To Be and Not to Be in the Bible: Examining the Biblical Accuracy of Sirach

To Be & Not to Be in the Bible: Examining the Biblical Accuracy of Sirach

The Book of Sirach is a fascinating piece of Second Temple Jewish literature. Believed by Catholics and Orthodox Christians to be divinely inspired, this text is supposed to bring the wisdom of Sirach and his son to future generations. This analysis will provide a brief description of the book and explore its content in light of sacred scripture. 

Sirach is variously known as Ecclesiasticus and the wisdom of Ben Sira. According to the text, Sira (or Sirach) wrote his wisdom down in Hebrew. Later, his learned grandson translates the text into Greek (NRSVUE, Section: Foreward). The text written by Sira may date between 190 and 175 BCE based on what the text says (Kuo, 2016). The text is wisdom written in a poetic style like Proverbs, thus belonging to the Jewish wisdom literature genre. The purpose of the text may have been to encourage Jews who may have come to find wisdom in Greek tradition and texts to believe that wisdom is in their sacred text and tradition. 

One of the ideas present in Sirach is that human mortality and death were part of the pre-fall reality. A simple verse for this is 17:1-2 which states, “The Lord created humans out of the earth and makes them return to it again. He gave them a fixed number of days” (NRSVUE). Sirach thinks humans have had a fixed number of days since their creation. He concludes this based on human creation from the ground in Genesis 2:7. Horst (2022) concludes, “God alone is both immortal and morally just (18.1–2)... These are corollaries of humans being creatures rather than the supreme creator (cf. 40.8–10)” (p. 650). 

Sirach here is deeply biblical. It is written, “now they might reach out their hands and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever” (Gen 3:22). The verse implies that humans were mortal pre-fall and God keeps them from the tree of life after they have sinned so that they do not become immortal. Sirach is also biblical in that it identifies mortality in the creation of humans out of dust or earth. The apostle Paul does this when it is written, “The body that is sown is perishable… So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”... The first man was of the dust of the earth… (1 Cor 15:42-47). Paul and Sirach agree that death and mortality are not intrusions into creation but are inherited by the body (Kelly, 2014). 

Sirach states, “Riches are good if they are free from sin; poverty is evil only in the opinion of the ungodly” (17:22). The first statement is reflected in Proverbs 10:2 where it is written, “Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit…”. The wisdom and ethic here is that wealth gained through immoral means is pointless and problematic. That may seem obvious enough, but often in our world and the world of the authors, wealth accrued through evil is rewarded. It is not that one is rich which constitutes a moral wrong. Instead, it is how that wealth is gained that truly matters morally. That said, what about the status of poverty? Many passages in Sirach and other wisdom literature discuss poverty extensively (Sir 4:4; Prov 14:31). Sirach argues that poverty is not evil, and only the evil think so. While Proverbs are silent on the morality of poverty, the Christian should assume that poverty is not evil for at least one reason. The sinless savior was poor (2 Cor 8:9), therefore poverty cannot be sinful, lest Jesus become a sinner. That said, Proverbs warns against becoming poor due to laziness (20:13). In a world where the poor are told that they are so because they did not “name it and claim it” due to lack of faith, or they did not try hard enough, or whatever the judgment is, statements like “poverty is evil only in the opinion of the ungodly” are so important. Perhaps such attitudes toward the poor reveal more about the rich than they do the poor. 

Ecclesiasticus states, “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (25:24). Many people see this verse as an allusion to Eve. If that is the case, then many issues arise. First, this may cause an internal contradiction since the text affirms death and mortality as part of humans pre-fall. Second, Sirach would contradict Paul, who blames sin on Adam rather than Eve (Rom 5:12). Furthermore, passages add to hermeneutical justification for sexism, especially given many Christians of the past and present use Eve to justify sexism. That is not to say that removing the passage removes the issue of sexism from biblical and theological discourse, just that passages like this make those conversations harder. Finally, the Hebrew version of this verse reads differently, stating, “From a wife is the start of iniquity - and because of her we waste away, all alike”. 

Teresa Ellis (2011) wrote an excellent paper on the subject of the woman in this passage. She concludes that the Hebrew version of this text does not refer to Eve while the Greek version might. Who is the woman then? Ellis (2011) states, “propose Hesiod's Pandora as the prototype for Ben Sira's figure of the Bad Wife” (p. 742). Hesiod's book Theogony is a Greek mythological work detailing the genealogy and stories of humans and gods. According to the work, “Zeus, the high lord of thunder, made women as a curse for mortal men…” (604-605). The work attributes deception, evil, and debilitation to Pandora and thus all subsequent women (Ellis, 2011; Theogony, 573-620). The language and ideas presented when discussing women are similar to Sira as Ellis argues. 

Identifying the woman as Pandora rather than Eve removes the internal contradiction. Sira and Theogony attribute to all human's inherent mortality. The Hebrew translation of Sir 25:24 is unclear regarding death. Given this verse parallels the Theogony, it's better to think of “waste away” as debilitating suffering or illness rather than a transition from immortality to mortality. However, new questions arise. Did Sirach believe Pandora and her story was real? Or does he use her as a literary prototype for an awful wife? If Sira thinks it is historically or theologically true, it continues to contradict Paul. The issue of sexism is still there as well. 

Sirach has much to say about the idea of sin. Sirach states, “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin” (3:30). As explicit in other texts (Sir 29:12; Tobit 14:10), second temple Jews often thought that alms to the poor could remove sin from someone. The idea of alms being able to deal with sin continues to ring true for many Christians. However, the biblical evidence for such a perspective is dubious at best.

There is nothing in wisdom literature regarding almsgiving as atoning for sin. Many passages discuss the treatment of the poor, inside and outside wisdom literature (Deut 15:7-8, Prov 22:9, 1 Jn 3:17). However, none of them see it as dealing with sin. Many have gone to Daniel 4:26. In context, Daniel is speaking to King Nebecunezar. It is written, “Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you: atone for your sins with righteousness and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed…”. 

Hill (2008) notes that such as the one quoted above or “atone for your sins by good deeds” misunderstand the Jewish view of salvation. He furthermore points out that the word translated “atone” in the NRSVUE means to break off and uses the imagery of breaking a yoke off of the neck. Furthermore, Daniel is acting similarly to other OT prophets who challenged kings and urged them to repent (2Sa 12:7–14; 2Ki 17:13; Isa 1:16–18). Therefore, the cardinal advice from Daniel to the king is to repent from sin and do what is right. How does one break away from their sin? By doing what is moral rather than continuing the sins. Translations like the ExP, AMP, NIV, and ESV reflect this. 

Almsgiving as atoning finds no support in the New Testament. One of the closes is in Acts 10 where the angel speaks to the God-fearing gentile Cornelius and says, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4). Certainly, this is a high view of both prayer and giving to the poor. The passage indicates that God accepts the good works of Jews and Gentiles (Witherington, 1997). However, interpreters cannot assume that these were sacrifices for sin given what Christ had done (Col 2:13-14) and because not every sacrifice is for sin (Lev 1:9, 2:2, 3:5; Rom 12:1). Some sacrifices were about devotion to God, which makes sense given what readers know about Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2). Sins were dealt with by sacrifice (Lev 4:1-7) and Jesus Christ (1 Jn 1:8-10). Therefore, almsgiving for sin is contrary to the sacred scriptures. 

Ultimately, Sirach makes a lot of good points. He is a very learned person in the ways of the Hebrew Bible and it shows. That said, the text has many concepts that are opposed to both Testaments. Therefore, Christians ought to regard this text as useful but not inspired.

References:

Ellis, T. A. (2011). Is Eve the “Woman” in Sirach 25:24? The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 73(4), 723–742. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43727116 

Hesiod. (8th-7th century BC). Theogony. Self-published. 

Hill, A. (2008). Daniel. Zondervan Academic. 

Horst, W. (2022). Formed from the Earth: Adam and Created Mortality in Second Temple Literature. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 112(4), 645-669.

Image by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Kelly, H. (2014). Adam Citings before the Intrusion of Satan: Recontextualizing Paul's Theology of Sin and Death. Biblical Theology Bulletin Journal of Bible and Culture, 44(1), 13-28. 

Kuo, C. J. (2016). Sirach, book of. In John D. Barry et al (Ed.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. NRSVUE. (2021). Zondervan. 

Witherington, B. (1997). The Acts of the Apostles. Eerdmans.

Find & Support The Writer:

(Find me, see exclusive content on multiple platforms, & support me financially all from one link!): https://linktr.ee/ThatChristianNerd