A Study Bible for the 21st Century

A printable version of this post is available here.

My thesis is the following: there is no justification for not including a translation of Hebrew ben Sira in study Bibles today. It is a delight to have a translation of the contents of the entire Greek Esther – in proper order – in the superb NRSV study Bibles now on the market (NISB, HarperCollins, and New Oxford Annotated). Esther is thus presented twice over: a good thing! Future editions of these study Bibles ought to include, by analogy, a translation of the entire extant contents of Hebrew ben Sira on the one hand, and a translation of the entire extant ben Sira tradition preserved in Greek on the other.[1]

 Hebrew ben Sira as it has come down to us is multiform. So is Greek ben Sira. The proverbs and other instruction Hebrew ben Sira has in common with the ancient versions are sometimes inassimilable to the latter in terms of diction, detail of content, and placement within a larger whole. Hebrew ben Sira also includes proverbs that did not make it into ben Sira as otherwise attested. I provide examples in another post. The case for presenting the multiformity of the textual witnesses to ben Sira in study Bibles is a strong one.

 There are two unattributed quotes and over one hundred allusions to ben Sira in the New Testament, according to Nestle-Aland. Interpreters as diverse as Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, Aphrahat “the Persian Sage,” and John Wesley found ben Sira congenial for the purposes of preaching and teaching. But the book is first and foremost part and parcel of Jewish tradition. As Manfred Lehmann points out, in Bavli Sanhedrin 100b, Rav Yosef says it is forbidden to read (למיקרי) the book of Ben Sira. Yet the same Rav Yosef also seems to say the opposite: “The valuable words in it you are permitted to expound (דרשינן).” This is only an apparent contradiction.[2]

 Akiba also held that “he who reads external literature like the writings of ben Sira” (הקורא בספרים החיצונים כגון ספרי בן סירא     ) excludes himself from the world to come (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 50a). As others have noted, the statement targets reading in the context of the liturgy. That did not mean it could not be studied and quoted in other contexts. Attributed and unattributed quotes of ben Sira are found in a variety of rabbinic texts, including the Talmuds. The contribution of ben Sira to essential components of Jewish liturgy in terms of structure, leading motifs, and phraseology is well-known. Lehmann notes that Ben Sira’s description of the High Priest made its way into the description of the Avodah in the Musaf service of the Yom Kippur liturgy, and that part of the text of Yom Kippur Machzor is derived from the Book of Ben Sira.[3]

 The great Bibles of Christian antiquity contained ben Sira, along with other books I would greatly wish to find in a study Bible today. The prestige accorded to ben Sira across the broad sweep of early Christendom is undeniable. The entire contents of the massive biblical codices of antiquity, all of which preserve ben Sira, the Greek Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; the Syriac Ambrosianus, and the Latin Amiatinus, for example, deserve to be widely known and studied today.[4]

 Jews and Christians of centuries past treasured ben Sira in whatever textual form it reached them. The best way to allow that to happen in our day is to include the full legacy of the ben Sira tradition in study Bibles designed for students of biblical literature seeking to understand their own traditions.

 Whether or not ben Sira belongs in the canon, however that term is defined, and whether or not it is a book one preaches and teaches from, are separate issues. Its value as a witness to the religious and theological matrix from which both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity sprang by itself means it belongs in our study Bibles. That’s why one finds ben Sira, in the form in which it was then known, in Luther’s Bible (1534), the King James Version (1611), and other Bibles produced by Protestants who exclude it from their canon.

 For all of the above reasons, ben Sira should be found, in the forms in which it has been treasured in the past, in study Bibles today.

---

[1] Current translations of ben Sira in Bibles are based on the Greek or Latin, not the Hebrew, or on an eclectic combination of all extant traditions (KJV; Douay; Knox; TEV; NRSV; NAB, NJB; TOB; la Sacra Bibbia della CEI; Biblia del Peregrino). A Comparative Ecclesiasticus along the lines of A Comparative Psalter reviewed here is a desideratum.

[2] Manfred R. Lehmann, “The Book of Ben Sira,” online here.

[3] Alexander di Lella, “Wisdom of Ben Sira,” ABD 6 (1992) 931-45; Lehmann, op. cit.

[4] Enoch and Jubilees, highly valued by currents within Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, as the Dead Sea scrolls attest, and now part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox church, need to be in a truly ecumenical study Bible. The Bibles of antiquity mentioned above contain other illuminating witnesses to Judaism and Christianity of ancient times. Prime examples include 2 Baruch (Ambrosianus), Psalms of Solomon (Alexandrinus), and Shepherd of Hermas (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus).

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

My NRSV includes some parts of Ben Sira extant only in Hebrew, footnotes many of the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek, and quite often follows the Hebrew rather than the Greek. Not quite what you want, I know, but not too far from it either.

But see here for my not so positive assessment of one part of Ben Sira.

[JohnFH]

I'm not happy with NRSV's approach, I'm looking for a study Bible which supplies the text in its most important attested forms in a synoptic presentation, not, as it were, in the form of a Diatessaron.

NRSV does not even a qualify as a sort of Diatessaron, because, e.g., it leaves unnoted a portion of the Hebrew Ben Sira tradition.

[Jim]

I agree, John. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude ben Sira from versions of the Hebrew Bible. The editors of BHQ had originally planned to include it among their edition, but have, if I recall, changed their minds. I think it should be in.

[Iyov]

I cannot find the Jerusalem Talmud reference you give. Unlike the Babylonian Talmud, which one can precisely define with a daf/amud reference (since the pagination has remained the same since Blomberg) the Yerushalmi has no standard reference of this form (one ordinarily identifies a gemara by the mishnah number). I believe you are quoting from Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 -- "... these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come ... R. Akiva says "Also he who reads heretical books [seforim chitzonim]." For the actual identification of Ben Sira as heretical one can look at BT Sanhedrin 100b. Note that R. Yosef, who actually declares Ben Sira as heretical says we can teach the "good" parts of Ben Sira, and then proceeds to do so in the gemara!

[Iyov]

Sorry, I meant "Bomberg" not "Blomberg"