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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | May 01, 2007 at 05:42 PM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 01, 2007 at 08:48 PM
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.
Posted by: Jim | May 02, 2007 at 10:32 AM
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!
Posted by: Iyov | June 13, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Sorry, I meant "Bomberg" not "Blomberg"
Posted by: Iyov | June 14, 2007 at 12:57 AM