READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XIX

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 26:28-32:13

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Human beings live in circumstances, not abstractions.  Ben Sira understood this fact.  So, as he taught the sons of the elites of Jerusalem circa 175 B.C.E., the author provided real-world examplars of principles.

And why not?  Integrity is tangible, not abstract.  Integrity is about what we do, which is about who we are.  One may quote a host of verses and passages, but only verse can make the point without flipping the note cards.  The representative verse I select comes from the context of distinguishing false prophets from the genuine articles:

You will be able to tell them by their fruits.

–Matthew 7:16a, The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

Ben Sira condemns greed and injustice.  He also offers this pithy counsel:

When a reed is shaken, the refuse remains;

so a man’s filth remains in his thoughts.

–27:4, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Alternative translations to “filth” include “rubbish,” “refuse,” and “husks.”  The reference requires explanation.  This is a description of a part of farm life.  James L. Crenshaw explains:

After oxen had threshed grain, it was placed in a sieve that retained the husks and dung while allowing the kernels to pass through for immediate use or temporary storage.  The analogy suffers somewhat, for one expects the speech to represent pure grain whereas Ben Sira observes that talk demonstrates flaws, bringing them to the surface.

—The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 5 (1997), 768

Ben Sira offers two more analogies in verses 5 and 6.  Conversation reveals flawed reasoning, and the quality of a tree is evident in the quality of its fruit.

Wisdom literature is repetitive.  Any given book of wisdom literature may be repetitive, too.  Ecclesiasticus/Sirach fits that description.  Repetition, as a characteristic, is ubiquitous throughout the Bible.  The texts may repeat messages so often because people need to pay closer attention.  Apathy is one reason for missing the point.  Another reason is that many of us go through life as distracted beings.

Most of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 26:28-32:13 reminds one of what I have read in the other Hebrew wisdom books, as well as in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach already.  Perhaps, as I hear the completion of my tour of the wisdom literature, I recognize many of these themes and mistakenly think that Ben Sira has covered them already.  A few places to land and conduct analysis do occur to me, however.

Many have fallen by the edge of the sword,

but not so many as have fallen because of the tongue.

–28:18, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

I cannot argue against that statement.  However, I dispute 30:1, which labels the frequent whipping of children as a sign of parental love.  Discipline is not abuse.  I also argue against the patriarchal tone of 30:1f.  The historical and cultural contexts are clear.  Ben Sira’s concern over the Hellenistic threats to Hebrew familial structure fit the contexts.  Yet I remain no fan of patriarchy.

30:21-25 offers sage advice.  Why do we afflict ourselves deliberately?  I approach this question with my survivor’s guilt intact.  I understand that my survivor’s guilt is irrational.  Yet I still have it nearly four years after the death of my beloved Bonny.

31:1-3 reminds me of a psychological study about the relationship between contentment and more money.  Having more money–to a point–increases one’s contentment.  So, for example, if one could not pay one’s bills and afford all necessities but now one can do so, having more money has increased one’s contentment.  Yet, when one can already afford all necessities and pay all one’s bills, and one can afford many luxuries, acquiring more wealth enables one to afford more luxuries.  At this point, more money does not increase one’s contentment.  In fact, at a certain point, more money decreases one’s contentment.

Greed is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10; Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 31:5f).

Ben Sira addressed the sons of the elites of Jerusalem circa 175 B.C.E.  So, we must consider that context when pondering advice regarding etiquette in 31:12-32:13.   A grasp of Hellenistic customs regarding conduct at banquets helps, too.  In context, Ben Sira advised practicing common courtesy, not making a fool of oneself, and blessing God–not pagan gods–at the end of the feast.

We may often hear about God blessing us, our country, et cetera.  That is fine, but only in balance.  How well and often do we–both individually and collectively–bless God?  How we bless God may vary according to contexts, but the principle is timeless.  And blessing God is an expression of integrity.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF CHARLES FOX, ANGLICAN MISSIONARY IN MELANESIA

THE FEAST OF AARON ROBARTS WOLFE, U.S. PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF JOSEPH GOMER AND MARY GOMER, UNITED BRETHREN MISSIONARIES IN SIERRA LEONE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XVIII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:1-26:27

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Numerical proverbs belong to a category and follow a formula.  For example:

My soul takes pleasure in three things,

and they are beautiful in the sight of the Lord and of men:

agreement between brothers, friendship between neighbors,

and a wife and husband who live in harmony.

–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:1, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Numerical proverbs fill Proverbs 30:7-32 and Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:1-12; 26:5; 26:28.

This post focuses on Ben Sira’s attitude toward wives.  A man who lives with an intelligent, sensible wife is happy (25:8).  Biblical happiness is the well-being which comes with divine blessing or as divine reward for righteousness.  That definition comes from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible:  An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, E-J (1962), 523.  Residing with an intelligent, sensible wife is a blessed state, we read.  Who can argue with that?

Then we turn to 25:13 and start reading.  A bad or evil wife is like a wild animal–and more dangerous than one, we read.  Then we read in verse 19 that such a woman’s iniquity exceeds all other forms of iniquity (25:19).  The misogyny deepens after that verse.  For example:

From a woman sin had its beginning,

and because of her we all die.

–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:24, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

According to Ben Sira, men are not responsible for their own sins whenever a woman is in involved.

I understand the alluring power of a woman who is present.  She can be delightful and wonderful.  Yet, when sin arises, she is responsible for her sin and I am responsible for mine.

Then we turn to chapter 26 and read about a man and a good wife, with contrasts with an evil or bad wife.  A good wife is a great blessing.  She rejoices her husband.  She brings cheer to her husband.  Her charms delight her husband.  She is a gift from God.  Presumably, a good wife is not headstrong (26:10).

Ben Sira was a man of his time, place, and culture.  That fact excused nothing inexcusable.  He simultaneously praised women and put them down.

We–both individually and collectively–need to examine ourselves spiritually.  We must question ourselves spiritually.  We must question assumptions we may not recognize as being assumptions.  We need to do something which Ben Sira was loathe to do–question hierarchies–in this case, gender-based ones.  In terms of cultural anthropology, gender is a social construction.  This is a proven fact, not a subjective statement.  One may point to gender roles from one culture to another.  Or one may ponder the third Zuni gender, the Berdaches.  Regardless of how a given culture or society may construct genders, we must guard against inequalities, double standards, and attitudes which blame people unfairly.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF CHARLES FOX, ANGLICAN MISSIONARY IN MELANESIA

THE FEAST OF AARON ROBARTS WOLFE, U.S. PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF JOSEPH GOMER AND MARY GOMER, UNITED BRETHREN MISSIONARIES IN SIERRA LEONE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XVII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 24:1-34

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The contents of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 24:1-34 should sound familiar to scholars and serious students of Hebrew wisdom literature.  There is nothing new here, except phrasing.  Divine wisdom, personified as feminine, is the first creation of God.  Wisdom was present and active in the creation of the world.  This sounds like Proverbs 8:22 so far.  Divine wisdom also exists in the Law of Moses, as in Baruch 3:37-4:1.  Ben Sira could not have imagined the application of this language about divine wisdom to Jesus (John 1 and 1 Corinthians 1:30, minus the Arianism) and the Blessed Mother of God (the “Seat of Wisdom”).

Other parallels exist.  Some of the language echoes praises of the Egyptian goddess Isis.  There are also allusions to Exodus 13:21-22; 14:19-20; and other verses in Proverbs 8 and Baruch 3, among other cultural references.

We read that divine wisdom sought (24:7) and found (24:10-12) a dwelling place among people.  We read language reminiscent of the tent in the wilderness (Exodus 25:8-9).  The author of 1 Enoch took a different position, though:

Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell;

but a place was found (for her) in the heavens.

Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people,

but she found no dwelling place.

(So) Wisdom returned to her place

and she settled permanently among the angels.

Then Iniquity went out of her rooms,

and found whom she did not expect.

And she dwelt with them,

like rain in a desert,

like dew on a thirsty land.

–1 Enoch 42:1-3, translated by E. Isaac

Wisdom is also like six types of trees, we read (24:13-17).  She is like a majestic cedar of Lebanon, a cypress, a palm tree, a rosebush, an olive tree, and a plane tree.  Wisdom, in other words, is like perfumes and spices used to make anointing oil and temple incense; she has priestly attributes.

Wisdom–like Jesus, later, relative to 175 B.C.E.–invites her disciples to approach her and eat their full of her fruit (24:19).

References and allusions to the Hebrew Bible abound.  I choose not to list most or all of them in this post.  I may have even detected one which two commentaries I consulted did not mention.  In Ezekiel 2:3, the scroll of divine judgment tasted sweet as honey.  And we read in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 24:20 that the teaching of divine wisdom is sweeter than honey.

The Christological parallels to divine wisdom interest me more than likening that wisdom to six rivers.  So, I return to Christological parallels.  We read in 24:21 that those who consume the fruit of wisdom will hunger for more wisdom and that those who drink wisdom will thirst for more wisdom.  This is a partial parallel of sorts to a subsequent work, the Gospel of John.  Jesus is the bread from Heaven in John 6:22f.  Yet he, the bread of life, forever quenches the hunger and thirst of all who eat and drink of Jesus (6:35).  And everyone who drinks the living water will never thirst again (John 4:3-14).  Just as the Logos of God (John 1) is greater than yet similar to the wisdom of God, the bread of life and the water of life are greater than yet similar to the fruit and water of wisdom.

We are deep in the territory of metaphors, of course.  Metaphors which differ superficially may point in the same, pious direction.  Seek God and divine wisdom, we read; feast on it.

The human race has nothing to boast about to God, but you, God has made members of Christ Jesus and by God’s doing he has become our wisdom, and our virtue, and our holiness, and freedom.

–1 Corinthians 1:29-30, The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

SEPTEMBER 4, 2023 COMMON ERA

LABOR DAY (U.S.A.)

THE FEAST OF PAUL JONES, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF UTAH, AND PEACE ACTIVIST; AND HIS COLLEAGUE, JOHN NEVIN SAYRE, EPISCOPAL PRIEST AND PEACE ACTIVIST

THE FEAST OF SAINT BIRINUS OF DORCHESTER, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF DORCHESTER, AND “APOSTLE OF WESSEX”

THE FEAST OF E. F. SCHUMACHER,GERMAN-BRITISH ECONOMIST AND SOCIAL CRITIC

THE FEAST OF SAINT GORAZD OF PRAGUE, ORTHODOX BISHOP OF MORAVIA AND SILESIA, METROPOLITAN OF THE CZECH LANDS AND SLOVAKIA, HIERARCH OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA, AND MARTYR, 1942

THE FEAST OF WILLIAM MCKANE, SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND BIBLICAL SCHOLAR

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XVI

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 22:26-23:27

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The flow of the previous section (ending at 22:26) into this section is logical and seamless.  Sometimes the organization of material in wisdom literature is haphazard or seems to be so.  Yet Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, for all its repetition of topics, indicates much attention to arrangement of material.

The unifying theme in this section is self-control or the absence thereof.  This section opens in an oral theme:

O that a guard were set over my mouth, and a seal of prudence upon my lips, that it may keep me from falling, so that my tongue may not destroy me.

–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 22:27, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

The oral theme in 22:27 continues a motif which has been running consistently through this book, especially since chapter 20.

23:2 expands the oral theme to include thoughts and mind.  Speech, thoughts, and the mind need discipline and control.  For, as we think, we are.  For, as we think, we speak, write.  If Ben Sira were to teach in 2023, he would include all writing on the Internet–especially in the comments sections of websites, as well as social media posts–to his lecture about speech.

23:9 cautions against taking oaths.  James L. Crenshaw, writing in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 5 (1997), explains:

Oath-taking alone includes the danger of swearing unknowingly to a lie, using the divine name loosely, and placing oneself in danger through excessive obligations that reduce one to poverty.

–750

“Lewd vulgarity” (23:13) is an ancient vice.  It is also a contemporary vice, of course.  One should never accustom one’s mouth to “lewd vulgarity,” we read.  This becomes a bad habit, into which one may lapse in a circumstance in which one may shame oneself.

We who live in a culture in which the sense of shame has greatly diminished do well (a) to rebuild that sense of shame, and (b) to recall that Ben Sira lived in a context in which the sense of shame was strong.  We who read Ecclesiasticus/Sirach also do well to remember that Ben Sira addressed the sons of the elites of Jerusalem.  Yet minding our vocabulary–regardless of who, when, and where we are–is always sound advice.

An occasional curse word (as in, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” may not hurt, depending on the context.  It may provide a powerful accent.  In one of my favorite movies, The Front (1976), about the Hollywood blacklist during the era of McCarthyism, the titular front tells red-baiting Congressmen what they can do to themselves.  The word fits the situation, and the Congressmen in that scene deserve it.  Yet, when profanity becomes verbal wallpaper, something has gone awry.  And those for whom profanity is verbal wallpaper lack the shame they should feel.

Ben Sira describes “lewd vulgarity” as an “utterance which is comparable to death” (23:12).  (His sense of shame was strong. )  And we read advice which one may legitimately apply today, in a variety of contexts:

A man accustomed to using insulting words

will never become disciplined all his days.

–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 23:15, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

To that sage counsel I add another quote:

…the only man who could reach perfection would be someone who never said anything wrong–he would be able to control every part of himself.

–James 3:2b, The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

By definition, adultery and fornication indicate a lack of self-control.  The consequences of these actions are far-reaching–for all directly involved and often those who did not commit these deeds.  The potential for damage to relationships, families, and bodies is profound.  Much of that potential becomes reality.

And, as Ben Sira has already taught, God is watching us:

…the eyes of the Lord

are ten thousand times brighter than the sun;

they look upon all the ways of men,

and perceive even the hidden places.

-Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 23:10b, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Ben Sira also applies the standard of shame to fornication and idolatry.  That approach works only when the people involved care about what others think of them.

One caveat about social shame as a motivation not to commit an act is that social shame can become a tool of oppression.  I have a healthy sense of rebellion against peer pressure.  I, as a youth, suffered bullying because I was myself; I was different.  “Conform” and “conformity” are the two most profane words in the English language.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that my culture has gone overboard in losing or minimizing its sense of shame.  People should, for example, feel ashamed after blurting out some colorful words, which are needless anyway.  People should feel shame about posting shameful comments on social media outlets.  And, when “Don’t read the comments” has become sound advice at websites, shamelessness indicates that much has gone terribly wrong.

Words and actions matter.  They have the power to damage lives, psyches, and careers.  Sometimes they push vulnerable people into committing suicide.  So, yes, words matter.

Another caveat regarding shaming is when it goes too far.  It we–or a substantial portion of us–blacklist someone forever, without the possibility of forgiveness after that person has repented–we go too far.  In my polarized culture, discerning the boundary which separates proper shaming from an unforgiving spirit can prove difficult, given the din of culture warriors shouting at and insulting each other.  I want to leave the alone and find better, calm company.

Once upon a time, I wanted to prove that I was right  I sought to wield the cudgel of logic and use it to beat those who disagreed with me into mental submission.  I was foolish on more than one front.    I had a negative attitude.  I also failed to consider that employing logic and acts to persuade those who are oblivious to them is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.  And I have learned that I will never win such arguments.  All things considered, I have decided not to bother anymore.  I have realized that life is too short to engage in some pursuits–vain ones, especially.  Besides, someone has to deescalate unilaterally.

Despite the gulf separating Ben Sira from us, he speaks wisely to the people of today in these verses.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK AND REFORMER OF THE CALENDAR

THE FEAST OF DAVID PENDLETON OAKERHATER, CHEYENNE WARRIOR, CHIEF, AND HOLY MAN, AND EPISCOPAL DEACON AND MISSIONARY IN OKLAHOMA

THE FEAST OF SAINT FIACRE, ROMAN CATHOLIC HERMIT

THE FEAST OF FRANÇOIS MAURIAC, FRENCH ROMAN CATHOLIC NOVELIST, CHRISTIAN HUMANIST, AND SOCIAL CRITIC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XV

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 20:1-22:26

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Sin” is a word with more than one definition in the Bible.  In the Johannine school of the New Testament, to sin is not to follow Jesus.  According to the Johannine definition, sin is a theological failure, not a moral one.  Yet, in most of the Bible, sin is a moral failure; it is missing the mark.  This is the definition of sin in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach.

Sin–as a category–may seem abstract.  A sin is not abstract; one can ponder it in a tangible context.  Poetic, symbolic language provides images for sin, though.  In Genesis 4:7, YHWH addresses Cain, about to murder Abel.  YHWH asks Cain:

Why are you angry and downcast?  If you are well-disposed, ought you not to lift up your head?  But if you are ill-disposed, is not sin at the door like a crouching beast hungering for you, which you must master?”

—The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

The poetic image of sin as a hungry, crouching beast waiting to ambush one fits with subsequent Eastern Orthodox theology of sin as an outside, invading force–what people do, not what they are.  Recall, O reader, that Original Sin and Total Depravity are doctrines alien to Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Sin is also a hostile, outside force which attacks, invades, and infiltrates in Romans 6 and 7.  (See Romans 7:17 in particular.)  Similar language for sin as an outside, hostile force exists in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 21, also:

Have you sinned, my son?  Do so no more,

but pray about your former sins.

Flee from sin as from a snake;

for if you approach sin, it will bite you.

Its teeth are lion’s teeth,

and destroy the souls of men.

–21:1-2, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

1 Peter 5:8 likens Satan to a prowling, roaring lion in search of someone to devour.

Ecclesiaticus/Sirach understands sin to be lawlessness (21:3):

All lawlessness is like a two-edged sword;

there is no healing for its wound.

—Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

This symbolic speech is reminiscent of Proverbs 5:4, which describes a loose woman as being as sharp as a two-edged sword.  And, of course, the word of God–that which God says–cuts like a two-edged sword in Hebrews 4:12.  The two-edged sword is a vivid metaphor.

When we sin against others, we may inflict lasting damage upon them.  The legacies of childhood bullies may persist well into adulthood, for example.  And one may learn from the examples of friends and relatives of murder victims and perceive partially how deep those emotional and spiritual wounds go.  So, I do not minimize the harm people can inflict upon each other.

I refuse to flee from the word “sin.”  I do seek, however, to apply it accurately.  I have a theory that sinning requires one to be in one’s right mind.  This is not a hypothetical scenario for me; I grieve my girlfriend,  who chose her time, place, and manner of death.  I grasp that mental illness clouded her mind at the time.  And I attest that the grief I carry for her feels like the wounds from a two-edged sword (not that anyone has stabbed me with a two-edged sword).  These wounds may never heal.

The way of sinners is smooth, we read in 21:10.  This may be a sly reference to Roman roads.  Or it may refer to a generic path–in this case, to an early death.  Recall, O reader, that Ben Sira did not believe in an afterlife.

The wise and the foolish belong to spiritual and moral categories.  The wise live in reverence of God and control their thoughts.  The keep the divine Law of Moses, according to Ben Sira.  They behave cautiously and respectfully.  And, although a wise man increases in knowledge like a flood, the mind of a fool is vacant, like an empty jar (21:14).  Furthermore, a wise man’s mouth is in his mind yet the the mind of a fool is in his mouth (21:26).

That last sentence has aged well, especially in the age of social media.

The Church has long called Sirach “Ecclesiasticus,” or “Church Book,” due to its value for moral instruction.  Most of the contents of the portion of the book for this post prove the wisdom of that point.

The language about an undisciplined son (22:3) balances the language regarding an imprudent daughter (22:5) and a shameful wife (22:4).  So, the misogyny factor is low in 22:3-5.

However, the meditation on the value of friendship is timeless.  And the condemnation of the indolent is vivid:

The indolent may be compared to a filthy stone,

and everyone hisses at his disgrace.

The indolent may be compared to the filth of dunghills;

anyone that picks it up will shake it off his hand.

–22:1-2, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Ben Sira knew how to turn phrases effectively.  And he addressed the wealthy sons of the elites of Jerusalem, circa 175 B.C.E.  Some of them may have been lazy.  Complaints about the idle rich are as old as antiquity.

Also, context is crucial.  One could ignore the context and mistake 22:1-2 for a condemnation of the lazy poor.  (In fact, the poor have long been some of the hardest working people within economic systems rigged against them.)  But, when one considers whom Ben Sira addressed, 22:1-2 takes on its intended meaning.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 31, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT NICODEMUS, DISCIPLE OF JESUS

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XIV

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 18:15-19:30

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before I analyze these verses, I remind the readers yet again of the original audience for Ecclesiasticus/Sirach:  the sons of the elites of Jerusalem (then within the borders of the Seleucid Empire) circa 175 B.C.E.  Some social mores of that time and place differ from standards which you, O reader, may find acceptable.  Some violate my standards.  And the reflexive tendency of many well-meaning translators to neuter men and sons into people and children distorts the meaning of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, a product of a patriarchal culture.  Nevertheless, many of these teachings easily translate into modern settings.

Yet we may legitimately argue with some points, patriarchy among them.  There are so many points with which to argue.  Consider 18:21, for example, O reader:

Before falling ill, humble yourself,

and when you are on the point of sinning, turn back.

—Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

This verse reflects an understanding of illness as divine punishment for sin(s).  The New Testament quotes Jesus as refuting this assumption.  The Book of Job argues against a simplistic theory of divine retribution until the final few verses, which comprise the tacked-on ending.  Yet that theory, in its simplistic form, does find affirmation in the Hebrew canon of scripture.  Furthermore, this theory of retribution, in its simplistic form, remains ubiquitous as I type these words.

Regarding another point, 19:2 is openly misogynistic.

Wine and women lead intelligent men astray,

and the man who consorts with harlots is very reckless.

—Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

19:2 is half right; a man who consorts with harlots is reckless.  Also, alcohol abuse leads one astray.  Yet no woman is responsible for a man’s unwillingness or inability to control himself sexually.

Despite these critiques, I affirm most of Ecclesiastes/Sirach 18:15-19:30.  The bulk of these verses requires no explanation; their truth is obvious.  Gossip is bad.  One should never make baseless accusations.  One should eschew base desire and control appetites.  One should resist materialism and greed.  These teachings are common sense.  Yet, as many people say, common sense is frequently rare.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 22, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF JACK LAYTON, CANADIAN ACTIVIST AND FEDERAL LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

THE FEAST OF JOHN DAVID CHAMBERS, ANGLICAN HYMN WRITER AND TRANSLATOR

THE FEAST OF SAINTS HRYHORII KHOMYSHYN, SYMEON LUKACH, AND IVAN SLEZYUK, UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND MARTYRS, 1947, 1964, AND 1973

THE FEAST OF SAINTS JOHN KEMBLE AND JOHN WALL, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND MARTYRS, 1679

THE FEAST OF SAINTS THOMAS PERRY, RICHARD KIRKMAN, AND WILLIAM LACEY, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYRS, 1572 AND 1582

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XIII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 16:24-18:14

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben Sira, true to his Jewish theological tradition, understands God as having created order from chaos in Genesis 1:1-2:4a.  Chaos is an enemy of gods in ancient Near Eastern mythology.  More than one ancient myth depicts a deity as fighting then defeating chaos and/or an agent of it.  In the Hebrew Bible–Psalms and Job, especially–YHWH vanquishes all the enemies those gods defeated.  These passages which emphasize divine order in nature and YHWH’s victory over the foes of Marduk or whichever deity it was in a given myth teach us of the sovereignty and universality of God.

The focus on collective righteousness and sinfulness is thoroughly Jewish and Biblical.  Yet it is alien to much of the population of my culture, fixated on rugged individualism.  Of course, as we have read, Ben Sira did not ignore individual moral responsibility before God either.  Yet, as we have seen, the author contextualized the individual aspect within the communal aspect.  We of contemporary times would do well to follow this pattern, in mutuality.

We also read of the balance of divine judgment and mercy (17:19f).  God punishes sins–in this life only, according to Ben Sira, who did not believe in an afterlife.  God also forgives sins and welcomes penitence and penitents, we read.

Turn to the Lord and forsake your sins;

pray in his presence and lessen offenses.

Return to the Most High and turn away from iniquity,

and hate abominations intensely.

Know the justice and the judgments of God,

and stood firm the lot that is set before you,

in prayer to God, the Almighty.

–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 17:25-26, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Version (2002)

“You” and “your” are singular in these verses.  I know; I checked two French translations–La Bible de Jérusalem (1999) and La Bible en français courant (1996).

God is powerful and supreme.  God surpasses human beings–“dust and ashes” (17:32b).  And tracing the wonders of the Lord is impossible.  God continues forever, but people die.  Their lifespans–even the relatively long ones–are long.  And God is more merciful than people.

The compassion of man is for his neighbor,

but the comparison of the Lord is for all living beings.

He rebukes and trains and teaches them,

and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock.

He has compassion on those who accept his discipline

and who are eager for his judgments.

–18:13-14, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Two words stand out in my mind.  The first word is “rebuke.”  In the Hebrew Bible, only YHWH has the authority to rebuke someone else.  This is a point which Foster R. McCurley, Jr., makes in Ancient Myths and Biblical Faith:  Scriptural Transformations (1983; reprint, 2007), 46.   People in the Hebrew Bible may rebuke others, but they lack the authority to do so.  Jude 9 reinforces this point in an allusion to the Assumption of Moses; even the archangel Michael did not presume to rebuke Satan.  No, Michael said:

May the Lord rebuke you!

—The New American Bible–Revised Edition (2011)

The Synoptic Gospels mention Jesus rebuking demons and unclean spirits, mostly–and occasionally, wind, a fever, and people.  Jesus rebukes twelve times in the Synoptic Gospels:

• Matthew 8:26; 17:18;
• Mark 1:25; 4:39; 8:33; 9:25;
• Luke 4:35, 39; 4:41; 8:24; 9:42, 55.

Jesus, of course, had the divine authority to rebuke.

Lest I pick Biblical cherries and report incompletely, I point out the following examples from the New Testament:

• St. Simon Peter rebuked Jesus in Matthew 16:22 and Mark 8:32.  One can argue that the apostle did what he lacked the authority to do, though.
• Luke 17:3 quotes Jesus as authorizing the rebuking of a sinner, to inspire repentance.
• When we turn to epistles which bear the name of St. Paul the Apostle yet postdate him, we find three examples.  We read counsel to rebuke those who persist in sin (1 Timothy 5:20).  2 Timothy 4:2 lists rebuking as a duty, alongside tasks including preaching, exhorting and teaching patiently.  Titus 1:13 orders St. Titus to rebuke Cretans–“liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”–“that they may be sound in the faith.”
• Luke 3:19 tells us that St. John the Baptist had rebuked Herod Antipas “because of Herodias.”
• Luke 23:40 tells us that the penitent insurrectionist–St. Dismas, according to tradition–rebuke of the impenitent rebel–Gestus, according to tradition–who was mocking Jesus.
• 2 Peter 2:16, using the divine passive voice, tells us that God rebuked Balaam in Numbers 22:21-40.

So, according to the New Testament, people may legitimately rebuke each other sometimes.  The severity of rebuking someone–as opposed to merely telling someone off–is vital to remember when considering this matter.  People know partially, but God knows fully.

The second word is “discipline.”  Discipline is not abuse.  No, the purpose of discipline is to correct behavior.  Divine discipline is a recurring theme in Hebrew wisdom literature.  For example, we read in Wisdom of Solomon 3:5 that God disciplines the righteous.  (The context in the Wisdom of Solomon is persecution–also present in the background of the Hebrew and Greek versions of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach.)  Suffering–which God has not caused–becomes a method of spiritual discipline.

That may seem odd.  Yet it makes sense to me.  Suffering has improved my spiritual life and transformed me for the better.  The suffering was not the work of God, but the positive effects of the suffering were the work of God.  Perhaps you, O reader, can identify examples of this principle in your life or in the life of someone you know or have known.  I have found that the light of God seems to shine brighter the darker one’s circumstances become.

Another point regarding discipline is that a loving parent or guardian disciplines a child.  The lack of discipline does that child–or anyone else–no favors.  Discipline is necessary for the individual and collective good.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 22, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF JACK LAYTON, CANADIAN ACTIVIST AND FEDERAL LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

THE FEAST OF JOHN DAVID CHAMBERS, ANGLICAN HYMN WRITER AND TRANSLATOR

THE FEAST OF SAINTS HRYHORII KHOMYSHYN, SYMEON LUKACH, AND IVAN SLEZYUK, UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND MARTYRS, 1947, 1964, AND 1973

THE FEAST OF SAINTS JOHN KEMBLE AND JOHN WALL, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND MARTYRS, 1679

THE FEAST OF SAINTS THOMAS PERRY, RICHARD KIRKMAN, AND WILLIAM LACEY, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYRS, 1572 AND 1582

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 14:20-16:23

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben Sira encouraged his pupils–young men, sons of the elites of Jerusalem, circa 175 B.C.E.–to pursue wisdom.  Some of the teacher’s metaphorical language may seem creepy.  He urged his students to pursue Lady Wisdom like a hunter (14:22), peer through her windows (14:23), listen at her doors (14:23), and camp immediately outside her house (14:24).  One, taking figurative language literally, could easily find oneself in legal difficulty.  Yet:

The man who fears the Lord will do this,

and he who holds to the law will obtain wisdom.

–15:1, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Then Lady Wisdom, in mixed metaphors, will simultaneously be like the man’s mother and young wife (15:2).  (Did I mention creepy metaphors?)  Yet liars never think of Lady Wisdom, far from “men of pride” (15:8).

The Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002) is a useful translation to consult when seeking to determine literal Biblical pronouns.  The translation retains all the masculine pronouns.  I, as a student of the past, find such a translation essential, for I seek to know what a text says–down to the pronouns.  I can interpret a text in context.  In this case, the context is patriarchy, of which I am not fond.  Yet the text says what it says.  Neutering gendered pronouns in ancient texts distorts the meaning of those texts.

As we continue to read, we find a repetition of the Biblical principle that God never commands anyone to sin (15:11-20).  The language evokes words placed inside the mouth of Moses.  We have the power to obey divine commandments.  (Original Sin is Western Christian, not Jewish, theology.)  And disobeying the divine commandments leads to negative consequences (Deuteronomy 11:26-28).  This is standard Deuteronomistic theology.  Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 15:11-20 also echoes Habakkuk 2:4; human faithfulness justifies people before God.  (Ben Sira was a pre-Christian Jew, not a Protestant.  Neither were Moses, Habakkuk, and the Deuteronomists Protestants.)

Given that Ben Sira rejected any belief in the afterlife, he affirmed that immortality (as it was) came via reproduction.  So, his advice in 16:1-5 is especially striking.  One faithful child is better than a thousand faithless offspring, and dying childless is better than having ungodly children (16:3).  Such unrighteous progeny damage societies and bring down the wrath of God upon populations, we read.  Yet God balances judgment and mercy:

As great as his mercy, so great is also his reproof;

he judges a man according to his deeds.

The sinner will not escape with his plunder;

and the patience of the godly will not be frustrated.

He will make room for every act of mercy;

every one will receive in accordance with his deeds.

–16:12-14, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Ben Sira channeled Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who spoke for God in the context of the Babylonian Exile and the build-up to it.  Jeremiah and Ezekiel contradicted intergenerational punishment (Exodus 20:5) and offered hope to an audience which sorely needed it.  God judges you based on you, not on your ancestors, they proclaimed.  You can have a fresh start, even in these troubled times, the two prophets proclaimed.  Ezekiel 18 and 34:10-20, as well as Jeremiah 31:27-30, are representative texts.

…but all shall die because of their own iniquity….

–Jeremiah 31:30a, The New American Bible–Revised Edition (2011)

One may legitimately critique the theology of divine retribution, reduced to a simplistic, transactional principle.  The Book of Job questions it until the tacked-on ending of that text.

The range of verses for this post concludes with a reminder that God sees all that we do.

Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid:  Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

—The Book of Common Prayer (1979), 355

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 21, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST  OF SAINT BRUNO ZEMBOL, POLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC FRIAR AND MARTYR, 1942

THE FEAST OF SAINTS CAMERIUS, CISELLUS, AND LUXORIUS OF SARDINIA, MARTYRS, 303

THE FEAST OF THE MARTYRS OF EDESSA, CIRCA 304

THE FEAST OF SAINT MAXIMILIAN OF ANTIOCH, MARTYR, CIRCA 353; AND SAINTS BONOSUS AND MAXIMIANUS THE SOLDIER, MARTYRS, 362

THE FEAST OF SAINT VICTOIRE RASOAMANARIVO, MALAGASY ROMAN CATHOLIC LAYWOMAN

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XI

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 11:29-14:19

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some scoundrels seem like friends; they depend upon the naivëté and good nature of pious people.  The imagery in 11:29-12:9, with its seemingly harsh language, recalls a hunter’s technique of placing a bird into a cage to lure other birds.  The text cautions the audience–originally, sons of the elites of Jerusalem, circa 175 B.C.E.–not to fall into such traps and to aid and abet predators.

Cultural references abound in the Bible.  12:10-12, for example, refers to a tarnished pot or a “magic mirror.”  The pot or mirror , when polished, revealed the identity of a friend, according to folk belief.  Recall, O reader, that the mirror in these verses was metal and that it revealed a less detailed reflection than our glass mirrors do.  Furthermore, Ben Sira refers to the right hand–the hand of honor in that culture.  Ben Sira urges protecting the right hand from imposters.  He also urges being careful–metaphorically, keeping the mirror polished constantly.

By the way, the right hand was the hand of honor because, in that cultural milieu, one used the left hand for hygienic purposes.

Chapter 13 changes the topic to the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.  This is a timeless pattern, sadly.  The historical setting resembles much of the world today–a small upper class, a vast lower class, and a tiny middle class.  The wealthy increase their wealth via exploitation.  Their greed and lack of human concern violates the Biblical principle of mutuality, which allows no moral license for exploitation.

Riches are good if they are free from sin,

and poverty is evil in the opinion of the ungodly.

–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 13:24, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Some wealthy people are amoral or immoral predators.  Others, however, accept that riches and privilege impose upon them greater responsibility than they would have otherwise.  They understand that they must do more to help because they can do more to help.  Money and other forms of wealth are morally neutral, but uses of attitudes toward wealth are not morally neutral.  And greed is the root of all evil.

Recall, also, O reader, that Ben Sira rejected any belief in the afterlife.  So, he taught that wealth was transitory and that how one behaved toward God and other people mattered much more than riches.  He reminded his pupils that others would inherit their wealth.  Koheleth had made the same point in Ecclesiastes.

As I ponder Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 14:11-19, I detect the vibe of Ecclesiastes–enjoy life while you can–that is, before you die.  But enjoy life properly, in the awe of God.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 17, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAMUEL JOHNSON, CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER, ANGLICAN PRIEST, PRESIDENT OF KING’S COLLEGE, “FATHER OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN CONNECTICUT,” AND “FATHER OF AMERICAN LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION;” TIMOTHY CUTLER, CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER, ANGLICAN PRIEST, AND RECTOR OF YALE COLLEGE; DANIEL BROWNE, EDUCATOR, CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER, AND ANGLICAN PRIEST; AND JAMES WETMORE, CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER AND ANGLICAN PRIEST

THE FEAST OF THE BAPTISMS OF MANTEO AND VIRGINIA DARE, 1587

THE FEAST OF SAINT EUSEBIUS OF ROME, BISHOP OF ROME, AND MARTYR, 310

THE FEAST OF GEORGE CROLY, ANGLICAN PRIEST, POET, HISTORIAN, NOVELIST, DRAMATIST, THEOLOGIAN, AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF WILLIAM JAMES EARLY BENNETT, ANGLICAN PRIEST

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART X

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 11:2-28

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When we recall that Ben Sira (a) taught the sons of Jerusalem’s elite circa 175 B.C.E., and (b) rejected any belief in the afterlife, the original context of 11:2-28 comes into sharp focus.  Wealth, power, and social status may come and go.  Adversity may replace easy living and peacetime.  And, given the rejection of an afterlife, divine rewards and punishments occur in this life.

God is sovereign, Ben Sira reminds us down the corridors of time:

Good things and bad, life and death,

poverty and wealth, come from the Lord.

–11:14, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Classic retribution theory follows.  One can easily imagine the so-called friends of Job speaking 11:17f, thereby tormenting the suffering man with their idiotic theodicy.  One may also assume safely that Ben Sira had read Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.  Yet the essence of Job and Ecclesiastes is absent here and elsewhere in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, as in most of Proverbs.  Ecclesiasticus/Sirach and Proverbs belong to one strain of Judaism.  Job and Ecclesiastes belong to a competing strain of Judaism.

Despite my critique of Ben Sira’s theology, I recognize that he was correct much of the time.  For example, verses 25-27 tell us that people forget adversity in the day of prosperity and forget luxury in the hour of misery.  How can one argue with that?  Human experience confirms this observation.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 16, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF JOHN DIEFENBAKER AND LESTER PEARSON, PRIME MINISTERS OF CANADA; AND TOMMY DOUGLAS, FEDERAL LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CANADA

THE FEAST OF SAINT ALIPIUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF TAGASTE, AND FRIEND OF SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO

THE FEAST OF JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, U.S. ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST AND THEOLOGIAN

THE FEAST OF JOHN JONES OF TALYSARN, WELSH CALVINISTIC METHODIST MINISTER AND HYMN TUNE COMPOSER

THE FEAST OF MATTHIAS CLAUDIUS, GERMAN LUTHERAN WRITER

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++