“The Law, the Prophets, and the Other Books of the Fathers” (Sir, Prologue) Canonical Lists in Ben Sira and Elsewhere?

“THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, AND THE OTHER BOOKS OF THE FATHERS” (SIR, PROLOGUE) CANONICAL LISTS IN BEN SIRA AND ELSEWHERE?

Armin Lange (University of Vienna)

Since the beginnings of critical research in the book of Ecclesiasticus, scholars understood its Greek prologue as referring to the three parts of the later Hebrew canon1 or to a comparable tripartite collection of scriptures.2

1 See e.g H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (ed. R.R. Ottley, with an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas by H.S.T. Thackeray, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1902) 24; A. Eberharter, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira: Auf Grund der Beziehungen des Sirachbuches zu den Schriften des A. T. dargestellt (ATA 3.3, Münster: Aschendorff 1911) 2-4, 52-54; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenarten Qumrānschriften: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten Tes- taments (3rd ed., Neue theologische Grundrisse, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1964) 766-67; J.C.H. Lebram, “Aspekte der alttestamentlichen Kanonbildung,” VT 18 (1968) 173-89, 175; J.G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach (CBC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1974) 8; S.Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (TCAAS 47, Hamden: Archon Books 1976) 29; R.A.F. MacKenzie, Sirach (OTM 19, Wilmington: Glazier 1983) 20-21; R.T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK 1985) 110-11; idem, “The Formation of the Hebrew Bible,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (eds. M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling, CRINT 2.1, Assen: Van Gorcum 1988) 39-86, 52; H. Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien (2nd ed., Giessen: Brunnenverlag 1992), 138-39; H.M. Orlinsky, “Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon,” JBL 110 (1991) 483-90; L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: JPS 1994) 164; H.-J. Fabry, “Die Qumrantexte und das biblische Kanonproblem,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wir- kung: Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1999) 251-71, 252, 266; P. Brandt, Endgestalten des Kanons: Das Arrangement der Schriften Israels in der jüdischen und christlichen Bibel (BBB 131, Berlin: Philo 2001) 69-70, 121; G. Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2Chronik (BBB 93, Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum 1995) 512; G. Sauer, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira: Übersetzt und erklärt (ATD Apokryphen 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000) 37-38; J. Marböck, “Text und Übersetzung—Horizonte einer Ausle- 56 ARMIN LANGE

Good examples are the commentary of Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella and the remarks of James C. VanderKam:

Here for the first time mention is made of the threefold division of the OT: the Law, Heb tôrâ,= the Prophets, Heb nĕbî’îm, and “the later authors,” or the other books of our ancestors”…, or “the rest of the books”… The third division, referred to in a somewhat general way by the grandson, came to be known later as the Writings, Heb kĕtûbîm. The Jews today still use these three divisions, calling the OT as a whole Tanak…3 These statements show that the grandson was obviously familiar with a threefold division of the ancestral books, a division not dissimilar from the later law-prophets-writings arrangement of the Hebrew Bible.4

Alternatively, the prologue to Ecclesiasticus was read as referring to a bipar- tite canon of law and prophets (sometimes regarded as not closed) while the other books mentioned would designate non-canonical Jewish texts.5

gung im Prolog zum Griechischen Sirach,” in Horizonte biblischer Texte, FS J.M. Oesch (OBO 196, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg 2003) 109-11. 2 A.G. Sundberg, “The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism,” in The Canon Debate (eds. L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders, Peabody: Hendrickson 2002) 68-90, 80- 81; idem, The Old Testament of the Early Church (HTS 20, Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press 1964) 67-69; A. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and Hasmonean Politics,” in The Biblical Canons (eds. J.-M. Auwers and H.J. de Jonge, BETL 163, Leuven: Peeters 2003) 27-38; cf. idem, “The Canonization of Ancient Books Kept in the Temple of Jerusalem,” in Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997 (eds. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn, SHR 82, Leiden: Brill 1998) 17-40, 23-24. 3 P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39, New York: Doubleday 1987) 133. 4 J.C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in idem, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62, Leiden: Brill 2000) 1-30, 6; cf. also idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1994) 143-44. 5 See e.g. H. Graetz, Kohelet tlhq oder der Salomonische Prediger: Übersetzt und Kri- tisch Erläutert (Leipzig: Winter 1871) 151-52; T.N. Swanson, The Closing of the Collection of Holy Scriptures: A Study in the History of the Canonization of the Old Testament (Ph.D. diss., Nashville: Vanderbilt University 1970) 125-31; J. Barton, Oracles of God: Percep- tions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (New York: Oxford University Press 1986) 47-48; J.G. Campbell, “4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon,” JSJ 51 (2000) 181-90, 187: J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “Origins of a Tripartite Old Testament Canon,” in The Canon Debate, 128-45, 129; P. Flint, “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds. S.M. Paul et al., VTSup 94, Leiden: Brill 2003) 269-304, 280; E. Ulrich, “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003) 202-14, 211-13; idem, “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament,” in The Biblical Canons, 57-80, 71.