Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:54:50.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Saul M. Olyan
Saul M. Olyan
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ben Sira's view of the cult and his relationship to the priesthood are issues which have received much attention from scholars, yet there is no consensus on either question. Most critics cannot escape from the conclusion that Ben Sira had at least an interest in cult and priesthood. Some have argued that he harbored even a domineering interest in cultic worship, but others, like R. Smend and R. Pfeiffer, are ambivalent: they claim on the one hand that Ben Sira had an intense interest in things cultic, but on the other that he kept “a meaningful distance” from the cult (Pfeiffer). In other words, though his interest was intense, the ritual itself really meant very little to Ben Sira. The contradiction in this statement is evident. In a recent monograph, J. Marböck argued that although Ben Sira had a personal love for temple ceremony, he attributed to cultic law and ritual a very subordinate position. J. G. Snaith has made similar claims about Ben Sira's view of the cult.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 261 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Maertens, T., L'éloge des pères (Ecclésiastique XLIV-L) (Bruges: Éditions de l'Abbaye de Saint André, 1956) 121, 156Google Scholar, discusses his great enthusiasm for the liturgy of the temple. He is described by Maertens as an “enthousiaste de sacerdoce.” Maier, G., Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 12; Tübingen: Mohr- Siebeck, 1971) 52–54Google Scholar, who believes that Ben Sira had a dominating and engaging interest in the priesthood and its function. Similarly, Duesberg, H. and Auvray, P., “Le livre de l'Ecclésiastique,” in La Sainte Bible de l'École Biblique de Jérusalem (Paris: Cerf, 1953) 14Google Scholar, mention his “liturgical fervor.” See also Perdue, L., Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS 30; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977) 188–211.Google Scholar

2 Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin: Reims, 1906) xxivGoogle Scholar, and Pfeiffer, R., History of New Testament Times (New York: Harper, 1949) 374–75.Google Scholar Pfeiffer states that “right living and personal religion were far more significant for him [than was the cult] … He mentioned ritual observances because, as part of Israel's heritage, they served to keep the holy nation … apart from the Gentiles” and that “rites and ceremonies per se are really insignificant and ineffective.” These views have been rightly criticized by Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, 211, 255 n. 263, and by Stadelmann, H., Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (WUNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1980) 41–42.Google Scholar Stadelmann asserts that it is wholly unclear how Ben Sira can have an interest in the cult but at the same time attribute little meaning or significance to it (“Unverbunden und letztlich unerklärt stehen die beiden Beobachtungen nebeneinander”).

3 Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (Bonn: Hanstein, 1971) 81.Google Scholar He too sees Ben Sira as an admirer of cultic ceremony, who, paradoxically, places little value in the cult. Ben Sira's limited interest is supposedly on account of his “weisheitlichprophetische Erbe von Vorbehalten gegenüber dem Kurt.”

4 “Ben Sira's Supposed Love of Liturgy,” VT 25 (1975) 167–74.Google Scholar

5 Weisheit in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970) 333 n. 28.Google Scholar Von Rad is not incorrect to point out that ethics plus ritual result in acceptable cult, but to say that this is Ben Sira's only real concern is far too extreme, and goes against the evidence.

6 Pfeiffer (History, 374) states that Ben Sira was “presumably not a priest” yet he was “intensely interested in the sacred rites of the Temple.” Snaith (“Supposed Love,” 174) states that Ben Sira was no “proto-Sadducee” near to the cult and priesthood, but a “proto-Pharisee.” In addition to difficulties with such an argument, the use of such terminology is unfortunate. Hengel, M. (Judaism and Hellenism [2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974] 1. 133Google Scholar and 2. 89 n. 195) argues that it is unclear whether Ben Sira was himself a priest. He notes that the Levites are not mentioned in the book, and that it is no coincidence, since Ben Sira's concerns are with the priesthood (ibid., 2. 39 n. 385). This observation is insightful. T. A. Burkhill (“Ecclesiasticus,” IDB 2. 15) states that one cannot infer that Ben Sira was a priest from his respect for the priesthood. Perdue (Wisdom and Cult, 189, 192–93) believes that he may have been one of the “scribes of the priests” mentioned in Josephus Ant. 12.138. He notes that Ben Sira supports Aaronic claims but never suggests that he was a priest himself. Against Perdue, Ben Sira's statements in 45:23–24 in no way demonstrate that he was a supporter of a Zadokite high priesthood. Pinhas was the progenitor of half the Aaronid line, not only the Zadokites. Other scholars have stated that Ben Sira was a priest. These include Smend, Weisheit, xiv; Middendorp, T., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 60, 61Google Scholar; and most recently, Mack, B. L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) 1.Google Scholar

7 See n. 2 for full citation.

8 Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 41–43.

9 Perdue, Wisdom and Cull, 345; for the contrary view see Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism, 78–83) who believes wisdom was indeed a “secular” tradition before it was assimilated to the conventions of Israelite belief. Perdue (Wisdom and Cult, 2–9) surveys the scholarship on this issue up to the middle of the last decade.

10 Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 58, 65–66. He notes the close correspondence of honoring God/honoring the priest in the passage: “Gott und Priester gehören für ihn auf's Engste zusammen.”

11 The last bicolon is difficult. The Greek reads ⋯παρχἠν κα⋯ περἰ πλημμελείας καἰ δόσιν βραχιόνων καἰ θυσίαν άγιασμο⋯ κα⋯ ⋯παρχ⋯ν ⋯γίων.. The obscure lḥm ʾbrym of the Hebrew is often emended to leḥem ʾăšāmîm (Smend, Weisheit, 72; Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 56) on the basis of the LXX πλημμελείας. But the Greek begins its list with απαρχήν., which usually translates Hebrew těrûmāh or rēʾšît. The expression δάσιν βραχιόνων may reflect a Vorlage with *yād.

12 The translation “servant” is preferable to “minister.”

13 Some have argued that Ben Sira's real concern here is social—the priests, a needy group in Israelite society, are to be given their due in order that they may survive. Ben Sira is thus not interested in the cult per se. For this view see Snaith, “Supposed Love,” 168–69; Marböck, Weisheit, 87; Haspecker, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach (AnBib 30; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967) 304, 312.Google Scholar This position has been rightly criticized by Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 61–62 n. 1, and 63–64. It is not supported by the evidence in the text. Snaith's formulation, typically, is the most extreme. He sees no special devotion whatsoever to the priesthood in this passage. Snaith's position is based on the argument that vss 29–31 go with what follows (which concerns the poor), not with what precedes them. This evaluation of the pericope in its context is unconvincing, as Stadelmann has shown. Vss 29–31 clearly belong with what precedes them. Such interest in the priests’ due suggests strongly that Ben Sira is one of them. Yet Stadelmann, 67–88, feels it is necessary to argue for Ben Sira's “true religious feeling” in this passage, over against supposed “nomism.”

14 It is used later in reference to the covenant of priesthood with Aaron. See Sir 45:7, and the accompanying discussion.

15 hēlqām nātatrî ʾōr[ām] (LXX αὐτοῖς) mēʾiššāy qōdeš qodāšîm hîʾ kaḥaṭṭā(ʾ)t wēkāʾāšām. MT reads ʾōtāh. I reconstruct ʾōtām on the basis of the LXX.

16 Ben Sira, 59.

17 Ibid.

18 Gen 45:19; Exod 34:34; Lev 8:35; 10:13; Num 3:16; 36:2; Ezek 12:7; 24:18; 37:7.

19 Weisheit, 87.

20 Snaith, “Supposed Love,” 168–69; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 304, 312. See n. 13 above.

21 Perdue notes (Wisdom and Cull, 251 n. 225, 355) that the social needs of the priests are implied in this passage. Ben Sira gives a dual motive for sacrifice—it is commanded and important also because the priests depend on it for their livelihood.

22 On Ben Sira's canon, see the discussion of Koole, J. L., “Die Bibel des Ben Sira,” Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965) 374–96.Google Scholar Hengel argues (Judaism and Hellenism, 1. 135) that both Torah and Prophets were authoritative for Ben Sira (39:1, 7–8). Koole argues (“Die Bibel,” 376) that he attributed to the Torah the most importance.

23 There is, of course, the corpus of sectarian literature from Qumran, which I shall discuss. Here there is mention of Aaronid priests and Zadokite priests, sometimes in the same document. Though the Zadokites ceased to control the high priesthood after the middle of the second century bce, the name “Zadokite” continued in use in Jerusalem, as reflected in “Sadducees” (Σαδδουκαῖοι),, which is certainly derived from the Hebrew *ṣādōq. See the LXX Σαδδουκ sometimes for ṣādōq. On the dating of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs in its earliest form to the second century bce, see H. C. Keein OTP, 1. 777–78, and Collins, J. J., “Testaments,” in M. E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) 343–44Google Scholar, with bibliography.

24 E.g., Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 62.Google Scholar

25 The P genealogy of Levi in Exod 6: 16–25 traces the Aaronic line down to Pinhas (Amram, Aaron, Eleazar, Pinhas), ignoring the line of Moses completely. Implicit in this genealogy is the assumption that Moses had no sons. The line of Moses, acknowledged by the Chronicler, is counted among the Levites (1 Chr 23:14).

26 In Sir 45, Maertens (L'éloge, 116) speaks of a priestly trilogy made up of Moses, Aaron, and Pinhas. This is not the case. Moses is not recognized as a priest by Ben Sira. Stadelmann (Ben Sira, 146–47) does not criticize Maertens, and even adopts the expression himself. The opinion of Maertens is based on his understanding of the Greek of vs 23. It says Pinhas is “third in glory” (τρίτος εἰς δόξαν). The Hebrew here is broken. Most commentators have reconstructed the Hebrew text as follows: wgm pynḥs [b]n ʾlʿzr // bgbwrh nḥ[l šlyšy bhwd] (see Lévi, I., The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus [Leiden, 1904] 62Google Scholar, and Vattioni, F., Ecclesiastico [Publicazioni del Seminario Semitistica 1; Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968] 247).Google Scholar But the Greek is probably a free translation. It does not reflect the Hebrew we have (κα⋯ Φινεες υί⋯ς Ἐλεαζαρ τρίτος εἰς δ⋯ξαν). For the Hebrew nḥ[l] of Lévi et al., I prefer *nāḥ[āh], “he led.” The Greek reflects neither *nāḥal nor *nāḥāh. The reconstruction šlyšy bhwd is unnecessary, and obscures the problem by simply reproducing the Greek, which does not have bgbwrh nḥ[… All these considerations aside, even if we do accept the Greek reading, it does not suggest a priestly trilogy. Pinhas can be understood simply as the third hero of the wilderness period to be praised, and no more need be seen in the remark.

27 In Exod 24: –8 (E), Moses and his assistants perform elaborate priestly rituals which he and his descendants never perform in Aaronid sources. He builds an altar, sets up twelve pillars, offers up sacrifices, casts the blood of the sacrifices onto the altar and, later, onto the congregation in a covenant-sealing ceremony. See also Exod 33:7–11 (E), where Moses and Joshua function as priests at the tent of meeting, speaking to Yahweh face to face. In Ezek 44:15, only the Zadokite priests are allowed to offer the blood. Similarly, see Lev 1:5, where the Aaronids perform the altar blood ritual.

There is direct evidence for a Mosaic priesthood in Judg 18:30, which served at Dan until the fall of the northern kingdom. The archaic fragment Num 26:58a names the clan of mûšî among the priestly groups it enumerates. This is very likely a reference to those who traced themselves back to Moses. In the work of the Chronicler, who does not recognize non-Aaronids as priests, the line of Moses is counted among the Levites (1 Chr 23:14), and some genealogical material is provided for them, in contrast to P who completely ignores them. See the treatment of Israel's priestly clans in Cross, F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 195–98.Google Scholar In addition, see Möhlenbrink, K., “Die Levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments,” ZAW 11 (1934) 184–231.Google Scholar

28 There is in the B MS the marginal reading lw hwdw for ʿyw hwd and bbrkh for bkbwdw. See also the Greek ἔδωκεν αέτῷ ἰερατείαν λαο⋯ (“and he gave him the priesthood of the people”).

29 I mean here bē- with the sense of “at” or “beside,” as in 1 Sam 29:1 bāʿayin, “by the spring,” or Ezek 10:15, 20, binhar kēbār, “by the river Kebar.” That is, Aaron served Yahweh in the sanctuary (at the place of his glory).

30 Cf. Sir 45:16 ûlěkappēr ʿal běnê-yiśrāʾēl to P in Lev 4:26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18, and so on (wēkipper ʿālāyw hakkōhēn). In Sir 45:15, following the P account in Exod 28:41, Moses consecrates and anoints Aaron priest. How ought we to view this? Does it suggest that Moses is recognized as a priest by P and Ben Sira? This is unlikely. The rest of the description of Moses contains no allusion to activity which could be described as distinctly priestly in nature (like sacrifice, the blood ritual, and so on). Moses is however acknowledged as giver of the Torah and as teacher of the covenant in 45:5 (cf. 45:17 on Aaron). Mack (Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 31) has suggested that Moses is here portrayed as teacher-prophet who anoints Aaron as the first priest. The Aaronids carry on the teaching function originally given to Moses. Mack does not argue that Moses is portrayed as a priest.

31 Against Caquot, A. (“Ben Sira et le messianisme,” Semitica 16 [1966] 60, 62–63)Google Scholar, who argues that “Ben Sira lui même a voulu ici affirmer son attachement à cette lignée son légitimisme sadocide, et non son attachement au clergé en général, à tous les descendants de Pinehas.” He also states that “il n'est pour Ben Sira qu'une famille à laquelle l'éternité soit assurée, celle des grand-prêtres et de Simon.” Also against Perdue (Wisdom and Cult, 193), who states that Ben Sira “paraphrases this material from P, but adds that this covenant included the giving to Phinehas and his descendants the office of ‘high priesthood’ forever.… The import of this statement by Sirach is that he supported the Zadokite and, more specifically, the Oniad claim to the office of high priest over against other Aaronic families, especially the Tobiads.” As I have argued, the opposite is the case if the text is to be read this way (i.e., that Sir 45:24 asserts high priesthood for all descendants of Pinhas). What indeed would be the point of asserting Pinhasid high priesthood if one meant Zadokite high priest hood? If Ben Sira had meant this, he would have stated it clearly, most likely in chap. 50, while praising Simon ben Onias.

There is in the Hebrew text of Sir 50:24 an addition which does not appear in the LXX or Vg, and appears only in part in the Syriac, suggesting multiple accretion. It is a prayer for the Oniad priesthood. The Hebrew text reads: yēʾāmēn ʿīm šimʿôn ḥasdô // wayyāqem lô bērît pînḥās // ʾăšser lōʾ yikkārēt lô // ûlězarʿô kîmê šāmayim. The Syriac reflects a Hebrew Vorlage closer to the primitive text (which is more or less reflected in the LXX of vs 24a), mentioning Simon in the first colon but not “the covenant of Pinhas,” which occurs only in the Hebrew. The mention of the covenant of Pinhas appears to be an attempt to fill out the original addition of Simon's name in place of “us.” The primitive text of vs 24a would read *yʾmn ʿmnw ḥsdw, with no mention of Simon, as in the LXX and Vg. Why? (1) The change of subject back to Simon in the Heb/Syr of vs 24 is awkward. The praises of Simon have ended in vs 21, and a new discourse (introduced by ʿattāh—”now!”) commanding the reader to bless God and listing reasons for so doing follows (vs 22). In addition there are wishes for the reader to gain wisdom and experience peace from God (vs 23). At this juncture, the LXX continues with the wishes concerning the reader, whereas the Heb/Syr change the subject back to Simon. (2) The content of the Heb/Syr reflects a post-171 perspective, after the death of Ben Sira. A wish for the continuity of the Zadokite (specifically Oniad) high priesthood forever fits best into the period after Menalaus has taken over the office. There was likely much resistance to a non-Zadokite high priest (see Josephus Ant. 13.62 on Onias IV). The accretions must have come from Zadokite-Oniad circles.

The primitive Hebrew text would read something like this: vs 23: *yittēn lākem ḥokmat lēbāb // wîhî šālôm bîmênû (cf. LXX ⋯ν ⋯μέραις ήμ⋯ν) // běyiśrāʾēl kîmê; ʿô;lām (cf. LXX); vs 24: yēʾāmēn ʿmmānû ḥasdô (cf. LXX ⋯μπιστεύοαι μεθ᾽ ⋯μ⋯ν τ⋯ ἔλεος αὐτο⋯) // bîmênû kîmê šāmayim (?). The third colon of vs 23 is missing in the Hebrew through haplography, explained by the similarity of bymynw and yʾmn. The second colon of vs 24 probably should preserve the Hebrew kymy šmym and reconstruct bymynw on the basis of the LXX. I do not accept the view that the Hebrew text of Sir 50:24 is primitive, and that the LXX and Vg reflect a censored text. For this position, see Charles, APOT, 1. 511; Caquot, “Ben Sira,” 61–62; J. Trinquet, “Les liens ‘sadocites’ de l'Ecrit de Damas, des manuscrits de la Mer Morte et de l'Ecclésiastique,” VT 1 (1951) 290; and Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 180. These accretions cannot be used to clarify Ben Sira's intent in 45:24.

32 On běrît ʿôlām in P, see Gen 9:16, the Noahide covenant; Exod 31:16, the Sabbath; Lev 24:8, Aaronid covenant (the ritual of twelve cakes). The term is also used (with bērît šālôm) in Ezek 16:60; 34:25 (běrît šālôm); 37:26 (běrît ʿôlām and běrît šālôm).

33 The problem of education in this period is vexing, and hasty conclusions about the extent to which schools existed should be avoided, as J. Crenshaw has recently pointed out in “Education in Ancient Israel,” JBL 104 (1985) 601–15.Google Scholar Ben Sira is the first source to mention a school directly and unambiguously (51:23, bêt hammidraš). Crenshaw's point is well taken, but when it comes to the priesthood, it is difficult to imagine that training academies of some sort did not exist from the beginning of the monarchy or earlier, since the knowledge and skills imparted were of such a specialized nature. Assuming Aaronid schools did exist to train such priests and assuming a “pure” P tradition was taught does not imply that the Pentateuch as we know it had not reached its ultimate shape by Ben Sira's time. There is enough evidence to suggest that it had. However, Ben Sira 45 does imply that in Aaronid circles, a distinctly Aaronid reading of the Pentateuch texts on the priesthood and its history was taught. Mack (Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 117) has arrived at a similar conclusion. He believes that Ben Sira's hymn reflects a view of the Torah “very much like that of the priestly redactor.… [It] indicates that the reading must have continued in priestly circles as a tradition.” P. Höffken(“Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach über Ezra?” ZAW 87 [1975] 184–202) discusses Ben Sira's affinities with P, and his attitude to the Levites. He too believes Ben Sira is anti-Levitic and stands close to P. I came across the studies of Mack and Höffken when this article was in press.

34 There is concern for intermarriage in Malachi (2:11–12), and the temple stands (presumably rebuilt), suggesting perhaps a date around the time of Ezra's reform. On dating Ezra to the mid-fifth century, see Ezra 7:7, where it is stated that Ezra led his mission in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (that is, 458 if biblical Artaxerxes = Artaxerxes I). See S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” IDBSup, 320–21 for a discussion of various viewpoints, and Cross, F. M., “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975) 4–18.Google Scholar K. Elliger dates Malachi to the first half of the fifth century (Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi [ATD 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975] 189)Google Scholar, and Rudolph, W. between 450 and 420 (Haggai-Sacharja 1–8-Sacharja 9–14-Maleachi [KAT 13/4; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976] 249).Google Scholar

35 See Deut 33:8–10. “Levite” is used both of Aaron (Exod 4:14) and of the parents of Moses (Exod2:l). See n. 27 as well.

36 On the dating of the component parts of the Chronicler's work, see Freedman, D. N., “The Chronicler's Purpose,” CBQ 23 (1961) 436–42.Google Scholar

37 wayyō(ʾ)mer mōšeh ʾel-qōraḥ šimʿû-nāʾ běnê lēwî hamʿat mikkem kî hibdîl ʾělōhê yiśrāʾēl ʾetkem mēʿădat yiśrāʾēl lěhaqrîb ʾetkem ʾēlāyw laʿābōd ʾet-ʿăbōdat miškān Yahweh wělaʿămōd lipnê hāʿēdāh lēšārětām wayyaqrēb ʿōtěkā wêʾet-kol-ʾaḥêkā běnê-lēwî ʾittāk ûbiqqaštem gamkěhunnāh lākēn ʾattāh wěkol-ʿădātěkā hannōʿādîm ʿal-Yahweh wěʾahărōn mah-hûʾ kî tallīnû ʿālāyw.

38 On Ezekiel 40–48, see Levenson, J., Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 129–58Google Scholar, on the priesthood. See also Zimmerli, W., Exekiel 2 (trans. J. D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 325–53Google Scholar, and particularly the work of H. Gese on the growth of the traditions in Ezekiel 40–48 (Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht [BHTh 25; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1957]).Google Scholar

39 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2. 89 n. 195, noticed this.

40 Here I would argue against those who claim that the house of Zadok was of particular importance to Ben Sira. See Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 162, and Lehmann, R. H., “Ben Sira and the Qumran Literature,” RevQ 3 (1961) 114Google Scholar, who thinks that Sir 51:12i is authentic to Ben Sira. He also believes that Ben Sira expected a Zadokite messiah. See below for discussion both of this text and the problem of messianism in Ben Sira. Sir 51:12i is certainly a later, polemical addition. Höffken (“Jesus Sirach,” 195) argues that Ezra is ignored by Ben Sira on account of his advocacy of the Levites as described in the Chronicler's history.

41 The hymn is absent from the versions, and appears in only one Hebrew manuscript (B) from the Cairo Genizah. Leila, A. A. di (The Hebrew Text of Sirach [London: Mouton, 1966] 101–5)Google Scholar has discussed the problem of its authenticity and concluded that it is a later addition. He would date the hymn before 152, the Hasmonean takeover of the high priesthood, since the “sons of Zadok” are the priests in vs i. But the term “Zadokite” continued in use after the last Zadokite high priest (see “Sadducee” and Qumran sectarian literature). Further, the hymn claims the whole priesthood for the sons of Zadok, not just the high priesthood. J. Trinquet (“Les liens ‘sadocites,’” 290) suggests Zadokite editing of this Ben Sira manuscript. This view is certainly supported by the evidence. The dating of the addition remains open to debate. Caquot (“Messianisme,” 50) considers the hymn secondary.

42 See Middendorp, Stellung, 117–18; Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 163 n. 2; Scharbert, J., Heilsmittler im Alien Testament und im alten Orient (Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 235Google Scholar; Caquot, “Messianisme,” 50. Those who view the hymn as authentic to Ben Sira include mostly earlier commentators, such as Smend, Weisheit, 502–3. The secondary background of the other material in chap. 51 supports my thesis. The whole chapter ought to be seen as an appendix to Ben Sira's work. The wisdom psalm in vss 13–30 is found in llQPsa which suggests that it is secondary to Ben Sira 51. See the discussion of M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings, 298–300.

43 Similarly, the vs hôdû lěmaṣmîaḥ qeren lěbêt dāwīd suggests that the composer(s) of the hymn also felt that the text of Ben Sira lacked a sufficient emphasis on the ideology of Davidic messianism. See below for discussion.

44 The Greek text identifies him as Σιμων Ονιου υί⋯ς ίερεὺς ό μέγας,. Presumably, this Simon ben Yohanan was Simon II, who was high priest when Jerusalem was taken in 199/98 according to Josephus Ant. 12.224, 229, etc. He is probably also Simon the Just of Abot 1.2. See the discussion in Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1. 131.

45 See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 271, and Sir 50:4. Simon must have been a strong and inspiring leader.

46 DJD, 1. 28a. On the origins of the sectarian community, see the treatments of Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 224–27, and recently, D. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Stone, ed., Jewish Writings, 483–503, 542–47, with extensive bibliography.

47 DJD, 1. 28b (Benedictions).

48 On the date of the Serek, see Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 497–98, esp. n. 82 on the manuscripts. The oldest MS in our possession is to be dated to ca. 100 bce, and thus the work itself probably was written during the second half of the second century.

49 Yadin, Y., Megillat Hammiqdash (3 vols. and supplement; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977)Google Scholar, and idem, “The Temple Scroll,” BA 30 (1967) 135–39Google Scholar, and the discussion and bibliography in Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 526–30. This document is a composite work combining a number of earlier literary sources, as Wills, L. and Wilson, A. have demonstrated (“Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” HTR 75 [1982] 275–88).Google Scholar On the Temple Scroll see further Levine, B. A., “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978) 5–23Google Scholar, and O'Connor, J. Murphy, “The Judean Desert,” in R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, eds., Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 136–37Google Scholar and bibliography. John Strugnell has suggested in an oral communication that the work itself is earlier than the Qumran community, containing documents of the Jerusalem temple not otherwise preserved. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Strugnell for his generous advice and insightful observations during the development of this paper.

50 See the remarks of Thiering, B. E., “Mebaqqer and Episkopos in Light of the Temple Scroll,” JBL 100 (1981) 59–74Google Scholar, see 63. She believes there are two types of Levites in the Temple Scroll— “Levitical priests” and “Levites.” The title “sons of Levi” is used for the Levitical priests and “Levite” is used for the nonpriestly servants. This seems unlikely. In the Temple Scroll, the sons of Aaron are the priests who sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice (22.4–5). As far as I can tell, only the Aaronids are priests in the Temple Scroll, though the Levites do have a significant role in the cult.

51 Dimant (“Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 545–46 n. 292) suggests that the title “sons of Zadok” may not indicate Zadokite lineage, but may be “a pesher-like appellation similar to the name of the Teacher of Righteousness … stressing the element of ‘Justice.’” Considering that this is, and has been, a standard title of the Zadokite line, this suggestion is doubtful. It is not a special name comparable to the “Teacher of Righteousness.”

52 This is discussed extensively by Cross, F. M. in The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961) 137–41.Google Scholar Opposition to Hasmonean high priesthood is evident from the warnings of 1 Mace 14:41–47, that no priest or layman may oppose or contradict the stipulations of the decree appointing Simon high priest. Since 1 Maccabees is so pro-Hasmonean, it is not surprising that opposition to Hasmonean high priesthood does not constitute a central theme for the writer. Cross also points out that 1 Macc 15:21 alludes to Simon's likely problems with dissenters.

53 Ibid., 141–60. It is clear that the Teacher of Righteousness was himself a priest (pPs 37), and his major antagonist is called the “Wicked Priest.” Most scholars now agree that the Wicked Priest was Jonathan. See Stegemann, H., Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Bonn: privately published, 1971)Google Scholar, and the earlier work of Jeremias, G., Der Lehrer der Gerechrigkeit (SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963).Google Scholar Dimant (“Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 545–47) opposes the thesis that the sect was founded by Zadokites opposed to Hasmonean claims on the high priesthood, but her arguments are not especially convincing.

54 See n. 23 and below for discussion of the date and provenance of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs. Jubilees is a rewriting of Genesis 1 - Exodus 14, with significant additions and changes reflecting the halakhic and theological views of the author. See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Stone, ed., Jewish Writings, 101–4 on the debate over dating. It appears to be a second century bce work. It is cited specifically in CD, which indicates that it is certainly pre-100 bce. Passages like 3.31 on nakedness and 15.14, 34 on circumcision point to a date after the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV. Nickelsburg dates Jubilees to ca. 168. In Jubilees, Jacob's dream and sacrifice at Bethel become the occasion for Levi's investiture as a priest forever in Israel (32.1–9). Levi in fact has his own Bethel dream where he is given the priesthood (32.1). The fragmentary Aramaic Testament of Levi is one of a number of such testaments found at Qumran (see Collins, “Testaments,” 332–33, for discussion and bibliography). In addition, there are other fragmentary parallels to this work. The Testament of Levi of the LXX seems to be a related document, perhaps a condensed and reedited version of the Aramaic. There is much debate on the development of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs collection, and even on the development of each testament. On this see Collins, “Testaments,” 333 n. 39; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 233–34, 268 n. 7.

55 In Sir 50:18, the temple singers are mentioned, but they are not identified as Levites. See 1 Chr 6: 16–33 (Eng 31–48) on Levitic singers. These temple singers must have been Levites, since singing was one of their cultic functions.

56 Nickelsburg (Jewish Literature, 83) wonders whether these are not the musings of a “disenfranchized priest.” I would agree. On the issue of Zadokite control of the building of the second temple and Levitic exclusion, see Hanson, P. D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975)Google Scholar, and “Apocalypticism,” IDBSup, 28–34. Hanson argues that Isaiah 24–27, 34–35, 56–66; Zechariah 9–14 and other apocalyptic literature came from disenfranchized Levites.

57 Di Leila, Hebrew Text, 104. R. Brown would also allow for a Qumran provenance for the hymn (“The Messianism of Qumrân,” CBQ 19 [1957] 63 n. 54).Google Scholar

58 Of course the exact meaning of this depends on how each individual writer would define the legitimate priesthood. On priestly messianism, see Adinolfi, M., “Sul messianismo sacerdotale,” BeO 111/112 (1977) 101–11Google Scholar, who traces the development of the idea. He believes that its origin and purpose is unclear. I do not concur. It finds its origin in the concept of diarchy from the restoration period. On messianism at Qumran, see Cross, Ancient Library, 223–30, and Brown, “Messianism of Qumrân.” 53–82.

59 This text seems unambiguous. There are three characters: a prophet, a priestly messiah, and a nonpriestly messiah. Thus I follow Brown, “Messianism of Qumrân,” 54–55, in agreement with the earlier views of Burrows, M., “The Messiahs of Aaron and Israel,” ATR 34 (1952) 205–6Google Scholar, and Milik, J. T., “Manuale Disciplinae,” VD 29 (1951) 152.Google Scholar Against Brownlee, W. H., The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (ASORSup 10–12; New Haven: ASOR, 1951) 35–36 n. 19Google Scholar, who sees nābîʾ as the messiah and the mašîḥê ʾahărônlyiśrāʾêl as his priestly and lay followers.

60 “Messianism of Qumrân,” 56. He compares this to the high priest who leads in war in 1QM. He too must be the messiah of Aaron (61–62). Brown (“Messianism of Qumrân”) argues that the messiah of Aaron does not equal the Teacher of Righteousness. See the discussion on pp. 71–72. On the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness, there has been much debate. See recently Charlesworth, J., “The Origin and Subsequent History of the Authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Four Transitional Phases among the Qumran Essenes,” RevQ 10 (1980) 213–33Google Scholar; Carmignac, J., “Qui était le Docteur de Justice?” RevQ 10 (1980) 235–46Google Scholar; Murphy-O'Connor, J., “Judah the Essene and the Teacher of Righteousness,” RevQ 10 (1981) 579–85Google Scholar; Burgmann, H., “Wer war der ‘Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit’?” RevQ 10 (1981) 553–78Google Scholar, and the earlier treatment of Stegemann, Die Entstehung, 102, 210–20, who suggested that the Teacher was the high priest during the intersacerdotium of 159–152.

61 Against Lehmann, “Ben Sira,” 114, who takes the addition to Sir 51:12 as evidence that Ben Sira himself expected two messiahs. Lehmann is criticized by Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 163–64 n. 2. ven in the addition, there is no evidence for priestly messianism.

62 Caquot (“Messianisme,” 55–56) argues that there is nowhere in Ben Sira evidence of messianic hought. He argues against a messianic interpretation of 47:11, where the term qeren is used of David. According to him, qeren in this passage means “prestige” or “power,” as in Deut 33:17 and Ps 89:19. This argument is not convincing. While it is true that in some contexts qeren means “power,” when used of David or his house it generally has a messianic connotation, like ṣemaḥ, “branch.” See the discussion of the problem below. Stadelmann (Ben Sira, 157–59) also thinks that there is no Davidic messianism in the book. According to him, the Davidic covenant has been inherited by the Aaronids. This argument is based on the doubtful reading and interpretation of Sir 45:25. Middendorp (Stellung, 174) also thinks that for Ben Sira there was no living messianic expectation. Against this view see Smend, Weisheit, 452, 456; and di Leila, Hebrew Text, 102–3, who cites 45:25; 47:11,22; 49:11.

63 This was pointed out by di Leila, Hebrew Text, 102.

64 Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 162.

65 Sir 47:11: wěyitten-ʿōz lěmalkô // wěyārēm qeren měšîḥô,” And he will give strength to his king // And exalt the power of his anointed.” The pairing of qeren and ʿōz suggests a meaning like “power” for qeren in this early royal context, but it is easy enough to see how qeren developed into a specialized royal-messianic term in later times.

66 With Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 162, but against his view that the house of Zadok is significant to Ben Sira. See similarly Priest, J., “Ben Sira 45:25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature,” RevQ 5 (1964) 111–18Google Scholar, and Lehmann, “Ben Sira,” 114 and n. 19, who wrongly believes there is Aaronic messianism as well in Ben Sira.

67 Smend. Weisheii, 437.

68 Ibid., 438.

69 G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, “The Book of Sirach,” APOT, 1.489.

70 L'éloge. 122.

71 “Messianisme.” 60–63.

72 Stellung, 142.

73 Ben Sira. 152–53 n. 2.

74 Ibid., 153.

75 Ibid., 157.

76 “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus,” JTS 18 (1967)7 n. 3.Google Scholar

77 Stadelmann, Ben Sira. 159.

78 Wisdom and Cult. 193.

79 See the plene spellings of ʾîš, “man,” in Sir 9:18; 10:23; 11:30; 12:9; 14:2; 16:12; 34(31):20; 35(32):18 (two times); 36:26 (G 31); 40:29 (two times); 41:2 (two times), and so on. In 40:29–30 ʾyš (man) and ʾš (fire) occur in the same colon.