The book of Sirach was originally written in Hebrew by Yeshua ben Sira at the beginning of the second century B.C.E. and was translated into Greek by the author’s grandson before 116 B.C. The book was likely completed before the reign Antiochus IV Epiphanies (175-164 B.C.E.) since there is no reference to the events of that period in the book although he does include a hymn extolling the virtue of the high priest Simon, son of Onias, who was high priest from 219 to 196 B.C. (Follow this link to a list Sirach allusions in the Talmud).
One objective of Sirach is to present the traditional faith of Israel as superior to the Hellenistic world. It is not surprising to find some influence from Greek and Egyptian wisdom literature, although there is no direct citation of a Hellenistic philosopher in the book. David deSilva lists Iliad 6.146-149 as parallel to Sirach 14:18 and Aristotle, NicEth 9.4.1166 as parallel to Sirach 6:11. Neither of these proves Ben Sira knew either of these works since the sayings may have passed into common wisdom usage by the second century B.C. (Introduction to the Apocrypha, 165). Sirach 11:28 (“Call no one happy before his death; by how he ends, a person becomes known” is similar to the major theme of Sophocles, Oedipus the King., but once again, this may be “common knowledge” by the time Sirach writes.
A few older scholars who have denied any Hellenistic influence. For example, Smend said: “He hates with all his heart Hellenism and the Greeks, as well as the small pagan neighboring nations, and yearns for the day of God’s reckoning with them….in fact, no Greek influence is discernable in his work.” This statement seems based on 50:25, in which Ben Sira expresses his hatred of Samaritans, Philistines and those who live in Shechem, all classic enemies of Israel. Even if the Hellenistic parallels are not present, Ben Sira does not seem as hostile as Smend implies. Sirach rarely (if ever) comments on the spiritual state of the nations. Of the twenty-five times ἔθνος is used in Ben Sira, only once does it appear in the context of judgment.
Carl Selmer suggested Sirach knew The Sayings of the Seven Sages by Demetrius Phalerus (d. 280 B.C.) This Greek work contains a series of short pieces of advice, many of which closely parallel Ben Sira. But the Sayings of the Seven Sages is preserved in a Latin proverb collection dated to the late Middle Ages. Selmer thought many earlier works went so far as to suggest that Ben Sira was simply gathering a collection of popular proverbs in the tradition of the canonical book of Proverbs. In order to show parallels Selmer gives the Latin form of the proverb in the Seven Sages and then potential parallels in the Latin form of Sirach. This method is problematic because the form of the Greek proverbs is preserved in a late Latin manuscript, the form of Sirach Selmer uses is Latin as opposed to Greek or Hebrew (which were not available to Selmer in 1943). Therefore, while it is impossible to trace with confidence any use of the Seven Sages by Ben Sira, it is remarkable that the content of all fourteen of the sayings appear someplace in the much larger book of Sirach. This may only speak of the currency of these themes in the wisdom literature of the third and early second century B.C.
While there is little evidence to suggest he borrowed freely from Greek or Egyptian writers, there are enough allusions to indicate Ben Sira knew some proverbial ethical Hellenistic philosophy. Why did he use so little of it to argue Torah is superior to Hellenistic philosophy? What was his motivation in alluding to Greek wisdom at all? Or we might ask, who was Ben Sira writing to, young Jewish readers tempted by Hellenism, or Hellenistic readers he hoped to convert?
To put it in contemporary terms, is Sirach apologetics or missionary literature?
Bibliography: Carl Selmer, “Traces of The ‘Sayings of the Seven Sages; In the Liber Ecclesiasticus.” CBQ 5, no. 3 (1943): 264-74l Carl Selmer, “Traces of The ‘Sayings of the Seven Sages; In the Liber Ecclesiasticus.” CBQ 5, no. 3 (1943): 264-74; Smend cited by Edmond Jacob, “Wisdom and Religion in Sirach,” pages 247-60 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien. Edited by John G. Gammie (Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1978): 248.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
In terms of philosophy, I will give Hellenism this: it pushed out some credible philosophers. I am extremely fond of Plato and Socrates in terms of their thought even if there are things they proposed that I do not agree with – therefore theologically? It’s not hard to say the Torah is superior to Hellenistic philosophy. It just depends on how much of a skeptic you are and what you’re willing to make peace with. I would argue that Sira was trying to out Jewish readers tempted by Hellenism because while it goes against Jewish principles, some philosophers seem very sound even from a theological standpoint. Not so, in this case, darn you Hellenism. Therefore from this act of addressing Hellenistic Philosophy’s flaws, I might argue that it’s an act of apologetics as the believed targeted audience already had a system of belief, he was just trying to reaffirm it.
I find it so interesting how much the culture around the Jews affected or influenced their writings and everyday life. I don’t think that we take into account how much influence the culture has on us because we are living in it. Looking back on other cultures and time periods it might not seem so strange because it is a slow process to fully switch over or the customs blending. One of the questions from the post was “What was his motivation in alluding to Greek wisdom at all?” I think just like in our era, we use cultural references to get points across and that may be what Sirach was trying to do. Make it relatable for others to read besides the Jews and even to help the Jews understand because they were living during this time as well. It was also a book that dealt with the different worldviews and the issues between them, which made it, “… well respected by the Jews and often included with other scripture in diaspora Judaism” (Long, 29). To me, it reminds me of Christians in the present day. We like to find books or devotions that help relate the Bible to the time period that we are in to allow a better connection to Scripture and to the Lord.
As one reviews the reading of Sirach, it is clear Ben Sira’s mission was to appeal to the Jews during a Hellenistic society. “One objective of Sirach is to present the traditional faith of Israel as superior to the Hellenistic world” (Long,2017). With philosophy, Sirach throughout his literature aims to persuade those in the faith to remain in it. While attempting to convert those outside of Judaism. Greek philosophy swept the known world by storm. This made impacts on the literature of surrounding religions. The reader of Sirach sees a clear correlation of philosophical ideals that is used to persuade the young Jews to dive deeper into their pursuit of wisdom and faith in God. This literature does not just circle around philosophical literature but ultimately How Jews are to act in a Hellenistic society. “This sage is concerned not only with imparting practical wisdom but even more with grounding his students in virtue and, most especially, in the piety that is characteristic of the Jewish tradition” (DeSilva; David, 2018, 7 Wisdom of Ben Sira section). This literature gives the reader a window into the philosophical teachings of intertestamental literature and how influential philosophy was during this time.
Though the idea of Ben Sira wanting to convert non-Jewish readers to Judaism is very much possible, I do believe the main goal was to encourage Jewish readers to live faithfully as the Hellenistic culture surrounds them and essentially becomes the world they live in. The question as to why Ben Sira would even allude to Greek wisdom at all leads me to believe both of these purposes are a reality when I think of Paul’s use of poetic writings in his sermon in Athens (Acts 19). As Paul quotes poets that the people of Athens would know, he is using cultural reference to explain the reality and truth of God in a way they would understand. Likewise, I’d like to believe that Ben Sira could allude to Greek wisdom in a manner that primarily speaks to the Jewish people who would have known many of the Greek’s philosophy (for they lived surrounded by it) and that secondarily speaks to the Hellenists, who most certainly would have been acquainted with such wisdom and could find logical reasoning behind Ben Sira’s sayings. However, I am not ignorant enough to say that Ben Sira’s limited use of Hellenistic philosophy to support the Torah’s superiority is not an issue to thinking of Sirach as an apologetic. Though it would have helped his case to do so, I do think that having a missionary purpose alongside that of encouraging faithfulness for Jews would have been a good cause to limit anything that could have sounded as full condemnation of a Hellenist’s worldview, especially if a Jewish person was being told he could live alongside Hellenistic culture and still be faithful.
It is interesting to think that Sirach could have been written with the purpose of reaching a Greek audience to convert them to Judaism. I do not think that this missionary work is something that we see often before the New Testament. The Old Testament seems to focus more on Israel as God’s chosen people. Perhaps with the Hellenization of Judea, Sirach was focusing on apostate Jews who converted to the Greek lifestyle. However, I think that it is more likely that it was written to a Jewish audience, and the Greek influence was simply an effect of living in a Hellenized society. DeSilva says that Ben Sirah’s goal was to teach his pupils how to “gain honor” and “make their way in the world advantageously” (deSilva, The Author and His Setting). He also believed that this could only be done through under the complete guidance of the Torah. But Sirach still appreciates the wisdom of other cultures and finds them useful enough to teach. These major influences were from Greek and Egyptian scholars (deSilva). DeSilva was not using these teachings to gain other followers but to diversify the knowledge of his pupils.
If Ben Sira was trying to establish that the Torah was superior to Hellenistic literature, it seems fairly obvious why he did not use references to Hellenistic philosophy when writing Sirach. If he was using Hellenistic philosophy and references to defend his stance, it would be counter effective. By using non-Biblical philosophies, it would seem as though it was needed to support his stance. This is not the case, so the fact that Sirach does not incorporate them speaks volumes. He is supporting his claim simply excluding Hellenistic philosophies within the book. However, this does not mean that he hated Hellenism and Greeks like some scholars claim. He is simply giving Greeks something to read that is different than their Hellenistic philosophies. Which would seem to be his target audience. He incorporates some Greek literature, and it is clear that Ben Sira is aware of Greek life. Including these would be a pull for Greeks to read his book as it has similarities they are already aware of.
You make a great point about Ben Sira’s strategic use of exclusion when it comes to Hellenistic philosophy. By not heavily referencing or incorporating Greek thought, he avoids the need to validate Torah through external sources, strengthening his stance that the Torah stands on its own. This method suggests confidence in the superiority of Israel’s wisdom without relying on Greek or Egyptian philosophies for support. At the same time, Ben Sira’s subtle incorporation of familiar Greek proverbs appears to be a way of reaching out to Greek audiences, offering them a wisdom they can relate to but ultimately presenting it through a distinctly Jewish lens. In this way, he isn’t rejecting Hellenism outright, but rather providing an alternative that challenges the prevailing worldview, inviting Greeks to engage with Jewish thought in a way that feels familiar yet unique.
The blog post about Sirach and the Greeks talks about how the book of Sirach mixes Jewish wisdom with some Greek ideas. Sirach was written by Yeshua ben Sira, and there are some parts that seem similar to Greek works like the Iliad and Aristotle, but it’s not clear if Ben Sira copied them. Some scholars, like Smend, think there’s no Greek influence, while others, like Carl Selmer, think he might have known about Greek wisdom. Even though Sirach has some Greek ideas, its main goal is to show that Israel’s faith is better than Greek philosophy. Ben Sira uses Greek ideas to show that the Torah is superior. This makes us wonder who Sirach was writing for: Jewish people influenced by Greek culture or Greeks that he wanted to convert to Judaism. In today’s terms, this could be called apologetics or missionary work. Sirach seems to defend Jewish beliefs while still trying to reach a larger audience. While there are some Greek influences in Sirach, its main purpose looks like it’s to promote the wisdom of Israel. It’s unclear if Ben Sira was trying to mix the two cultures or just use Greek ideas to show how great the Torah is.
The book of Sirach serves as a fascinating intersection of Jewish tradition and Hellenistic influence, and the questions surrounding its relationship to Greek philosophy are pivotal in understanding its purpose. While Sirach doesn’t appear to borrow extensively from Greek or Egyptian texts, it is clear that Ben Sira was aware of their ethical teachings, evident in the parallels with Greek proverbs and wisdom literature. This awareness likely was a smart move to demonstrate the superiority of Israel’s faith and Torah to the Hellenistic philosophy of the time.
Ben Sira’s selective use of Hellenistic ideas can be seen as a way of engaging with a broader intellectual tradition without fully adopting it. He may have been writing to Jewish audiences, particularly young people, who were being drawn into Hellenistic culture, offering them a grounded, traditional alternative. The ethical teachings that mirror Greek thought, such as the emphasis on the end of a person’s life revealing their true character, would resonate with Hellenistic readers, but Ben Sira ultimately underscores the wisdom of Israel’s Torah as superior.
Moreover, his choice to refer to Greek proverbs without fully embracing them seems to reveal that Sirach was not strictly apologetics or missionary literature, but rather a nuanced effort to preserve and promote Jewish identity in the face of external cultural pressures. This approach allowed Ben Sira to speak to both Jewish and Hellenistic audiences, inviting them to reflect on the deeper, enduring wisdom of Israel’s tradition.