. It can provide a perspective and m e t h
od for reflection, capable, ultimately, o f encompassing all o r -
ders o f perceived reality i f organized around t h e anthropologi

cal focus and its c o n c e r n for well-being. U n d e r s t o o d in this
way, wisdom thinking can provide an entire culture with an
"intellectual" capacity capable o f being shared and understood
by all.
But this m o d e o f thinking is prescientific, existential, and
humanistic. T h e r e is n o capacity o r interest h e r e for a radical
analysis o r critique o f t h e m e c h a n i s m s that might guarantee o r
a c c o u n t for t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e typical, n o r a n e e d t o devel
op a c o n c e p t i o n even o f that o r d e r o r structure o f things that
is assumed implicitly in t h e program. W i s d o m is therefore d e
pendent upon t h e givenness o f a social o r d e r with its c o n v e n
tions. It m a y function in t h e formation, defense, and continua
tion o f a culture's social values, b u t it is incapable o f radical o r
scientific investigation for adjudicating competitive values o r
for grounding a system o f values in a n o t h e r arena o f discourse.
Should a shift o c c u r in a cultural tradition, o r should t h e r e
be a major social change o r breakdown, t h e viability o f t h e
6
accumulated wisdom will b e sorely t e s t e d . Insofar as t h e
wisdom accumulated is knowledge about human e x p e r i e n c e ,
wisdom is t r a n s f e r a b l e from o n e social o r d e r and its particular
conventions t o another. Insofar as t h e typical is a c i r c u m s t a n c e
in which behavior determines t h e o u t c o m e (e.g., d e e d - c o n s e
q u e n c e ) , t h e r e is an understanding available t o t h e wisdom
m o d e o f perception itself that can facilitate assessment o f c o n
tingent situations. B u t this is t r u e only up t o a certain point.
T h e contingent can b e managed by wisdom only i f it is relative
t o a set o f closely related, typical possibilities. T h e contingent
then b e c o m e s at m o s t a sort o f mild surprise as t o w h i c h o n e
o f the numerous typical occasions arises. I f t h e possibility o f
the typical w e r e t o b e erased by drastic cultural changes, t h e
possibility o f wisdom itself would be threatened.
W I S D O M CRISIS AND THE EMERGENCE OF M Y T H
Conventional wisdom was threatened by social crises at o n e

time o r a n o t h e r in all o f t h e cultures o f t h e ancient Near East.
In each case, t h e agony registered in t h e literature marks t h e
importance o f a people's wisdom as t h e intellectual fabric o f its
social discourse and cultural etiquettes. A series o f questions

and reflections set in about t h e status o f wisdom in t h e situa
tion o f social confusion. T h e s e reflections t o o k m a n y forms,
governed as they w e r e by t h e full range o f human attitudes
toward cultural chaos, from despair and cynicism, through a
range o f rationalizations, t o imaginative endeavors t o m a k e
sense o f things again in spite o f it all. O n e o f these endeavors
resulted in t h e creation o f a m y t h i c figure.
T h e personification o f wisdom as a m y t h i c figure e m e r g e d
in H e b r e w thought and literature m u c h before the t i m e o f B e n
Sira. It is customary t o regard Proverbs 1—9 as the earliest
evidence for this p h e n o m e n o n , and it is t h e r e that w e can
discern the result o f what m u s t have been a daring self-reflec
tion. N o t only did t h e crisis o f conventional wisdom force an
honest assessment about its inability t o function as before, its
own critical capacities w e r e called upon t o give an a c c o u n t o f
its failure and t o broach s o m e solution. T h i s social-intellectual
crisis for wisdom, m o s t probably t o b e set in the exilic o r early
postexilic despair over t h e end o f Israel's monarchies, has n o t
been thoroughly e x p l o r e d in t h e scholarship. V o n R a d e x a m
ined the way in w h i c h later scholars (e.g., B e n Sira) discovered
the logical limits beyond w h i c h a wisdom m o d e o f inference
and deduction could n o t g o . H e concluded that this effort was
made possible by turning t h e logic implicit within wisdom
thinking in u p o n itself. H e was quite right about t h e c o u
rageous dialectic o f this self-reflection, but h e did n o t explore
sufficiently t h e social conditions that impelled it o r t h e full
range o f intellectual activity that accompanied it. This is b e
cause h e viewed wisdom thinking o n the model o f t h e history
o f ideas and could find n o way t o relate its discourse t o social
history o n c e t h e b o n d o f conventional wisdom with everyday
life was b r o k e n by cultural crisis. N o r could he a c c o u n t for t h e
e m e r g e n c e o f the m y t h i c figure o f wisdom itself.
A careful study o f t h e e m e r g e n c e o f this figure shows, h o w
ever, that it was o n e o f t h e primary results o f the crisis that
tore the social fabric away from t h e knowledge about the
world that wisdom discourse o n c e represented. In this case,
m o r e clearly than in t h e case o f later analyses on t h e limits o f
wisdom logic, t h e full e x t e n t o f t h e crisis can be reconstructed.

T h e m y t h i c figure stood as an a t t e m p t t o give an answer t o t h e
many questions forced by the crisis. B u t it was n o t a simple,
intellectual p r o d u c t o f t h e investigation o f these questions.
Critical thought had t o b e given t o every aspect o f the crisis in
order even t o imagine such an answer. T h e r e must have b e e n a
serious a t t e m p t t o conceptualize t h e system o f etiquette c o n
ventional wisdom represented as system. T h i s would have b e e n
forced upon thinkers by t h e rupture b e t w e e n conventional
wisdom as a way o f recognizing the familiar patterns o f h u m a n
behavior in a stable society and t h e breakdown o f its social
orders. T h e distinction b e t w e e n wisdom as a system o f k n o w l
edge and society as a vulnerable structure, then, would have
been the first agonizing a c k n o w l e d g m e n t . B u t t h e desire t o
m a k e sense o f things would have required o t h e r distinctions as
well, explorations o f t h e tenuous relations b e t w e e n what w e
have learned t o call t h e orders o f things: t h e divine, t h e natu
ral, the social, and the ethical. T h i s forced analysis would have
been very difficult, because conceptual categories would have
t o be c r e a t e d in o r d e r t o imagine these " o r d e r s " as distin
guishable c o m p o n e n t s o f w h a t was o n c e viewed as a totality.
Conventional wisdom, dysfunctional in the wake o f the de
struction o f its assumed social stabilities, would need t o b e
rethought as well.
O n e way o f rethinking was t o acknowledge t h e dislocation
o f wisdom from t h e social fabric, but t o affirm that its insights
and c o n c e r n s w e r e valid nevertheless. Such a process o f reflec
tion could result in t h e m y t h i c personification o f wisdom that
w e have in Proverbs 1 —9. It should b e regarded as a first-level
abstraction o f t h e enduring value o f t h e system o f conventional
wisdom. This system was n o w c o n c e n t r a t e d in a single symbol
that stood over t h e social arena. H o w e v e r , t h e social arena had
lost its capacity for conventional wisdom discourse, and so the
figure o f wisdom was imagined n o longer t o be related t o
c o n t e m p o r a r y social discourse. It was cast, rather, as coming
t o speech for itself, and its speech was t h e call for social sanity
o f a figure imagined n o t t o belong t o society any longer, having
its location in t h e divine ordering o f t h e natural world.
W i s d o m n o w was imagined as belonging t o G o d , related in

some way t o t h e a c t and o r d e r o f creation, appearing only
epiphanically in t h e streets and public places o f t h e city, and
calling out t o t h e foolish t o a c c e p t h e r teaching (Prov. 1:20—
3 3 ) . T h e desire t o affirm t h e p r e s e n c e o f a wisdom n o longer at
h o m e in society is obvious h e r e , as is t h e a t t e m p t t o affirm its
reality by means o f a m y t h i c projection upon the larger screen
o f the w o r l d o f creation. T h i s was apparently t h e only " o r d e r "
o f things actually imaginable any longer (Prov. 8:25—31). B e
cause t h e o t h e r " o r d e r s " w e r e n o t yet imaginable as orders,
the m y t h reduced t h e m also t o agents w h o could represent
them: G o d , t h e resistant m a r k e t place, t h e fool. W i s d o m was
imagined as an agent in o r d e r t o relocate the stability it r e p r e
sented in t h e n e x t larger o r d e r o f things imaginable, t h e natu
ral order.
T h a t wisdom b e c a m e a m y t h i c figure, an abstraction in a
prophetic call for realignments o f t h e orders, was n o t p o e t i c
fantasy. It was t h e result o f a deliberate reflection about a real
state o f affairs. W i s d o m had t o be imagined this way because
that was all that was left o f i t — a n absent agent, hoping t o
claim authority for s o m e system o f o r d e r and sanity in the
world in o r d e r t o survive at all. B u t t h e " r e a p p e a r a n c e " and
" a c c e p t a n c e " o f wisdom within t h e sphere o f h u m a n life was
required as an additional m o m e n t o f perception. T h u s t h e p r o
j e c t i o n o f wisdom upon t h e larger world as an " o r d e r " o f
creation was an assertion about wisdom and o r d e r previously
7
unexplored.
W i s d o m b e c a m e a n a m e for that passionate desire t o retain
some notion o f the social sense o f things. B u t that could b e
done only by anchoring it, n o t in t h e social order itself, but in
the structure o f t h e world. T h e social order was g o n e and,
though the c o n c e r n was t o see it ( o r a n o t h e r social o r d e r )
reinstated, its absence d e t e r m i n e d that t h e projection o f o r
derliness, only n o w imagined as a category at all, be upon the
universal screen. T h e assumption o f a societal o r d e r was c a n
celed o u t in t h e very process o f thinking o f " o r d e r " itself.
Human well-being had t o b e imagined first in relation t o a
cosmic o r d e r o f things.
It may b e , o f c o u r s e , that s o m e m y t h i c correlation o f c o s m i c

and social orders (e.g., M a a t ) was t h e p r o x i m a t e source o f t h e
idea that wisdom was still present, i f only in t h e realm o f
creation. T h e m y t h i c c o n c e p t i o n o f wisdom was partly a dis
covery and disclosure o f structures implicit t o and originally
merely assumed by wisdom thought, partly a n e w linguistic
creation. T h e desire t o retain t h e sense o f things in spite o f t h e
breakdown o f a society's structures is, o f course, understand
able. T h a t it was achieved by abstracting, projecting, and p e r
sonifying wisdom, however, marks a profound and tragic
e x p e r i e n c e o f despair and indicates j u s t h o w important a
culture's wisdom actually was. T h e picture that first resulted
did n o t include wisdom in t h e social order. It depicted t h e
figure o f wisdom at creation (i.e., " l o c a t e d " outside b o t h t h e
social and natural orders), claiming involvement in creation
and seeking re-cognition in society.
It was undoubtedly due t o a social crisis and its threat t o a
body o f conventional wisdom that such a self-reflective m o
m e n t o c c u r r e d within J e w i s h cultural history. W i t h the possi
ble e x c e p t i o n o f Proverbs 1 0 - 3 1 , all o f t h e literature normally
designated as wisdom writings bear t h e marks o f this process.
T h e separation b e t w e e n t h e wisdom o f t h e social o r d e r ( n o w
threatened with destruction) and t h e wisdom p r o j e c t e d upon
the created o r d e r ( n o w affirming its p r e s e n c e ) was radically
experienced. B u t t h e m y t h that resulted from this reflection
was strong, as strong as t h e desire t o find wisdom in the world
again, and as strong as t h e G o d with w h o m wisdom was j o i n e d
at the beginning o f t h e world.
According t o this myth, wisdom is that w h i c h orders o r
even creates t h e world, articulates o r even guarantees its typ
icalities (and those values that derive from orderliness, such as
lightness, equality, and p e a c e ) , and is available o r even desires
t o b e k n o w n o r manifest (in t h e social order). In t h e process o f
mythologization, n e w linguistic formations were produced
(e.g., t h e naming and m y t h i c characterizations o f t h e person
ified figure o f wisdom itself), conceptual categories w e r e c r e
ated (e.g., t h e idea o f " c r e a t i o n by w i s d o m " ) , narrative s c h e
mata w e r e imagined (e.g., t h e " a p p e a r a n c e " o f wisdom in t h e
world), and additional literary genres w e r e requisitioned (e.g.,

dialogue, prophetic address, h y m n ) .
I f w e look closely at this m y t h , w e can see that it represents
the process by w h i c h wisdom can b e reappropriated. B u t inso
far as it was c o n c e r n e d t o answer t h e question o f wisdom's
absence, it inverts t h e sequences o f t h e process by w h i c h
wisdom was w o n in t h e first place. T o acquire conventional
wisdom there was ( 1 ) t h e drama o f t h e human quest for learn
ing about wisdom and t h e typical in the social arena, ( 2 ) its
articulation in proverbs so that transmission and repetition
could o c c u r , and ( 3 ) t h e assumption about t h e goodness o f the
order in things. T h e m y t h , in contrast, narrates first t h e c r e
ation o f o r d e r by wisdom, t h e n its e n t r a n c e into t h e human
arena and its speech o f p r e s e n c e , and finally its invitation t o
the listener t o a c c e p t it.
T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f wisdom and its o r d e r in the world, relat
ed though it was t o older naivetes in t h e structure o f wisdom
thought, was n o t an abstraction o f older wisdom views about
the world; n o r was it a c o n c e p t i o n about the world that had
been w o n by s o m e investigation o f it that ascertained its prin
ciples o f regularity and order. It was a n e w view o f wisdom, a
linguistic and imaginative a c h i e v e m e n t born o f t h e desire for,
the will t o affirm, w h a t ultimately had t o be a divine (i.e.,
e x t r a h u m a n ) knowing and ordering o f the world. T h i s hap
pened in such a way as t o m a k e it possible t o call for an
ordering o f human society that corresponded t o t h e divine
will. T h e passionate p r o j e c t i o n is a profound and beautiful af
firmation o f what had t o b e so in t h e face o f social e x p e r i e n c e
that told otherwise. B u t it is e x t r e m e l y important t o see that it
is a m e r e abstraction, a naming o f that w h i c h is n o t k n o w n ,
without reference t o any empirical, logical, o r philosophical
data t o serve as its grounding.
In t h e Hellenic tradition o f philosophy, the a t t e m p t was
made t o discover t h e physical basis for natural and social o r
dering. T h e Hebraic c o n c e p t i o n o f a wisdom ordering o f c r e
ation was n o t based upon such a m o v e . It was n o t argued but
affirmed. T h u s it stood for t h e tenacity o f t h e desire for social
order in t h e m o m e n t o f its lack. It called, not for an investiga-
tion o f the verifiability o f a certain kind o f order in creation,

that is, a " w i s d o m k i n d , " but for a renewal o f social ordering
and stability itself. Nevertheless, o n c e this thought had been
achieved, namely, that t h e w o r l d was ordered by wisdom and
that this was t h e reason and m o d e l for human social ordering,
a kind o f logic was given t o t h e quest for social ordering and a
powerful r h e t o r i c could e m e r g e t o call for it. B u t t h e r h e t o r i c
needed additional rationalization in o r d e r t o persuade.
O n e further observation needs t o be m a d e about t h e wis
d o m m y t h before asking about B e n Sira's reflection upon it. It
is that t h e narrative s e q u e n c e w e have given, w h i c h begins
with G o d at creation, m o v e s into and through the natural
order, and ends in t h e city w i t h wisdom's call, is o u r o w n
reconstruction, a c o m b i n a t i o n o f motifs presented separately
in Proverbs 1 - 9 . T h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n is justified on the basis o f
comparative mythology closely associated with t h e wisdom lit
erature o f Israel's neighbor Egypt, a mythology that has been
shown t o provide t h e imaginative stimulus for many details o f
Israel's m y t h i c wisdom. B u t it has n o t been set forth in j u s t
this way in any early J e w i s h wisdom writing. T h e narrative
depictions remain episodic, exploring aspects o f the m y t h at
certain critical m o m e n t s . T h e s e m o m e n t s are invariably at t h e
rifts and seams b e t w e e n t h e several orders o f reality that
wisdom m u s t reunite: G o d - w o r l d , G o d - c i t y , world-city, wise-
fool, and so on. At each j u n c t i o n , wisdom personified stands in
the gap b e t w e e n t w o orders, representing t h e desire t o link
t h e m t o g e t h e r again, t o see t h e m related. B u t that is all. T h e r e
is n o narrative logic o t h e r than desire t o any o f the episodes o f
mediation, though they are hauntingly attractive as images.
T h e y invite, in fact, further reflection o n the problem o f h o w
o n e might see things integrally related again. All subsequent
wisdom mythology can be understood in j u s t this way, as
j u n c t u r e s e x p l o r e d in t h e interest o f working out the p r o b l e m
o f fragmentation (Prov. 8 : 2 2 ; J o b 2 8 , 3 8 ; Sirach 1, 2 4 ; W i s d o m
9, 1 0 ; e t c . ) . B u t t h e m y t h i c episodes themselves do n o t relate
h o w t h e gaps actually are t o b e bridged. T h e y cannot do this
until three conditions are m e t : ( 1 ) A full narrative logic m u s t
b e discovered that can relate t o g e t h e r again all o f the orders
n o w apart; ( 2 ) t h e orders m u s t b e conceptualized structurally,

systematically, and in such a way that they can be c o m b i n e d in
a single c o m p l e x system; and ( 3 ) a n e w social o r d e r m u s t b e
actualized and rationalized in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e wisdom
myth. W e are n o w ready for B e n Sira.
W I S D O M M Y T H AND THE Q U E S T FOR A LOGIC
B e n Sira's b o o k o f wisdom is a m a j o r witness t o intellectual

endeavor accomplished in a wisdom m o d e . It is replete with a
broad s p e c t r u m o f wisdom genres, engages a wide range o f
basic issues in J e w i s h ethical and religious thought, makes a
proposal with regard t o t h e purpose o f creation and h u m a n
existence, and argues for a certain view o f J e w i s h cult and
piety by claiming that they are supported by t h e m o s t p r o
found manifestations o f wisdom itself. His b o o k is clearly n o t a
product o f s o m e "precrisis n a i v e t e " about t h e validity o f c o n
ventional wisdom and t h e stability o f a given social order. T h e
great catastrophes that brought an e n d t o t h e pre-exilic m o n -
archial orders w e r e still vividly in m e m o r y , and t h e c o n s e
quences o f these events for t h e culture's accumulated wisdom
were known. B e n Sira does n o t acknowledge expressly t h e
possibility o f skepticism and cynicism that could and did
emerge in postexilic reflections about t h e reliability o f a
wisdom view o f things, but it c a n n o t b e that h e was unaware
8
of them. His o w n position, w h i c h was positive in its affirma
tions about wisdom, appears on a first reading t o b e put forth
in a quite straightforward m a n n e r . In actuality, it is highly
rhetorical and apologetic in purpose, dealing in hyperbole,
generalizations, and attempts t o g r o u n d t h e case for wisdom
by observations that m o v e beyond t h e customary limits o f
wisdom discourse. T h i s indicates that B e n Sira w o r k e d within
and against t h e c o n t e x t o f conscious and articulate critique o f
conventional wisdom and t h e adequacy o f its logic.
In o r d e r t o c o u n t e r this critique, t h e wisdom m y t h was at
hand. B u t m e r e l y t o c o n t i n u e t o r e c i t e t h e m y t h in t h e face o f
its critics would have b e e n inadequate. A further rationaliza
tion was required, as w e have indicated, t o explicate its nar
rative logic, reimagine its symbols, and w o r k out its correla-
tions with s o m e social o r d e r within w h i c h a n o t h e r wisdom

discourse c o u l d m a k e sense, instruction could b e given, and
human well-being achieved. It was j u s t such an effort that B e n
Sira invested in t h e wisdom m y t h . H e did this in t h e interest o f
what might b e called a wisdom theology for S e c o n d T e m p l e
Judaism. T h e narrative logic was w o r k e d out by correlating t h e
m y t h with Israel's history o n t h e o n e hand. O n t h e o t h e r , the
narrative episodes w e r e taken as occasions t o reflect on several
categories o f mediation capable o f bridging the gaps b e t w e e n
the orders o f things. T h e symbols representing t h e several o r
ders w e r e e x p a n d e d and diversified in o r d e r t o find aspects o f
t h e m that could b e correlated, t h e notion o f system was i n t r o
duced and refined, and S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism was idealized
and grasped as a c e n t e r e d structure in o r d e r t o see within it
the reflections and manifestations o f t h e glorious arrangement
o f G o d ' s intentions for t h e world.
This intellectual a c h i e v e m e n t needs t o b e e x a m i n e d m o r e
closely. O u r analysis and discussion will lead eventually b a c k t o
the hymn, w h i c h it will b e argued, m a y b e o n e o f t h e finer
achievements o f B e n Sira's intellectual efforts in a wisdom
m o d e , even though t h e figure o f wisdom n o longer appears
there. B u t o t h e r hymns and p o e m s in his b o o k show him always
at t h e larger task as well. W e n e e d t o e x p l o r e these, for t h e r e it is
that B e n Sira's struggle for a firm foundation on w h i c h t o build
his rationalized o r d e r o f things can b e discerned. In this explora
tion, as w e shall see, his interest in Hellenistic modes o f thought
will finally b e explained. It was n o t a flirtation with a culture
s o m e h o w m o r e attractive than his own. It was a quest for logos,
for another, supplemental abstraction with w h i c h t o undergird
his m y t h o f wisdom, and it was absolutely crucial t o his e n t e r
prise. T h e n e w assertion o f wisdom's presence in society and t h e
world had t o be g r o u n d e d by arguments and considerations
from o t h e r , e x p a n d e d fields o f observation and reflection on the
nature o f things. T h e claim t o find wisdom in a given social
order in t h e postcrisis situation and u n d e r cynic critique r e
quired m o r e than t h e identification o f a social c o n c r e t i o n with a
m y t h i c abstraction. T h e abstraction still would be only an e m p t y
cipher for t h e desire that t h e r e b e an ordering o f things in the
world. S o unless additional considerations w e r e forthcoming

about t h e rationality o f t h e m y t h , o n e would b e left with m e r e
assertion, capable only o f t h e r h e t o r i c o f desire.
T h e first need, n o t e d above, was t o w o r k o u t t h e narrative
logic o f the m y t h i c episodes. It can b e seen that B e n Sira has
explicated t h e narrative capacities o f t h e wisdom m y t h in c e r
tain significant ways. O n e is that wisdom has b e e n depicted as
a creation o f t h e C r e a t o r himself, w h o " p o u r e d h e r o u t upon
all His w o r k s , " as well as " u p o n all flesh" ( 1 : 9 - 1 0 ) . T h i s m y
thic datum theologized t h e wisdom o r d e r in terms familiar t o
Jewish conceptuality and in such a way as t o indicate that
there was a basic correlation b e t w e e n t h e world and the
human capacity for understanding it, a n c h o r e d in divine inten
tion and activity. I f left h e r e , o f course, this would add m e r e l y
another assertion t o t h e assertion about wisdom itself, and
thus will require s o m e further substantiation. B u t t o bridge t h e
gaps b e t w e e n C r e a t o r and creation, as well as b e t w e e n c r e
ation and humankind by means o f t h e single narrative image
" p o u r i n g " is already helpful. A n o t h e r expansion o f an older
mythic episode o c c u r s in t h e narrative o f wisdom's quest t o
find a h o m e in t h e world among a particular people. T h e nar
rative ends w h e n t h e C r e a t o r tells wisdom t o settle d o w n in
Jerusalem ( 2 4 : 8 - 1 2 ) and she obeys. T h i s localizes wisdom and
claims h e r presence within t h e social institutions o f Judaism.
T h e relationship b e t w e e n these t w o expansions o f t h e m y t h
(manifestations o f wisdom in creation as well as in t h e h u m a n
order o f things) is that b e t w e e n capacity o r potentiality t o
recognize wisdom and its actualization in a social construct.
T a k e n together, they give a simple narrative logic, and b o t h
expansions are capable o f further elaboration, as will b e c o m e
clear.
A n o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t n o t e d above, identification o f wisdom
with a social order, is also already in t h e process o f being
worked out. It can be seen that B e n Sira has recast t h e story o f
wisdom's origin and quest with a particular objective in mind.
T h a t objective is t o identify S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism as t h e
flowering o f all G o d ' s w o r k s o f wisdom in creation and history.
T h e constitutive elements m a y n o w be n a m e d that play s o m e
specific role in t h e discovery, articulation, codification, and

manifestation o f wisdom's p r e s e n c e in that society. F o r B e n
Sira, these are t h e T e m p l e ( 2 4 : 1 0 ) ; t h e B o o k ( 2 4 : 2 3 ) ; t h e sys
t e m o f jurisprudence and e t h i c ; t h e intellectual achievements
o f t h e scholar-priest ( 3 9 : 1 - 1 1 ) , his p o e m s , hymns, and ethical
instructions; t h e piety t o t h e faithful ( t h e "fear o f the L o r d " ) ;
and t h e manifestation o f t h e C r e a t o r ' s glory in the office and
ritual occasion o f t h e high priest. T h i s is a fairly comprehensive
grasp o f t h e religious structure o f t h e society and a daring
claim. B e n Sira has apparently found it possible t o bless this
religious o r d e r as an arena within w h i c h wisdom can be
learned and taught again. H e m a y in fact have seen aspects o f
this social o r d e r as especially compatible with t h e implicit
needs and desires o f a wisdom view o f things. T h e nature o f
authority; t h e privilege g r a n t e d t o repetition, ritual, and typ
icality; conventional binary ethical c a t e g o r i e s — t h e s e and
o t h e r aspects o f t h e religious mentality o f a temple society
could have b e e n found w o r t h y o f wisdom's blessing. B u t t h e
assertion that wisdom was t o b e found h e r e was made w i t h o u t
recourse t o such considerations, because as a n a m e for a means
and way o f creating order, wisdom really had n o c o n t e n t until
it had an occasion t o identify and t o b e identified with t h e
society itself.
Theoretically, any n u m b e r o f h u m a n social orders could be
claimed for wisdom, so t h e heightened sense o f claim that B e n
Sira's rehistoricizing necessitates m u s t b e noted. B e n Sira m u s t
say, t o say anything at all about t h e wisdom o f a social order,
that this manifestation o f wisdom is nothing less than t h e
Creator's intention from t h e beginning. T h e various orders in
need o f correlation (creation, society, h u m a n beings) have been
unified narratively, therefore, by ascribing t h e m y t h t o divine
purpose and relating it t o Israel's history as intentional. T h e
identifications among t h e orders w e r e m a d e quite simply at t h e
narrative level by using wisdom as a m a j o r m e t a p h o r t o val
orize and unify t h e J e w i s h o r d e r and history. B e n Sira's asser
tion was m a d e at first m e r e l y o n t h e basis o f a m y t h i c claim.
This claim would have t o b e validated, however, by considera
tions from a philosophical assessment o f t h e world. O n l y so
could t h e logic o f the narrative claim be recognized and ra

tionalized, only so could it persuade. This explains, o f course,
the great attraction o f Hellenistic thought for B e n Sira. It p r o
vided the conceptual categories t o rationalize the myth.
B e n Sira has n o t provided a full a c c o u n t o f a correlation o f
the wisdom m y t h with Hellenistic philosophic systems, as in
fact o c c u r r e d in subsequent reflections (e.g., W i s d o m o f Sol
omon, Philo). B u t he sensed t h e n e e d t o do so and began the
process in a n u m b e r o f telling ways. F o r one, he set up the t w o
readings o f the m y t h in such a way as t o create the dialectic
between potentiality and actuality (wisdom available t o Adam
in creation, wisdom available t o Israel in h e r history). This is a
logical relationship. It corresponds also with the contrast b e
tween the universal o r g e n e r i c and the particular o r ethnic
classifications o f the human, also a firmly e n t r e n c h e d applica
tion o f Hellenic logic; and it is grounded in the schema o f
creation/culture, a J e w i s h version o f a basic and longstanding
G r e e k philosophical exploration (physis/nomos). T h e very c r e
ation o f these dialectic and diaeretic sehemata is significant as
an indication that B e n Sira sought a logic o f correlation. W h e n ,
then, the c o n c e p t o f totality o c c u r s in the c o n t e x t o f a creation
hymn (kol, to pan [ 4 3 : 2 7 ] ) o r the idea o f an original e n d o w
m e n t for perception o c c u r s in the c o n t e x t o f a midrash o n the
creation o f Adam ( 1 7 : 7 ; cf. 1 7 : 5 : nous), he is marshalling
Hellenistic philosophical categories for the explication and
conceptualization o f the various schemata o f correlation.
Middendorp and others have shown that B e n Sira was a c
quainted with and influenced by Hellenistic philosophical
commonplaces. H e " e q u a t e d " sin and hybris, wisdom and
arete, and regarded t h e passions as t h e cause o f unseemly b e
havior, for instance. M o r e difficult t o document, but m o r e
important for o u r thesis, is the possibility o f seeing the various
schemata by w h i c h B e n Sira articulates correspondences
among the several orders o f reality as Hellenistic as well. I f the
schema cosmos-polis-anthropos o r physis-nomos stood behind and
gave structure t o B e n Sira's mythology o f creation and culture,
a possibility given with t h e influence o f Hellenistic thought
itself, the logics o f classification and correspondence inherent
to these systems would have been at w o r k as well. T o t h e
degree that they w e r e , a Hellenistic philosophical foundation

would have been gained as a thought and discourse capable o f
providing external validation for B e n Sira's primary narrative
claim that the S e c o n d T e m p l e institutions w e r e anchored in a
creation o r d e r governed by gracious and philanthropic design.
The correlation with Hellenistic philosophical categories
would allow that claim t o b e translated as follows: the J e w i s h
polis is based upon a nomos identical t o the natural order (physis)
o f the world (cosmos). T o see the logic (logos) o f this arrange
m e n t (taxis) o f t h e orders o f reality is wisdom (sophia), the
perception o f things that m a k e s possible t h e achievement o f
human e x c e l l e n c e (arete)—an imitation (mimesis) o f the c o r
relation o f nomos and physis—in human life (anthropos, bios).
Such a translation could shore up the wisdom m y t h and
imagery against t h e threat o f emptiness by providing another,
reasonable perspective on t h e narrative categories. T h e very
discovery that the translation was possible would have p r o
vided the primary p o w e r and impulse for B e n Sira's claim and
may have been t h e basic reason for the cross-cultural intellec
tual adventure in the first place. T h e m e r e fact that a given
notion (e.g., a " w i s d o m o r d e r in c r e a t i o n " ) might be r e n a m e d
(as cosmos) would strongly suggest that the referential reality
intended was assured. M o r e important, however, is that the
n e w n a m e c a m e with the force o f that logic inherent in the
Hellenistic system o f philosophical thought. As c o n c e p t s w o n
in the intellectual endeavors o f definition, classification, and
quest for the g r o u n d and interrelationships o f phenomena, the
Hellenistic categories served t o rationalize the imagery with
which wisdom had been expressed. T h e process may b e under
stood as making explicit in discursive terms what was im
plicitly intended via narrative and metaphor. T h e translation
would, in itself, have been a significant step in conceptual r e -
signification. B u t w e should n o t overlook the important factor
o f the additional perspective that was w o n in this translation
process, t h e sense that t h e thing n a m e d actually was s o m e
thing. T h i s notion c a m e with t h e n e w n a m e as a philosophical
c o n c e p t belonging t o a system o f conceptuality that offered a
reasonable a c c o u n t o f t h e world.
W i t h B e n Sira, t h e correlation o f wisdom imagery and c a t e -
gories with Hellenistic philosophical conceptions has n o t b e e n

carried out systematically, at least n o t at t h e level o f philo
sophical terminology. H e w r o t e , after all, in H e b r e w and c o n
tinued t o w o r k with proverbial and p o e t i c genres. B u t t h e
evidence is that he was broadly conversant with and deeply
influenced by Hellenistic learning. T h a t h e continued t o e x
press his reflections, wisdom, and literary achievements for t h e
most part in t e r m s o f recognizable wisdom m e t a p h o r reveals
both t h e limits o f his Hellenization and t h e seriousness o f his
creativity. N o simple identification o r a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f the
t w o systems was being made. T h e m o m e n t s o f translatability
have n o t o c c u r r e d arbitrarily, n o r by merely speculative in
terests, n o r as playful experimentation. F o r B e n Sira, wisdom
was the language o f t r u t h and its correlation with Hellenistic
philosophy was intended t o serve its o w n claims, n o t t o r e c
o m m e n d Hellenistic learning and culture as a superior option.
JEWISH W I S D O M AND HELLENIC PAIDEIA
It is important n o w t o see that t h e point at w h i c h J e w i s h

culture could begin a conversation with Hellenism was given
with the p h e n o m e n o n o f wisdom itself. Among scholars, t h e
customary approach t o t h e question o f Jewish-Hellenistic syn
cretism has b e e n t o discuss cultural identities in t e r m s o f par
ticularizing theologies, pieties, and practices, t o set up a
pattern o f c o m p e t i t i o n , t h e n t o n o t e the degree t o w h i c h any
acceptance o f t h e other's cultural constructs a c c o m m o d a t e d
the traditions. It is, however, n o t insignificant that t h e m a j o r
translations in t h e Hellenization o f J e w i s h religious and cultur
al traditions, those at least intended t o b e constructive, w e r e
made precisely at t h e level o f an e x c h a n g e o f wisdom. T h i s o f
course is hardly a surprising discovery, indicating as it does
that a process o f thought, a linguistic translation, was required
as t h e basis for understanding a n o t h e r culture's conventions in
any respect at all. W h a t w e have n o t understood, though, is
the degree t o w h i c h it was J e w i s h wisdom that provided t h e
intellectual fabric o f J e w i s h culture and so could b e t h e vehicle
for such an exchange.
B y intellectual fabric, m o r e m u s t b e m e a n t than that i m -
plied in t h e usual study on intellectual and philosophical ideas.

It has been customary, for instance, t o m a k e a comparison
between J e w i s h hokmah (as a t e r m for theological knowledge)
and Hellenic sophia (as a t e r m for philosophical knowledge). T o
stay at this level o f investigation confines the study t o an e x
change among elites and treats J e w i s h wisdom as a subcultural
phenomenon, that is, as a distinct tradition cultivated by a class
o f intellectuals. W h a t m u s t n o w b e considered is the e x t e n t t o
which wisdom gave Judaism its o w n cultural c o h e r e n c e on
terms equal t o the challenge o f cross-cultural dialogue and
competition in t h e Hellenistic period. O f far m o r e significance
than the correlation with t h e sophia o f the philosophers was
9
undoubtedly that with paideia as a system o f learning itself.
Here it must have b e e n that t h e basis was found, n o t only for
the cross-cultural conversation in the first place, but for the
consciousness within Judaism o f the institution that must carry
the day in the n e w time. W e are n o t able yet t o trace the
history o f education in Israel and early postexilic Judaism, and
m u c h o f what eventually surfaces for us t o see already is
stamped heavily by Hellenistic m o d e s o f learning. B u t the basis
for this receptivity surely was already given with the materials
and conventions called wisdom. H e r e in quite recognizable
forms was t o be found the J e w i s h analogue t o a whole range o f
elements constitutive for the Hellenistic culture o f paideia: the
proverbial wisdom o f the sages as the first texts for learning
reading, then writing; the use o f such material t o inculcate the
virtues and values o f t h e cultural tradition; the methods o f
teaching and learning ( r o t e memorization, the authority o f the
rod, the promise o f eventual success in society); the schema o f
the sequence w o r k - r e w a r d t o motivate learning and rationalize
socialization via education; t h e comfortable combination o f r e
ligious and humanistic e t h i c s — a l l pedagogical conventions
easily assimilated by wisdom thought and practice.
H e r e , then, m u s t have been the m a t r i x for endeavors in
teaching and in learning that could take up the values o f the
Jewish legacy in a self-conscious way under the question o f
their transmissability, translatability, c o h e r e n c e , and c o m p e t i
tive status. H e r e it would have been understood that J e w i s h
wisdom could assume a p r o m i n e n t role in the conceptual orga

nization and rationalization o f t h e constitutive elements o f
Jewish tradition. T h e B o o k and t h e books could b e read n o w
in a different light, as w e have seen. S o could the religious cult,
the system o f ethics, its anthropology, and so forth, as w e have
also seen. H e r e , t o o , w h e t h e r subtly o r m o r e self-consciously,
the Hellenic patterns o f logic and rationalization assumed in
the enterprise o f paideia would have been learned m o s t natur
ally.
O n e o f these logics would have b e e n the pedagogical and
rhetorical (logical, argumentative, persuasive) values o f histor
ical e x a m p l e s — e x a c t l y w h a t w e have found t o determine t h e
1 0
composition o f t h e h y m n . W e n e e d n o t argue that B e n Sira
had read Aristotle on the paradigm, o r even that h e had pur
sued Hellenistic paideia t o t h e level o f specifically rhetorical
training o r theory. T h e paradigmatic principle was e m b e d d e d
in the Hellenistic t e x t s and their readings from the earliest
encounters with t h e m . A J e w i s h sage would have been a per
ceptive reader indeed o f those materials set forth as containing
the way and wisdom o f t h e G r e e k s . T h a t it would have o c
curred t o him t o read his o w n history paradigmatically t o o is,
not only possible, but probable.
It thus seems likely that, should t h e hymn in praise o f the
hasidim turn out t o b e structured and t e x t u r e d by wisdom
myth and m e t a p h o r , t h e wisdom m y t h is t h e t e x t and t e x t u r e
that can a c c o u n t for t h e J e w i s h - H e l l e n i c intertextuality o f t h e
hymn. W i s d o m as educational and intellectual enterprise
would have been t h e bridge across w h i c h t h e e x c h a n g e o f
those ideas o c c u r r e d that can a c c o u n t for the h y m n as a syn-
cretistic p h e n o m e n o n . As a J e w i s h sage, B e n Sira would have
learned m o r e than philosophical options t o J e w i s h ideas o f
God and creation from t h e wisdom o f t h e Greeks. H e would
have learned about texts and poetics and rhetoric, discovered
the humanistic assumptions within his o w n intellectual system,
and gained t h e p o w e r o f Hellenic skills and consciousness t o
read (i.e., t o r e w r i t e ) his o w n t e x t s with a certain rhetorical
goal in mind. T h a t goal had t o do with t h e affirmation, elucida
tion, and memorialization o f t h e J e w i s h ethos as a culture with
an originary m o m e n t , a c o m p l e t e history, a glorious an

thropology, and a h u m a n e approach t o social and religious
ethics. T h e logic that underlay this program was a creative
combination o f Hellenistic learning and Jewish wisdom.
W i s d o m is n o t m e n t i o n e d in t h e h y m n expressly as a m a j o r
t h e m e . B u t , as will n o w b e argued, it would have b e e n B e n
Sira's thoughts about wisdom in a Hellenistic frame o f refer
e n c e that m a d e it possible t o c o n c e i v e o f t h e hymn. Because it
trades in Hellenistic forms o f r h e t o r i c , o n e might even say that
with t h e h y m n a logic was given for t h e wisdom m y t h itself.
THE H Y M N AS A W I S D O M T E X T
T h e h y m n is placed at t h e e n d o f B e n Sira's b o o k o f wisdom.

Its p r o e m promises t o list t h e great hasidim in their generations
t o w h o m , as t h e reader has j u s t b e e n told in t h e final distich o f
the preceding h y m n o n t h e creation, t h e C r e a t o r has given
wisdom. Since t h e question o f t h e presence o f wisdom in t h e
world has b e e n a m a j o r c o n c e r n throughout t h e b o o k and t h e
quest for and discovery o f w i s d o m has b e e n a recurring t h e m e ,
t h e promise t o praise those w h o have b e e n granted wisdom does
not strike t h e reader as strange. B u t in t h e reading, it b e c o m e s
clear that t h e t h e m e o f wisdom itself is missing. T h e hasidim are
characterized w i t h o u t reference t o t h e quest for wisdom and, as
it turns out, are depicted in s e q u e n c e as carriers o f a history
within w h i c h a primal cultic intentionality is narrated. T h e
problem for t h e reader is n o t that t h e didactic e x p e c t a t i o n has
n o t b e e n m e t . Indeed, t h e " i n s t r u c t i o n " that unfolds is m u c h
m o r e profound and powerful than o n e might have e x p e c t e d .
But t h e t e r m s in w h i c h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s have b e e n m e t are, as
w e n o w k n o w , n o t those for w h i c h t h e reader thought t o b e
prepared. O u r question has b e e n w h e t h e r in t h e h y m n B e n Sira
has introduced categories and considerations extraneous and
irrelevant t o his enterprise o f instruction in wisdom. W e have
argued that with t h e hymn, those anthropological and s o
ciological assumptions basic t o t h e structure and c o n c e r n o f
wisdom thinking have in fact achieved an articulation. T h e
articulation is w o r k e d o u t in relation t o a specific social system
as t h e arena for t h e c o n c r e t e manifestation o f wisdom. T h i s
claim is arbitrary in a sense, and that a c c o u n t s for t h e particular

c o n c e p t i o n o f office along J e w i s h institutional lines, t h e peculiar
form o f virtue depicted, t h e general lack o f recognizable m a n
ifestations o f conventional forms o f wisdom. B u t the way in
which t h e study u n f o l d s — i t s patterns, structures, and develop
m e n t o f t h e m e s and p l o t — m a y indeed be, n o t only a p r o d u c t o f
wisdom thought, but an expression o f its logos as a realized
myth.
W e may begin by noting that certain aspects o f t h e h y m n
reflect a perspectival reading o f Israel's history o f w h i c h a sage
would have b e e n capable. T h e expressly anthropological focus
is the first and perhaps m o s t obvious o f these. T h e h u m a n
situation and t h e typicalities o f h u m a n behavior s t o o d at t h e
c e n t e r o f a wisdom view o f t h e world. I f n o w the typical is cast
in high-mimetic characterization and placed at the c e n t e r o f a
mythic reading o f history, t h e level and scope o f t h e picture
have changed, but n o t t h e way it is organized around t h e h u
man figure. T h i s figure is, m o r e o v e r , still being depicted
through devices reflecting categories o f wisdom thought: clas
sification by opposites, single-case exemplifications, rhetorical
use o f praise and blame ( o r s h a m e ) , attribution o f virtue ( c h a r
acter) o n the basis o f behavior (deeds), and so on. B e c a u s e each
o f these conventions has obvious analogues in t h e Hellenistic
rhetoric and literature o f anthropological depiction, it would
have been t h e sage's training in wisdom that enabled their
employment.
T h e expansion o f vision t o include the social order, a t h e
matic and constitutive m o m e n t o f t h e hymn, is also indicative
o f the structure o f wisdom thinking. A t first assumed, then
seen as necessary frame for t h e continuing viability o f a wis
dom anthropology, t h e social o r d e r m u s t be affirmed. T h e
problem for traditional wisdom thought, w h i c h w o r k e d induc
tively from individual cases t o t h e typical, is that without o p
portunity and m e t h o d for a comparative sociology, t h e c a t e
gory o f t h e typical c a n n o t b e used in this case. T h e solution
was t o seek an even larger frame o f reference, namely, that o f
the world itself, within w h i c h t o place the social order. Sta
bility n o w could be affirmed o n t h e basis o f regularity in t h e
world o r d e r and any correlations o r associations that might b e

seen b e t w e e n t h e creation o r d e r and t h e social order. T o
achieve a higher level o f argumentation, t h e problem o f the
several social orders possible (nomos) and t h e nature (physis) o f
the c o s m o s would have t o b e addressed, as indeed it was
among t h e G r e e k s . W i t h i n t h e limits o f wisdom thinking itself,
this was n o t possible, b u t B e n Sira sensed t h e problem and
addressed it along Hellenistic lines. T h e items used t o desig
nate t h e social o r d e r in the h y m n i c depictions are those m o
m e n t s o f legislation that c r e a t e t h e legal fabric o f the c o m m u
nity (covenant, law, and office). T h e claim is that these are
established by G o d , an intellectual appeal t o tradition that i m
plicitly addresses and solves t h e question o f correlation b e
tween nomos and physis, if, that is, t h e G o d in question is also
understood t o b e t h e c r e a t o r o f t h e natural order.
T h a t h e is has b e e n m a d e clear in t h e h y m n t o creation
( 4 2 : 1 5 - 4 3 : 3 3 ) , w h i c h is intended as t h e preface o r first section
o f the hymn. B y reading it with t h e hymn, the schema wisdom-
i n - c r e a t i o n / w i s d o m - i n - t h e - s o c i a l - o r d e r can be discerned. This
schema belongs t o t h e wisdom m y t h and, used here t o suggest
the correlation o f creation and society, indicates that wisdom
thought has been at work. I f t h e wisdom m y t h itself is struc
tured narratively in a way similar t o t h e m y t h i c history in t h e
hymn, then t h e narrative categories o f wisdom thought p r o
vided t h e intellectual m a t r i x for t h e m e r g e r o f J e w i s h and
Hellenistic textualities in the hymn. T h e problem o f t h e ra
tionalization and defence o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h religious
society would have been understood primarily in wisdom terms.
This would a c c o u n t for t h e otherwise surprising presence in
B e n Sira's b o o k o f wisdom o f a whole range o f topics having t o
do with J e w i s h social history n o t normally understood t o fall
within t h e provenance o f wisdom interests and poetry. T h e
example m o s t frequently cited is t h e so-called identification o f
the m y t h i c figure o f wisdom w i t h t h e law. This p h e n o m e n o n
has been called since Rylaarsdam the "nationalization" o f
wisdom. B u t it m a y have been the o t h e r way around. W i s d o m
thought may have been used t o conceptualize the basis and
structure o f t h e religious society. Again, wisdom thinking
would have been the bridge for t h e exploration o f Hellenistic

categories helpful for this task. It is n o t improbable that the
conception o f T o r a h as law, for instance, a truly foundational
m o m e n t for Judaism, t o o k place in just this exchange b e t w e e n
Jewish wisdom thought and Hellenistic paideia. It was in any
case the H e b r e w epic as t h e B o o k o f the Covenant that B e n
Sira invested with wisdom in o r d e r t o begin his h y m n i c histo
ry. This also can be explained as a logical m o v e o n the part o f a
Jewish sage in t o u c h with Hellenistic learning.
O n e o f t h e great discoveries o f the wisdom-paicfeia e x c h a n g e
was that a nation's history could b e read in order t o disclose its
logos. W i t h this discovery, t h e sage could take up t h e history
as paradigmatic and understand it as elucidation o f the princi
ple that constituted and ordered t h e social structure itself. T h i s
B e n Sira has done, using for his o w n p u r p o s e s — f o r wisdom
c o n c e r n s — t h e rhetorically effective forms o f encomiastic his
toriography. If, then, the paradigmatic history turns out t o
have a plot that can b e recognized as that o f the wisdom myth,
we will have found the precursor t e x t w e seek.
T H E HYMN AS WISDOM M Y T H
B e n Sira's reading o f the wisdom m y t h is given in c h a p t e r

1 1
24. It is sung as a hymn by and t o wisdom, whose destiny is
recounted from the beginning o f creation t o its full incarnation
in the temple cult o f Jerusalem. T h e hymn falls easily into
three sections, w h i c h can be taken as strophes, and includes
b o t h an invitation t o a c c e p t wisdom's story and the instruction
that it is available in M o s e s ' B o o k o f the Covenant, the T o r a h .
T h e T o r a h is said t o be wisdom's " m e m o r i a l " ( 2 4 : 2 0 ; t h e e n
tire section is 2 4 : 1 9 - 2 7 ) .
In the first strophe ( 2 4 : 3 - 7 ) , wisdom tells o f h e r origin
from the m o u t h o f the M o s t High, h o w she " c o v e r e d " the
earth, described the great circles o f o r d e r in creation, and thus
achieved sovereignty over all that she had created. At the end,
however, a t h e m e is a n n o u n c e d that will impel the narrative
forward. This t h e m e is o f wisdom's quest for a place t o dwell
among a people. I f t h e strophe had ended with an assertion
instead o f a question about wisdom's location, it would have
agreed with t h e basic plot o f t h e wisdom m y t h as seen in

Proverbs 8 and t h e Egyptian prototypes o f wisdom mythology
in general. T h i s plot is simply t h e narrative form o f t h e s e
quence wisdom-in-creation/wisdom-in-the-social-order noted
o n o t h e r occasions. T h a t t h e final lines invert the m o m e n t o f
wisdom's establishment in t h e social order, making o f it a
question, reflects t h e postcrisis sense o f wisdom's absence, that
is, " h o m e l e s s n e s s . " T h e h u m a n quest for wisdom has, h o w e v
er, been taken up into t h e m y t h itself as a part o f wisdom's
o w n quest for dwelling and is thus m a d e part o f the m y t h i c
answer t o t h e social p r o b l e m a t i c . As a narrative t h e m e , t h e
quest sets up t h e story for a series o f events in which resolu
tion is t o be e x p e c t e d .
T h e s e c o n d strophe ( 2 4 : 8 - 1 2 ) relates that t h e " C r e a t o r o f
all t h i n g s " c r e a t e d wisdom before t h e world and c o m m a n d e d
h e r t o take up h e r dwelling in Israel. W i s d o m did this, t o o k
r o o t among an h o n o r e d people, and ministered in the sanctu
ary at Jerusalem. B e t w e e n this and t h e first strophe, t h e r e is a
significant bit o f narrative slippage. Instead o f merely taking up
the story at t h e point o f wisdom's quest, t h e author has chosen
t o recast t h e first episode, that is, t h e creation o f t h e world, as
an a c t o f Y a h w e h . W i s d o m n o w b e c o m e s a creature t o o and
can b e told w h a t t o do. T h e c o m m a n d m e n t o f strophe 2 does
answer wisdom's question at t h e e n d o f strophe 1 and thus
provides its sequel. B u t because strophe 2 recasts t h e creation
episode, it ends up containing all t h e m a j o r m o m e n t s o f t h e
m y t h as well.
T h e third strophe ( 2 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) finds wisdom singing a song
o f exultation. H e r " r o o t a g e " in Israel has g o n e well. She has
"flourished" t o t h e point o f producing all she could have e x
pected. As a result, she can n o w invite all those w h o desire h e r
t o c o m e t o h e r ( 2 4 : 1 9 - 2 3 ) . She is, she says, there, available,
and ready t o b e possessed.
I f w e understand wisdom's question in t h e first strophe and
Yahweh's c o m m a n d m e n t in t h e s e c o n d t o belong t o a single
m o m e n t , that is, t h e quest, t h e narrative as a whole consists o f
four moves: creation, quest, location, and exaltation. In table 4 ,
these have b e e n given as t h e narrative outline underlying t h e
TABLE 4. THE STRUCTURE OF THE HYMN AS WISDOM MYTH
The Wisdom Myth (Sir. 24: 3 - 1 7 ) The Hymn (Sir. 4 4 - 5 0 )

Strophe 1 Strophe 2 Strophe 3
(3-7) (8-12) (13-17)
1. Creation 1. Establishment
Wisdom is enthroned in Yahweh creates wisdom. The order of the covenants
creation. is designed in a primeval
age.
2. Quest 2. Conquest and History
164
Wisdom seeks a dwelling Yahweh commands a The quest is to actualize

among a people. dwelling in Israel. the order in Israel.
3. Location 3. Restoration
Wisdom takes root among The order is actualized in
an honored people; she the temple cult.
ministers in the temple in
Jerusalem.
4. Exaltation 4. Climax
Wisdom glories in her Simon is exalted and
exaltation in Jerusalem. glorified.
hymn in c h a p t e r 2 4 , with w h i c h t h e m y t h i c history o f t h e

hymn in 4 4 - 5 0 m a y n o w be c o m p a r e d .
In t h e hymn, t h e design for t h e covenantal order is estab
lished in t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e first seven figures. Its place as
"preland," and therefore " p r e h i s t o r y , " has been n o t e d as a
mythic m o m e n t that casts t h e o r d e r thus established as a r c h e
typal, ideal, and perhaps transcendent. It is also here that t h e
foundational activity o f G o d is m o s t manifest in the hymn,
suggesting that t h e e p o c h is originary and creative. It c o r r e
sponds t o t h e m o m e n t o f creation in t h e wisdom myth, t h e
covenantal o r d e r itself taking t h e place o f wisdom as t h e m a n
ifestation o f t h e o r d e r o f things that t h e C r e a t o r intends t o be
actualized in h u m a n society.
T h e s e c o n d m a j o r section o f t h e hymn, the history o f the
prophets and kings, corresponds t o wisdom's quest and Y a h -
weh's c o m m a n d m e n t . W e have n o t e d t h e quest aspect o f this
section as having t o d o with t h e actualization o f t h e design in
the specific place o f t h e t e m p l e in Jerusalem. In the wisdom
hymn, Y a h w e h c o m m a n d s wisdom t o m a k e h e r dwelling in
J a c o b (Israel), in t h e tabernacle ( Z i o n ) , in the Holy City ( J e r u
salem). In t h e final section o f t h e hymn, w h i c h praises Simon,
the actualization o f t h e design has b e e n achieved and t h e high
priest is exalted. This corresponds b o t h t o the location o f
wisdom in t h e J e r u s a l e m t e m p l e and t o h e r exaltation there.
T h e imagery used t o describe t h e flourishing is identical: t h e
magnificence o f t h e ( c o s m i c ) t r e e and t h e glory o f the ( t e m p l e )
incense. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f m e t a p h o r s makes t h e point: t h e
integration o f t h e natural and social religious orders.
T h u s t h e structure o f t h e hymn in praise o f t h e hasidim
does c o r r e s p o n d t o that o f t h e wisdom myth. W e may be
justified, then, in reading it as a c o m p o s i t i o n enabled by t h e
wisdom t e x t . T h e process o f reflection and creative c o n c e p
tualization necessary t o m o v e from t h e m y t h t o the hymnic
history is e x t r e m e l y c o m p l e x , necessitating t h e conscious c o r
relation o f wisdom imagery with Hellenistic conceptualities in
order t o take up t h e J e w i s h social history in j u s t this way. B u t
the imaginative, intellectual process can be a c c o u n t e d for in
terms o f o u r thesis, and t h e p o w e r t h e composition gains from

its intertextual correlation o f precursors can b e imagined.
O n e aspect o f this literary a c h i e v e m e n t should be n o t e d in
passing. It is t h e way in w h i c h t h e post-Pentateuchal history
has b e e n read, especially in relation t o t h e P e n t a t e u c h itself.
T h e wisdom m y t h provided a narrative structure for a reading
o f the history as a w h o l e . B u t t h e correlation o f its episodes
with t h e biblical materials resulted in their classification a c
cording t o distinctively valorized readings. T h e P e n t a t e u c h has
been read t o c o r r e s p o n d w i t h t h e first episode o f t h e m y t h ,
that o f t h e establishment o f o r d e r in t h e presocial w o r l d at
large. It is important t o see that this reading was n o t at all a
m a t t e r o f arbitrary superimposition o f t h e m y t h i c valence o n
resistent materials. T h e priestly redaction and reading o f t h e
epic was quite congenial t o this n e w construction, and t h e
Hellenistic notion o f an archaic period at t h e beginning o f a
national o r universal history added its support. O n e suspects
Hellenistic influence, also, in t h e tightly knit development o f
the covenants with t h e first seven figures as a sort o f genealogy
o f the o r d e r o f things that was t o determine human history.
B u t that this reading o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h could t h e n b e j o i n e d
systematically t o a reading o f t h e sequel history was a m a j o r
achievement attributable mainly t o t h e m y t h i c t e x t that has
guided t h e whole. T h i s sequel history, t h e entire history from
Joshua's t o B e n Sira's t i m e , has b e e n read as a single " m o
m e n t " o f the myth. Valorized as " q u e s t " and rationalized by
Hellenistic c o n c e p t s o f history, paradigm, and testing, J e w i s h
history has b e e n assigned a function quite compatible with
wisdom thought. It is a remarkable achievement, making sense
o f t h e w h o l e by seeking o u t a logic capable o f bridging t h e
times from t h e Pentateuchal a c c o u n t s t o t h e present. T h e
sense that is m a d e o f it is, o f c o u r s e , wisdom's own. T h e r e is
n o development at all, n e i t h e r o f ideas, n o r o f social history,
n o r o f great acts that redirect t h e c o u r s e o f history itself. T h e
great design is predetermined, and " h i s t o r y " is n o w t h e lesson
about h o w important it is t o see t h e design and t o structure
the social o r d e r accordingly. History has been structured sys
tematically as a m o m e n t in a m y t h about structure itself.
G L O R Y AS THE PRESENCE OF W I S D O M
W e hope n o w t o have discovered t h e t e x t that can a c c o u n t

for the hymn's overall structure. W i t h that t e x t c o m e s also a
particular c o n t e x t o f thought, sensibility, and c o n c e r n . Assum
ing this as t h e literary and intellectual m a t r i x o f the hymn, w e
are able t o see m o r e clearly t h e several rationales for the c o m
plex literary combinations from w h i c h the hymn has been
composed. W h a t w e have n o t seen yet is the presence o f any
reference t o wisdom itself within t h e hymn capable o f provid
ing a recognizable t e x t u r e . T h e r e is perhaps n o reason t o e x
p e c t any sign o f wisdom's presence in Israel's history at the
surface level o f t h e t e x t . T h e purpose o f the hymn would have
been achieved for t h e sage in its a c c o u n t o f the covenant order
itself. T h e shift in ethos from t h e wisdom m y t h t o the m y t h i c
history o f t h e covenantal o r d e r may in fact preclude references
t o conventional wisdom in that account. B u t the question per
sists precisely because t h e sensibility o f the sage seems t o invite
it. M a y t h e r e n o t be, t h e question goes, s o m e aspect o f t h e
covenantal order, its offices, and especially o f the character o f
its pious leaders throughout history that can serve as a sign for
wisdom's presence? I would suggest that the repeated m e n t i o n
o f glory throughout t h e h y m n has as o n e o f its functions the
evocation o f t h e sense o f wisdom's presence in the history
from t h e beginning.
T h e use o f t h e t e r m " g l o r y " (kdbod) is, in any case, o n e o f
the m o s t startling features o f t h e hymn. Its affinities t o r e
ligious c o n c e p t s o f t h e holy and t h e transcendent m a r k its
attribution t o t h e hasidim as bordering on profanity. Y e t it is
used, emphatically and repeatedly, t o claim for t h e m a surpass
ing excellence. T h i s e x c e l l e n c e , it is said, could n o t but b e
recognized by t h e people. It is this usage o f this t e r m that gives
the history its continuity and t h e h y m n its texture.
T h e preceding h y m n t o creation has as its t h e m e the "glory
o f Y a h w e h , " w h i c h is " o v e r all His w o r k s " ( 4 2 : 1 7 ) . This glory
is visible in t h e c r e a t e d o r d e r and indeed is celebrated in t h e
hymn. Y a h w e h himself c a n n o t b e seen, but he can b e praised
because o f t h e manifestation o f his glory. T h e n the hymn in
praise o f t h e hasidim is introduced. Again the t h e m e is glory,

the glory that they had as t h e M o s t High's portion ( 4 4 : 2 ) . It is
visible in these m e n b o t h t o their generations and t o t h e read
ers o f t h e hymn. Glory, h o n o r , dignity, memorial, exaltation,
b l e s s i n g — t h e s e are t h e notes sounded throughout. M o s e s is
made "glorious as G o d " ( 4 5 : 2 ) ; Aaron is blessed with majesty
and glory ( 4 5 : 7 , 1 2 ) ; Phineas was glorious ( 4 5 : 2 3 ) ; and J o s h u a ,
" H o w glorious h e w a s " ( 4 6 : 2 ) . T h e litany ebbs and flows
throughout t h e history o f t h e prophets and t h e kings and
c o m e s t o c l i m a x in t h e portrayal o f Simon: " H o w glorious h e
was w h e n h e looked forth from t h e T e n t . . . . W h e n h e w e n t
up t o t h e altar o f majesty, and m a d e glorious t h e c o u r t o f t h e
sanctuary" ( 5 0 : 5 , 1 1 ) . B e n Sira's c h o i c e o f this t e r m t o give his
p o e m brilliance and t h e sense o f holy presence offers us a
precious c h a n c e t o see t h e sage at w o r k with words. T h e t e r m
itself is capable o f being read in relation t o the fundamental
concerns and purposes o f e a c h o f t h e hymn's precursor texts.
T h u s it is able in itself t o organize and integrate t h e m r o u n d a
common theme.
T h e t e m p l e cult as that social o r d e r toward w h i c h t h e m y
thic history moves is t h e primary s o u r c e and locus for t h e t e r m
" g l o r y , " o f course. In this c o n t e x t , glory refers t o t h e presence
o f G o d in t h e sanctuary. T h i s c o n n o t a t i o n o f t h e divine pres
e n c e is clearly in evidence throughout t h e hymn, but especially
so in t h e final scene. B u t even here, t h e t e r m is n o t used
expressly o f t h e presence o f G o d , b u t o f a quality o f t h e pres
e n c e o f t h e h u m a n figure w h o performs perfectly his high
office. It is this usage that at first profanes the t e r m , but it is
precisely t h e profane sense that is appropriate t o t h e o t h e r set
o f t e x t s read into t h e h y m n from t h e Hellenistic tradition.
Glory is t h e purpose o f t h e e n c o m i u m and t h e encomiastic
history. It t o o is being acknowledged and evoked. W e m a y
understand t h e G r e e k and Syriac translations o f 4 4 : 2 , that t h e
glory o f the hasidim was " c r e a t e d f o r " o r "alloted t o " t h e m by
the M o s t High, as an a t t e m p t t o mediate t h e tension this c r e
12
ates b e t w e e n t h e contrasting views o f t h e human and d i v i n e .
This sense o f t h e m a t t e r would b e right, for as w e have seen,
the pattern o f characterization contains n o m o m e n t o f h u m a n
aspiration o r achievement, and t h e great deeds are carefully

balanced by t h e c o u n t e r t h e m e o f divine purpose and will. B u t
the tension remains nonetheless, and it is created and held in
tension mainly by t h e t e r m " g l o r y . "
W e m u s t b e careful, h o w e v e r , n o t t o cast the dialectic e n
tirely in cross-cultural terms. T h e reason for this is that t h e
t e r m has t h e capacity t o e v o k e yet a n o t h e r arena o f discourse,
that o f the m y t h o f wisdom itself. R e s p e c t , h o n o r , and glory
are deeply r o o t e d in traditional wisdom and m a r k a m a j o r
value and motivation for t h e teaching-learning enterprise. G l o
ry also b e c o m e s t h e sage, and wisdom c o m i n g t o speech is said
t o praise herself and receive h o n o r b o t h a m o n g the people and
in t h e presence o f t h e M o s t High ( 2 4 : 1 ) .
T h e t e r m , then, belongs as well t o t h e linguistic field o f
wisdom discourse and thus alludes t o wisdom itself throughout
the hymn at t h o s e j u n c t u r e s w h e r e t h e intertextuality is t h i c k
est and t h e syncretistic purposes m o s t c o m p l e x . Its usage is t h e
primary device by w h i c h t h e p r e c u r s o r texts and their p e r
spectives o n t h e h u m a n s c e n e are brought t o focus in a n e w
vision. T h e vision is tensive and dialectical with respect t o
exactly w h o s e glory is manifest o r o n what basis t h e h u m a n
figures actually m a y b e said t o b e w o r t h y o f glorification. T h e
mediation b e t w e e n t h e glory o f t h e radically transcendent G o d
on t h e o n e hand and that o f t h e m a n o f superior achievement
on the o t h e r , a mediation m a d e possible by t h e wisdom an
thropology o f t h e sage, leaves little r o o m for questions about
the conditions and possibilities o f glory. Glory is simply posited
and allowed t o draw upon all o f its significations in older c o n
texts for t h e newly t e x t u r e d manifestation. T h i s layeredness is
the genius o f t h e n e w image and perspective and provides t h e
hymn as a w h o l e w i t h t h e t e x t u r e and t o n e that distinguish it
from all precursors.
T h e t e r m " g l o r y " is peculiarly capable o f receiving and c o n
taining diverse and tensive manifestations o f e x c e l l e n c e b e
cause, like t h e t e r m " w i s d o m , " it really has n o c o n t e n t o f its
own, depending for that upon its c o n t e x t . This is m o s t strange,
because as a t e r m for p r e s e n c e , it is energized by t h e notion
that it creates its o w n c o n t e x t — a s aura, as manifestation. T h i s
redundancy charges the t e r m with the radicality o f presence. It

is the full manifestation o f itself. Nothing really is revealed in a
m o m e n t o f glory e x c e p t glory itself. It b e c o m e s a hyperbole for
presence, at the same t i m e so highly charged with fullness that
one cannot bring t o it any o t h e r thought o r consideration and
so e m p t y o f any specific c o n t e n t that it can b e filled with
13
anything. It marks that space in the human imagination
where terms can b e substituted for o n e another o r conjoined,
transformed, o r destroyed. In the glory o f the final s c e n e o f the
hymn, n o t only are such specific and contrasting terms as
" G o d " and " h u m a n " c o m b i n e d , but basic categories o f differ
entiation are transcended and entire and diverse schemata for
the organization o f human e x p e r i e n c e are merged. It is a p o w
erful word, used t o open out e a c h o f the linguistic traditions
o n t o the others. It does create for the reader the sense o f
climax and fulfillment. W i s d o m is present here as t h e m a n
ifestation o f divine intention ( w i s d o m ) , what o n e has seen o f
creation's glory, k n o w n o f history's r h y m e and reason, and
considered the height o f human piety, excellence, and achieve
ment. It is there in t h e social order, the religious blessing, and
the high m o m e n t o f c o m m u n i t y e n a c t m e n t and celebration
that stops t h e flow o f t i m e in the kairos o f the present.
This o f course was t h e goal t o w a r d which the sage was
moving all along. It was an audacious thought and claim, but
one that was apparently required i f a solution was t o b e found
for the postcrisis dilemma o f wisdom itself. B e n Sira at least
understood that it was the actual social-religious structure that
needed blessing, that this blessing had t o b e gained by a p r o
cess o f m y t h i c rationalization. H e realized this in his wisdom
poetry, drawing upon t e x t s that could b e helpful for these
ends. F o r his time, the presence o f wisdom could b e seen,
then, and his w o r k as t e a c h e r and scribe secured. It was a
marvelous achievement in imagination and words. T h e poetry
was strong and g o o d enough t o last. Alas, it was n o t t o be so
for the temple and the priest. T h e poetic vision B e n Sira
achieved in the quest for a humanizing social order had t o
travel free and disembodied, seeking o t h e r homes. B u t those
are o t h e r stories for o t h e r times. W e conclude here with the

thought o f B e n Sira's o w n glory, for t h e glory seen in the high
priest's m o m e n t is really t h e r e only because o f B e n Sira's o w n
glorious act o f giving praise.
Conclusion
This study has followed a

certain course and arrived at t h e sense o f an ending. T h a t sense
is related t o t h e discovery o f t h e wisdom m y t h as o n e o f t h e
hymn's precursors, indeed t h e m o s t important o n e because by
exploring its patterns and logic, t h e many structural c o m p o
nents o f t h e h y m n can be imagined as a system, and its m a n y
signs and symbols can be integrated in a c o h e r e n t , conceptual
image. T h e h y m n makes sense structurally and thematically,
the logic o f its purpose can b e seen, and its composition can b e
regarded as t h e p r o d u c t o f an intellectual w h o k n e w what h e
was doing.
This sense o f conclusion is illusory in a way. All o f t h e
precursor t e x t s in B e n Sira's library have n o t been identified
and explored. T h e Psalms are a case in point. Neither have all
o f the traits, t h e m e s , and conceptualities belonging t o the
p o e m been seen o r discussed. O u r examination o f its i n t e r t e x -
tual relationships has only t o u c h e d t h e surface o f things, m o v
ing along quickly t o s k e t c h in t h e main outlines o f the picture.
Nevertheless, enough has b e e n n o t i c e d t o g e t t h e picture
straight, d e m o n s t r a t e t h e relationship o f t h e p o e m t o its p r e
cursors, c a t c h sight o f t h e a u t h o r at w o r k in its composition,
173
174 CONCLUSION
and identify the essential thrust o f its rhetorical intention and

power. An understandable reading has been proposed.
Discretion requires the admission that this understanding is
our own. Considerable labor has b e e n invested in t h e a t t e m p t
to imagine t h e composition and reading o f the hymn in its o w n
social setting, effected by its o w n salient history. B u t t h e n o
tion o f a structural system, w h i c h has allowed us t o delimit
what would otherwise b e c o m e an unending series o f observa
tions on textual relationships, belongs t o o u r o w n mental m a
chinery. T h e same is true for t h e sense o f a c e n t e r , s o m e t h e m e
or image o r c o n c e p t around which t h e system o f signs r e
volves. T h e n there is t h e question o f the capacity o f that c e n
tered system o f signs t o " r e f l e c t " upon what is k n o w n o f the
world in o t h e r ways and t o suggest a way t o see it all t o g e t h e r
through its lens. E a c h o f these intellectual sensibilities is
evoked in the proposal that w e n o w understand the p o e m and
need n o t c o n t i n u e t o press t h e search further. O u r study has
certainly relied on t h e way in w h i c h w e m a k e sense o f things
ourselves.
N o injustice has been d o n e t o t h e poem. W e may n o t have
seen all there is t o see about it, but what w e have seen is really
there. B e n Sira also w o r k e d with structures, systems, centers,
essential themes. H e strove t o encompass all the knowledge
there was about all the worlds k n o w n in a single poetic reflec
tion. It was t h e possibility o f demonstrating this aspect o f B e n
Sira's labor that has enabled o u r study t o unfold as it has. F o r
him also it was important t o t o u c h upon and bring t o g e t h e r all
o f the orders o f perceived reality in an integrative v i s i o n —
creation and history, social o r d e r and human life. B y evoking
Hellenic logic about the orders o f things (cosmos, polis, an-
thropos), he rationalized his wisdom m y t h and focused a reading
o f Israel's history in a single, glorious image. T h e image c e n
tered o n a figure and an e n a c t m e n t , but it reflected, and r e
flected upon, all o f t h e orders o f things imaginable. S o in the
case o f B e n Sira, w e w e r e lucky. O u r categories for making
sense o f things w e r e apparently m u c h like his as well, and his
book was big enough, and rich enough, t o let us discover what
they were.
CONCLUSION 175
B u t n o w that t h e study has c o m e t o an ending, o n e wonders

about t h e difference it m i g h t m a k e . T h i s is a n o t h e r kind o f
question, t o b e sure, a nagging kind that frequendy leads t o t h e
chasing o f chimeras. B u t t h e question is important nevertheless
and should at least b e acknowledged. O n e wonders, o n t h e o n e
hand, w h e t h e r t h e writing o f such a p o e m m a d e any difference
in B e n Sira's t i m e , and o n t h e o t h e r , w h e t h e r t h e reading w e
have managed makes any difference now. T h e s e t w o questions
are interrelated in a very strange way.
W h e t h e r B e n Sira was justified in glorifying Simon's reign
and w h e t h e r his glorification o f it was an effective factor in
subsequent social history are simply unanswerable questions.
B u t t h e r e are t w o things about t h e relation o f B e n Sira's p o e m
t o its social c i r c u m s t a n c e s that can be noted. T h e first is that
the p o e m was written while t h e political situation was still
relatively stable. T h e o t h e r is that t h e picture B e n Sira painted
o f Simon's glorious m o m e n t did survive b o t h Simon and B e n
Sira himself. T h e p o e m was strong enough t o last. It is still
here for t h e reading, having b e e n t u c k e d away in that c o l l e c
tion o f hidden t e x t s k n o w n n o w as the Apocrypha. It was
primarily its inclusion in t h e larger set o f texts that determined
a certain history o f its readings, and it was that history o f its
readings, mainly, that brought it t o m o d e r n scholars' desks.
Taking it up n o w for a n o t h e r reading is t o take up the entire
history o f its readings.
This history has b e e n bumpy. It was treasured by t h e J e w i s h
sages o f the n e x t t w o o r t h r e e centuries; as the many additions,
changes, and versions o f Sirach show, it spawned a very fertile
manuscript tradition. B u t it did n o t m a k e t h e rabbis' selection
o f H e b r e w t e x t s for normative reading, though they did cite
Sirach frequently, at least until the medieval period, w h e n it
looks as i f B e n Sira was forgotten for a while. T h e G r e e k trans
lation has a n o t h e r story. Included in t h e Septuagint by t h e
J e w i s h scholars in Alexandria, Sirach popped up in the C a t h o
lic canon, w h e r e it has since been cherished as a b o o k for
Christian devotion, ethical instruction, and theology. T h e
Protestants w e r e t h e ones w h o decided against it again, b e
cause they couldn't find it in t h e H e b r e w Bible. B u t it has been
176 CONCLUSION
read by Protestant theologs as well, o n occasion, as all forbid

den books are r e a d — w i t h a sense o f trespass, daring, caution,
and titillation. Its readings have b e e n varied, d e t e r m i n e d for
the m o s t part by those prior j u d g m e n t s about t h e status o f t h e
b o o k among t h e several collections o f books.
It is difficult t o say i f B e n Sira would be pleased. H e w a n t e d
to be read, and h e w a n t e d t o be r e m e m b e r e d . H e understood
something about t e x t s , t o o , and about t h e fuzziness t h e r e al
ways is b e t w e e n t h e acts o f reading and writing. H e thought
his poems w e r e able, as h e said, t o " i n c r e a s e w i s d o m . " S o in a
sense h e shouldn't mind. B u t wisdom for him was o n e thing
and wisdom for t h e fathers o f t h e c h u r c h has been another.
Reading B e n Sira t h r o u g h a Christian lens has repeatedly dis
torted t h e pictures h e painted in ways h e would n o t recognize.
An entirely o t h e r set o f interests and c o n c e r n s phrased t h e
questions w i t h w h i c h those readers t o o k his p o e m s up. N o w
another reading has b e e n done, with yet a n o t h e r set o f ques
tions as its guide. B u t t h e r e is n o claim t o wisdom h e r e , n e i t h e r
an increase o f B e n Sira's wisdom n o r an e x t r a c t i o n from it o f
the wisdom theologians seek. T o a c c o u n t for the sense o f t h e
p o e m in its o w n time, t o enlarge o u r picture o f its h u m a n
scene, t o c a t c h sight o f a p o e t reading and writing his w o r l d —
that has been o u r goal.
B u t t h e history o f t h e o t h e r readings has n o t been lost sight
of. T h e s e readings c o m e with t h e t e x t , a kind o f patina, o r an
invitation t o certain attitudes as o n e handles it again. B e n Sira's
heroes, times, and t e x t belong t o o u r cultural history, it seems,
from a period w e call formative. W e d o n ' t k n o w h o w t o talk
about t h e way in w h i c h it still affects us, t o be sure, o r why.
B u t the G r e c o - R o m a n age is still important t o us. W e do keep
trying t o g e t t h e history straight. It was then that certain c o n
structions w e r e put upon things, certain patterns o f thought
were w o r k e d out, and certain social notions e s t a b l i s h e d — a l l
o f which set s o m e courses for t h e ensueing history o f the
W e s t . R a b b i n i c Judaism and Christianity b o t h w e r e born then.
T h e inquisitive ones a m o n g us have always w o n d e r e d how
each c a m e t o be.
In the tradition o f Christian readings, B e n Sira's h y m n has
CONCLUSION 177
been thought i m p o r t a n t mainly for o n e reason, that is, t h e way

in w h i c h t h e figures o f t h e H e b r e w epic w e r e recast as heroes
o f religious faith and o f t h e destiny o f Israel. It has b e e n r e
garded as a very early instance o f w h a t was t o b e c o m e an
intense p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h h e r o e s , ideal figures, and m y t h o
logical imagery during t h e n e x t t h r e e h u n d r e d years. M u c h o f
the scholarly energy devoted t o exploring this p h e n o m e n o n
has been g e n e r a t e d by t h e question o f t h e origins o f C h r i s
tianity, especially t h e origins o f t h e Christ myth. All o f t h e
many m y t h i c configurations in J e w i s h t e x t s o f t h e period have
been studied largely with this question in mind. T h e favorite
figures, those that have b e e n classed as " m e s s i a n i c , " t e n d t o be
singular depictions o f mediation, at first displaced from social
history, about w h i c h patterns o f destiny and salvation seem t o
accrue. B e n Sira's heroes have therefore n o t been c o u n t e d
among t h e m , appearing t o o m u n d a n e for comparison with the
grand pattern o f c o s m i c destiny imagined for the Christ. B u t
the p o e m has always b e e n in t h e peripheral vision o f Christian
scholars, lying o n t h e early fringes o f t h e significant period. I f
not immediately helpful for t h e Christological question, then,
perhaps t h e p o e m relates t o t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t h e " h e r o e s o f
t h e faith," a c o r r e l a t e n o t i o n o f ideal types, understood t o
function by calling for imitation. T h u s t h e alternative in
terpretation has b e e n posed.
Uneasy about that retrospective lens, I thought t o have an
o t h e r look. I c h o s e B e n Sira's h y m n because it seemed a m a n
ageable t e x t , a t e x t w h o s e a u t h o r was k n o w n and about w h i c h
something o f literary, cultural, and social setting had been de
termined. T h e questions I have asked o f it, and t h e nature o f
the understanding sought, have b e e n critical in t h e sense that
any human sciences approach t o religion, literature, and soci
ety is critical. A n d they have b e e n implicidy critical o f the
history o f t h e theological readings. I tried t o set aside that
history with its theological c o n c e r n s , and t h e study unfolded as
it did. B u t n o w it appears that an assessment o f what w e may
have learned about t h e t e x t requires comparison with that
history o f its readings. Certain assumptions about ideal figures
appear t o have guided t h e interpretations o f those readings.
178 CONCLUSION
M y reading does n o t b e a r t h e m out, so something should b e

said about t h e novelties that surface in this study.
Several proposals have b e e n m a d e about t h e composition o f
the t e x t that are n e w t o t h e public discourse o n Sirach. S o m e
o f these m a y appear strange, and all will require testing by
others. T h e thesis about a p a t t e r n o f characterization is o n e
example. It has n o t b e e n c u s t o m a r y t o m a k e so m u c h o f a
compositional outline, m u c h less infer from it an author's e m
ployment o f a set o f techniques fully articulated and ra
tionalized in a rhetorical t h e o r y o f literature. T o discover such
a pattern is t o see t h e a u t h o r at his craft?
T h e discernment o f an a r c h i t e c h t o n i c structure t o t h e h y m n
is also new, as is t h e thesis that this structure intended a c o m
plete reading o f t h e epic history. B e n Sira would n o t have
called this h y m n i c history a m y t h i c etiology for S e c o n d T e m p l e
Judaism, as w e m u s t d o in o r d e r t o understand its function,
but t h e intention I have theorized would have b e e n recognized
by him in his o w n terms. T h a t reading o f t h e history and B e n
Sira's view o f S e c o n d T e m p l e society belonged t o g e t h e r in his
mind. T o propose this is t o suggest that B e n Sira's p o e t i c c o n
struction was ultimately that o f an ideal social history and
world. T h a t h e achieved this correlation by imaginative m a n i p
ulation o f t h e m y t h o f w i s d o m is also a n e w thesis, o n e that
scholars o f t h e wisdom traditions in Israel and Judaism m a y
find farfetched. It is proposed, however, with u t m o s t se
riousness. O n l y by means o f s o m e such thesis can w e imagine
B e n Sira as a sage, thinking things through clearly and c o u
rageously, in t h e interest o f making sense o f his society.
Novelties such as these should b e amenable t o debate, h o w
ever, given t h e resources available t o scholars in t h e traditions
o f literary criticism. Conventional notions about "traditions
history" n e e d n o t be given up entirely w h e n t h e set o f p r e c u r
sor texts is expanded as I have pursued them. Certain assump
tions about t h e history o f ideas and t h e monolinear develop
m e n t o f genres will have t o g o , t o b e sure. B u t that shift has
already happened in t h e scholarly guild, and the p h e n o m e n o n
o f multiple relations with o t h e r " t e x t s " should c o m e as n o
surprise. T h e p r o b l e m n o w for t h e literary critic is, n o t t o find
CONCLUSION 179
enough t e x t s for comparison, but t o limit the n u m b e r o f c o m

parable t e x t s and argue for their sufficiency. Sufficient would
b e a set o f t e x t s c o m p l e x enough t o reflect upon a h u m a n
social setting and its labors.
B u t what about t h e characterizations achieved by this p o e t i c
means? In t h e c o u r s e o f o u r study, t h e t e r m s "hasidim" and
" h e r o e s " have b e e n used t o refer t o t h e figures B e n Sira c r e
ated. B u t n e i t h e r t e r m is adequate as a g e n e r i c designation,
especially n o t in t h e c o n n o t a t i o n s each possesses in c o n t e m p o
rary usage. B e n Sira's figures are certainly n o t heroes o f
achievement. N e i t h e r are t h e y heroes o f faith, n o r ideal types
1
o f personal piety o r righteousness. T h e y are n o t saviors. T h e y
have n o t been invested with any ontological o r soteriological
significance, as i f t h e a c t o f praising t h e m might b o r d e r on awe
o r veneration. T h e y are t o b e r e m e m b e r e d , and their glory
noted u n d e r a single aspect only. T h e y are ideal figures o f
official functions, t h e very functions requisite t o a social c o n
struction o f Israel's history.
W e should pause h e r e in o r d e r t o explore m o r e fully t h e
significance o f this finding. T h e proposal is that history was
understood in j u s t t h e way it was in o r d e r t o e r e c t a m y t h i c
foundation for a social construction. T h e m y t h i c claims inher
ent in the p o e m therefore do n o t apply t o the heroes as indi
viduals o r as types, but t o t h e structure o f the society itself.
N o t even S i m o n can b e said t o be invested with glorious being
in any sense. H e is m e r e l y an officiant in t h e line o f officials
w h o c e n t e r t h e picture o f t h e essential nature o f Israel. This
ideal picture, m o r e o v e r , was imagined, reasoned out, and
crafted in o r d e r t o m a k e a s t a t e m e n t about a very real society
in the author's o w n t i m e , his o w n society. T h e claim is as
tonishing. T h e lack o f fit b e t w e e n the idealization and the real
ity should be kept in mind, b u t that disjunction only casts into
higher relief t h e t r e m e n d o u s investment B e n Sira was willing
t o m a k e in t h e society in w h i c h he lived. T h u s the h y m n is
marked, n o t by any interest in the idealization o r glorification
o f the h u m a n c o n c e i v e d as individual persons, but by what
might be called a studied investment in a social anthropology.
It is important t o see that t h e investment o f intellectual and
180 CONCLUSION
poetic energy and skill was called for by t h e desire t o m a k e

social sense of, t o see t h e wisdom in, that social system. Its
idealization was n o t a p r o d u c t o f whimsy, fantasizing, mystic
vision, o r wishful thinking. T h e scholarly labor required t o
craft such a p o e m is evidence that this c a n n o t be t h e case. B u t
because the social sense o f t h e society required rationalization,
could n o t be w o n by m e r e description, t h e social notions that
were involved in its organization needed t o be p r o b e d and
assessed. T h e result was a conservative assessment, in spite o f
the liberal learning used t o achieve it. It called for t h e c o n t i n u
ance o f the system even as it claimed t o have discovered in the
past t h e reasons for that c o n t i n u a n c e . This call t o see t h e
structure c e n t e r e d in t h e office o f Simon was celebrative. B u t
by only slight shifts in t h e social c o n t e x t s o f its reading, t h e
poem could serve as p o l e m i c as well, polemic against o t h e r
interests and o t h e r views that threatened t o tarnish B e n Sira's
picture. It could b e c o m e t h e basis for a political program, an
ideology.
W e c a n n o t tell w h e t h e r B e n Sira's p o e m was used that way,
or w h e t h e r it made any difference o f the kind for w h i c h he
may have hoped. B u t w e can n o t e that a change in social
circumstances forced o t h e r kinds o f reading. Already in t h e
G r e e k translation rendered by B e n Sira's grandson, S i m o n ' s
name was deleted in t h e final blessing o f t h e hymn, and t h e r e is
no longer any trace t h e r e o f t h e petition that " n o o n e ever be
cut off from the covenant o f P h i n e a s " ( 5 0 : 2 4 ) . In c h a p t e r 3 6 , a
petitionary p o e m was added t o B e n Sira's b o o k by a later hand.
It contains still t h e vision o f "all t h e tribes o f J a c o b " gathered
in Jerusalem at t h e t e m p l e w h e r e G o d ' s glory is, but t h e peti
tion is n o w born o f despair, and the projection is e s -
chatological. N o w t h e vision can only be imagined in a n o t h e r
time and place, though t h e guarantors for it are still t h e p r o p h
ets and the promises o f t h e past ( 3 6 : 1 1 - 1 7 ) . T h u s a n o t h e r
time brought a n o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e , and with it a radical dis
placement o f B e n Sira's m y t h i c vision. W i t h names erased, and
the lines n o longer drawn d o w n and o u t into an actual society,
the ideal image floated free. T h e question is w h e t h e r such free-
floating images, t h e p o e t i c visions that burgeoned in t h e c e n -
CONCLUSION 181
t u n e s after B e n Sira, can still be understood as intellectual

achievements. D i d t h e difficult history force an abandonment
o f the kind o f social labor w e have found t o be true o f B e n
Sira's reflections?
T h e r e is t h e possibility, t o b e sure, that another, m o r e m i m
etic reading a c c o m p a n i e d s o m e o f these ideal depictions. Even
B e n Sira's vision could have b e e n taken as a c h a r t e r for what
had t o b e done in m o r e difficult times. T h o u g h w e c a n n o t b e
sure, popular leaders m a y have w a n t e d t o start over again with
B e n Sira's J o s h u a s o m e h o w in mind. T h e Hasmonean leaders
may have sought t o claim his high priest's glory. O t h e r s still,
worried about t h e lack o f fit b e t w e e n t h e glorious vision and
the world, m a y have tried t o take t h e vision with t h e m , away
from the city, t o build a m o d e l in t h e desert o n its lines and
prepare for a n o t h e r restoration. F o r all o f these, in any case,
the model o f t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e society was the way t o think
Israel. S o m e t h i n g like B e n Sira's p o e m may have furnished t h e
rationale.
B u t t h e times w e r e tough o n S e c o n d T e m p l e models. T h e
social history was m a r k e d by t r e m e n d o u s efforts t o establish a
stable sovereignty in J u d a e a in t h e face o f foreign powers. In
ternal conflicts o v e r h o w that sovereignty was conceived and
h o w best t o g o about achieving it e r r u p t e d and t o o k their toll.
Alternative social formations b o t h in Judaea and in t h e D i
aspora w e r e c r e a t e d as well. It was a period that, eventually,
did not s u c c e e d in its designs for Jerusalem. T h e literatures
reflect t h e agony o f all o f this for t h e sages. N o poet after B e n
Sira's t i m e could afford t o m a k e t h e claim h e made, write
another p o e m like his. B u t others did step into his shoes, tak
ing up t h e poet's task, t o w r i t e yet o t h e r poems. W a s t h e
imaginative labor o f t h e same kind?
M y suspicion is that m a n y o f t h e p o e m s in the subsequent
period, p o e m s depicting ideal figures, w e r e born o f the same
concerns that p r o d u c e d t h e h y m n in praise o f t h e fathers. T h e
so-called messianic figures, t h e ideal types and mythological
configurations in t h e wisdom literatures, the various figures o f
the apocalyptic visions, t h e m y t h i c elaborations o f t h e epic
h e r o e s — a l l might be seen as scholarly labors in the interest o f
182 CONCLUSION
rethinking Israel. T h e y would b e t h e poet's way o f probing t h e

grounds for legitimation, reflecting on t h e social structures,
and seeking t h e locus o f Israel's authorities. T h e intellectual
investments would b e t h e same as B e n Sira's. T h e p o e t i c ide
alization would have o c c u r r e d similarly. T h e revisioning o f t h e
history would have been achieved by the same methods. T h e
focus on official figures would have been for the same reasons.
T h e difference would b e that n o claim t o actualization in t h e
present would have b e e n possible. T h e separation o f t h e ideal
from t h e realities o f history would b e painfully acknowledged
in the very fact o f t h e ideal's p l a c e m e n t in imagined t i m e and
order. B u t that displacement n e e d n o t consign the m y t h i c vi
sions t o fantasy. T h e y m a y have reflected a very astute and
serious assessment o f t h e social realities under review as
inadequate.
T h a t a singular figure o f high o f f i c e — a priest, a scribe, a
warrior, o r a k i n g — c o u l d be used t o c o n c e n t r a t e a reflection
on the ideal social structure o f Israel as a whole is n o w plausi
ble, given t h e evidence from B e n Sira. W e might n o t e that, in
general, these m y t h i c figures o f the period represented the
functions and qualities essential for t h e social formation o f Is
rael. This can be seen in t h e selection o f e n d o w m e n t s and
functions attributed t o these figures. T h e y are exactly and only
those that w e r e under discussion throughout this period as
problematic. Piety, p o w e r , place among t h e nations, guarantee
o f social j u s t i c e , system o f governance, legal basis o r constitu
tion, and what t o do about internal diversity w e r e all issues
needing resolution in t h e struggles t o conceptualize, actualize,
and defend t h e notion o f Israel in t h e many forms o f Judaism
that w e r e a t t e m p t e d during this time.
F o r these imaginary figures, also, a formal pattern o f c h a r a c
terization seems t o have been used, m u c h like that used by B e n
Sira. T h e pattern was filled in by selecting t h e combination o f
carefully nuanced features that could b e integrated in a single
configuration. T h i s configuration solved imaginatively certain
political issues o f c o n s e q u e n c e . A particular slant t o t h e defini
tion o f office, a careful selection from among the m a n y notions
o f legitimation, the m o d e o f p o w e r proposed and its c o n -
CONCLUSION 183
straints, perspectives o n piety, definitions o f justice, and stance

toward conflict, enemies, and the law o r traditions reflected
decisions m a d e about Judaism and its constitution in G r e c o -
R o m a n times. E a c h ideal figure put t h e pieces t o g e t h e r in a
particular way, working o u t the troublesome issues in a sin
gular image. T h e y appear t o have been organizing centers for
reflection on social construction, studies in the intersection o f
the forces in play in social formation. In the absence o f a single
comprehensive and acceptable social system, they could serve
as Archimedean points o f intellectual leverage for gaining per
spective on the situation. T h u s they could be used t o solve
certain problems theoretically that s o m e g r o u p was struggling
t o rationalize. T h e y appear t o have been imaginative labors in
the interest o f analyzing, understanding, recommending, and
facilitating particular social m o d e s o f being in the world. W e
would do wrong t o think that an ontology o f the ideal was
intended.
B u t our suspicion requires testing. T h e texts are many, and
the configurations diverse. T h a t placement o f each t e x t must
be found that determined its c o n t e x t s , that intersection o f s o
cial and cultural history w h e r e it was composed. O n l y by find
ing that point and then exploring the texts used in c o m p o s i
tion will it be possible t o ask in each case about intention. As
the circumstances changed throughout the history o f this peri
od, texts and traditions and interests o t h e r than those available
t o B e n Sira e n t e r e d the intellectual arena. T h e s e have t o be
identified as well.
T h e r e w e r e , however, s o m e constants in the contextual
equations throughout t h e period for J e w i s h writers, and these
deserve special attention. T o r a h and wisdom and Hellenic
paideia continued t o describe t h e volatile cultural m i x in g e n e r
al for the n e x t three centuries. And it was the social history o f
the S e c o n d T e m p l e state that was constantly under review.
Taking a clue from B e n Sira, then, for w h o m these texts and
concerns w e r e basic t o o , the m e t h o d s employed by the schol
arly poets might have run s o m e w h a t as follows. A j u d g m e n t
would have been m a d e on t h e state o f affairs in keeping with
traditions held dear. M a n y o f these judgments appear t o have
184 CONCLUSION
been critical. . T h e n e e d t o assess t h e reasons for the lack o f

social sense t h e n turned t h e scholar t o the texts. T h e c o m m o n
texts o f m o s t i m p o r t a n c e w e r e the H e b r e w epic and the an
cient histories. Researching t h e m as c h a r t e r d o c u m e n t s , Isra
el's wisdom could again b e seen, idealized as foundational
pattern. T h e ancient models settled upon could then b e j u x
taposed t o t h e times. Ideal images could be used t o assess j u s t
where it was that things w e n t wrong and t o suggest what must
happen t o set t h e m right again. T h e y could also b e used as
charters for polemic o r programs. T h e rule might b e that the
greater the displacement o f an image from the times ( w h e t h e r
in the c o s m o s , in t h e future, o r in the realm o f ideas), the
harsher the assessment o f the actual state o f affairs in J e r u s a
lem.
Such p o e t i c madness would n o t have been without its logic.
T o reread t h e past as critique o f the present and propose an
ideal for reflection upon it, that would b e t o call for m o s t
serious discussion. A certain remythologization o f history
would b e involved, as would b e the logics o f narrative, r h e t
oric, and philosophy. T h e narrative would simply be the tri
partite sequence o f archaic promises, failure, and the road t o
resolution. In contrast t o B e n Sira's narrative, t h e present
would still b e perceived as the period o f struggle, forced t o
look b a c k and ahead t o models and ideals quite different from
itself. T h e r h e t o r i c would simply marshal the commonly
agreed upon traditions for a proposal in keeping with their
intent. Philosophical logic would involve the reasonableness
with which, in the ideal image as configuration, the set o f
c o m p l e x factors requisite t o social functioning w e r e arranged,
interrelated, and positioned w i t h regard t o the world scene.
W i s d o m and paideia would also have participated in m o s t o f
these efforts, and with t h e m t h e literatures that m a d e those
intellectual traditions available t o the sages. B e n Sira would n o t
have been, then, the only wise, scholarly poet o f the times
using poetry t o think big thoughts. His ideal figures would n o t
have been the only mythologies generated in the m a t r i x o f
social conflict and formation.
O u r reading c o m e s around t o the point at which w e began.
I hope the n e w questions have formed a set, have represented
CONCLUSION 185
adequately c u r r e n t scholarly desires t o c o m b i n e critical and

historical approaches t o t h e interpretation o f literature, and
have b e e n asked rigorously e n o u g h t o enable a strong alter
native t o t h e traditional reading o f Sirach. T h e difference this
analysis might m a k e for o t h e r studies has b e e n suggested n o w ,
mainly in regard t o a long-standing scholarly discourse o n t h e
origins o f t h e Christ myth. I f m y reading o f B e n Sira is right,
that quest has assumed s o m e things about t h e nature and func
tion o f mythological figures in J e w i s h literatures o f the period
that are very misleading. I h o p e t o have suggested a n o t h e r and
b e t t e r way t o understand t h e m .
I do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e question about t h e value o f the study
exhausted with these thoughts, however. T h e r e are o t h e r liter
ary p h e n o m e n a o f t h e period for w h i c h B e n Sira's way with
texts m a y provide s o m e fresh approaches as well. A b r i e f m e n
tion m a y b e m a d e o f t w o o f these in closing, t w o that o c c u r
quite frequently in a very wide range o f early J e w i s h and
Christian literatures. O n e is k n o w n as a series o f examples. B e n
Sira's h y m n has often b e e n classed with this genre. It is, in fact,
just this literary form w i t h w h i c h it has b e e n c o m p a r e d w i t h
greatest regularity by scholars, as t h e numerous instances o f
2
t h e citation o f parallel t e x t s s h o w . W h e t h e r all o f t h e parallels
usually c i t e d belong t o t h e class is questionable, but s o m e o f
3
these t e x t s do appear t o b e based o n Hellenistic p r o t o t y p e s .
In o u r study, however, B e n Sira's h y m n has n o t b e e n found t o
function paradigmatically, as t h e G r e e k series do. T h i s means
that his p o e m m a y be helpful in t h e a t t e m p t t o understand
these o t h e r t e x t s , but mainly as a contrastive example. An
investigation o f t h e G r e e k g e n r e itself is required, and each
instance o f its apparent usage in J e w i s h and Christian literature
needs t o b e l o o k e d at carefully in regard t o its intention. T h i s
would n o t b e an insignificant investigation, for it probably
would involve clarifying t h e notions o f repetition and imita
tion, notions that would put t h e J e w i s h and Christian t e x t s in
question m u c h closer t o G r e e k ways o f thinking than w e have
4
found t o b e t h e case with B e n S i r a . T h e difference this would
m a k e for social r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s m i g h t be very important t o
understand.
T h e s e c o n d type o f serialization that also needs t o be b e t t e r
186 CONCLUSION
understood appears t o unify a relatively small n u m b e r o f fig

ures in genealogical relation t o form an " e p o c h . " A clear e x
ample o f t h e type is found in c h a p t e r 1 0 o f the W i s d o m o f
Solomon. T h e names o f t h e seven great figures from Adam t o
Moses have b e e n erased and a singular typology has b e e n su
perimposed. Seven times it happens that " t h e righteous o n e "
is " s a v e d " by wisdom. T h e epic history in Genesis was o b
viously understood t o b e an a c c o u n t o f t h e primeval age. T h i s
aspect o f t h e t e x t reminds o n e o f B e n Sira's view o f t h e epic as
primeval history with its seven figures related t o t h e c o v e
nants. In t h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , however, history is n o t
rehearsed d o w n t o t h e present t i m e . O n c e t h e primal e p o c h
has b e e n imagined, it b e c o m e s a m o d e l for t h e significance o f
saving events in all times. T h e midrash o n t h e Exodus story in
W i s d o m 11 — 19 has added a c l i m a c t i c m o m e n t t o t h e primeval
epoch, interpreted t h e E x o d u s in t e r m s o f eschatological imag
ery, and transformed it into a timeless event o f salvation itself.
O n e suspects that t h e effacement o f individual characteristics
such as proper names has b e e n called for by this m o v e . O n e
suspects, also, that a wisdom m o d e o f reading t h e P e n t a t e u c h
as primal and archetypal history has enabled t h e modeling.
This would b e t h e same as B e n Sira's reading o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h
and his c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e first seven figures o f t h e h y m n as
constituting a foundational e p o c h . W i t h B e n Sira, however, it
was the e l e c t i o n - c o v e n a n t t h e m e that predominated; in t h e
W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , it is t h e figure o f wisdom herself that
provides t h e genealogical c o n n e c t i o n s . T h a t t h e figure o f
wisdom has b e e n introduced expressly into a reading o f t h e
epic history m u s t b e seen as a n o t h e r daring and audacious
m o m e n t . W i t h it, t h e way is prepared for a fully allegorical
interpretation o f the scriptures that searches out those textual
signs (e.g., Sarah) with w h i c h t h e figure o f wisdom m a y be
identified.
Finally, a suggestion about t h e possible significance o f B e n
Sira's awareness o f w h a t it m e a n t t o be an author should be
given. T h i s is certainly o n e o f t h e m o r e remarkable traits about
him. In contrast t o t h e authorship o f J e w i s h works before his
time and t o the pseudonymity o f m u c h o f the literature after
his time, B e n Sira's consciousness and a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f
CONCLUSION 187
being an a u t h o r is a strange and wonderful anomaly. It was n o

doubt t h e result o f his learning about t e x t s , education, and
authorship o n t h e m o d e l o f t h e G r e e k s . T h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f
authorship e x p e c t e d that t h e a u t h o r b e responsible for his ut
terances, and it rewarded h i m for their sagacity. T h e author
knew, also, that t h e t e x t s o f others belonged t o t h e m , their
product and property. T h e potential for c o m p e t i t i o n was real,
b o t h with regard t o precursors and w i t h regard t o c o n t e m p o
raries. B e n Sira probably had n o t confronted t h e problem o f
his relationship t o t h e authority o f M o s e s , t h e author w h o s e
t e x t h e r e w r o t e . B u t o n c e t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f authorship was
there, c o m b i n e d as it was for B e n Sira with an e x t r e m e l y high
view o f M o s e s ' place in t h e hierarchical structure o f Israel's
mythic paradigm, t h e tension b e t w e e n t h e t w o authorities
could hardly have b e e n avoided.
If, as t h e evidence indicates, M o s e s ' position in this and
o t h e r respects b e c a m e a widely pervasive notion in t h e late
Hellenistic and early R o m a n periods in Judaism and C h r i s
tianity, it m a y well b e that his authority simply was found t o
b e overpowering. Readers o f his t e x t s , unable t o claim peerage
in authorship as B e n Sira implicitly did, would have t o offer
some disclaimer in o r d e r t o w r i t e anything n e w at all. T h e r e
seem t o have b e e n t h r e e options. T h e e x e g e t e could a c k n o w l
edge t h e superiority o f t h e scriptural t e x t s by offering his o w n
views as c o m m e n t a r y upon t h e m . T h e author o f pseudony
mous works could c o m p o s e w i t h o u t these constraints, but at
the cost o f self-effacement and t h e attribution o f his writings
t o figures o f t h e past. O r o n e m i g h t yield at t h e point o f poetic
claims t o special authority and be c o n t e n t , n o t t o write an
inspired piece, but t o set forth reasoned and prosaic history, as
for instance, J o s e p h u s did.
B u t n o w t h e discourse has really taken us t o o far afield.
W i t h M o s e s o n t h e rise, acknowledged author o f the founda
tional t e x t s , a n o t h e r age dawns and a n o t h e r authority c o m e s t o
take B e n Sira's place. It is best t o return, then, for o u r last
remarking, t o B e n Sira's o w n t i m e and t o conclude with his
o w n glory in mind. I trust that m y reading has n o t tarnished its
brilliance.
Appendix A
The Proem
and the Hymn
to Creation
Several scholars have drawn

attention to the introduction of the theme of praise in 4 2 : 1 5
and noted the appropriateness of the hymn in praise of the
C r e a t o r ( 4 2 : 1 5 - 4 3 : 3 5 ) as an introduction to the hymn in
praise of the fathers. B u t the relationship has not been thor
oughly explored, and most have focused their attention upon
chapters 4 4 - 5 0 as a literary unit in itself, taking 44:1 as the
1
introduction of a new theme. I would argue that the two
hymns of praise are meant to be taken together, and that the
thematic development that results provides a significant per
spective on the purpose of the hymn in praise of the fathers.
There are some obvious indications of a literary nature that
the two hymn sections were composed as a unit. T h e first is
the striking similarity of the first lines: " N o w I will remember
God's works"; " N o w I will praise pious men." T h e differences
between them are easily accounted for in terms of the respec
tive themes. That each is introduced by an announcement of
the poet's intention in the first person, however, is a signal to
the reader of their close relationship. O n e may wonder, too,
whether there may not be an element of intentional juxtaposi
tion in the slight degree of linguistic inversion in the choice of
189
190 APPENDIX A
the verbs. E i t h e r o f t h e t w o words ( r e m e m b e r , zdkar; praise,

hillel) could be used in either o f the t w o a n n o u n c e m e n t s , o f
course. B u t o n e might have e x p e c t e d the t e r m for praise t o be
a bit m o r e appropriate for t h e hymn t o the Creator's works,
and the t e r m for r e m e m b e r t o b e m o r e appropriate for the
" d e e d s " o f the fathers ( w h e r e t h e m e m o r y o f their n a m e b e
comes an obvious t h e m e ) . B y interchanging these t e r m s a sub
tle nuance is c r e a t e d that allows the subject m a t t e r o f the t w o
hymnic sections t o b e taken together. T h e " r e c i t a l " (zikkaron)
begins with the hymn t o t h e Creator.
The transition from t h e first section t o the second also
shows literary continuity. Following the description o f the
glorious works o f G o d in t h e creation ( 4 3 : 1 - 2 6 ) , the t h e m e s o f
human inability t o c o m p r e h e n d G o d ' s works and o f G o d ' s un
fathomable majesty are c o m b i n e d in an exhortation for a
heightened form o f praise ( 4 3 : 2 7 - 3 2 ) . This is on the o n e hand
a return t o the inability o f the " h o l y o n e s " themselves t o r e
count the Lord's wonders fully ( 4 2 : 1 6 ) , and thus forms a peri
od o f the first hymnic section (cf. also 4 2 : 1 5 , " W h a t I have
seen I will r e c o u n t , " and 4 3 : 3 2 , " B u t few o f his works have I
seen"). B u t it is also a preparation for the following hymnic
section ( 4 4 - 5 0 ) and sets the stage for the final distich: " I t is
the Lord w h o has m a d e all things, and he gives wisdom t o the
pious" ( 4 3 : 3 3 ) . This is a fitting conclusion t o the hymn in
praise o f God's works, resolving as it does the tension that has
been created b e t w e e n the manifestation and hiddenness o f
God's glory by means o f the gift o f wisdom t o the pious. B u t it
is clear that the statement functions as a transition as well, the
m o v e m e n t being n o w t o a consideration o f these pious ones:
" N o w I will praise pious m e n " ( 4 4 : 1 ) .
Little m e n t i o n has b e e n m a d e o f the fact that each hymnic
section begins with a p r o e m o f approximately equal length,
nor o f the fact that the proems exhibit comparable features
and perform similar functions in relation t o the subsequent
hymnic descriptions. T h e similarity in the pattern o f t h e m e
development m a y be seen in the outline in table 5.
Each p r o e m forms a nice period, with the concluding line
returning t o a m e n t i o n o f the intention announced at the first,
T H E P R O E M AND T H E H Y M N T O C R E A T I O N 191
TABLE 5. T H E T W O PROEMS
SIR. 4 2 : 1 5 - 2 5 SIR. 4 4 : 1 - 1 5
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HYMNIC THEME:

TO REMEMBER GOD'S WORKS TO PRAISE THE HASIDIM ( 4 4 : 1 )
(42:15)
THE DIVINE ORIGINATION:

FORMED BY GOD'S WORD, THE MOST HIGH'S PORTION
DECREE ( 4 2 : 1 5 ) (44:2)
BRIEF SUMMARY CLASSIFICATION OF WORKS/HASIDIM:

THE SUN, ALL HIS WORKS THE TYPES OF THE HASIDIM
(42:16) WORTHY OF PRAISE ( 4 4 : 3 - 7 )
THE HUMAN LIMITATION:

ONLY GOD KNOWS THE SOME MEN HAVE LEFT NO
MYSTERY FULLY ( 4 2 : 1 7 - 2 0 ) MEMORIAL ( 4 4 : 8 - 9 )
AFFIRMATION NONETHELESS OF ABIDING GLORY:

GOD'S CREATIVE POWER AND THE GLORY OF THE HASIDIM
WORKS ABIDE FOREVER ABIDES FOREVER ( 4 4 : 1 0 - 1 4 )
(42:21-25)
MENTION OF THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE:

TO BEHOLD THE BEAUTY OF TO PRAISE THE MEMORY OF THE
CREATION ( 4 2 : 2 5 ) HASIDIM ( 4 4 : 1 5 )
thus providing a fresh point o f departure for the descriptions

u
that follow (cf. 4 2 : 2 5 , W h o can see enough o f their splen
d o r , " with 4 2 : 1 5 , " W h a t I have seen I will r e c o u n t " ; and
4 4 : 1 5 , " A n d t h e assembly proclaims their praise," with 4 4 : 1 ,
" N o w I will praise"). E a c h forecasts briefly the c o n t e n t o f t h e
hymn t o follow. In t h e first case, t h e list o f God's works is an
onomasticon o f natural p h e n o m e n a from t h e heavens d o w n t o
2
the w a t e r s . In t h e s e c o n d case, t h e list o f t h e hasidim is based
upon a selective chronological reading o f t h e great m e n o f
Israel's history. In b o t h p r o e m s , t h e h y m n i c intention t o ren
der praise is heightened by reference t o s o m e difficulty having
3
t o do with t h e recognition o r acquisition o f g l o r y . B u t in each
instance this is o v e r c o m e by a strong affirmation o f the abiding
reality o f the glory that c o m e s from G o d . As summary state
ments that introduce t h e hymns proper, each p r o e m provides
the reader with a theological lens through which the subse
quent descriptions are t o b e viewed. T h e c o m m o n t h e m e is t h e
192 APPENDIX A
manifestation o f G o d ' s glory; t h e intention is t o affirm its m a n

ifestation b o t h in creation and in history.
This m o v e m e n t from reflection o n creation t o a considera
tion o f the human situation o c c u r s frequently in Sirach. T h e
sequence and m a n n e r o f reflection in this m o v e m e n t is a t h e
ological s c h e m a traceable t o wisdom thought. T h e o c c u r r e n c e
o f this schema in t h e sequence o f t h e t w o hymns is therefore a
further and telling argument for taking t h e m t o g e t h e r as a
compositional unity. It may b e helpful t o n o t e that although
wisdom itself is n o t a t h e m e in e i t h e r o f t h e t w o hymns, each
proem does contain express m e n t i o n o f wisdom t h e m e s . T h e
problems o f t h e limits o f wisdom and d e a t h - w i t h o u t - m e m o r y ,
for instance, have been used t o set the scene for t h e great
affirmations o f those things that endure. T h i s reflects B e n
Sira's grappling with t h e basic issues o f wisdom theology o f his
time, that is, t h e possibility o f t h e knowledge o f G o d and the
4
problem o f t h e o d i c y . B e n Sira's position b o t h here and in t h e
book as a whole is affirmative in t h e question o f the knowledge
o f G o d , and he makes a brave a t t e m p t t o resolve t h e problem
o f theodicy o n its terms. H e does so by affirming the wisdom
o f G o d by w h i c h t h e w o r l d was c r e a t e d and claiming t h e in
stitutions o f Israel's religion ( T o r a h , T e m p l e , Jurisprudence,
Piety) as loci for its manifestation. T h i s is intended t o under-
gird an optimism about J e w i s h p i e t y — i t s basis in divine and
cosmic s t r u c t u r e s — t h a t can answer the questions o f theodicy
and cynicism. I f in these concluding hymns t h e locus o f
wisdom in J e w i s h ethos is t o b e celebrated in a review o f t h e
glorious saints o f Israel's history, t h e novelty is that t h e " h u
man s i t u a t i o n " — a category congenial t o wisdom t h o u g h t — i s
n o w being understood in t e r m s o f its past history. T h i s means
that B e n Sira had found a way t o unite a wisdom view o f t h e
pious o n e with t h e category o f Israel's sacred history. T h e
hymn's place at t h e conclusion o f t h e b o o k may indicate s o m e
thing o f a c l i m a x b o t h for t h e literary composition o f t h e b o o k
and for the development o f wisdom categories it achieves.
T h e r e is o n e additional observation t o be made in support o f
the unity o f the t w o hymnic sections in question. S o m e o f t h e
psalms in praise o f Y a h w e h ' s deeds in Israel's history have been
T H E PROEM AND THE HYMN TO CREATION 193
noted as examples o f possible literary precursors for B e n Sira's

5
hymn in praise o f t h e fathers (Psalms 7 8 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 6 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 ) .
Such a recital o f G o d ' s deeds n e e d n o t include m e n t i o n o f the
human agents o f t h e history, as Psalms 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 , and o t h e r
oracular and narrative examples s h o w (Ezekiel 2 0 , Nehemiah
9, J u d i t h 5 ) . B u t in Psalms 7 8 , 1 0 5 , and 1 0 6 , o n e sees that
mention can be made, for e x a m p l e , o f Abraham, Moses, and
David, in t h e course o f t h e recital o f the great events in Israel's
history. In Psalms 1 3 5 and 1 3 6 , t h e praise o f Yahweh's creative
works precedes t h e recital o f his actions in history. W h i l e n o n e
o f these examples depicts t h e great figures o f Israel's history as
subjects w o r t h y o f t h e praise appropriate t o the hymnic form,
it is helpful t o see t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h Sirach 44—50 may be a
development o f this type o f psalm. Its transformation would
have o c c u r r e d because o f the glorification o f the great figures,
but it may n o t have ceased entirely t o be a celebration o f
Yahweh's deeds as well. T h i s would m e a n that the divine
aretalogical aspect o f t h e h y m n in 4 4 - 5 0 is quite compatible as
a sequel t o t h e h y m n in praise o f G o d ' s works in creation in
42:15—43:33. T h e scheme o f wisdom-in-creation/wisdom-in
human-ethos may be suspected to have enabled the
correlation.
Appendix B
The Conclusion
in Praise of
Simon
A curiosity o f the scholarship

on Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 is that a discussion o f t h e final section in
praise o f S i m o n has b e e n avoided rather consistently. It has
even been said expressly that this h y m n c a n n o t belong t o t h e
1
hymnic series in praise o f t h e fathers. T w o reasons have been
articulated and t w o others probably play a role in this judg
ment. T h e reasons given are ( 1 ) that Simon cannot have been
understood t o have belonged t o " t h e fathers" o f Israel and ( 2 )
that t h e section on E n o c h , J o s e p h , S h e m , Seth, E n o s , and
Adam ( 4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 ) forms a conclusion t o t h e hymn proper. I
suspect t h e t w o unarticulated assumptions are ( 3 ) that as a
c o n t e m p o r a r y figure Simon m u s t have been distinguished from
all the others for w h o m t h e r e w e r e memorials in written tradi
tions and ( 4 ) a certain lack o f scholarly appreciation of, and
understanding for, t h e obvious cultic interests that t h e hymn
in praise o f S i m o n exhibits. B e c a u s e B e n Sira engaged in an
ethical " c r i t i q u e " o f certain forms o f t h e cult elsewhere, his
glorification o f a ritual s c e n e in c h a p t e r 5 0 has been difficult
for s o m e t o understand. I would argue that these reasons are
not convincing and that the praise o f Simon, not only belongs
195
196 APPENDIX B
t o the series as a whole, but in fact is intended t o conclude that

2
series as its c l i m a x .
T h e argument that Simon c a n n o t have been included in a
listing o f " t h e fathers" is based upon the m e n t i o n o f the fa
thers in 4 4 : 1 ( o r perhaps on the assumption that the heading
"Praise o f the F a t h e r s " was original). Because the listing has
been taken as a generic designation that limits the classification
o f those t o be praised, it has been found difficult t o see h o w
Simon could have been included. T h e r e are t w o problems with
this. T h e first is w h e t h e r B e n Sira has intended a g e n e r i c desig
nation as a technical definition at all. T h e second is w h e t h e r
such a designation can be shown t o have provided a principle
o f classification appropriate for all o f the descriptions that fol
low. A closer look at the p r o e m shows that while the idea o f
ancestry is certainly involved, the c o n c e r n is rather t o establish
other categories o f characterization, categories that will be the
basis for the fathers' praise. T h e r e are three such categories
given in addition t o their identification as ancestors. T h e first is
that they w e r e m e n o f piety ( 4 4 : 1 , 1 0 ) ; the second is that they
were m e n o f great power, wisdom, and achievement (twelve
classifications are given, 4 4 : 3 — 6 ) ; the third is that a certain
" c o v e n a n t " and " p r o s p e r i t y " that belongs t o t h e m continues
to be effective n o w and forever among their descendents. It
has frequently been n o t e d that the listing o f the twelve state
ments about great m e n is difficult t o correlate with the subse
3
quent descriptions o f those praised. T h e designation hasid is
only infrequently found in subsequent characterizations. T h e
idea o f covenant does b e c o m e t h e m a t i c in the descriptions,
including that o f Simon ( 5 0 : 2 4 ) , and is certainly appropriate
for certain figures, but it can hardly be understood as a classifi
cation in the tehnical sense for all o f the figures praised (in
cluding prophets and postexilic statesmen). T h u s it appears
that the characterizations presented in the p r o e m are serving
some o t h e r literary function than that o f delimiting the selec
tion o f figures t o be praised. This does not mean that the
designation " f a t h e r s " is without significance for the collection.
Indeed, the c o n c e p t i o n o f ancestry is basic t o the composition.
THE CONCLUSION IN PRAISE OF SIMON 197
B u t it should be clear from o u r study that the reason for m e

morializing t h e ancestors would n o t have precluded similar
praise t o a c o n t e m p o r a r y high priest. Indeed, it may j u s t b e the
case that it was t h e glorification o f t h e high priest that resulted
in the glorification o f t h e fathers themselves.
T h e argument that 4 9 : 1 4 — 1 6 forms a conclusion t o t h e
hymn in praise o f t h e fathers, t o wjiich the praise o f Simon has
been added as an appendix, c a n n o t b e convincing precisely
because the relation o f this section t o t h e original composition
raises several very difficult questions. It is argued in appendix
C that it was probably a later addition. I f it is deleted, t h e
transition from Nehemiah t o S i m o n would be quite under
standable and n o m o r e difficult than o t h e r transitions b e t w e e n
literary units in t h e hymn. T h e c o n t e m p o r a n e i t y o f Simon has
been n o t e d as a p r o b l e m at t h e level o f g e n e r i c classification o f
these figures. B u t at a n o t h e r level, it raises the question o f B e n
Sira's view o f t h e scriptural traditions from which the descrip
tions o f all but S i m o n have been taken. Can B e n Sira have
dared t o add t o his review o f heroes memorialized in t h e scrip
tures his o w n h y m n in praise o f a contemporary? T h e answer
seems t o be yes.
T h e m o v e m e n t from wisdom research J o wisdom c o m p o s i
t i o n — a m o v e m e n t that does acknowledge a kind o f hiatus o f
i n s p i r a t i o n — w h e n c o m b i n e d with t h e express m e n t i o n o f t h e
wide range o f resources from w h i c h wisdom is t o be w o n ,
provides an exceptionally clear and c o h e r e n t rationale for t h e
kind o f creativity involved in t h e composition o f the hymn in
praise o f the fathers. In a c c o r d a n c e with this rationale, B e n
Sira would have seen n o p r o b l e m in t h e transition from writing
hymns in praise o f t h e ancients based on wisdom research t o
the composition o f a h y m n in praise o f a c o n t e m p o r a r y w h o
manifested t h e same glory.
T h e suspicion that a certain embarrassment about the e x
press interest in living cult in Sirach 5 0 has been a factor in the
lack o f scholarly discussion about this section need only be
m e n t i o n e d here. In o u r analysis, it b e c o m e s clear that it is
precisely the priestly covenant and its manifestations in S i m o n
198 APPENDIX B
as the high priest that interest B e n Sira, provide a significant

t h e m e o f continuity in the series o f praised m e n , and allow us
to see t h e setting within w h i c h t h e intention o f t h e h y m n o f
praise as a w h o l e can be understood. W i t h o u t the inclusion o f
the praise o f Simon, this would hardly be possible.
Appendix C
Later
Additions to
the Hymn
One o f the problems in the

study o f t h e hymn's literary structure has t o do with the scope
and arrangement o f its subsections. T h e r e are t h r e e places
where serious questions have been raised about the inclusion
o f material in the original h y m n o n the basis o f textual and
exegetical considerations. Significantly, t w o o f these loci are
also o f critical i m p o r t a n c e for t h e question o f the hymn's b e
ginning and conclusion, and all t h r e e are o f importance for t h e
question o f t h e development o f themes. T h e y are the m e n t i o n
o f E n o c h in 4 4 : 1 6 ; t h e description o f Elijah in 4 8 : 9 - 1 1 ; and
the section o n E n o c h , J o s e p h , S h e m , Seth, Enos, and Adam in
4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 . In m y opinion, all t h r e e o f these passages are addi
tions t o the original h y m n that o c c u r r e d in the course o f t h e
exceedingly rich and c o m p l e x history o f the manuscript
tradition.
T h e b r i e f m e n t i o n o f E n o c h in 4 4 : 1 6 is fraught with e x
egetical difficulties. N o t only do t h e H e b r e w ( B ) and G r e e k
texts n o t agree in substance, they reflect independent mid-
rashic traditions. T h e only thing they have in c o m m o n is that
E n o c h is m e n t i o n e d h e r e in b o t h t e x t s , and that can be e x
plained on t h e basis o f a later redaction o f o n e in terms o f the
199
200 APPENDIX C
other. W h i c h manuscript tradition introduced t h e figure o f

E n o c h t o t h e o t h e r is difficult t o ascertain. Telling, however, is
that neither t h e Masada t e x t n o r t h e Syriac version contains a
reference t o E n o c h here. W e are therefore justified in c o n
cluding that t h e original h y m n did n o t begin with E n o c h , but
1
with N o a h ,
In 4 8 : 9 - 1 2 , Elijah's translation and eschatological function
is mentioned. Middendorp has argued that this is a later e m
2
bellishment o f t h e Elijah-Elisha section o f the h y m n . A j u d g
m e n t here is n o t crucial t o t h e question o f w h e t h e r Elijah was
included at all in the r o s t e r o f those praised, o f course, but it
does have s o m e bearing upon t h e questions o f characterization
and t h e m e . Middendorp's argument has t o d o with t h e view o f
eschatology expressed in 4 8 : 9 — 1 2 , w h i c h is difficult t o r e c o n
cile with B e n Sira's optimistic views o f creation, history, and
cult. T h e r e is only o n e o t h e r passage in the whole b o o k that
expresses a similar eschatology ( 3 6 : 1 - 1 7 ) , and Middendorp ar
gues convincingly o n textual and philological grounds that it
3
too is a later addition t o B e n Sira's b o o k o f w i s d o m .
It should be m e n t i o n e d that B e n Sira certainly has offered
clear points o f departure for a later apocalyptic reading and
redaction o f his work. His interest in t h e prophets is clear, as is
his understanding o f p r o p h e c y as privileged information about
the future. B u t it is questionable w h e t h e r B e n Sira understood
such wisdom t o be o f apocalpytic c o n t e n t . N o t only does he
name as " p r o p h e c y " inspired wisdom-instruction ( 2 4 : 3 1 ) , he
also uses the ascription o f t h e knowledge o f the future t o G o d ,
t o support his c o n t e n t i o n o f G o d ' s eternal unchangeableness as
creator o f a g o o d universe ( 4 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 ) . T h a t B e n Sira has r e
flected about the p r o b l e m o f Israel's future is clear, but t o
conclude that he sought t o resolve it in terms even o f a p r o -
toapocalypse is t o short-circuit a quest for his overall under
standing o f history. T h r e e o f t h e five studies that have ad
dressed t h e h y m n in 4 4 - 5 0 directly have been sidetracked by
4
raising t h e eschatological question o f B e n Sira's messianology.
O u r study makes clear that t h e figures o f Israel's past are un
derstood t o e x e r c i s e still a powerful and determining influence
in B e n Sira's t i m e , but not at all in an apocalyptic sense.
LATER ADDITIONS TO THE HYMN 201
T h e section in Sir. 4 9 : 1 4 — 1 6 is t h e m o s t troublesome o f all

the disputed sections. W e d o n o t have, unfortunately, a t e x t
from Masada after 4 9 : 1 7 t o help us with a j u d g m e n t in this
case, and though t h e r e are significant variations among t h e
H e b r e w , G r e e k , Syriac, and Latin manuscripts, they all do
agree in placing a m e n t i o n o f E n o c h , J o s e p h , S h e m , Seth, E n o s ,
and Adam here. T h e a r g u m e n t for excluding it from t h e origi
nal hymn is thus based o n considerations o f its lack o f appro
priateness t o t h e t h e m e s and structure o f t h e hymn as a
5
whole.
It will be n o t e d that with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f J o s e p h , these are
all antediluvian figures. T h e r e is at first glance n o particular
reason why B e n Sira could n o t have included t h e m in his r o s
ter o f heroes. B u t t h e reasons given for their glorification,
c o m b i n e d with t h e observation that this would be the only
instance in w h i c h the a u t h o r has b r o k e n from historical c h r o
nology, begin t o m a k e o n e suspicious. Adam is t h e only figure
o f the five with which B e n Sira has w o r k e d elsewhere in t h e
6
book. T h e r e it is clear that for B e n Sira, Adam symbolizes
universal humanity. Adam does have a potential capacity for
wisdom, t o be sure, but this capacity is only t o be actualized by
means o f a decision t o a c c e p t G o d ' s will (wisdom as the law o f
life) in obedience. T h e r e is in e a c h o f the t h r e e descriptions o f
Adam a rapid movement-from his m e n t i o n as the first m a n t o a
discussion o f t h e human situation in general, and there is n o
evidence o f interest in Adam's chronological priority o r any
privileged position h e m a y have had. T h i s being the case, it is
very difficult t o understand t h e significance o f t h e statement in
4 9 : 1 6 that " t h e splendor o f Adam was above that o f every
living t h i n g " as c o m i n g from B e n Sira himself.
O n e m u s t also question w h e t h e r t h e heightened glorifica
tion o f the o t h e r figures in this section is compatible with B e n
Sira's pattern o f characterization and intentions in the hymn as
a whole. It appears that in e a c h case, interests in these figures
are manifest that B e n Sira did n o t share. E n o c h is ascribed
exceptional status because o f his special destiny. W e have al
ready discussed t h e m e n t i o n o f E n o c h in 4 4 : 1 6 as secondary o n
the basis o f textual evidence. H e r e it is t h e literary location and
202 APPENDIX C
the reason for his glory that are telling. B e n Sira reveals n o
interest in t h e question o f t h e destiny ( m u c h less special des
tiny) o f any o f his heroes. T h i s is fully in keeping with t h e fact
that he does n o t ascribe t o any idea o f p o s t m o r t e m destiny in
t h e rest o f t h e b o o k . T h e inclusion o f J o s e p h in this section
also appears t o reflect s o m e interest in the m o t i f o f special
destiny, since his uniqueness has t o do with the transportation
o f his body from Egypt t o Palestine after death as a "visita
t i o n . " Nothing else is m e n t i o n e d in t h e H e b r e w t e x t and the
statement is otherwise curiously o u t o f place.
S h e m and Seth and Enos are merely m e n t i o n e d with n o
reason given for their glory. B u t it is clear from o t h e r m i d -
rashic traditions that they w e r e important as genealogical s u c
cessors w h o guaranteed t h e continuity o f certain blessings
from their fathers (Adam, N o a h ) t o subsequent generations.
Ben Sira was n o t uninterested in questions o f succession and
the historical continuity o f blessings. B u t it is very doubtful
that h e would have found t h e parochial and slightly esoteric
aspects o f even t h e earlier forms o f those traditions congenial.
Certainly he had n o need^of a Sethian principle, given his un
derstanding o f Adam, and in t h e case o f Noah, it is Noah
himself w h o is the " c o n t i n u a t o r , " o r " r e n e w e r " ( 4 4 : 1 7 ) . T h e
purpose o f this for B e n Sira, however, is the survival o f all
flesh, and it is posited o n t h e basis o f Noah's righteousness and
God's covenant with him. T h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f S h e m in the
hymn at t h e chronologically appropriate place ( 4 4 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , n o r
is there any reason t o m e n t i o n him. T h e n e x t named is Abra
ham, whose i m p o r t a n c e is also related t o a covenant c o n c l u d e d
with him. T h i s indicates a s c h e m e for succession and historical
continuity that would have n o n e e d for glorification o f S h e m
o r Seth. Reasons for t h e m e n t i o n o f Enos in 4 9 : 1 6 are less
clear. As Seth's son, h e was important in certain midrashic
traditions for the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e genealogy o f election
from Adam t o Noah, o f c o u r s e ; and as a figure about w h i c h t h e
scriptural a c c o u n t did include a curious bit o f information
( " A t that time m e n began t o call upon the name o f t h e L o r d " ) ,
his m e n t i o n provided later interpreters with occasion for r e
flection and debate. B u t nothing o f this is indicated in Sir.
49:16.
LATER ADDITIONS TO THE HYMN 203
It thus appears that all o f t h e figures in this section w e r e

important for reasons o t h e r than those in w h i c h B e n Sira o t h
erwise shows interest. T h e i r inclusion here appears t o reflect
midrashic c o n c e r n s with remarkable origins and destinies, e s
pecially o f t h e antediluvians, and in keeping with s o m e g e n e a
logical s c h e m e that ran from Adam through Seth, Enos, and
E n o c h t o N o a h and Shem. T h e i r insertion into B e n Sira's h y m n
at j u s t this point would n o t be difficult t o understand. After
the m e n t i o n o f N e h e m i a h and before t h e praise o f Simon
would have b e e n a covenient place t o add a brief m e n t i o n o f
biblical figures o f interest n o t found in t h e rest o f the hymn.
Because it reflects genealogical interest and in some r e s p e c t
moves backward from E n o c h t o Adam (Joseph, S h e m , and
Enos disrupt this o r d e r h o w e v e r ) , t h e illusion o f periodizing, a
return t o t h e beginning, is created. This can hardly reflect B e n
Sira's purpose, however, and without it, t h e conclusion o f the
series b e c o m e s m o r e appropriately t h e praise o f the high priest
Simon.
Appendix D
The Pattern of
Characterization
The express m e n t i o n o f a fig

1
ure's office o c c u r s in o n e half o f t h e c a s e s . It is not included in
descriptions o f t h e kings, but it is clearly implied, as 4 9 : 4
shows. O f t h e t h r e e prophets not so designated (Nathan, Elis
ha, and Ezekiel), it is clearly implied as well. T h e office o f
priesthood is m e n t i o n e d for all priestly figures e x c e p t J e s h u a ,
w h o is listed as o n e o f the t h r e e leaders o f t h e restoration
without official designations. T h e office that w e have called
" t h e fathers" is t h e least clearly expressed o f t h e m all. This
may have t o do with t h e function o f these figures as p r e -
Mosaic founders o f t h e covenants upon which the later s p e c
t r u m o f offices in the n a r r o w e r sense c o m e s into being. Nev
ertheless, Abraham is called " t h e father o f a multitude o f
n a t i o n s " ( 4 4 : 1 9 ) ; Noah " t h e r e n e w e r " o f the human race
( 4 4 : 1 7 ) ; and J a c o b " t h e firstborn," that is, Israel ( 4 4 : 2 3 ) — a l l
designations o f their function as " f a t h e r s " o f certain generic
classifications o f and within t h e h u m a n race. Moses is n o t
given an office, presumably because his function is sui generis.
But his office could be designated as t h e " s e e r - t e a c h e r , " and
all subsequent offices are derived from h i m in s o m e way.
The designation o f office for J o s h u a , Caleb, Zerubbabel,
205
206 APPENDIX D
Jeshua, and Nehemiah is problematic. J o s h u a is assigned by

Ben Sira t o the prophetic office ( 4 6 : 1 ) , and he does share in the
attributes ascribed t o the prophets. B u t he is cast also as a
warrior and ruler and thus may b e understood as a c o m p o s i t e
figure w h o , along with Caleb and the judges, is appropriate t o
the period o f conquest. T h e t h r e e figures o f the restoration are
described chiefly in t e r m s o f functions that B e n Sira has at
tributed t o the earlier kings, building, defense, and restoration
o f the city and the temple. B u t these functions are also associ
ated with the priest Simon ( 5 0 : 1 - 4 ) , indicating that B e n Sira
understands certain aspects o f the royal office t o have been
performed in t h e restoration and S e c o n d T e m p l e periods by
leaders o t h e r than kings. It seems best, therefore, t o correlate
the three figures o f the restoration (Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and
Nehemiah) with the earlier figures o f the judges as leaders o f
composite functions appropriate t o the t w o periods o f transi
tion in the a r c h i t e c t o n i c m o v e m e n t o f the history.
T h e idea o f election o r selection for office is clearly e x
pressed for figures in all categories and may therefore be in
cluded in the pattern o f characterization. Nevertheless, the
terminology differs appropriately from office t o office; and
with the e x c e p t i o n o f the prophets, three o f w h o m are said t o
have been " f o r m e d " ( " f r o m t h e w o m b " ) , the ascription is lim
ited t o founding figures with w h o m covenants w e r e estab
lished. T h u s Noah was masa', " f o u n d , " blameless ( 4 4 : 1 7 ) , and
Abraham was " f o u n d " faithful ( 4 4 : 2 0 ) . O f Moses it is said that
God bahar, " c h o s e , " him o u t o f all flesh ( 4 5 : 4 ) , and o f Aaron
that G o d " c h o s e " him out o f all living ( 4 5 : 1 6 ) . David was
muram, "separated," out from Israel ( 4 7 : 2 ) . F o r the prophets
Joshua, Samuel, and J e r e m i a h , s o m e form o f the idea " f o r m e d
from the m o t h e r ' s w o m b " is used ( 4 6 : 1 ; 4 6 : 1 3 ; 4 9 : 6 ) . It is
significant that the idea o f election is n o t used for kings s u c
ceeding David, n o r priests succeeding Aaron.
Covenants are expressly m e n t i o n e d in relation t o founding
figures in each category o f office e x c e p t that o f the prophets.
Each o f the several covenants is clearly defined and dis
tinguished from the others. T h e covenant with Noah was " n o t
2
to destroy [again] all flesh" ( 4 4 : 1 8 ) . T o Abraham, with w h o m
THE PATTERN OF CHARACTERIZATION 207
the covenant o f circumcision was established, the promise o f

the blessings upon his seed and t h e nations was given ( 4 4 : 2 0 -
2 1 ) . T o M o s e s t h e law was given ( 4 5 : 5 ) , and for Aaron the
priesdy ministry b e c a m e " a n eternal c o v e n a n t " ( 4 5 : 1 5 ) . T h e
covenant with Phineas was that t h e office o f the high priest
h o o d would belong t o him and his descendents forever
( 4 5 : 2 4 ) . T h e covenant with David was t h e kingship ( 4 7 : 1 1 ; cf.
45:25).
Religious virtues are ascribed t o m a n y o f the figures span
ning all categories o f office. W e are therefore justified in c o n
cluding that a designation o f religious virtue belongs t o the
pattern o f characterization. B u t ethical virtues having t o do
with wisdom, o b e d i e n c e , and righteousness do n o t predomi
nate. T h e only figure characterized as " w i s e " is S o l o m o n
( 4 7 : 1 2 ) , and h e turns o u t t o b e an ambiguous figure whose sins
offset his wisdom and introduce the sorry history o f the divid
3
ed kingdom. T h e only figure called " r i g h t e o u s " is N o a h , and
that is taken from t h e scriptural a c c o u n t , as is the designation
" b l a m e l e s s " (tdmim, 4 4 : 1 7 ; cf. Gen. 6 : 9 ) . O b e d i e n c e is m e n
tioned expressly only o n c e , in regard t o Abraham ( 4 4 : 2 0 ) , but
the c o n t e x t shows that the reference is t o circumcision as a
sign o f the covenant m a d e w i t h him.
T h e majority o f the designations o f character are midrashic,
that is, taken directly from t h e scriptural accounts o f the fig
ures. This is so for M o s e s ' meekness ( 4 5 : 4 ; cf. Num. 1 2 : 3 ) and
Aaron's holiness ( 4 5 : 6 ; cf. N u m . 1 6 : 3 - 7 ) . Scripture is also the
source for t h e ascriptions o f zeal t o Phineas ( 4 5 : 2 3 ; cf. Num.
2 5 : 1 0 - 1 3 ) and Elijah ( 4 8 : 2 ; cf. 1 Kings 1 9 : 1 0 , 1 4 ) . In all o f
these cases, therefore, it is e x t r e m e l y difficult t o discern any
specific c o n t o u r o f a pattern o f virtue t o which B e n Sira m a y
have intended t o give expression.
In regard t o t h e ascriptions o f faithfulness, strength, and
piety, w e are in a s o m e w h a t b e t t e r position t o m a k e an assess
m e n t o f B e n Sira's c o n c e r n s . N o t only does h e use these desig
nations repeatedly and in relation t o several o f the figures, but
the midrashic process involved is also a bit m o r e c o m p l e x , thus
reflecting a special interest. " F a i t h f u l " ('amon) is used t o de
scribe Abraham ( 4 4 : 2 0 ) , M o s e s ( 4 5 : 4 ) , Samuel ( 4 6 : 1 5 ) , and Is-
208 APPENDIX D
aiah ( 4 8 : 2 2 ) . T h e r e is a very natural scriptural point o f

departure for the ascription o f faithfulness t o M o s e s (Num.
12:7: " H e is entrusted with all m y h o u s e " ) . This o c c u r s , t o o , in
close proximity t o Num. 1 2 : 3 , from w h i c h the designation
" m e e k " is taken. B o t h are m e n t i o n e d together in Sir. 4 5 : 4 .
O n e wonders w h e t h e r the terminology o f "faithfulness' in
the hymn indicates a m o v e m e n t in the direction o f c h a r a c
terization in terms o f virtuous qualities instead o f in terms o f
office o r performance. T h e same consideration could apply t o
the ascription o f faithfulness (reliability) t o Samuel, w h i c h m a y
be based on the s t a t e m e n t in 1 Sam. 9 : 6 that "all that he says
comes t r u e . " Isaiah, however, is said t o have been "faithful in
his vision" ( 4 8 : 2 2 ) , and Abraham was "found faithful in trial" (a
reference t o the binding o f Isaac in Genesis 2 2 ) . H e r e the
ascription o f faithfulness is clearly B e n Sira's contribution, but
the aspect o f performance o r narrative c o n t e x t that is retained
shows that the designation does n o t emphasize a quality o f
character descriptive o f the person as an individual. It is n o t
mainly that these m e n w e r e trustworthy; it is that their perfor
mance was true o r reliable. T h e i r faithfulness is manifest in
events that are o f significance for the office. In all four cases,
there is an e l e m e n t o f election t o agency in the divine activity
by which Israel's history is understood t o be directed, and the
term "faithful" is therefore understood t o b e important only
in this c o n t e x t .
The same seems t o b e true o f B e n Sira's ascription o f
strength t o several o f the figures: Moses (45:2), Phineas
( 4 5 : 2 3 ) , J o s h u a ( 4 6 : 1 , 7 ) , Caleb ( 4 6 : 7 ) , and Hezekiah ( 4 8 : 2 2 ) .
Even though various H e b r e w t e r m s are employed, the idea o f
strength is clearly o f interest t o B e n Sira, an added emphasis t o
the scriptural accounts. M o s e s is said t o have been m a d e strong
by G o d in his "awe-inspiring deeds"; Phineas was strong in his
act o f slaying the Israelite w h o had taken a Midianite w o m a n ,
that is, in "making a t o n e m e n t for the children o f Israel" (Sir.
4 5 : 2 3 ; cf. Num. 2 5 : 7 - 8 ) ; J o s h u a was strong as a warrior and,
with Caleb, as o n e w h o " s t o o d firm" in r e c o m m e n d i n g an
entrance into the land; and Hezekiah was "strong in the ways
o f David," that is, performed properly as a king. In each case,
T H E PATTERN OF CHARACTERIZATION 209
strength has t o do with t h e quality o f performance o f deeds in

keeping with t h e offices held. T h e reiteration o f t h e idea does
produce t h e effect o f making strength a n o t e w o r t h y quality o f
Israel's leaders, however, and c o m b i n e d with the idea o f
faithfulness, it begins t o give s o m e shape t o B e n Sira's notion
o f virtue.
U n d e r t h e rubric " p i e t y , " several ascriptions o f e x c e l l e n c e
may be classed t o g e t h e r that appear t o be o f s o m e significance
for B e n Sira's c o n c e p t i o n o f leadership. O f Joshua it is said that
" h e fully followed after G o d , and did an act o f piety in t h e
days o f M o s e s " ( 4 6 : 6 ) . T h e designation "following G o d " is
taken from t h e a c c o u n t in N u m . 1 4 : 2 4 and J o s h . 1 4 : 8 , 9 , 14.
B u t the m e n t i o n o f an act o f piety is added. T h i s is n o t e w o r t h y
in that t h e p r o e m has a n n o u n c e d that t h e figures t o be praised
w e r e "pious m e n " (Sir. 4 4 : 1 , 1 0 ) . In t h e hymn, n o o n e is
expressly described as a pious o n e , but t h e r e is this m e n t i o n o f
Joshua's act o f piety, and it is said o f Josiah that he "gave his
heart wholly t o G o d , and . . . h e practiced p i e t y " ( 4 9 : 3 ) .
T h e association o f practicing piety with the ideas o f " f o l
lowing G o d " and "giving o n e ' s heart wholly t o G o d " alerts
o n e t o t h e significance o f t w o o t h e r ascriptions o f religious
devotion. O f s o m e o f t h e judges, it is said that their "hearts
w e r e n o t beguiled" and they did n o t turn back from "follow
ing after G o d " ( 4 6 : 1 1 ) . O f David it is said that he "loved his
M a k e r with his w h o l e h e a r t " ( 4 7 : 8 ) . W e see here a set o f
descriptions o f religious piety that have been brought t o g e t h e r
by association. In t h e case o f t h e ascription t o David, it is
difficult n o t t o think that D e u t . 6:5 o r D e u t . 1 0 : 1 2 has n o t
been influential. I f so, t h e same may be true for the statement
about Josiah giving his " h e a r t wholly t o G o d . " In D e u t . 1 0 : 1 2 ,
the m e t a p h o r o f walking in G o d ' s way is also employed,
providing a link t o t h e " f o l l o w i n g " m e t a p h o r used o f J o s h u a
and then o f t h e judges. T h e cluster as a w h o l e indicates at first
a type o f piety that reminds o n e o f t h e religious loyalty called
for in t h e D e u t e r o n o m i c tradition. It is probably significant
that it is attributed t o Josiah and David, kings w h o are praised
as defenders o f t h e religious institutions and whose piety is
disclosed in those deeds o f defence. J o s h u a ' s act o f piety refers
210 APPENDIX D
t o his e x h o r t a t i o n t o t h e people t o e n t e r the land. Loyalty t o

the religious codes o f Israel is also t h e point o f praise with t h e
judges. I f Hezekiah w e r e added t o this list, the r o s t e r o f p r e -
exilic rulers w h o are c o m m e n d e d would b e c o m p l e t e . O f him
it is said that h e "did that w h i c h was g o o d and was strong in
the ways o f D a v i d . " T h i s is hardly a clear description o f
Hezekiah's " p i e t y , " but it is a s t a t e m e n t o f c o m m e n d a b l e per
formance in keeping with t h e kind o f piety ascribed t o t h e
o t h e r rulers.
In summary, it may b e said that t h e r e is a clear t e n d e n c y in
the hymn t o praise and characterize various figures in t e r m s o f
traits o r qualities o f religious significance. Especially important
appear t o b e "faithfulness," " s t r e n g t h , " " z e a l , " and "piety"
( = loyalty). T h e y are easily c o m b i n e d in a c o h e r e n t picture o f
religious virtues. T h e y are strikingly conservative and, used as
they are t o express approval for religious leaders in t h e perfor
m a n c e o f their offices, serve primarily t o characterize t h e qual
ity o f their leadership.
As o n e might e x p e c t , t h e h y m n in praise o f the pious m e n is
replete with a c c o u n t s o f grand and glorious deeds. T h e y can be
classified according t o types, and t h e r e is s o m e correlation
between the types o f deeds and t h e offices o r functions o f the
leaders t o w h o m they are ascribed. All are taken from t h e
scriptural a c c o u n t s , o f course, so that the ascription o f deeds
appropriate t o t h e various figures and their offices is at first
glance simply given by t h e tradition and determined by t h e
" a r c h a i c " distinctions. B u t t h e selection o f material is B e n
Sira's o w n , and t h e r e is considerable evidence o f a strong in
terest in developing a rather consistent typology o f deeds and
leadership functions.
Before moving t o a discussion o f those deeds that are e s
pecially appropriate t o t h e performance o f a specific office,
mention should be m a d e o f w h a t might be called "deeds o f
piety." It is n o t e w o r t h y that references t o actions o f religious
and ethical piety in general are so few. I f these are found t o be
placed judiciously, it may be that B e n Sira has succeeded t o
some e x t e n t in combining t w o paradigmatic functions, o f
" o b e d i e n c e " and o f " o f f i c e . " It has already been pointed out
that t h e r e is only o n e reference t o keeping t h e law in t h e entire

hymn, and that is t o Abraham's a c t o f circumcision. T h i s refer
e n c e is doubly n o t e w o r t h y because h e is also the only father
for w h o m any deed is r e c o u n t e d at all. T h e function o f the
fathers as founders o f t h e covenants o f promise is primarily the
reception o f t h e blessings. B u t in t h e figure o f Abraham, B e n
Sira relates t h e promise o f these blessings t o his act o f o b e
dience by combining it with a reference t o the binding o f Isaac
(which is t h e occasion in t h e Genesis a c c o u n t for the blessings,
as B e n Sira k n e w [ 4 4 : 2 0 b — 2 1 ] ) . Since circumcision would be
an appropriate act and symbol o f o b e d i e n c e t o the law for all,
Abraham is an appropriate figure t o c o m b i n e models b o t h o f
obedience and o f office. O f h i m it is also said that " h e did n o t
tarnish his g l o r y " ( 4 4 : 1 9 ) . Since S o l o m o n did "tarnish his g l o
r y , " reference t o his taking o f m a n y foreign wives ( 4 7 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) ,
it is probable that in this regard, t o o , Abraham is intended t o
serve as a m o d e l o f o b e d i e n c e for J e w i s h religious e t h i c in
general.
T h e r e is only o n e o t h e r deed ascribed t o any o f the figures
that might b e taken as a m o d e l for general religious piety. It is
the reference t o prayer. "Calling upon G o d " is ascribed t o
Joshua ( 4 6 : 5 ) , Samuel ( 4 6 : 1 6 , 1 9 ) , and, interestingly enough, t o
the people u n d e r attack by Sennacherib during Hezekiah's
reign ( 4 8 : 2 0 ) . David is said t o have "given thanks in all that he
d i d " ( 4 7 : 8 ) . It is quite possible t o see h e r e a reflection o f r e
ligious piety appropriate t o all t h e people. This would b e in
keeping with t h e few o t h e r instances in t h e hymn o f reference
t o performance by t h e people themselves. Usually, however,
the response o f t h e people is s h o w n t o b e determined by t h e
quality o f their leaders. T h e r e is reference t o the daughters
singing David's praise ( 4 7 : 6 ) , t h e progeny o f S o l o m o n dis
tressed over his sins ( 4 7 : 2 0 ) , Israel's sins caused by t h e evil
kings ( 4 7 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) , t h e people's failure t o repent at the message
o f Elijah and Elisha ( 4 8 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , and t h e people gladly receiving
the blessing from S i m o n ( 5 0 : 1 7 - 2 1 ) .
In contrast t o t h e paucity o f references t o deeds o f o b e
dience and piety in general, deeds appropriate t o t h e offices o f
the leaders are r e c o u n t e d in n u m b e r . W e may distinguish five
212 APPENDIX D
types: ( 1 ) t h e miracles and prophecies that belong t o t h e p r o

phetic office, ( 2 ) t h e w o r k o f building the temple and t h e
restoration and defense o f t h e city that belong t o kings, ( 3 ) t h e
teaching ministry that begins with M o s e s , ( 4 ) t h e ministry o f
the priestly office, and ( 5 ) t h e c o n q u e s t o f enemies that b e
longs t o the warrior-ruler.
Miracles are ascribed t o M o s e s ( 4 5 : 2 - 3 ) , J o s h u a ( 4 6 : 4 ) ,
Samuel ( 4 6 : 2 0 ) , Elijah ( 4 8 : 3 - 5 ) , Elisha ( 4 8 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) , and Isaiah
( 4 8 : 2 3 ) . All o f t h e miracles m e n t i o n e d are ascribed in o n e way
or a n o t h e r t o t h e prophets as agents o f G o d . S o m e are miracles
o f healing (Isaiah) and deliverance ( M o s e s ) , others o f victory
over enemies (Joshua, Elijah). S o m e are merely " s i g n s " (Elis
ha), and t w o are miracles o f continuing t o prophesy after death
(Samuel, Elisha). T h e s e miracles serve in general t o image the
power o f t h e prophets in their w o r k as agents o f t h e j u d g m e n t s
and restorations by w h i c h t h e history o f Israel has moved.
T h e i r prophecies had t h e p o w e r " t o d e s t r o y " and " t o estab
lish" t h e kings and their kingdoms (Jeremiah, 4 9 : 6 ; J o s h u a ,
4 6 : 6 ; Samuel, 4 6 : 1 3 c , 1 8 ; Elijah, 4 8 : 2 , 8 ) . Although Samuel is
called " s e e r " ( 4 6 : 1 5 ) and Ezekiel is praised for his vision o f the
chariot ( 4 9 : 8 ) , Isaiah is t h e only o n e o f w h o m it is said that he
had a vision o f t h e future ( 4 8 : 2 4 - 2 5 ) .
T h e deeds for w h i c h t h e kings and ruler are praised, on the
o t h e r hand, consistently have t o do with constructive acts r e
lated t o the city, temple, and institutions o f the cult. David
ordered the calendar and ordained t h e musical forms o f liturgy
( 4 7 : 9 - 1 0 ) , S o l o m o n built t h e t e m p l e ( 4 7 : 1 3 ) , Hezekiah for
tified and defended t h e city ( 4 8 : 1 7 ) , Josiah cleansed t h e cult
( 4 9 : 2 ) , Zerubbabel and J e s h u a built t h e temple ( 4 9 : 1 2 ) , and
Nehemiah restored t h e city walls ( 4 9 : 1 3 ) .
W i t h Moses and Aaron, t h e functions o f teaching and
priestly ministry are understood t o have begun. T e a c h i n g
draws its glory from t h e " l a w o f life and d i s c e r n m e n t " that is
its c o n t e n t ( 4 5 : 5 ) . M o s e s ' glory as t e a c h e r is described in
terms, n o t o f what h e did, but o f what happened t o him, what
was revealed t o him. H e was given the law " t h a t h e might
t e a c h " ( 4 5 : 5 ) . Aaron, t o o , really performs n o deed. H e is
chosen, invested, exalted " t o m i n i s t e r " ( 4 5 : 1 5 ) and given t h e
c o m m a n d m e n t s " t h a t h e might t e a c h " ( 4 5 : 1 7 ) . Here the idea

o f "great d e e d s " has been transformed into the idea o f the
grandeur o f religious office itself.
It is important t o n o t e the e x t e n t t o which the descriptions
o f these figures do include explicit reference t o setting. N o t all
do, t o be sure. Isaac and J a c o b are n o t placed in any c o n t e x t .
O f Moses it is said only that G o d m a d e him bold "in t h e
presence o f the k i n g " ( 4 5 : 3 ) . T h e judges are m e n t i o n e d as a
class without narrative o r historical c o n t e x t , as are the twelve
prophets ( 4 6 : 1 1 - 1 2 ; 4 9 : 1 0 ) . Ezekiel also is not placed ( 4 9 : 8 -
9 ) . B u t for all the rest, t h e r e is express m e n t i o n o f s o m e c o n
t e x t in relation t o which deeds o r office derive significance.
Noah b e c a m e the r e n e w e r "in the season o f d e s t r u c t i o n "
( 4 4 : 1 7 ) , and Abraham was found faithful "in trial" ( 4 4 : 2 0 ) .
T h e r e is no reflection about the cause o r nature o f these
threatening situations, and they appear at first merely t o be
descriptive background. B u t with the descriptions o f Aaron
and Phineas, it is clear the " j e a l o u s y " and sin among the p e o
ple establish the c o n t e x t for their office, and with Joshua, it is
a "hostile p e o p l e " without ( 4 6 : 6 ) . Tracing references t o setting
throughout the hymn from this point on, one can determine
that it is given repeatedly in t e r m s o f these t w o t h r e a t s — s i n s
within, enemies without. W i t h these threats, a background o r
c o n t e x t is given that belongs t o the pattern o f characterization.
It is the social-historical setting within which the leaders and
their deeds have meaning and against w h i c h they are seen t o
be glorious.
T h e question o f reward is raised by statements that indicate
certain bestowals o f covenants, status, and inheritance on the
basis o f virtue. After the statement that Abraham was found
faithful in trial, for example, it is said "therefore (al ken) h e
promised him with an oath t o bless the nations in his s e e d "
( 4 4 : 2 1 ) . O f J a c o b it is said that G o d "gave him his inheritance,
and set him in t r i b e s " ( 4 4 : 2 3 ) . Moses "found favor . . . and
H e made him glorious as G o d " ( 4 5 : 1 - 2 ) . After Aaron's office
was threatened by Korah, G o d "increased his glory and gave
him his i n h e r i t a n c e " ( 4 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Because Phineas demon
strated his zeal, " t h e r e f o r e (laken) for him, t o o , H e established
214 APPENDIX D
an ordinance, a c o v e n a n t " ( 4 5 : 2 4 ) . Caleb was "given s t r e n g t h "

and cause " t o tread upon t h e high places o f t h e l a n d " because
he stood firm ( 4 6 : 8 - 9 ) .
Office and ministry belong t o g e t h e r conceptually, and in t h e
descriptions o f t h e hasidim w h o founded and fulfill these of
fices, t h e r e is repeated m e n t i o n o f t h e effects o f their ministry
both upon their descendents o r successors and upon t h e p e o
ple they serve. N o a h is t h e r e n e w e r o f a remnant, t h e sur
vivors, and t h e occasion o f a promise that affects all h u m a n
kind. T h e promise t o Abraham b e c o m e s a blessing passed o n t o
the twelve tribes o f Israel. M o s e s ' ministry is t o t e a c h t h e
statutes, testimonies, and j u d g m e n t s o f t h e law t o Israel. Aaron
is t o minister t o G o d and " t o bless His people in His n a m e "
( 4 5 : 1 5 ) . Phineas' great deed is that h e " m a d e a t o n e m e n t for
the children o f I s r a e l " ( 4 5 : 2 3 ) . J o s h u a and Caleb " t u r n e d away
wrath from the a s s e m b l y " ( 4 6 : 7 ) . N o n e o f the entire r o s t e r o f
these illustrious m e n is praised for personal achievements. All
are great because o f effective ministry t o and for t h e people.
Notes
INTRODUCTION
1. A date o f ca. 180 B.C.E. can be established for Sirach. For this
and other introductory matters, see the recent summaries in Nick-
elsburg, Jewish Literature, 5 5 - 6 9 ; Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom,
1 4 9 - 7 3 , 283.
2. Maertens, Veloge des peres; Jacob, "L'histoire"; Siebeneck, "Sir
ach's Praise"; and te Stroete, "Van Henoch tot Simon"; Lee,
"Studies."
3. The monographs by Haspecker, Marbock, Middendorp, and
Rickenbacher are examples.
4. The hymn as a rewriting o f Israel's history has been empha
sized by Maertens, Jacob, Siebeneck, Noack, and Janssen. Siebeneck
contrasts the new view with those o f the Yawhist, Elohist, priestly
writer, and Deuteronomist ("Sirach's Praise," 4 1 5 ) . In the schol
arship, frequent reference is made to Psalms 7 8 , 105, 106, 135, 136,
Nehemiah 9, and Ezekial 20 as precursor texts to Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 . The
most recent discussion is found in Lee, "Studies," 2 1 - 2 6 , where,
however, the dissimilarities are emphasized. On the hymn's reflec
tion o f cultic interests, see especially Jacob; Middendorp, Stellung,
1 6 2 - 1 7 4 ; Hengdjudaism, 1:133; Lee, "Studies," 9 - 1 9 .
Since Maertens references to the genre De virus illustribus have
been customary (L'eloge des peres, 11). Thus Siebeneck, "Sirach's
215
216 NOTES TO PAGES 8 - 1 4
Praise," 4 1 4 ; Pautrel, "Ben Sira," 5 4 1 ; Hengel, Judaism, 1:136. The

earliest extant text o f this genre is from Cornelius Nepos ( 9 4 - 2 4
B.C.E.) and is a development o f the Hellenistic biographical tradition.
Lee argues that comparison o f Ben Sira with the earlier Hellenistic
"lives" by Hermippus, Satyrus, and Sotion would be o f more value
than with the later Roman development o f the genre ("Studies,"
5 2 - 5 5 ) . W e shall discuss this question in chapter 5.
5. On the value o f the Greek version ( G l ) , see Vattioni, Eccle-
siastico, xxiii; Middendorp, Stellung, 2, 1 0 0 - 1 1 2 ; and the introduction
to Patteson, "Study." For the Hebrew text, see Yadin, Masada; Levi,
Hebrew Text; Riiger, Text und Textform; and The Book of Ben Sira (Jerusa
lem, 1973). There is now a concordance to the Hebrew text by
Barthelemy and Rickenbacker.
CHAPTER ONE
1. There are five occurrences o f the sequence wisdom-in-cre

ation/wisdom-in-human-history: (a) 1 : 1 - 8 / 1 : 9 - 1 8 ; (b) 1 6 : 2 4 -
30/17:1 - 1 1 ; (c) 24:1 - 7 / 2 4 : 8 - 2 1 ; (d) 3 9 : 1 2 - 3 5 / 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 ; (e) 4 2 : 1 5 -
4 3 : 3 5 / 4 4 - 5 0 . The sequence is given with the wisdom myth, but its
theological significance is based on a logic seen in the narrative. This
borders on systematic concern. See Mack, Logos, 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 5 0 - 5 3 ;
Marbock, Weisheit, 6 8 - 7 4 , 1 3 1 - 3 3 . The wisdom theme is discussed
at length in chapter 6. For an exegetical demonstration that the two
hymns have literary links, see appendix A.
2. See Box and Oesterley "Book o f Sirach," 4 7 9 - 8 1 ; Snaith, Ec-
clesiasticus, 216. The twelve descriptive statements might be reduced
to six types if one takes the parallelisms together. But one is then left
with composite characterizations such as warrior-king (44:3) and
prophet-sage (44:3), which while reflective o f some persons de
scribed in the hymn, do not appear to have been developed there as
types per se. The next six statements ( 4 4 : 4 - 5 ) are even more diffi
cult to combine typologically, each having to do with aspects o f the
leader-sage as instructor and author. No one in the hymn is ex
pressly described in these terms, although aspects o f Moses' office
and Solomon's activity are partially comparable. The final distich
(44:6) about "men o f resource . . . living at ease" is curiously inap
propriate as a type characterization, especially for those praised in
the hymn. It is best, then, to regard this list o f statements, not as a
typology itself, but as a series o f commendable leadership qualities
and functions worthy o f praise. It does provide the reader with a
kind of lens through which to interpret what follows, but it is sin-
NOTES TO PAGES 1 5 - 2 7 217
gularly deficient as a comprehensive statement about the types or

offices o f those men to appear in the hymn. Particularly telling is the
omission o f any reference to the cultic functions o f the priests. For
the opposing view, that 4 4 : 3 - 6 does intend a typology o f those to be
praised in the hymn, see Lee, "Studies," 2 6 7 - 6 8 . A very suggestive
study by Skehan, "Staves and Nails," shows that most of the phrases
used here are poetic and metaphoric descriptions that draw upon
scriptural language, and that they were apparently at home in a
postexilic scribal ethos in which the connection had been made be
tween "leaders" and "scholars." He shows that a later pesher from
Qumran (CD. vi. 3 - 1 1 ) made explicit many o f the allusions still
implicit in Sirach. His study lends support to our thesis in chapter 4
that Sir. 4 4 : 3 - 6 is heavily weighted with allusions to the ideal schol
ar-scribe and is not intended as a comprehensive typology o f ideal
leaders as such.
3. A distinguishing characteristic o f the hymn is the regularity o f
its meter (4 + 4 ) . Sirach 3 - 4 3 does not reveal such a regular pat
tern, following the proverbial model instead. Cf. Stanislav, "Vorar-
beiten"; Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen, 6 7 - 6 8 .
4. Ben Sira's anthological and interpretive use o f scripture has
been noted and studied by a number o f scholars, including Koole,
Snaith, Middendorp, and Sheppard.
5. See Middendorp, Stellung, 3 5 - 9 1 .
6. I used the following procedure to determine the pattern. First,
I made detailed lists o f the significant items in the description o f
each figure named. I then arranged the lists as a set and compared
them. Seven features emerged as common characteristics in a recur
ring pattern. Some figures are not fully described according to this
pattern, but most are. Where figures are not fully described, the
details o f their descriptions still seem to fall within the list o f the
seven common features.
7. The units o f description range from thirty-six distichs to a
single distich. Using this as a scale o f interest, it can be seen that
attention has been focused upon Simon (with 36) and Aaron (with
32). The kings follow: David ( 1 7 ) , Solomon ( 1 6 ) , Hezekiah (10).
Others granted extensive description are Joshua and Caleb (together
18), Samuel (13), Elijah (12), Phineas (10), Moses (9), Elisha (9), and
Abraham (6). These are in fact the figures of greatest significance for
Ben Sira's view o f the history he has developed.
8. This is because, though the fathers represent the divisions o f
humanity into nations, "the people" as a technical component o f the
218 NOTES TO PAGES 2 8 - 3 9
social structure cannot be mentioned until the offices have been

established. It is the office itself that determines the concept o f the
congregation in the hymn. This is indicated clearly in the depiction
of Moses, with whom the structure o f office emerges, as "issuing
from Israel" and having "charge o f His people" ( 4 4 : 2 2 , 4 5 : 3 ) .
9 . Anointing is mentioned for Moses ( 4 5 : 1 5 ) , Samuel ( 4 6 : 1 3 ) , and
Elijah ( 4 8 : 8 ) .
1 0 . Jaubert does not think that this reflects any position-taking
with regard to competitive genealogical traditions among priestly
classes or parties during this period (La notion d'alliance, 3 8 — 3 9 ) . On
this question see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 3 9 4 — 4 0 3 .
1 1 . Since this line is partially destroyed in MS. B , there have been
several attempts to reconstruct it, but all retain the mention o f "the
third" in keeping with the Greek (tritos eis doxan). Lee agrees that
"the reference here seems to be to the trinity o f Moses, Aaron, and
Phineas" ("Studies," 2 4 9 - 5 0 ) .
CHAPTER Two
1. The mention o f David in 4 5 : 2 5 is the only instance o f a devia

tion from chronological arrangement. It is to be accounted for in
terms of the covenant theme that governs the sequence only o f the
first seven figures and requires that the covenant with David be
mentioned here if at all.
2. There has been very little work done on the structure o f the
hymn. Baumgartner could find no principle o f continuity in it
("Gattungen," 1 7 4 ) . Jacob, "L'histoire," finds neither a chronologi
cal plan nor any apologetic system that gives the hymn structure.
Maertens, L'eloge des peres, divided it into three "cycles": (a) pa
triarchal, (b) paschal, (c) royal. His insight has not been followed up,
but there are remarkable points o f similarity with my thesis. Maer
tens did not develop his division o f the hymn as a literary moment o f
significance, and a curiosity o f his work is the failure to include the
poem in praise o f Simon in the hymn. Haspecker divides the hymn
into two parts: (a) 4 4 : 1 - 4 5 : 2 6 with its theme o f covenant; (b) 4 6 : 1 -
5 0 : 2 4 with its theme o f piety (Gottesfurcht, 8 5 , n. 9 4 ) . The most
recent attempt to assess the hymn's compositional structure is that
of Lee, to be discussed in chapter 5 .
3. Haspecker has also noted the covenant theme that governs the
first section o f the hymn and makes o f it a unit (Gottesfurcht, 8 5 , n.
9 4 ) . Maertens first groups the patriarchs together as a set then dis-
u
cusses the figures from Moses through the judges as l e cycle pas
cal." There is neither thematic nor literary justification for these
groupings. Lee sees 44:15—49:16 as a single unit corresponding to
the genos o f the Hellenistic encomium, and he thus does not investi
gate its subunits ("Studies," 2 6 5 ) .
4. See also Jaubert, La notion d'alliance, 39. Priest sees this verse as
evidence for the idea o f a dual authority in the community analogous
to the two messiahs in Qumran ("Ben Sira 4 5 : 2 5 " ) . I have not found
his arguments convincing. See below chapter 3.
5. Hengel (Judaism, 1:136) singles out this term as special evi
dence for a "principle o f succession" in the hymn, which he sees as a
Hellenistic notion. Lee argues against this because its usage in the
hymn reveals several notions at work, each o f which may be ac
counted for as midrashic ("Studies," 72—78). Lee is correct in seeing
that a singular "principle o f succession" is not in evidence as pro
gram in the hymn, but he has overstated the case with regard to
midrashic derivation as a sufficient basis for its repeated occurrence.
His point is that the Hellenistic genre to which Hengel refers (So-
tion's Diadoche ton philosophon) is not the model upon which the
hymn has been constructed. My own position is more pliable. See
chapter 5.
6. The notion o f a succession o f the prophets is o f course attested
for later writers. Cf. Eupolemos in Jacoby, FGr Hist, 3C.723.F2b,F5;
Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.41.
7. On this correlation o f primal pattern and ordered history from
a history o f religions point*of view, see especially Eliade's Cosmos and
History.
CHAPTER THREE
1. Haspecker has seen clearly that the hymn does not address the
individual in the same way as do the earlier portions of Ben Sira's
book: "Tatsachlich weicht Kp 44—50 in zweifacher Richtung vom
Hauptteil des Buches ab. Formal verlasst es ganz den Raum der
Individualparanese and wendet sich einem Kollektiv zu . . .
Wichtiger ist, dass in diesen Kapiteln als Hauptthema der Gottes-
bund behandelt wird, der sich seinem Wesen nach an ein Kollektiv
(Bundesempfanger und seine Nachkommen) richtet" (Gottsefurcht,
85, n. 9 4 ) .
2. For the term "good fortune," I have retained the reading o f
MS. B as given by Vattioni, but it should be noted that the Masada
text contains another reading. The manuscript is damaged beyond

the first two letters, but these are ws instead o f wt. Vattioni recon
structs to s[dqtm], which is apparently what the Greek (dikaiosynai)
and the Syriac read, that is, "righteous deeds." It is probable, there
fore, that sidqatam stood in the original text. If so, the distich 44:10
presents a separate idea, namely, that the righteous deeds o f the
hasidim themselves "shall not come to an end." This would be fully
appropriate as proem to the hymn, where deeds are recounted in
number, but the manner in which these deeds continue to be effec
tive is not yet clear. In a private conversation I had with Richard
Weis o f the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at the School o f
Theology at Claremont, he noted that the scribe responsible for the
reading in MS. B had apparently understood the context o f these
verses to have to do with memory (zdkar, 44:9, 13). Weis pointed to
Sir. 38:21 (B) where memory (zdkar) and "hope" or "good fortune"
(tiqwdh) occur together in the advice about grief: "Remember him
not, for he has no hope." In 4 4 : 8 - 1 0 , the hasidim are being con
trasted with those "who have no memorial, so that there was an end
of them where they came to their end." The word field tiqwdh =
zdkar is thus in play, and it is this that has apparently influenced the
change from sidqatam to tiqwdtdm. The new meaning ("their good
fortune") correlates nicely with "prosperity" and "heritage" in the
next distich (44:11) and thus is not obtrusive. If we take this scribe's
lead as to the importance o f the memory theme in this section o f the
proem, a significant clue will have been won for our question about
the manner in which the legacy o f these men in all o f its aspects
ultimately becomes effective. This will be discussed below.
3. The Greek encourages the more literal connotation by trans
lating tubdm with agathe (as modifying kleronomia) and ndhdldtdm with
kleronomia. It is possible, o f course, that Ben Sira intended a more
metaphorical nuance in keeping with notions o f covenant theology.
In that case, the "good portion," "lot," or "legacy" these men re
ceived and passed on would be that which accrues by being included
in the covenant community itself. It is difficult, however, to avoid
completely the thought that this heritage is understood to include
contemporary social and empirical realities in some sense.
4. On ta agatha as theme in the encomiastic speech, see Rhetorica
Alexandrum 35.1440b. 15; Theon, Progymnasmata (Walz, Rhetores,
1.227); Hermogenes, Progymnasmata (Rabe, Hermogenis, 1 6 . 1 2 - 1 3 ) .
5. A discussion is available in Rist, Stoic Philosophy, 1 - 2 1 . One
wonders whether the Greek translator may not have been troubled
by this problem and thus transformed the noun tubam into an adjec
tival modifier o f the term for inheritance: agathe kleronomia.
6. Jaubert, La notion d'alliance, emphasizes throughout the "sacer
dotal" ingredient in the idea o f covenant for our period.
7. Middendorp, Stellung, 1 5 5 - 6 2 .
8. Ibid., 1 5 5 - 5 6 , 159.
9. See Hengel, "Proseuche and Synagoge." He demonstrates that
proseuche is the earlier and normal designation for a Jewish place o f
worship in the Diaspora. The term synagoge does not occur in this
sense until around the first century c.E.
10. O f the twenty verses in which these terms occur, only two
clearly refer to the assembly as a place where legal judgments are
rendered (Sir. 7:7 and 23:24; in Sir. 1:30 the Lord may "cast down"
in the assembly). There are three references to Israel o f the biblical
period as an assembly (Sir. 24:23; 46:7; 46:14). In four cases, the
term is used to refer to a godless company, presumably not within
Israel (Sir. 16:6; 21:9; 41:18; 45:18). The assembly gathered for ritual
occasions is mentioned two times (Sir. 50:13, 20). Caution in the
assembly is advised twice, presumably having to do with a wisdom
ethic o f speech (Sir. 4:7; 7:14). The remaining six occurrences have
to do with some form o f wisdom speech in the assembly (Sir. 15:5;
24:2; 31:11; 33:19; 39:10; 44:15). This spectrum o f usages hardly
supports Middendorp's thesis.
11. See Liebreich, "Impact o f Neh. 9 : 5 - 3 7 " ; Hengel, "Proseuche
and Synagoge," 165, n. 30, with further references. In Hoenig's fas
cinating article "The Ancient City-Square," there are references to
appropriate scriptural readings on ritual occasions in certain cities
with designated "stations" (maamadot) for lay assembly. Those were
occasions during which the local "priestly watch" was on duty in
the temple and served, apparently, as services o f worship by means
of which those at a distance from the temple could participate in its
cult. This is helpful as an indication o f the public reading o f the
scriptures during the Second Temple period. But the scriptures read
appear to have been only those related to the ritual-festival occa
sions, and the cities with maamadot appear to have been only in
Galilee or the Diaspora, not in Judea.
13. Note that the praise offered by the congregation (44:15) cor
responds to the author's intention to write a hymn o f praise (44:1)
and forms in fact the inclusio for the proem. If the author's intention
to praise connotes more the Hellenistic element, the congregation's
act reflects more the Jewish and liturgical components. The correla
tion of encomiastic and liturgical praise is thus achieved artfully for
the reader before the hymn itself actually begins.
15. This reading o f Ben Sira's political stance and openness to
Hellenism sees him as decidedly less polemical than is true o f the
reconstruction offered by Hengel, Judaism, 1:131-53. Nickelsburg is
in agreement with my position (see Jewish Literature, 6 4 ) .
16. Middendorp, Stellung, 1 3 7 - 7 4 , especially 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 149, 1 5 8 -
59, 164, 166.
17. For a list o f references see ibid., 1 4 0 - 5 4 .
18. Sir. 1 0 : 2 - 3 .
CHAPTER FOUR
1. Hengel reviews the evidence for "the development o f the J e w

ish school" and notes that Sirach marks a new development under
Hellenistic influence (Judaism, 1:78-83). Both Segal, Sever Ben Sira,
and Roth, "Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom," find that the organization
of the book reflects systematic concerns appropriate to a school-
instructional setting.
2. On Ben Sira's knowledge and usage o f Theognis, see Midden
dorp, Stellung, 7 - 3 4 (with summary statement at 2 4 - 2 5 ) . On Cynic-
Stoic philosophical commonplaces in Sirach, see Pautrel, "Ben Sira
et le Stoicisme"; Hengel, Judaism, 1:146-50, 1 5 9 - 6 2 ; Marbock,
Weisheit, 1 4 3 - 4 5 ; Middendorp, Stellung, 7 - 3 4 .
3. The collection o f maxims in blocks or literary units according
to theme, a characteristic o f Sirach accented by the insertion o f
appropriate theme titles in the later manuscript traditions (Marbock,
Weisheit, 168), reflects a common Hellenistic practice. On Sirach 24
as a Hellenistic hymn, see Conzelmann, "The Mother o f Wisdom";
Hengel, Judiasm, 1:158-59; Marbock, Weisheit, 4 8 - 5 4 ; Mack, Logos,
4 0 - 4 2 . On Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 as encomium, see Lee, "Studies," and the
discussion below in chapter 5.
4. On Sirach 24 and the Isis aretalogies, see Conzelmann, "The
Mother o f Wisdom"; Marbock, Weisheit, 4 9 - 5 4 ; Mack, Logos, 3 8 - 4 9 .
One o f the more significant theses put forth by Middendorp is that
Ben Sira crafted maxims that could allude to both Jewish and
Hellenic gnomological traditions (Stellung, 7 8 - 8 4 ) . This is a particu
larly skillful technique, a special case o f literary finesse in the overall
syncretism that marks his work. On the relation o f wisdom my
thology and Hebrew scriptures, see chapter 6; cf. Sheppard, Wisdom
as a Hermeneutical Construct.
NOTES TO PAGE 9 1 223
5. Theme units were recognized early on in the manuscript and

translation traditions, as is shown by the addition o f chapter head
ings in B and especially in the Greek version (cf. Marbock, Weisheit,
168). Several scholars have seen the wisdom hymn in chapter 24 to
mark either the ending o f the first half or the beginning o f the
second half o f the book. A discussion is given in Marbock, Weisheit,
4 1 - 4 4 . Building upon this notion, Nickelsburg is able to trace
themes and associations in chapters 1 - 2 3 that may be governed by
the two large poems about wisdom in chapters 1, 2, and 24 (Jewish
Literature, 5 6 - 5 9 ) . A suggestion by Middendorp is that the wisdom
poems in chapters 1, 2, 4 , 6, 14, 24, and 51:13ff. may be related to
successive compilation o f school materials (Stellung, 141, n.2). The
alternative would be to see these poems as providing the organiza
tional principle o f the book by introducing themes around which
blocks o f ethical maxims have been collected. Marbock has seen this
possibility (Weisheit, 1 5 - 1 6 ) . See also the excellent studies by Segal
(Seper Ben Sira) and Roth ("Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom") on the
arrangement o f the book according to themes for instructional pur
poses. Roth suggests that section 2 4 - 5 1 is composed o f three addi
tions by Ben Sira himself to the earlier handbook o f wisdom in 1—23.
The later additions are marked by authorial consciousness and offer
the creative contributions o f the mature scholar.
6. On the place o f religious hymns in the Hellenistic curriculum,
see Marrou, History of Education, 164, 1 8 9 - 9 2 . On the relation o f the
Hellenistic school to the religious calendar and life o f a city, cf.
Nilsson, Hellenistische Schule, 6 1 - 7 5 . An example o f an anthology for
use in instruction is found in Gueraud and Jouguet, Un line d'ecolier.
It includes an encomium. On Meleager o f Gadara as the creator o f
the Greek anthology, see Hengel, Judaism, 1:84-85. Advice to the
teacher o f rhetoric at the progymnasmata level on composing one's
own anthology o f instructional materials from classical texts is given
by Theon (Walz, Khetores, 1 : 1 5 8 - 7 2 ) . Middendorp has argued that
Sirach is a school textbook for instruction at an advanced level
(Stellung, 3 2 - 3 3 ) . It should be noted, though, that its high degree o f
literary creativity and compositional organization set it apart from
the teachers' handbooks in the primary and secondary schools, as
well as from the handbooks o f the higher rhetorical and technical
schools. A better analogy may be the protreptic or introductory lec
tures customary in the higher schools o f philosophy in combination
with thematic collections o f the school's own philosophical writing
(see Marrou, History of Education, 2 8 3 , 2 8 4 - 8 5 ) . If so, Ben Sira com
bined aspects o f several literary forms customary in the Hellenistic
tradition o f education in order to achieve a creative and program

matic book. Its value as an instructional vehicle would still be recog
nizable, but its status as authored work would enhance its value as a
literature in its own right. The manuscript traditions, with their
additions, emendations, glosses, and versions, show the degree to
which Sirach was used in ways that reflect this anomaly—a prized
text to be interpreted itself, as well as a compendium o f traditional
wisdom ethic.
7. See Mack, Logos, 2 1 - 2 9 , 3 1 - 3 2 .
8. In Sirach, cf. 4 : 1 1 - 1 9 ; 6 : 1 9 - 3 1 ; 1 4 : 2 0 - 1 5 : 8 ; 5 1 : 1 3 - 3 0 . Cren
shaw gives some good examples o f exhortations to wisdom and sug
gests that they are a definitive characteristic o f the sapiential
tradition (Old Testament Wisdom, 5 8 - 6 5 ) .
9. So, for instance, Box and Oesterley, "Book of Sirach," 4 5 5 ;
Spicq, Ecclesiastique, 767; Lebram, "Aspecte der Kanon bildung,"
1 8 2 - 8 3 ; Koole, "Bible"; Marbock, Weisheit, 89. Other scholars have
avoided this difficult question (e.g., Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 328) or
expressed themselves more cautiously (e.g., Lee, "Studies," 47:
"That Sirach had before him the materials which would become
those of the Hebrew canon."). The more cautious position is cer
tainly called for, especially in light o f the exceedingly wide range o f
reference Ben Sira gives to the term "Torah" itself (cf. the survey by
Marbock, Weisheit, 8 6 - 9 6 ) . Given the range o f nuances for Torah,
which in its connotation as wisdom is understood to be present in
the creation order from the beginning, the references in Sir. 39:1 to
the "Torah o f the Most High" and in 24:23 to the "Book o f the
Covenant" are clearly special cases in which specific scriptures are
taken up under a broader rubric. It is in this sense that von Rad's
thesis about the relationship o f wisdom and Torah in Ben Sira can be
helpful: "It is not that wisdom is overshadowed by the superior
power o f the Torah, but, vice versa, that we see Sirach endeavoring to
legitimatize and to interpret Torah from the realm o f understanding
characteristic o f wisdom" (Wisdom in Israel, 245). Sheppard discusses
the problem o f postulating a "closed" canon of scriptures according
to the later threefold division for Ben Sira's period but decides then
in favor o f the value o f the term "canon" to indicate both "the
Torah" and "the Prophets" as already being "authoritative books"
and "canonical divisions" by this time (Wisdom as a Hermeneutical
Construct, 1 4 - 1 5 , n. 6 1 ) . He does this, apparently, in the interest o f
his thesis about wisdom hermeneutics as scriptural interpretation.
Later he argues that the reference to the Book of the Covenant in
Sir. 24:23 is a canonical expression that refers to the Torah as "the

five books o f Moses" (p. 6 2 ) .
I wish to proceed without making these assumptions. Thus the
notion o f canon that informs my usage o f this term is taken, not
from its later technical sense in Jewish and Christian views o f the
scriptures, but from its much more fluid connotation in current
literary criticism. In literary-critical discourse, canon refers to those
precursor texts that have influenced greatly a given author or liter
ary tradition and are acknowledged as "strong" or "classic" texts.
By introducing this perspective, I do not intend a resolution o f the
complex question of Jewish scriptural canon formation and function.
The suspicion is that factors other than those involved in the forma
tion o f literary canons must also come into play. These probably
have to do with the value o f the writings for the religious communi
ty as a whole as it seeks to determine its identity against other
cultures. There can be no question about the existence of the liter
atures later to be canonized as Torah, Prophets, and Writings during
Ben Sira's time. His own reading and usage o f them is well attested.
The question is whether he took them up because he understood
them to be "authoritative" for reasons similar to those later to be
articulated.
It is possible to use the term "canon" in its literary-critical con
notation because Ben Sira's own reading o f the Jewish writings takes
place as a literary event in his work as a scholar and author. Only by
assessing how he has read all o f his precursor texts, including
Hellenistic texts, can we even begin to press the question about the
special nature o f the authority o f Torah for him or for others in his
time. Our study will not be able to resolve this question fully. But
clues will emerge in subsequent chapters. Anticipating the conclu
sions in chapter 5 and 6, it may be suggested that the authority o f
the Jewish scriptures for Ben Sira is a function o f their capacity to be
read as wisdom texts. I cannot find that Ben Sira has reflected on the
question of what it is about them that results in this capacity. This
means that the question about canon that theologians wish to ask
may not find a satisfactory answer here.
10. Cf. the programmatic statement in Sir. 1:14.
11. One o f the more important ideational developments in Sirach
is the resignification o f the notion o f prophet and prophecy. Biblical
scholars will know that the concept o f the prophet in the subsequent
period is quite different from that o f the Hebraic period, and that
following the so-called prophetic tradition into this later period is
226 NOTES TO PAGE 9 9
fraught with difficulties. The evidence from Ben Sira is thus o f con
siderable value, documenting as it does a reinterpretation o f "in
spired wisdom" as the provenance o f the scholar-sage. The
motivations for this correlation o f prophet and sage have not been
studied and are extremely complex. One factor that must be consid
ered, however, is the recognition o f the prophets as those who came
to speech by name, that is, as authors. This alone would have
marked them and their writings as distinctive among the traditional
scriptures and would have evinced appreciation for them along the
lines o f Hellenistic views o f authorship. A second consideration
might be the extent to which the Jewish notion o f prophetic inspira
tion was analagous to the Hellenistic view o f poetic inspiration. The
idea of the hiddenness o f wisdom that prevailed at this time required
some such view for anyone who aspired to knowledge. I suspect that
Ben Sira understood the sage on the model o f his view o f the Old
Testament prophets. In Sir. 24:33, he himself comes to speech in the
statement "Yet again will I pour forth teaching as prophecy, and
leave it to all future generations." Other evidences o f prophetic
genres and roles in Sirach are discussed in a fine section in Hengel,
Judaism, 1:134-38.
12. This is something o f an oversimplification, even as an in
terpretation o f Ben Sira's views. The "vision" o f the prophets is
repeatedly emphasized in the hymn, as we have seen, and functions
as a " t e x t " on the basis o f which their judgments are given. But the
"textuality" o f their vision is not elucidated in Ben Sira, and he
would not have understood it in any case as modern scholars now
do. W e know that the prophets were well read in the sacred tradi
tions known as Mosaic or Zionistic, and that they "read" the human
situation against these. See the study by Sanders, "Hermeneutics in
True and False Prophecy." Ben Sira has perhaps equated the proph
ets' inspiration (vision as experience, audience) with their view (vi
sion as content) o f the theocratic ideal, an approach formally
comparable to modern views o f the prophets' use o f sacred tradi
tions. When Ben Sira evokes the prophetic model for the sage, then,
a new "content" is given to the vision itself. It is being understood
as "wisdom," that is, the religious-ethical ordering o f creation and
history according to the wisdom myth. W e shall see in chapter 6
that this myth can be used to "visualize" a "sacred tradition" too, in
this case, the priestly tradition o f a covenantal community with
cultic history.
It is important to note that it is the power o f the word that has
NOTES TO PAGES 9 9 - 1 0 2 227
fascinated Ben Sira about the prophets. This is closely related to the
notion o f authorship that emerges in Sirach, one correlate o f which
is the recognition o f the rhetoricity o f composed speech. If Ben Sira
no longer understands the prophet-sage to be an overt agent o f
change in the political arena, it does not mean that he has resigned
before the task o f influencing cultural configurations. W e have al
ready noted the rhetoricity o f the hymn as mythic creation in sup
port of an institutional position. W e have now to see that the arena
of the scholars' influence is in literary instruction and creation, a
setting that may account in part for the prophetic displacement and
effacement in Ben Sira's vocation. The "power o f the word" was a
Hellenic theme articulated clearly already by Gorgias (Helena, 8—14).
There is a fine discussion o f the question o f the effectiveness o f
speech when combined with various philosophies, lifestyles, and vo
cations (i.e., praxis) in Cicero, De oratore, 3 . 5 6 - 7 1 .
13. See Fletcher, Prophetic Moment.
14. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 15. Bloom's concept o f "belated-
ness" is given expression in Sir. 33:16—18: "I indeed came last o f all,
as one that gleans after the grape-gatherers." This verse is noted by
Crenshaw as o f significance for Ben Sira's self-understanding (Old
Testament Wisdom, 1 5 9 - 6 0 ) .
15. The references to Torah in Ben Sira are collected and dis
cussed by Marbock, Weisheit, 8 8 - 9 2 . See also above note 9.
16. Hengel notes that canon formation in Ben Sira's time would
have been impelled by an anti-Hellenistic polemic (Judaism, 1:135).
The corollary is that a consciousness o f a corpus as literary canon
was itself a Hellenistic idea. The establishment o f the Hellenic "clas
sics" no doubt took place within the Hellenistic schools. See Mar
rou, History of Education, 2 2 4 - 2 8 . An important aspect o f the
Hellenistic formation was apparently a selection o f texts understood
to be manifestations o f traditional (cultural) aesthetic and ethical
values (cf. ibid., 2 3 4 - 3 5 ) . This corresponds to the somewhat later
idea about caution in selecting authors to be read because o f the
mimetic influence o f their words. Cf. Theon, Progymnasmata, in Walz,
Rhetores, 1 . 1 5 1 . 1 1 - 1 5 2 . 1 ; Seneca, Epistle, 11.8, 52.8, 71.7, 94.40;
Plutarch, How the Young Man Should Study Poetry.
17. Cf. Epictetus 3.22, " O n Cynicism," 2 3 - 2 5 , 6 9 - 7 2 , 77. These
are late reflections on the Cynics from a Stoic point o f view, but
they do correspond to Cynic practice as documented in the Cynic
epistles for the last century B.C.E. and the first o f the next era. Cf.
Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, also Plutarch, Moralia, 1.70C—D.
228 NOTES TO PAGES 1 0 2 - 1 4
18. A fine historical survey o f this tradition is given by Lee,

"Studies," 1 2 8 - 2 4 4 .
19. The classic study is Jaeger's Paideia. The move from warrior
culture to scribal culture is a basic theme as well in Marrou's History
of Education. The subsequent manifestations include the emergence o f
biography as a literary genre with its dependence upon chreiai as
telling characterizations, the Stoic ideal o f the sage, and the social
prominence o f poets, teachers, and rhetors. A recent article by
Lefkowitz, "The Poet as Hero," traces the beginnings o f this shift to
a "pattern o f autobiographical fiction" employed by fifth-century
poets in the interest o f a new heroic morality critical o f the Homeric
tradition. This autobiographical fiction became the source for subse
quent biographies o f the poets themselves. It is significant that the
earlier poets, for example, Pindar, developed their new heroic mo
rality as sages in the context o f literary competition with other poets
and especially with precursors. It is significant, also, that this o c
curred with the emergence o f the polis and the demands that cre
ated for facility in rhetoric and the "democratization" of arete. With
this move, the stage was set for the culture of paideia as the system o f
values, conventions, and literary achievements that fostered and car
ried the Hellenic anthropology into the Hellenistic period. On the
encomia, see Lee, "Studies," 1 7 2 - 7 3 . He notes that Philiscus o f
Miletus wrote an encomium on the orator Lycurgos; Speusippus and
Clearchus wrote encomia on Plato; and Demetrius o f Phaleron
wrote one on Socrates.
20. Self-references in Sirach: 2 4 : 3 0 - 3 4 ; 3 3 : 1 6 - 1 8 ; 3 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ;
39:13, 32; 42:15, 27, 32; 41:1; 50:27; 5 1 : 1 3 - 3 0 . On this topic see
Roth, "Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom."
21. Consciousness o f authorship has been noted as a clear mark
of Ben Sims' Hellenistic learning: for instance, Hengel, Judaism, 1:78-
79, 112; Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 1 5 9 - 6 0 ; Roth, "Gnomic-
Discursive Wisdom."
CHAPTER FIVE
1. Marbock, Weisheit, 8 5 - 9 2 .
2. Sir. 45:14 (Lev. 22:12); Sir. 45:16 (Lev. 16:34); Sir. 50:9a (Lev.
16:34); Lev. 19:19 (Sir. 31:15; cf. Sir. 6:10; 37:2). See Middendorp,
Stellung, 6 0 .
3. References by Middendorp, Stellung, 5 1 - 6 0 .
4. On Homer as the classic text o f Hellenistic education, see
Marrou, History of Education, 226—27. One o f the first sentences used
NOTES TO PAGES 1 1 6 - 2 0 229
in the writing lesson was "Homer was not a man, but a god," and in
the later exercises on selected passages the incipit epe (epic verse) is
given. The phenomenon o f allegorization is closely related to the
study o f Homer. See Heinemann, Allegoristik; Pepin, Mythe et allegorie,
8 5 - 1 2 4 . The Stoics were particularly interested in using allegoriza
tion to correlate philosophical and ethical ideas with the writings of
Homer. See Pepin, Mythe et allegorie, 1 2 5 - 7 2 .
5. See below, pp. 1 2 1 - 2 2 , and note 15.
6. Cf. the intriguing suggestion made by Hengel that "a kind o f
priestly historical writing . . . can be demonstrated from the
Priestly Writer, the works o f the Chronicler, Eupolemos, I Mac
cabees and the anti-Herodian source o f Josephus himself' (Judaism,
1:99). It is possible now to place Ben Sira within this tradition.
7. Koch, Priesterschrift, 9 9 - 1 0 0 .
8. The references to Sir. 4 6 : 1 ; 4 7 : 9 - 1 1 ; 48:17; 50:17 may be
found in Box and Oesterley, "Book o f Sirach." Smend bases a similar
judgment upon Sir. 47:8ff (Weisheit, 414). Middendorp does not dis
cuss Ben Sira's use o f Chronicles, but references given in his index
show that with only one or two possible exceptions elsewhere, the
use o f Chronicles is limited to the inauthentic section in Sirach 36 or
to the level o f Greek translation (Stellung, 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 176).
9. See Momigliano, "Tradition," 171. The reference is not to the
older practice o f keeping archives in local institutions or royal
houses in the Orient (and in Rome), but to the composition o f a
local history based upon such archives and other lore. He dis
tinguishes this Hellenistic genre from the classical "historians o f
change."
10. See Hoffken, "Sirach uber Ezra," who comes to the same
conclusion about Ben Sira's aversion to the Levitical-Ezra tradition.
11. Steck, Israel, 1 4 6 - 4 7 .
12. Cf. Marbock, Weisheit, 7 3 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 7 6 - 7 7 . See also Sheppard,
Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 6 3 - 7 1 . Sheppard's thesis is that
Sirach 24 reflects significant allusions to the book o f Deuteronomy
and may be considered an interpretation o f it. This is possible and
does not disagree with Steck's finding that the later Deuteronomistic
theology o f history is not present in Sirach.
13. Steck, Israel, 1 4 6 - 4 7 .
14. Most older studies recognized that Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 presented a
new view o f Israel's history but compared it only with other forms
of earlier Jewish historiography. See above Introduction, n. 4. But
Hengel places the hymn in the context o f his fine discussion o f
230 NOTES TO PAGES 121-26
Greek and Jewish historiography o f the Hellenistic period as an early

example o f Hellenistic influence (Judaism, 1 : 8 8 - 1 0 6 ) . On the hymn
as biography, see above, Introduction, n. 4 . On the encomium, see
Lee, "Studies."
1 5 . A brief discussion o f this component o f the encomium from
Pindar on is given in ibid., 1 3 8 - 4 1 . As a component o f Hellenistic
historiography, cf. Hengel, Judaism, 1 : 8 8 — 9 0 . The Anonymous Sa
maritan, a contemporary o f Ben Sira, rewrote the Genesis account o f
primal history by combining with it motifs from Hesiod (the Titans),
Berossus (the foundation o f Babylon by the god Bel), and Babylonian
cosmogonies. A comparison o f Ben Sira's view o f history with the
Babyloniaka o f Berossus might prove to be o f some interest. Jonathan
Z. Smith argues for the inclusion o f the astrological material at
tributed to Berossus as the final section o f his history: "taken to
gether they reveal an overall pattern that closely approaches the
apocalyptic: a history o f a cosmos and a people from creation to final
catastrophe dominated by astrological determinism. . . . the
Babyloniaka appears to have described the history o f the world from
its creation to its final destruction and offers a periodization o f the
history o f Babylonia which stretches in between" ("A Pearl o f Great
Price," 1 0 ) . W e may outline this history as follows: ( 1 ) Archaic
Period, ( 2 ) History o f Babylonia, ( 3 ) Final Catastrophe. Ben Sira's
hymn may then be outlined as ( 1 ) Archaic Period, ( 2 ) History o f
Israel, ( 3 ) Final Actualization. Do we have here an early instance o f a
wisdom alternative to apocalyptic? Instead o f astrological determin
ism, a wisdom interpretation o f the covenants provides the rationale.
1 6 . See Momigliano, "Tradition," 1 6 8 .
17. Cf. Momigliano, "Eastern Elements," 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 3 . In his arti
cle on tradition and the classical historian, Momigliano distinguishes
clearly between the chronicles o f local traditions with their anti-
quarianism and the histories o f the great historians o f the fifth and
fourth centuries. The latter focused upon recent events o f conflict
between peoples and were dominated by a sense o f change. They
had no sense o f being "in the grip o f the past" ("Tradition," 1 7 3 ) .
According to Momigliano's distinction, Ben Sira's hymn shares more
with the tradition o f chronicles than with the purposes o f the "his
torians o f change."
1 8 . A survey o f this early biographic literature is found in Lee,
"Studies," 5 2 - 7 8 .
1 9 . See Momigliano, "Tradition," 1 6 6 .
2 0 . Middendorp suggests an allusion to the political concept o f
diadoche (Stellung, 54). This connotation was certainly familiar during

Ben Sira's time and may have played a role in its usage by him. This
may also be true for the notion o f a succession o f kings and prophets
in Eupolemos and Josephus. See below n. 22. But the more interest
ing possibility is the one we have referred to. The problem that Ben
Sira may have had in its application to a series o f prophet-sages may
have to do precisely with the tension between prophetic inspiration
and the transmission o f tradition, a tension that would not have been
resolved easily. The Hellenistic notion is illustrated by Diogenes
Laertius, who uses the image o f a prize passed from sage to sage
(Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.28). (See below n. 23 for further docu
mentation.) Ben Sira would not have been able to work out a resolu
tion between prophetic (individual) inspiration and the notion o f
tradition at this early a time. But the subsequent developments that
eventually produced the program in the Pirke Aboth can hardly be
understood without it.
21. That I have not misread the singular importance o f Moses in
Ben Sira's hymn, nor overstated the potential for an extremely high
characterization that lurks there beneath the surface, is shown by
the quasi-mythological depictions o f Moses in Eupolemos ("the first
wise man") and Artapanus (the precursor-founder o f Egyptian and
Greek wisdom and religion). See Hengel, Judaism, 1:92-93.
22. Eupolemos records the "succession" o f kings and prophets
(Jacoby, FGr Hist, 3C. 723.F2b = Eusebius, Prep. Ev., 9.30, Iff.; and
F5 = Prep. Ev. 9.39, 2). Josephus also knows about the "succession
of the prophets" (Contra Apionem, 1.41).
23. Bickermann, "La chaine de la tradition," traces the tradition
of this notion in philosophical and biographic literature. Cf. also
Fuhrmann, Systematisches Lehrhuch, 149.
24. It is unfortunate that a scholarly monograph on the en
comium is not available. There is, however, a fine historical survey in
Lee, "Studies," 1 2 6 - 2 4 3 . He includes examples o f encomia and dis
cussions o f rhetorical theory on the epideictic speech from the tech
nical handbooks. Documentation for much o f what follows in my
own discussion can be found in Lee, even if many o f my observations
and emphases interpret the data in other ways. In the Bibliography,
a brief selection o f scholarly studies in classical rhetoric is included
to which reference may be made also concerning epideictic theory
and practice in the context o f speech theory in general (cf. Clark,
Kennedy, Lausberg, Martin, Perelman, Volkmann.) The task o f min
ing this scholarship for specific knowledge about encomia, however,
is difficult, both because o f the nature o f the organization o f the

classical discussions and because o f the organization and interests o f
the scholarly studies themselves. The summary discussion given here
is based upon a reading o f this literature, but specific documentation
of details has been rejected as requiring an argumentation out o f
proportion to the needs o f the study.
2 5 . Our outline is a condensed synthesis o f those given in the
progymnasmata o f Theon (Walz, Rhetores, 1. 2 2 7 - 3 1 ) , Hermogenes
(Rabe, Hermogenis Opera, 1 4 — 1 8 ) , and Aphthonius (Rabe, Aphthonii
Progymnasmata, 2 1 - 2 7 ) . But the lineaments can be traced back
through the rhetorical handbooks to the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum ( 3
and 3 5 ) . See Cicero, De inventione, 2 . 1 7 7 - 7 8 ; De Oratore, 2 . 3 4 1 - 4 8 ;
Ad Herennium, 3 . 6 . 1 0 - 3 . 7 . 1 5 ; Quintilian, 3 . 7 , 8 . 4 .
2 6 . One example may be given. The topos on the defense o f the
city (Sir. 5 0 : 1 — 4 ) as encomiastic motif finds an exceptionally fine
parallel in Isocrates' Evagoras: "Evagoras remedied all these de
fects . . . acquired much additional territory, surrounded it with
new walls and built tiremes, and with other construction so in
creased the city that it was inferior to none o f the cities o f Greece"
(47).
2 7 . One example is Ben Sira's statement not to count anyone
happy before his death (Sir. 1 1 : 2 8 ) . This is attributed to Solon by
Herodotus ( 1 . 3 2 . 8 6 ) and occurs also in Sophocles, Oedipus Rex,
1528.
2 8 . Lee, "Studies," 2 6 2 .
CHAPTER Six
1. Though an interpretation o f the "wisdom tradition" will be

offered here, discussion with the views o f other scholars will be
minimal. The reader is referred to a selected number o f references in
the Bibliography as works to which I am indebted and that may be
recommended as introductions to the exceedingly rich scholarship
in this area. See Collins, "Cosmos and Salvation"; Crenshaw, Old
Testament Wisdom; Mack and Murphy, "Wisdom Literature"; von
Rad, Wisdom in Israel; and Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte. The schol
arship has rightly and repeatedly emphasized the lack o f overt con
cern for religious institutional history in this literature. A note
worthy exception which lends support to the thesis presented here
is the study by Leo Perdue, Wisdom and Cult.
2. Sheppard gives an excellent review o f the problem o f defining
a tradition of wisdom (Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 1 - 1 1 ) . See
NOTES TO PAGES 141-43 233
also Whybray, Intellectual Tradition; and Crenshaw, "Prolegomenon,"

2 2 . Crenshaw presents a more optimistic position with regard to "a
professional class" o f sages and the sapiential tradition (Old Testament
Wisdom, 2 8 - 3 6 , 4 2 - 6 5 ) . It is put forth cautiously and argued exten
sively, indicating that he has seen the problems clearly. I am not
convinced that Crenshaw has made the case, but there are a number
of fine observations and several helpful compromises that make o f
his study an excellent summary statement. In some ways, it may
function as a comparison piece to my attempt here to elucidate a
wisdom mode o f thinking without accepting traditional assumptions
about "the wisdom tradition."
3. A point seen by Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 3 6 .
4 . This classification is taken from the article on wisdom by Foh-
rer in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. The curiosity is
that scholarship, oriented as it has been to questions about the place
of wisdom within Israel's ethical and religious life and thought, has
tended to treat this data merely as philological background and thus
has lost track o f the variety o f connotations that probably continued
to exist within the culture even after the term had been personified
and theologized. A similar phenomenon in classical scholarship has
now been remedied by an exceptionally important study by De-
tienne and Vernant, Cunning Intelligence. With this work, a concep
tion o f "wisdom" deeply imbedded in Hellenic culture emerges, a
wisdom whose function was quite the opposite o f the philosopher's
sophia. A companion study for Jewish wisdom would mean a re-
evaluation o f a long list o f religious, social, literary, and rhetorical-
logical phenomena o f the tradition. Collins, "Court Tales," has re
cently used the distinction between "mantic" wisdom and "prover
bial" wisdom in a very helpful way in order to be more precise about
the kind o f wisdom intended in an apocalyptic book. This approach
is most commendable and should give guidance to studies in other
"wisdom" literatures.
5. Helpful studies here are found in von Rad, Wisdom in Israel;
Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte; and Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom.
6 . Social and cultural crisis as a crisis for wisdom thinking has
been noted by Crenshaw in several o f his articles. See his "Pro
legomenon" as a place to begin. Jim Sanders has called my attention
to the scathing attacks on "the wise" in Jeremiah as a related phe
nomenon. Thus the prophets may also be better understood as
spokesmen during times o f social crisis. Both their indebtedness to
wisdom thinking and their criticisms o f it might be functions o f the
attempt to see again the fundamental religious structures o f the

community and call for their acknowledgment and actualization. An
interesting study would be a comparison o f Amos, Jeremiah, and
Ben Sira from this point o f view.
7. That the notion o f order, especially the order o f creation (cos
mos, world), is basic to a wisdom view o f things has become a
commonplace in the scholarship. Zimmerli ("Struktur der Weis
heit"; "Place and Limit o f Wisdom") may be credited with its dis
covery as a theologumenon. The studies o f von Rad and Kayatz
explore it as a wisdom assumption and relate it to the conception o f
Maat in Egyptian wisdom literature. Its function for wisdom speech
and ethic as an order-to-be-actualized has been investigated by Gese
and Schmid (Wesen und Geschichte) among others. In Gerechtigkeit als
Weltordnung, Schmid has expanded the discussion by showing that
the term for "righteousness" in all o f its arenas o f application (social,
ethical, legal, and religious) derives its power ultimately from the
assumption o f world order itself. The point I wish to make here is
that this assumption is at first (in the precrisis situation) not explicit,
not articulated, and therefore unreflected.
8. The traditional view on the "development" o f wisdom
"thought" includes the emergence o f skepticism and cynicism in Job
and Qohelet as a "stage" in the history o f the tradition. This view o f a
developmental history was articulated clearly by Rylaarsdam in 1 9 4 6 .
Von Rad's Wisdom in Israel may be seen as a study in the evolution o f
the structure of wisdom thinking along the lines of this developmental
schema. Crenshaw's Old Testament Wisdom is organized also along these
lines.
9 . This suggestion is intended as a serious alternative to tradi
tional scholarly assumptions about a tradition o f theological wisdom.
In the context o f the present study, it can be no more than a sug
gestion. But it is hoped that the nature o f the study as a whole may
lend support to its plausibility and that its implications for the schol
arly assessment o f the wisdom literature may be provocative. I sus
pect that the bridge between Judaism and Hellenism was not struck
at such lofty heights o f theological-philosophical discourse as has
frequently been assumed by scholarly orientation to the history o f
ideas.
1 0 . There is a large literature on the example (paradigm, ex-
emplum) in Greco-Roman literature, rhetoric, and logic. Its persuas
ive power (rhetorical logic) assigned it a firm place in the relatively
NOTE TO PAGE 1 6 2 235
small list o f "proofs" given repeatedly in the technical handbooks o f

rhetorical theory. Its logical power was derived from the Hellenic
valorization o f correspondence and identity, but its rhetorical power
had to do with the notion o f actualization in a "historical" person or
case. I have not explored the rhetoricity o f Ben Sira's use o f charac
terization as paradigmatic, choosing rather to emphasize the func
tion o f the high mimetic for the construction o f a mythic system.
But an investigation o f the rhetorical function o f the "paradigms" in
the hymn, in comparison to Greek usage, would be possible. A place
to begin is Perelman and Albrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, 3 5 0 - 4 1 0 .
1 1 . On the structure and thematic development o f Sirach 2 4 , see
Conzelmann, "The Mother o f Wisdom"; Hengel, Judaism, 1 : 1 5 3 — 6 2 ;
Marbock, Weisheit, 3 4 — 9 5 ; Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen, 1 1 1 - 7 2 ;
Gilbert, "L'eloge de la Sagesse"; Skehan, "Structures in Poems on
Wisdom." The earlier view o f Smend (followed by Rickenbacher),
that the poem consists o f six strophes o f six lines each, has been
superseded in the studies o f Marbock, Gilbert, and Skehan. Skehan
offers a reconstruction o f the Hebrew text and argues convincingly
for the following oudine on the basis o f poetic and syntactical obser
vations: 1 - 2 (introduction, 2 lines); 3 - 7 (strophe 1, 5 lines); 8 - 1 2
(strophe 2 , 6 lines); 1 3 - 1 5 (strophe 3 , 5 lines); 1 6 - 2 2 (strophe 4 , 6
lines). Gilbert's study is concerned to follow the development o f the
themes o f space (location) and time (history) throughout the poem
and thus breaks the poem up into somewhat smaller units. But he
agrees that 1 - 2 are introductory, he sees 3 - 8 as a unit (theme o f
space), and he notes that 1 6 - 1 7 are bridging verses to the invitation
that follows in 1 9 - 2 2 . There is no difficulty in agreeing with both
Skehan and Gilbert if one sees that the introduction and develop
ment o f themes is not limited by the strophic structure. Gilbert's
discussion o f the smaller units ( 9 , 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 - 1 7 ) can be
organized easily in recombinations o f materials that break conven-
iendy at just those junctures suggested by Skehan's strophic outline.
The one disagreement is the placement o f verse 8 , and it is notewor
thy that it is precisely verse 8 where we can see that a "narrative
slippage" o f significance has occurred. My own outline agrees with
Skehan's but was based upon considerations o f the narrative flow o f
the myth as Conzelmann reconstructs it. I am delighted to learn that
it falls into poem units o f syntactic coherence as demonstrated by
Skehan. I have included verses 1 6 and 1 7 in strophe 3 , in the interest
of my narrative reading o f the poem (as does Marbock), but I would
not argue on this basis against the poetics demonstrated by Skehan.

The recent study by Sheppard takes another tack entirely (Wisdom as
a Hermeneutical Construct, 1 9 - 7 1 ) . He is concerned to trace the allu
sions in the hymn to the five books o f Moses in order to demon
strate his thesis about a wisdom hermeneutic as the interpretation o f
a canonical literature. He can show that the language and flow o f the
hymn evoke associations with, and in some cases actually refer to,
significant moments in the epic. But in order to sustain his thesis,
which appears to be the priority status o f the Torah, he must reject
other structuring aspects o f the hymn, specifically, its intertextuality
and poetic composition. The disappointment in Sheppard's book is
that he intends in this way, but fails, to arrive at a definition o f
"wisdom" itself. I can accept Sheppard's findings about the hymn as
a reading o f the Hebrew epic. But that reading is enabled by a rich
intertextuality that includes an Isis aretalogy as well as a poetic
articulation o f the wisdom myth. Sheppard avoids a discussion o f the
Isis aretalogy (p. 3 5 ) and does not account for the emergence o f a
wisdom figure and mythology in the context o f wisdom thought and
composition at all. He cannot say why a reading o f the Torah epic
has resulted in just such a hymn, that is, a wisdom myth.
1 2 . I read the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac o f 4 4 : 2 with Skehan,
"Staves and Nails."
1 3 . This is an appropriate place to refer to the recent work by
Terrien, The Elusive Presence. His thesis is that the notion o f presence
is a theme uniting the literatures o f the Old and New Testaments,
that it is tensive and dialectic in respect to human experience in
time, and that its celebration requires cultic liturgy. He also knows
about the "absence" that the liturgy o f presence cannot overcome.
My own use o f the terms "presence" and "absence," by contrast,
derives from current literary criticism.
CONCLUSION
1. It has been customary to speak about "the righteous one" in

the literature o f the Second Temple period as if it were a com
monplace requiring no further discussion. Actually the case is just
the reverse. W e do not know the range o f incidence, the derivation
traditions, the norms for recognition, the capacity for intertextual
translatability, nor the rhetorical powers o f this linguistic sign. In
this study, we have encountered the problem essentially in terms o f
the relationship between hasid and saddiq. But the relationship o f

both o f these to ho dikaios is the larger issue. The notion o f the
"righteous one" appears as a significant datum in martyrological
(Maccabees), apocalyptic (Enoch), wisdom (Wisdom o f Solomon,
Philo), and eschatological (New Testament) texts subsequent to Ben
Sira. Why? What new vision o f the world or anthropological under
standing can account for its emergence? With what intention is it
employed? One suspects that some refinement o f Jewish under
standing o f the logic o f the Hellenic schema of nomos-polis-anthropos is
involved. But in order to be precise, the social system in need o f
being rationalized must be determined for each case.
2. The list o f parallels frequently cited, often as additions to the
list o f psalms and other possible precursors from Jewish literature
(see above Introduction, n.4), includes Jud. 5:5—21, 16:1 — 17; 1
Mace. 2 : 5 1 - 6 0 ; 3 Mace. 2 : 3 - 8 , 6 : 2 - 8 ; 4 Mace. 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 3 , 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 4 ;
Cairo Damascus Document 2 : 1 7 - 3 : 1 2 ; Wisd. o f Solomon 10; Pirke
Aboth; Acts 7 : 2 - 5 3 ; Heb. 11; 1 Clement 4 - 1 9 . The list could be
expanded.
3. A discussion is given by Lee that includes references to
Hellenistic literature, "Studies," 2 6 - 4 6 .
4. The move away from Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 is marked by (a) a focus
upon individuals; (b) the naming o f virtues and vices exemplified; (c)
emphasis upon rewards and punishments (which may include des
tiny patterns); and (d) final exhortation to heed or imitate.
APPENDIX A
1. The following scholars have argued for the close relationship

of Sir. 4 2 : 1 5 - 4 3 : 3 5 with Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 : Pfeiffer, History 362; Hamp,
Das Buch Sirach, 6 8 5 ; Siebeneck, "Sirach's Praise," 413; Born, Wijheid
van Sirach, 2 0 6 - 7 ; Fransen, "Sirach 4 2 " ; Marbock, Weisheit, 6 8 , 1 4 7 -
4 8 ; Schokel, Proverbios y Eclesiastico, 299. Those who have expressed
reservations, argued against the literary relationship, or treated Sir
ach 4 4 - 5 0 as an independent composition include Baumgartner, Die
literische Gattungen, 1 6 9 - 7 3 ; Maertens, "L'eloge des peres"; Jansen,
Psalmendichtung, 7 1 ; Noack, Spatjudentum, 4 1 ; te Stroete, "Van Hen
och tot Simon," 123; Lee, "Studies," 3 - 9 . Lee's argument is that the
two units were composed independently and joined later by a redac-
tional device (especially verse 43:33). He considers this argumenta
tion necessary in order to establish his thesis about the encomiastic
structure o f Sirach 4 4 - 5 0 . It is unfortunate that he has found it
238 NOTES TO PAGES 1 9 1 - 2 0 1
necessary to play down many o f the ensuing literary relationships

between the two units, which are rich in signification even if viewed
as "merely" redactional.
2. This ordering o f natural phenomena has been seen as a wisdom
topos. Cf. von Rad, "Job 3 8 . "
3. Marbock has seen the significance o f the term "glory" as a
theme o f continuity between the two literary units (Weisheit, 148).
4. Reference may be made here to Crenshaw's discussion o f the
odicy in Sirach ("The Problem o f Theodicy").
5. See above Introduction, n. 4.
APPENDIX B
1. The following scholars are those who regard chapter 50 as an

appendix not integrally related to the hymn and probably added
later: Smend, Weisheit des Sirach, 4 1 2 ; Box and Oesterley, "Book o f
Sirach," 479, cf. 506; Maertens, L'eloge des peres, 1 9 5 - 9 6 ( 4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 is
discussed as the "conclusion" o f the hymn); Jacob, "L'histoire,"
290; Hamp, Das Buch Sirach, 7 0 8 ; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 8 5 , n. 9 4 ;
Lamparter, Jesus Sirach, 211 (in Die Apokryphen).
2. Those who include chapter 50 within the hymnic unit are
Siebeneck, "Sirach's Praise," 4 1 5 ; Noack, Spatjudentum, 4 2 - 4 3 ; Jans-
sen, Gottesvolk, 16—33; te Stroete, "Von Henoch tot Simon"; Lee,
"Studies", 9 - 1 9 . Lee's study makes the strongest case yet for the
inclusion o f chapter 50. His thesis is that the hymn as a whole is an
encomium on Simon himself.
3. See above chap. 1, n. 2.
APPENDIX C
1. The argumentation o f Middendorp for excluding 44:16 from

the original text is convincing (Stellung, 5 3 - 5 4 , 109, 112, 134). See
also Yadin, who agrees that 4 4 : 1 6 was not original, but who then
reconstructs 4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 to include it (Ben Sira Scroll, 38).
3. Ibid., 113, 125.
4. This is especially true o f Siebeneck but governs the interests o f
Maertens and Jacob as well. It is Middendorp's study as a whole, and
especially in relation to the question o f locating later additions in a
different provenance, that should settle the question o f Ben Sira's
participation in any apocalyptic eschatology (see ibid., 1 1 3 - 3 6 ) .
5. On Sir. 4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 as a gloss, see ibid., 135; Galling, Studien zur
NOTES TO PAGES 2 0 1 - 7 239
Geschichte Israels, 129, n. 3; Snaith, Ecclesiastkus, 248. Lee argues for

the inclusion o f 4 9 : 1 4 - 1 6 on the basis that a mention o f Adam
would be appropriate in an encomium ("Studies," 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 7 2 - 7 6 ) .
He is convinced by Yadin's reconstruction o f these verses to include
44:16bc, which according to Yadin, was moved to its earlier place
ment in subsequent manuscript redaction (Ben Sira Scroll, 38). Lee
accounts for the list o f pre-Noah figures by analogy to the practice
of Hellenistic encomia that compared their subjects with "the gods
from whom the subjects were said to have descended" ("Studies,"
276). This thesis does have merit, but it could be used to account for
a later addition o f the pericope just as well. My own reflections on
the significance o f Adam for Ben Sira elsewhere in the book, and the
special destiny characterizations for the others mentioned here,
make it difficult to align this unit with the concerns that control the
hymn.
6. Sir. 1 5 : 1 4 - 2 0 ; 1 7 : 1 - 1 8 ; 24:28; 3 3 : 1 0 - 1 5 ; 4 0 : 1 .
APPENDIX D
1. Designations o f office occur at 44:19 (Abraham as father);

45:15 (Aaron as priest); 45:25 (Phineas as high priest); 45:25 (David
as king); 46:1 (Joshua as prophet); 46:11 (the judges); 46:13 (Samuel
as prophet, judge, and priest); 48:1 (Elijah as prophet); 48:22 (Isaiah
as prophet); 48:23 (Hezekiah as king); 49:4 (kings o f Judah); 49:7
(Jeremiah as prophet); 4 9 : 1 0 (the twelve prophets); 50:1 (Simon as
priest).
2. It may be significant that Ben Sira refers here to the Yahwist's
account o f the blessing on Noah (Gen. 8:21) rather than to the
priestly writer's account o f the covenant with him (Gen. 6 : 1 8 - 2 1 ) .
In our study, it has been seen that Ben Sira ranked the series o f
covenants in such a way as to subsume them all in the covenant o f
the priesthood itself. Noah functions for Ben Sira as a pre-Israel,
prepriestly figure who represents the divine promise to all human
kind.
3. The lack o f any evidence for a wisdom or Torah piety in the
hymnic characterizations is one o f the more startling findings o f this
study. Most scholars have assumed that Jewish piety at this time
would have been oriented primarily to some form o f Torah right
eousness. In Ben Sira's book as a whole, it is clear that the rela
tionship between wisdom and Torah is being addressed in some
constructive way. But in the hymn there is no reflection o f this.
240 NOTE TO PAGE 2 0 7
Haspecker has seen this clearly (Gottesfurcht, 8 5 , n. 9 4 ) ; Lee has not.

Lee argues that Ben Sira cited "only those specific events . . .
through which the subject demonstrated his piety or fidelity to the
law," and that he offered his depictions "as examples to be emu
lated" ("Studies," 7 1 ) . This is clearly not the case. In view o f these
reflections about the lack o f the theme o f Torah righteousness in the
hymn, it is o f some significance that Noah is the only one for whom
the designation "righteousness" is used at all. When one notices that
Noah functions as a representation o f all humankind, an additional
and telling consideration is given. It is that the universalistic an
thropological horizon in Sirach, a commonplace observation in the
scholarship, is capable o f combination with the ethical concept o f
righteousness. In the light o f this usage, Ben Sira's views on right
eousness and piety need to be complemented by a consideration o f
his views on the distinctiveness o f Jewish identity. That this dis
tinctiveness is not based upon a claim to an exclusive capacity for
righteousness with its corollary division o f humanity into "right
eous" and "godless" peoples is the important point to remember.
Bibliography
Barthelemy, Jean Dominique, and Rickenbacher, Otto. Konkordance

zum hebraischen Sirach mit syrisch-hebrdischen Index. Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1973.
Baumgartner, Walter. "Die literarische Gattungen in der Weisheit
des Jesus Sirach." ZAW 34 (1914): 1 6 1 - 9 8 .
Bickermann, Elias J . "La chaine de la tradition pharisienne," KB 59
(1952): 4 4 - 5 5 .
From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. New York: Schocken,
1962.
Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1973.
The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary
(in Hebrew, with an Introduction in English). Jerusalem: Acade
my o f the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973.
Born, Adrianus van den. Wijsheid van Jesus Sirach. Roermond: Romen
en Zonen, 1968.
Box, G. H., and Oesterley, W . O. E. "The Book o f Sirach." In The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, edited
by R. H. Charles, 2 6 8 - 5 1 7 . 1913. Reprint. London: Oxford Uni
versity Press, 1971.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren-
241
242 BIBLIOGRAPHY
tice-Hall, 1945 (paperback editions in 1962 by World and 1969

by University o f California Press).
A Rhetoric of Motives. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1950 (paperback editions in 1962 by World and 1969 by Univer
sity o f California Press).
Clark, Donald L. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. New York: Co
lumbia University Press, 1957.
Collins, John J . "Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apoc
alyptic in the Hellenistic Age." History of Religion 17 (1977): 1 2 1 -
42.
"The Court Tales in Daniel and the Development o f Apoc
a l y p t i c a l 9 4 (1975): 2 1 8 - 3 4 .
Conzelmann, Hans. "The Mother o f Wisdom." In The Future of Our
Religious Past, edited by J . M. Robinson, 2 3 0 - 4 3 . New York:
Harper and Row, 1971.
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta:
John Knox, 1981.
"The Problem o f Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage."
JBL 9 4 (1975): 4 7 - 6 4 .
"Prolegomenon." In Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, edited
by J . L. Crenshaw, 1 - 6 0 . New York: KTAV, 1976.
"Wisdom." In Old Testament Form Criticism, edited by J . H.
Hayes, 2 2 5 - 6 4 . Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion
2. Hartford: Trinity University, 1974.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni
Detienne, Marcel, and Vernant, Jean-Pierre. Cunning Intelligence in
Greek Culture and Society, translated by Janet Lloyd. Atlantic High
lands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1978.
De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Trans
lated by John McHugh. 1961. Reprint. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1965.
Doran, Robert. "The Martyr: A Synoptic View o f the Mother and
her Seven Sons." In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, edited by
George W . E. Nickelsburg and John S. Collins, 1 8 9 - 2 2 1 . Chico,
Cal.: Scholars Press, 1980.
Doring, Klaus. Exemplum Socratis: Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der
kynisch-stoischen Popularphilosophie der friihen Kaiserzeit und infriihen
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243
Christentum. Hermes Einzelschriften 4 2 . Wiesbaden: Steiner,

1979.
Eberharter, Andreas. Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben
Sira. Miinster: Aschendorf, 1911.
Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return; or, Cosmos and History.
Bollingen Series 4 6 . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954
(Reprints 1965, 1 9 7 1 , 1974; published by Harper Torchbooks as
Cosmos and History in 1959).
Fletcher, Angus. The Prophetic Moment: An Essay on Spenser. Chicago:
University o f Chicago Press, 1971.
Fohrer, Georg. "Sophia (B. Old Testament)." In Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, translated and edited by Geoffrey W . Bromiley, 7 : 4 7 6 -
96. 1971. Reprint. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977.
Fransen, Irenee. "Cahier de bible: les oeuvres de Dieu, Sirach 4 2 : 1 -
50:20." Bible et vie chritienne 7 9 (1968): 2 6 - 3 5 .
Frye, Northrup. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1957.
Fuhrmann, Manfred. Das systematische Lehrbuch. Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960.
Galling, Kurt. Studien zur Geschichte Israels in persischen Zeitalter.
Tubingen: Mohr, 1964.
Gese, Hartmut. Lehre and Wirklichkeit in der alten Weisheit. Tubingen:
Mohr, 1958.
Gilbert, Maurice. "L'eloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 2 4 ) . " RTL (1974):
326-48.
Gueraud, O., and Jouguet, P. Un livre d'ecolier. Textes et documents
2. Cairo: Publications de la Societe Royale Egyptienne de Pa-
pyrologie, 1938.
Hamp, Vinzenz. "Das Buch Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus." In Echter-
Bibel: Altes Testament 4, 5 7 1 - 7 1 7 . Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1959.
Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Analecta Biblica 30.

Rome: Biblical Institute, 1967.
Heinemann, Isaak. Altjiidische Allegoristik. Breslau: Marcus, 1935.
Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism, translated from the 2d German
edition o f 1973 by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1974.
244 BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Proseuche and Synagoge." In Tradition and Glaube: Festschrift

Karl G. Kuhn, edited by Gert Jeremias, H. W . Kuhn, J .
Stegemann, 1 5 7 - 8 4 . Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1971.
Hoenig, Sidney B. "The Ancient City-Square: The Forerunner o f the
Synagogue." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der rb'mischen Welt, edited by
Wolfgang Haase, 2: 4 4 8 - 7 6 . Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979.
Hoffken, Peter. "Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach iiber Ezra." ZAW 87
(1975): 1 8 4 - 2 0 2 .
Jacob, Edmond. "L'histoire d'Israel vue par Sira." In Melanges bibli-
ques Andre Robert, 2 8 8 - 9 4 . Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957.
Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGr Hist).
Leiden: Brill, 1 9 5 0 - 6 2 .
Jaeger, Werner. Paideia. Vol. 1 o f The Ideals of Greek Culture, translated
from the second German edition by Gilbert Highet. 2d ed. O x
ford: Blackwell, 1954.
Jansen, H. Ludin. Die spa'tjudische Psalmendichtung: Ihr Entstehungskreis

und ihr 'Sitz im Leben.' SNVAO 2: Hist.-filos., Klasse 3. Olso: Jacob
Dybwad, 1937.
Janssen, Enno. Das Gottesvolk und seine Geschichte: Geschichtsbild und
Selbstverstdndnis im pala'stinischen Schrifttum von Jesus Sirach bis Jehuda
ha-Nasi. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971.
Jaubert, Annie. La notion d'alliance dans le Judaisme aux abords de Fere

chretienne. Patristica Sorbonensia 6. Paris: Editions du Seuil,
1963.
Kayatz, Christa. Studien zur Proverbien 1-9. WMANT 22. Neu
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1966.
Kennedy, George A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Prince

ton University Press, 1963.
The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1972.
Classical Rhetoric. Chapel Hill: University o f North Carolina
Press, 1980.
Koch, Klaus. Die Priesterschrift. FRLANT 71. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

und Ruprecht, 1959.
Koole, J . L. "Die Bibel des Ben Sira." In Oudtestamentische Studien 14:
3 7 4 - 9 6 . Leiden: Brill, 1965.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245
Lamparter, Helmut. Die Apokryphen I: Das Buch Jesus Sirach. Die

Botschaft des Alten Testaments 25:1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972.
Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik 1-2: Eine
Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Munich: Hiiber, 1960.
Lebram, Jiirgen. "Aspekte der alttestamentlichen Kanonbildung."
VT 18 (1968): 1 7 3 - 8 9 .
Lee, Thomas Robert, "Studies in the Form o f Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
4 4 - 5 0 . " Ph.D. diss.: University o f California, Berkeley, 1979.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. "The Poet as Hero: Fifth-Century Autobiogra
phy and Subsequent Biographical Fiction." Classical Quarterly 28
(1978): 4 5 9 - 6 9 .
Lentricchia, Frank. After the New Criticism. Chicago: University o f
Chicago Press, 1980.
Levi, Israel, ed. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. 3d ed.
Semitic Studies Series 3. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Liebreich, L. ] . "The Impact o f Neh. 9 : 5 - 3 7 on the Liturgy o f the
Synagogue." HUCA 32 (1961): 2 2 7 - 3 7 .
Mack, Burton L. Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie
im hellenistischen Judentum. SUNT 10. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1973.
"Under the Shadow o f Moses: Authorship and Authority in
Hellenistic Judaism." In SBL Seminar Papers, 2 9 9 - 3 1 8 . Chico, Cal.:
Scholars Press, 1982.
Mack, Burton L., and Murphy, Roland. "Wisdom Literature." In
Early Post-Biblical Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, edited by Bob
Kraft and George Nickelsburg. In press.
Maertens, Dom Thierry. Veloge des peres. Collection Lumiere et vie 5.
Bruges: Abbaye de Saint-Andre, 1956.
Malherbe, Abraham. The Cynic Epistels: A Study Edition. Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.
Marbock, Johann. Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheits
theologie bei Ben Sira. Bonner Biblische Beitrage 37. Bonn: Peter
Hanstein Verlag, 1971.
Marrou, Henri I. A History of Education in Antiquity, translated from
the third French edition by George Lamb. New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1956.
Martin, Josef. Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode. Munich: Beck,
1974.
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und
Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Momigliano, Arnoldo. Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge: Harvard Uni
"Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish and Greek Histo
riography." In Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, 25-35.
Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1977.
"The Fault o f the Greeks." In Essays in Ancient and Modern
Historiography, 9—23. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University
Press, 1977.
"Tradition and the Classical Historian." In Essays in Ancient
and Modern Historiography, 161 — 177. Middletown, Conn.: W e s
leyan University Press, 1977.
Nickelsburg, George W . E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in
Intertestamental Judaism. Harvard Theological Studies 26. Cam
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
"The Wisdom o f Jesus the Son o f Sirach." In Jewish Literature
between the Bible and the Mishiah, 5 5 - 6 9 . Philadelphia: Fortress,
1981.
Nickelsburg, George W . E., and Collins, John J . Ideal Figures in An-
cient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Septuagint and Cognate Studies
12. Chico, Cal.:Scholars Press, 1980.
Nilsson, Martin P. Die hellenistische Schule. Munich: Beck, 1955.
Noack, Bent. Spa'tjudentum und Heilsgeschichte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1971.
Patteson, Roy Kinneer. "A Study o f the Hebrew Text o f Sirach
3 9 : 2 7 - 4 1 : 2 4 . " Ph.D. diss., Duke University, Durham, N.C.,
1967.
Pautrel, Raymond. "Ben Sira et le stoicisme." Recherches de science
religieuse 51 (1963): 5 3 5 - 4 9 .
Pepin, Jean. Mythe et allegorie: Les origines Grecques et les contestations
Judeo-Chretiennes. 1958. Rev. ed. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,
1976.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom and Cult. SBL Dissertation Series 30. Mis
soula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.
Perelman, Chaim, and Albrechts-Tyteca, L. The New Rhetoric: A Trea-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247
tise on Argumentation, translated from the 1958 French edition by

John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: Notre Dame
Pfeiffer, Robert H. A History of New Testament Times with an Introduction
to the Apocrypha. New York: Harper and Row, 1949.
Priest, John. "Ben Sira 45:25 in the Light o f the Qurnran Liter
ature." Revue de Qurnran 5 (1964): 1 1 1 - 1 8 .
Rabe, Hugo. Aphthonii Progymnasmata. Rhetores Graeci 10. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1926.
Hermogenis Opera. Rhetores Graeci 6. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.
Rickenbacher, Otto. Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1973.
Rist, J . M. Stoic Philosophy. 1969. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge
Roth, Wolfgang. " O n the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom o f Jesus ben
Sirach." Semeia 17 (1980): 5 9 - 7 9 .
Riiger, Hans Peter. Text und Textform im Hebraischen Sirach. B Z A W
112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.
Rylaarsdam, J . Coert. Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Chicago:
University o f Chicago Press, 1946.
Sanders, James A. "Comparative Wisdom: L'oeuvre Terrien." In
Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in honor of Samuel Ter
rien, edited by John G. Gammie et al., 3—14. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1978.
"Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy." In Canon and
Authority, edited by G. W . Coats and B. O. Long, 2 1 - 4 1 . Phila
delphia: Fortress, 1977.
Schmid, H. H. Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung. BhTh 4 0 . Tubingen:
Mohr, 1968.
Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit. B Z A W 101. Berlin: Top-

elmann, 1966.
Schokel, Luis Alonso. Proverbiosy Eclesiastico. Madrid: Ediciones Cris-

tiandad, 1968.
Segal, Moshe Zevi. Seper Ben Sira' Hasalem. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Bialik
Foundation, 1972.
Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct. B Z A W 151.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980.
248 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Siebeneck, Robert T. "May Their Bones Return to Life! Sirach's

Praise o f the Fathers." CBQ 21 (1959): 4 1 1 - 2 8 .
Skehan, Patrick W . "Staves and Nails, and Scribal Slips (Ben Sira
4 4 : 2 - 5 ) . " BASOR 200 (1970): 6 6 - 7 1 .
"Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach
2 4 . " O Q . 4 1 (1979):365-79.
Smend, Rudolph. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Kommentar. Berlin: R e -
imer, 1906.
Smith, Jonathan Z. "A Pearl o f Great Price and a Cargo o f Yams: A
Study in Situational Incongruity." HR 16 (1976): 1 - 1 9 . Reprinted
in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown, 90—101. Chicago
Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University o f Chicago
Press, 1983.
Snaith, John G. "Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew o f Eccle
siasticus. "JTS, n.s. 18 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 1 - 1 2 .
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach. Cambridge
Bible Commentary. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Spicq, Ceslaus. "L'Ecclesiastique." In La Sainte Bible, edited by L.
Pirot and A. Clamer, 6 : 5 2 9 - 8 4 1 . Paris: Letouzey, 1951.
Stanislav, Segert. "Vorarbeiten zur Hebraischen Metrik." Archiv Ori-
entalni 21 (1953): 4 8 1 - 5 2 4 .
Steck, Odil Hannes. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten.
WMANT 23. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Te Stroete, G. "Van Henoch tot Simon: Israels geschiedenis in de
4
Lof der vaderen' van Sirach 4 4 . 1 - 5 0 . 2 4 . " Vruchten van de uithof:
Festschrift H. A. Brongers, edited by A. R. Hulst, 1 2 0 - 3 3 . Utrecht:
Theologisch Institut, 1974.
Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology.
New York: Harper and Row, 1978.
Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e ver-
sioni greca, latina, e siriaca. Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli,
1968.
Volkmann, Richard. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Rb'mer in system-
atischer Ubersicht. 1885. Reprint. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1963.
Von Rad, Gerhard. "Job 38 and Ancient Egyptian Wisdom." The
Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 2 8 1 - 9 1 . New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 249
Wisdom in Israel, translated from the 1970 German edition.

Nashville: Abingdon, 1978.
Walz, Christianus, ed. Rhetores Graeci. Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Cottage,
1832.
Whybray, R. N. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. Z A W
Beiheft 135. New York: de Gruyter, 1974.
Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scrollfrom Masada with Introduction, Emenda
tions and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965.
Ziebarth, Erich. Aus der Antiken Schule: Sammlung griechischer Texte auf
Papyrus, Holztafeln, Ostraka. Lietzmann's Kleine Texte 65. Bonn:
Marcus and Weber, 1910.
Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Septuaginta, 12/2: Sapientia lesu Filii Sirach. Vetus
Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Got-
tingensis editum. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1965.
Zimmerli, Walther. "The Place and Limit o f Wisdom in the Frame
work o f Old Testament Theology." SJT 17 (1964): 1 4 6 - 5 8 . R e
printed in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, edited by J . L. Crenshaw, 3 1 4 -
26. New York: KTAV, 1976.
"Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit." ZAW 51
(1933):177-204.
Subject Index
Aaron, 49, 50, 58, 113, 117, 168; Assembly, 78, 22In. 10; meditation
covenant with, 29, 31, 53, 207; by, 83; as place of praise, 8 0 -
election of, 206; ministry of, 84
214; office characteristics for, Authors, 95-96; scholars as, 9 9 -
28; promise of blessing, 42; 101
setting for, 213; and succes Authorship, 227n.l2; Sira's
sion, 126; as teacher and awareness of, 186—87
priest, 212-13
Abraham, 45; covenant with, 48, Berossus, 122; Babyloniaka,
206-7; deeds of, 211; election 230n.l5
of, 206; faithfulness of, 207-8; Biblical episodes, within poem, 15
as father, 27; ministry of, 214; Biography, as Hellenistic literary
office of, 205; promise of form, 124-28
blessing, 42, 53, 117; reward Blessings, 52-53, 133; of Phineas
for, 213; setting for, 213; vir and Simon, 134; praise with,
tue of, 21, 207 82; promise of, 4 2 - 4 3 , 48; — ,
Achievements: as basis for praise, to Abraham, 53
196; in encomium, 132 Book of the Covenant, 101; Torah
Actuality, potentiality and, 154 as, 116
Adam, 114-16; in addition to
hymn, 201, 203 Caleb, 33, 50; within historical
Ancestry, 196-97 structure, 39-40; ministry of,
Anointment, 218n.9 214; office of, 205-6; reward
Archaic origins, as part of for, 213-14; strength of, 208
Hellenistic historiography, 121 Canon, 225n.9
251
252 SUBJECT INDEX
Characterization, 14-15, 124; and Cultural history, hymn's relation

additions to hymn, 201; com to, 69
posites, 216n.2; pattern of, Cultural pluralism, 122
18-26, 168-169, 178, 182,
205-214; — , components, 17, David, 29, 43, 45, 218n.l; charac
18, 196, 217n.6; — , as en terization of, 34; covenant
comium, 130; — , with, 39, 53, 118, 207; deeds
summarized, 24-25; through of, 211, 212; election of, 206;
recounting of deeds, 133; within historical structure, 40;
source of, 130; of transitional piety of, 209
figures, 61; type casting of, Day of Atonement, 35, 65
115 Death, 134
Chosen. See Election, divine Deeds, 18, 22-23, 220n.2; in
Christ myth, 177, 185 characterization, 210-13; per
Chronicles: compared with Sira's formance of, 61—62
writing, 118; as precursor to Diachronic reading of hymn, 6 3 -
hymn, 117-18 65
Chronology, 218n. 1; within hymn, Didactic character, 70, 71
45 Diodorus Siculus, 122
City, 54 Diogenes Laertius, 125
Climax, atonement as, 54 Disciplines, interrelationship of, 5
Congregation. See Assembly Dwelling place, wisdom's quest
Continuity, 47 for, 162-63
Cosmos, 155, 161
Covenant, Book of the, 101; 'Edah (assembly), 78. See also
Torah as, 116 Assembly
Covenant community, 57, 60 Egypt, mythology in, 149
Covenants, 42, 76-77, 206-7, Ekklesia, 78
218n.3, 239n.2; as basis for Election, divine, 36, 72, 132; as
praise, 196; as component of component of characterization,
characterization, 18, 20-21; 18, 20; for office, 206
with David, 118; establishment Elijah, 28, 40, 43, 45; in addition
of, 39, 161; with Moses, 30; to hymn, 199, 200; miracles of,
with Noah, 117; with Phineas, 212
118; relation to office, 48, 55 Elisha, 40, 43; miracles of, 212; as
Creation, 114; wisdom as part of, successor, 46
152, 162, 163 Encomium, 23In.24; divisions of,
Creator of natural order, God as, 130-34; glory as purpose of,
161 168; as Hellenistic literary
Crisis, and personification of form, 128-37; hymn as, 136;
wisdom, 144 moral virtues in, 132—33; pro
Cultural anthropology, 123 em of, 131; purpose of, 129
Cultural conflict, as basis for his Enoch, 199-200, 201, 203
toriography, 123 Enos, 201, 202, 203
SUBJECT INDEX 253
Epainon (praise), 82. See also Praise Hellenistic culture, 85, 89; scholar
Ephorus, 122 in, 101-2
Epic literature: hymn as, 1, 136; Hellenistic influence, 79, 166
Pentateuch as, 114 Hellenistic literature, 95; influence
Epoch, 186 on Sira, 91, 92, 114; as precur
Ethical instruction, Torah as, 113 sor to hymn, 120—37
Ethical virtues, 207 Hellenistic textualities, merged
Examples, 234n.l0; series of, as with Jewish in hymn, 161—62
literary genre, 185 Hellenistic thought, aid in ra
Exile, as judgment, 119-20 tionalizing wisdom myth, 154—
Ezekiel, 40, 44 55
Ezra, Book of, as precursor to Heroes, 11-36, 179; amount of
hymn, 119 hymn devoted to, 217n.7; call
Faithfulness, 22, 2 0 7 - 8 to praise of, 3 - 4 ; characteriza
Fathers, 58, 217n.8; characteriza tion of (see Characterization);
tion pattern for, 24—25, 27; effect on readers, 73-80;
office of, 205; Simon as one of, heritage of, 75-76; subtypes,
196 17
Fragmentation, 149 Hesed. See Piety (hesed)
Fulfillment, 5 5 - 5 6 Hezekiah, 29, 40, 43, 51; deeds of,
212; piety of, 210; strength of,
Gahal (assembly), 78. See also 208
Assembly High priesthood, 36, 56, 57, 58—
Gaps between social orders, elim 59, 63, 106; covenant of, 39;
inating, 149-50 danger to, 85; debate of, 87;
Genealogy, portion of hymn as, glory of, 107; promise of bless
134-35 ing, 4 2 - 4 3 ; power of, 86. See
Glory (kabod), 11-12, 13, 52, 65, also Priesthood; Simon, the
167-68; of fathers, 18, 26, 7 4 - high priest
75; God's presence as, 168; for Historical examples, reading of by
hero, 26; literary context, 14; Greeks, 158
as the presence of wisdom, Historical setting. See Setting
167—71; to scholar-sage, 129; Historiography, as Hellenistic lit
shift from God to humans, 82; erary form, 121 - 24
as theme, 4 Hokmah, 157. See also Wisdom
God, wisdom as belonging to, 146 Homer, 228n.4
Greco-Roman genre De viris il Honor, of fathers, 7 4 - 7 5
lustrious, comparison of hymn Human situation: consideration of,
with, 7 in Sirach, 192; study as part of
scholar's research, 95
Hasidim, 179 Humankind, Adam as symbol of,
Hasmonean leaders, 181 115
Hebrew scriptures, Sira's knowl u
Hymn in Praise of the Fathers,"
edge of, 91 6; background of, 1-3; climax,
254 SUBJECT INDEX
"Hymn in Praise of the Fathers" Jeroboam, 40

(continued) Jerusalem, wisdom to settle in,
41; compared to poem in 152
praise of the scholar, 104; Jeshua, 41, 49; deeds of, 212; of
components, 3 - 4 ; conclusion fice of, 206
to, 197; didactic intention of, Jewish history, 118, 160, 166
81; function of, 71; hymn in Jewish society, 179
praise of the Creator as intro Jewish textualities, merged with
duction to, 189-93; Hellenistic in hymn, 161-62
importance of, 176-77; influ Jewish tradition, precursors to
ence of wisdom myth, 158; hymn in, 112-20
later additions to, 17-18, 1 9 9 - Jewish writings: imaginary figures
203; limits to comparing with in, 182-83; influences on, 183
literary forms, 136; merger of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism, 156
Jewish and Hellenistic tex- Joseph, in addition to hymn, 201,
tualities in, 161-62; as myth, 202
65; occasion for reading, 84; Joshua, 31, 33, 50, 168; deeds of,
precursors to, 112, 173; pur 211; election of, 206; within
pose of, 57, 129, 135-36; historical structure, 39-40;
structure of, 37-41, 165, ministry of, 214; miracles of,
218n.2, 235n.ll; — , archi- 212; office of, 205-6; piety of,
techtonic, 178; — , dynamic 21, 209; setting for, 213;
aspects, 64; — , interrelated- strength of, 208; and succes
ness, 57; — , literary, 16-18; sion, 126
themes of, 191; as wisdom Joshua, Book of, as precursor to
text, 159-62 hymn, 117-18
Hymn in praise of the Creator, Josiah, 40, 51; deeds of, 212; piety
189-93; themes of, 191 of, 209, 21
Hymn of blessing, 35, 36, 55 Judah, kings of, 40
Judges: characterization of, 2 4 -
25, 33-34; deeds of, 2 2 , 6 1 -
Imaginary figures in Jewish writ
62; within historical structure,
ings, 182
39-40; location theme with,
Isaac, 27, 45
54; piety of, 209; Samuel as
Isaiah, 40, 43; faithfulness of,
one of, 34; as transition, 60
207-8; miracles of, 212
Judgment, as function of proph
Israel: ideal social structure for,
ets, 44
182; as wisdom's dwelling
place, 163. See also People of
Kabod. See Glory (kabod)
Israel
Kings, 50-51, 61, 105, 165;
anointment by prophets, 46;
Jacob, 45, 53; as father, 27; office characterization of, 24-25, 29;
of, 205; promise of blessing, David as one of, 34; deeds of,
42; reward for, 213 22, 62, 212; within historical
Jeremiah, 28, 40, 43-44; election structure, 40; location theme
of, 206 with, 54; Moses as one of, 32;
SUBJECT INDEX 255
Kings (continued) Mythic figure of wisdom, 144—46,

office of, 106, 205; risk of 161, 186
failure, 72; serialization in unit
on, 43; Simon as" one of, 35; Nathan, 40, 43, 45
Sira's attitude toward, 86 Nehemiah, 41, 49, 197; deeds of,
Kings, Books of, as precursor to 212; office of, 206
hymn, 117-18 Nehemiah, Book of, as precursor
to hymn, 119
Land, conquest of, 3 9 - 4 0 Noah, 45, 115, 202; in addition to
Law, 58; establishment by God, hymn, 203; covenant with, 53,
161 117, 206; election of, 206; as
Leaders, people's response to, 73 father, 27; ministry of, 214; of
Literary context, for hero in fice of, 205; promise to, 42,
hymn, 13-15 50; righteousness of, 240n.3;
Literature, description of, 95 setting for, 213; as successor,
Liturgical character of hymn, 7 0 - 46; virtues of, 21, 207
71 Number one, significance of, 5 9 -
Location, theme of, 53-55 60
Logic, of scholarly poets, 184 Number seven, significance of,
59-60
Meditation, as function of hymn, Obedience, virtue of, 21

71 Office, 4 7 - 4 8 , 115, 132, 205,
Memory theme, 7 7 - 7 8 , 220n.2 218n.8, 239n.l; as component
Men of resource, 105 of characterization, 18, 19-20;
Meter, 217n.3 characteristics of each, 26-29;
Midrashic comparison, of poem, establishment by God, 161;
15-16 formation, 42; of hero, 17, 23;
Miracles, 212 multiple designations, 29-33;
Moses, 45, 49, 117, 168, 218n.8, relation to covenant, 55
231n.21; as author of Torah, One (the number), significance of,
100; authority of, 187; as be 59-60
ginning of line of prophets, 28; Onias III, 134
characterization pattern for, Order, 234n.7
24-25; covenant with, 39, Orders, integration of hymn com
207; deeds of, 22; election of, pared to wisdom myth
206; faithfulness of, 207-8; as structure, 165
mediator, 58; ministry of, 214;
miracles of, 212; office of, 105, Paideia, 156-59; in culture of Jew
205; as prophet-teacher, 126— ish writers, 183-84
27; promise of blessing, 42; re Pentateuch, 121, 166, 186; as pre
ward for, 213; setting for, 213; cursor to hymn, 112-16;
strength of, 208; and succes status of, for Sira, 116
sion, 126; as teacher, prophet People of Israel, 54; leadership
and ruler, 30-32, 212 quality and response of, 211;
Myth, hymn as, 65 welfare of, 51-52
256 SUBJECT INDEX
Philosophers, succession of, 127— Prophets, 51, 61, 120, 165,

28 225n.ll, 233n.6; anointment
Phineas, 23, 49, 58, 168; atone of kings by, 46; characteriza
ment, 50; characterization of, tion of, 24-25, 28; deeds of,
28; blessing of, 134; covenant 22, 62; divine inspiration, 98—
with, 21, 29, 36, 39, 53, 118, 99; election, 47; within histor
207; ministry of, 214; prayer ical structure, 40; location
of blessing upon, 39; as priest theme with, 54; miracles of,
and prophet, 32—33; promise 212; Moses as, 31; office of,
of blessing, 42; reward for, 106, 205; Phineas as one of,
213; setting for, 213; strength 32-33; Samuel as one of, 34;
of, 208; and succession, 126 serialization in unit on, 43;
Piety (hesed), 11-12, 21, 87, 1 3 2 - Sira's knowledge of, 91; suc
33, 209; as basis for praise, cession of, 46-47, 126, 219n.6;
196; as component of charac vision of, 226n.l2
terization, 18; Jewish, 192; of Proseuche, 221n.9
scholar, 97-98; scholar within Prosperity, as basis for praise, 196
sphere of, 93; as virtue of king, Proverb, 142
29 Proverbs, as precursor to hymn,
Place, theme within transition, 60 112
Poetry, subsequent to Sirach, Psalms, Sira's knowledge of, 91
181-82
Political conditions, 85, 181 Qualities, in encomium, 132
Potentiality: and actuality, 154;
promise and, 56
Power, as basis for praise, 196 Readers: effect of heroes on, 73—
Praise, 55, 78-80; act of, 84; as 80; function of hymn for, 71 —
sembly as place of, 80-84; in 73
Hellenistic culture, 102; due to Reflection, moment of, and medi
office, 19; as purpose of hymn, tation, 83
129; for scholar-sage, 106 Rehoboam, 40
Prayer for mercy, by scholar, 98 Religious virtues, 21-22, 207
Presence, theme of, 236n.l3 Restoration, 40—41; office of fig
Priesthood, 14, 217n.2; charac ures in, 206; as transition, 60
terization of, 24-25, 27-28; Rewards, 18, 23, 26, 133-34,
deeds of, 22; office of, 205; 213-14
teaching function of, 31. See Righteous one, 236n.l
also High Priesthood Ruler. See Kings
Proem: characterization in, 1 4 -
15; illustrious men listed in, 14 Sacred history, 4 9 - 5 6
Promise: and potentiality, 56; as Sacrifice, as priesdy function, 28
theme, 48. See also Blessings, Sage, goal of, 170
promise of Samuel, 40, 43, 45; characteriza
Prophet-teacher, Moses as first, tion of, 27-28, 34; deeds of,
126-27 211; election of, 206;
SUBJECT INDEX 257
Samuel (continued) Simon, the high priest (continued)

faithfulness of, 207-8; miracles 55; office of, 28, 180, 206;
of, 212; office of, 19 praise of, 8 2 - 8 3 , 165, 1 9 5 -
Samuel, Books of, as precursor to 198; — , as addition, 197; — ,
hymn, 117-18 as conclusion, 203; royal func
Saul, 34, 40, 43 tion assigned to, 86; view of
Scholar: as author, 9 9 - 1 0 1 ; re assigned to, 86; view of foreign
ceipt of spirit of rule, 85. See also High priest
understanding, 97; poem in Sira, Ben, 174; attitude toward
praise of, 103; poem compared Hellenism, 222n.l5; knowledge
to hymn in praise of the fa of Hellenistic literature, 114,
thers, 104 158; knowledge of Israel's his
Scholar-priest, 106 tory, 49; knowledge of
Scholar-sage, 119, 125, 226n.ll; encomium, 129; knowledge of
Ben Sira as, 101-4; glory to, literature, 16, 9 1 - 9 2 ; literary
129; praise of, 92-101 devices used by, 17; perception
Scriptural accounts, 18; as basis of time by, 65; political posi
for poem, 22 tion of, 85; praise of
Scriptural language, in hymn, 15 contemporary, 197; as scholar-
Second Temple Judaism, 6, 75, sage, 101—4; scholars' knowl
119, 155, 178; hymn's function edge of, 2; status of
as mythology of, 56, 69, 84, Pentateuch for, 116; as teach
105; identified with wisdom, er, 90
152; institutions of, 58, 64, 87; Sirach: Hebrew text for, 8; history
struggle with Hellenistic of, 175-76; as textbook,
culture, 89; wisdom theology 223n.6
for, 151 Social change, 2; effect on in
Sequence, 45 terpretation of poem, 180;
Serialization, 4 2 - 4 4 social order and, 146
Seth, in addition to hymn, 201, Social history: hymn's relation to,
202, 203 69; as part of book of wisdom,
Setting, 78, 131; historical, 18, 23; 161
social-historical, 213 Social order: as evidence of
Seven (the number), significance wisdom thinking, 160-61; re
of, 5 9 - 6 0 flection on ideal of Israel, 182;
Shem, in addition to hymn, 201, social change and, 146;
202, 203 wisdom in, 147, 152, 153
Simon, the high priest, 4, 51, 105, Solomon, 40, 43, 45, 51; charac
134-136, 165, 168; act of terization of kings, 29; deeds
atonement, 63; blessing of, 48, of, 211, 212; importance to
134; characterization of, 28, Sira, 118; virtues of, 21, 207
35; description of, 65; glory of, Sophia (philosophical knowledge),
107, 168, 179; high priest as 157
ruler, 32; inclusion in hymn, Speaking, written and oral, 9 9 -
17; location theme with, 5 4 - 100
258 SUBJECT INDEX
Speech acts, of scholar, 98 Warrior(s): David as, 34; judges

Spirit of understanding, 9 7 - 9 9 as, 33
Strength, 22, 2 0 8 - 9 Wars, as basis for historiography,
Succession, 4 1 - 4 8 , 202, 219n.5; 123
in Hellenistic biography, 125— Wisdom, 79, 192, 233n.4; acquisi
26; in hymn, 126; sequence tion of conventional, 148;
and, 4 5 - 4 7 Adam's capacity for, 116; as
Successor (tahalip), 46 basis for praise, 104, 196; in
Synagoge, 78, 221n.9 culture of Jewish writers, 1 8 3 -
Synchronic structure, of hymn, 84; defined, 141-42; exchange
57-63 between Jewish and Hellenistic
cultures, 156; glory as the
Tahalip (successor), 46 presence of, 167—71; hidden-
Tannach, 16 ness of, 226n. 11; movement
Tannaim, 127 from research to composition,
Teacher: function of, 30-31; 197; mythic figure of, 144-46,
Moses as, 3 0 - 3 1 , 105, 212 161, 186; origin of, 162; as
Tehillah (praise), 82. See also Praise part of creation, 152; research
Temple, 84 as quest for, 94-97; threat to,
Temple cult, 57, 168; actualization 143, 144-45; transferral to dif
of, 55 ferent cultures, 143; as way for
Temple school, 90 perceiving, 139
Textbook, Sirach as, 223n.6 Wisdom composition, hymn as,
Texts, Hellenistic view of, 100 87
Theme units, 223n.5 Wisdom ethic, 113, 120
Torah, 8 0 - 8 1 , 84, 112-13, Wisdom myth, 147-49, 178;
224n.9; author of, 100; as compared to hymn structure,
Book of the Covenant, 116; in 165; hymn as, 140, 162-66;
culture of Jewish writers, 183— rationalization for, 150-56
84; as law, 162; scholar's rela
Wisdom speech, 98
tion to, 98; Sira's knowledge
Wisdom texts, 95; hymn as, 1 5 9 -
of, 91; Sira's view of, 120; as
62; scholar's texts as, 100
wisdom's memorial, 162
Wisdom tradition, 140—41; and
Torah piety, 113, 239n.3 authorship concept, 96-97; lit
Traditions history, 178 erature of, 141
Transition, judges as part of, 39 Wisdom-in-creation/wisdom-in
Transition units, judges and resto human-history, 216n.l
ration as, 6 0 - 6 1
Virtues, 21—22; blessings as sign

of, 133; ethical, 207; religious, Zerubbabel, 41, 49; deeds of, 212;
21-22, 207 office of, 2 0 5 - 6
Index to
Biblical Texts
Cited
Genesis Joshua
6:9, 21, 207 14:8, 9, 14, 209
6 : 1 8 - 2 1 , 239n.2
8:21, 239n.2 1 Samuel
22, 208 7:9, 27
9:6, 208
Leviticus 17:36, 34
113; 8, 31
2 Samuel
12:13, 43
Numbers
12:3, 207, 208 1 Kings
12:7, 208 19:10, 14, 207
1 4 : 1 - 1 0 , 50
14:24, 209 Nehemiah
1 6 : 3 - 7 , 207 8 - 9 , 80
2 5 : 7 - 8 , 208 9, 81, 119, 193, 215n.4
2 5 : 1 0 - 1 3 , 32, 207
2 5 : 1 2 - 1 3 , 28
Job
14:7, 46
Deuteronomy 28, 3 8 , 149
6:5, 209
10:12, 209 Psalms
33:1, 120 78, 105, 106, 135,
4 1 : 6 - 8 , 120 136, 193, 215n.4
259
260 INDEX TO BIBLICAL TEXTS CITED
Proverbs 17:11-14, 116

1-9, 144, 145, 149 17:12-13, 115
1 : 2 0 - 3 3 , 146 21:9, 221n.l0
8, 163 23:24, 221n.l0
8:22, 149 24, 100, 149, 162, 164,
8:25-31, 146 235n.ll
1 0 - 3 1 , 147 24:1, 169
24:1-7, 216n.l
Ezekiel 24:2, 221n.l0
20, 193, 215n.4 24:3-7, 162
24:8-12, 152, 163
Judith 24:8-21, 216n.l
5, 193 24:10, 153
24:13-17, 19-23, 163
Wisdom of Solomon 24:19-27, 162
9, 149 24:20, 162
10, 149, 186 24:23, 100, 153, 221n.l0,
11-19, 186 224n.9
24:25-27, 100
Sirach 24:31, 200
1, 149 24:31-33, 100
1:1-8, 216n.l 24:33, 116, 266n.ll
1:9-10, 152 24:34, 100
1 : 9 - 1 8 , 216n.l 31:11, 221n.l0
1:10a, 114 33:16-18, 227n.l4
1:10b, 115 33:19, 221n.l0
1:30, 221n.l0 34:1-4, 113
3-43, 217n.3 36, 180
3:28b, 113 36:1-17, 200
4:7, 221n.l0 36:11-17, 180
4:11-19, 224n.8 38:21, 220n.2
6:19-31, 224n.8 38:24-39:35, 101
7:7, 14, 221n.l0 39:1, 224n.9
11:28, 232n.27 39:1-4, 104
14:20-15:8, 224n.8 3 9 : 1 - 1 1 , 30, 91, 9 2 - 9 3 ,
15:5, 221n.l0 153
15:14, 116 39:4d, 95
15:14-20, 114, 115 39:5-6, 104
16:6, 221n.l0 39:6, 98
16:24-30, 216n.l 39:7, 97
17:1-11, 216n.l 39:7-8, 104
17:1-14, 114 39:10, 79, 80, 104,
17:6b, 114 221n.lO
17:5, 7, 154 39:12, 100
1 7 : 8 - 9 , 11, 115 39:12-35, 216n.l
INDEX TO BIBLICAL TEXTS CITED 261
Sirach (continued) 44:11, 220n.2

39:13-14, 100 44:11-14, 104
39:24, 3 1 - 3 4 , 104 44:12, 76,77
39:32; 100 44:13, 220n.2
39:35, 82 4 4 : 1 3 - 1 4 , 77, 78
4 0 : 1 - 1 1 , 216n.l 44:15, 73, 74, 78, 79, 83,
40:1-17, 114 104, 191, 218n.8, 221nn.
40:24b, 114 10, 13
41:18, 221n.l0 44:15-49:16, 219n.3
42:15, 13, 189, 190, 191 44:16, 15, 17, 199, 201,
42:15-25, 191 238n.l
42:15-43:33, 161, 193 44:16-50:24, 13
42:15-43:35, 189, 44:17, 21, 45, 46, 202,
216n.l, 237n.l 205, 206, 207, 213
42:16, 13, 190 44:17-18, 115,202
42:17, 167 44:18, 54, 206
42:18-25, 200 44:19, 205, 211, 239n.l
42:25, 191 44:20, 21, 206, 207, 213
43:1-26, 190 4 4 : 2 0 - 2 1 , 53, 207, 211
43:27, 154 44:21, 54, 213
43:27-32, 190 44:22, 27, 45, 218n.8
43:33, 13, 190 4 4 : 2 2 - 2 3 , 45, 53
44-50, 165, 189, 190, 44:23, 54, 205, 213
193, 195, 200, 215n.4, 45:1, 42
216n.l, 229n.l4, 237nn. 4, 4 5 : 1 - 2 , 30, 213
1 45:2, 168, 208
44:1, 129, 189, 190, 191, 4 5 : 2 - 3 , 31, 212
196, 209, 221n.l3 45:3, 32, 213, 218n.8
44:1-2, 11 45:4, 206, 207, 208
44:1-15, 13, 14, 191 45:5, 30, 83, 100, 207,
44:1-45:26, 218n.2 212
44:2, 14, 52, 168, 45:6, 207
236n.l2 45:6-7, 31
44:3, 216n.2 45:7, 168
44:3a, 105 45:12, 113,168
44:3-6, 104, 196, 217n.2 45:15, 3 1 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 6 , 54,
4 4 : 4 - 5 , 216n.2 207, 212, 214, 218n.9,
44:4a, 105 239n.l
44:6, 75, 105, 216n.2 45:16, 206
44:7, 73, 74 45:17, 31, 106, 212
44:7-9, 104 45:18, 50, 221n.l0
44:8, 73 45:19-20, 213
44:8-10, 220n.2 45:20, 28
44:10, 196, 209, 220n.2 45:23, 33, 42, 43, 46,
44:10-11, 75,76 126, 168, 207, 208, 214
262 INDEX T O BIBLICAL T E X T S CITED
Sirach (continued) 47:22, 29

45:24, 29, 207, 213 47:23, 45, 51
45:25, 29, 39, 207, 47:23-24, 43,211
218n.l, 239n.l 48:1, 45, 239n.l
45:25b-26, 39 48:2, 28, 207, 212
45:25c-26, 134 4 8 : 2 - 8 , 44
46:1, 31, 33, 126, 206, 48:3-5, 212
208, 229n.8, 239n.l 48:8, 46, 212, 218n.9
46:1-50:24, 218n.2 48:9-11, 17,199
46:2, 168 48:9-12, 200
46:4, 212 48:12, 45
46:5, 211 48:12-14, 212
46:6, 21, 33, 209, 212, 48:15, 43
213 48:15-16, 211
46:7, 33, 50, 208, 214, 48:17, 212, 229n.8
221n.l0 48:18, 49
46:8, 50 4 8 : 1 8 - 2 1 , 51
46:8-9, 214 48:20, 211
46:10, 33 48:22, 29, 208, 239n.l
46:11, 209, 239n.l 48:23, 47, 212, 239n.l
46:11-12, 40,213 48:23-24, 43
46:12, 46 48:24-25, 212
46:13, 34, 46, 206, 49:2, 51, 212
218n.9, 239n.l 49:3, 21, 209
46:13c, 212 49:4, 43, 45, 62, 205,
46:14, 34, 221n.l0 239n.l
46:15, 207, 212 4 9 : 4 - 6 , 43, 51, 120
46:16, 27, 34,211 4 9 : 5 - 6 , 44
46:18, 212 49:6, 28, 206, 212
46:19, 211 49:7, 239n.l
46:20, 28, 34, 43, 212 49:8, 212
47:1, 45 49:8-10, 44,213
47:1-11, 39 49:10, 4 0 , 4 1 , 4 4 , 51,62,
47:2, 206 239n.l
47:3-5, 34 49:11-13, 43
47:6, 211 49:12, 13, 212
47:8, 209, 211 49:14-16, 17, 195, 197,
47:9-10, 212 199, 201, 238nn. 1, 5
47:9-11, 229n.8 49:16, 201, 202
47:11, 29, 3 9 , 4 3 , 207 49:17, 201
47:12, 21, 29, 45, 207 50, 197, 238nn. 1, 2
47:13, 34, 212 50:1, 239n.l
47:14-17, 31 5 0 : 1 - 4 , 35, 206, 232n.26
47:19-20, 211 50:1-21, 134
47:20, 29,211 5 0 : 2 - 3 , 85
4 7 : 2 0 - 2 1 , 51 50:4, 51, 74
INDEX TO BIBLICAL TEXTS CITED 263
Sirach (continued) 50:20, 28, 54, 74, 82,

50:5, 28, 54, 168 221n.l0
50:5-11, 65 50:20-21, 43, 51, 53
50:5-21, 35 50:21, 35
50:11, 28, 54, 74, 168 50:22-24, 21, 35, 39, 55,
50:13, 28, 51, 54, 63, 82, 134
221n.l0 50:24, 28, 32, 54, 55,
50:17, 229n.8 180, 196
50:17-21, 211 51:13-20, 224n.8
50:19, 54

Burton - Mack - Wisdom - and - The - Hebrew - Epic - Ben - Sira's - Hymn - in - Praise - of - The - Fathers (1985) PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Burton - Mack - Wisdom - and - The - Hebrew - Epic - Ben - Sira's - Hymn - in - Praise - of - The - Fathers (1985) PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wisdom

The University of Chicago Press

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

(Chicago studies in the history of Judaism)

I will hide no secret from you.

1. The Pattern of Characterization 24

Ben Sira's hymn landed on

texts, tracing out the lines from o n e t o t h e o t h e r in quest o f

history, as such a meditation o n his social system. I trust m y

and h o w t o assess t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f its achievement are the

milieu, but t h e specific way in w h i c h it relates t o it has b e e n

given the usual assumptions about J e w i s h reluctance t o reify

I approached t h e t e x t as a scholar trained in t h e traditions

its several Hellenistic precursor t e x t s ; ( 3 ) the systems o f signs

H o w t o transcribe this study has been m y subsequent di­

state o f the t e x t . Readers m a y b e aware o f t h e exceedingly

The glorious figures o f Isra­

Let me now hymn the praises o f men o f piety,

Let us now sing the praises of glorious men,

The Lord established much glory,

T h e problem o f praising piety is solved by erasure. B u t the

Let us now sing the praises o f famous men,

Hasidim, fathers, great ones, glorious ones, h e r o e s — t h e

views, either o f the figures o f t h e H e b r e w epic o r o f the G r e e k

The Literary Context

T h e r e are several ways o n e might imagine approaching o u r

human history w i t h o u t losing sight o f that glory is addressed in

line o f inquiry have succeeded only in demonstrating how

The Midrashic Comparison

A second approach c o m m e n d s itself as soon as it is seen that

Nevertheless, a kind o f comparison may eventually b e possi­

The Literary Structure

This leaves us alone with the t e x t . It consists o f a series o f

unless t h e functions o f t h e heroes are first carefully defined.

symmetry o f t h e overall structure and plan. T h e r e are g o o d

T H E GENERAL PATTERN O F CHARACTERIZATION

A casual reading o f t h e p o e m will n o t stumble upon any

acterization needed in o r d e r t o determine B e n Sira's notion o f

O n e is t e m p t e d t o overlook at first the frequent m e n t i o n o f

priest, a notion m o s t curious i f greatness is being measured o n

O u r curiousity is provoked further by the fact that these

This impression o f a grand design is strengthened with the

the very end o f the hymn that it is the " c o v e n a n t o f Phineas"

O n e does e x p e c t in a h y m n o f praise that noble qualities will

t o these heroes intend a delineation o f what the G r e e k s would

W e can turn n o w t o t h e m o s t forceful aspect o f the poem.

stances gives the p o e m c o l o r and t e x t u r e and allows the reader

It n o w b e c o m e s clear w h y a figure's setting o r place in

T h e reader is therefore astonished t o find that the leaders

set apart (1)

the circle closes intact. T h e r e are n o rewards that c o m e from

T H E CONFIGURATIONS OF THE PATTERN

The Special Characteristics of Each Office

T h e discovery o f the general pattern o f characterization sat­

T h e fathers include t h e figures o f Noah, Abraham, Isaac,

T h o s e n a m e d as priests are Aaron, Phineas, Samuel, and

shows that B e n Sira saw the performance o f sacrifice as defini­

T h e kings and rulers have as their primary function the

Figures with Multiple Office

T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f religious office is a determining factor in

posite figures will have t o be analyzed with this question in

Ben Sira has n o t n a m e d an office for M o s e s , and it appears

H o w t o transcribe this study has been m y subsequent di

The glorious figures o f Isra

Nevertheless, a kind o f comparison may eventually b e possi

T h e discovery o f the general pattern o f characterization sat

shows that B e n Sira saw the performance o f sacrifice as defini

T h e last figure in t h e series is also composite in c h a r a c

T h e first seven figures have in c o m m o n the t h e m e o f c o v e

This pattern o f literary units provides an e x t r e m e l y well-bal

Here it carries the c o n n o t a t i o n o f cause o r m e r i t (cf. the paral

It is clear that B e n Sira has employed a variety o f m e c h a

O u r thesis has b e e n that B e n Sira understood t h e c o n t e m

Since the structure o f the h y m n is architectonic, each par

In t h e s e c o n d transition and final scene, however, t h e inte

T h e synchronic reading emphasizes b o t h the balanced s t r u c