Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach ed. by Bonifatia Gesche et al.

Abstract

Reviewed by: Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach ed. by Bonifatia Gesche et al. David Skelton bonifatia gesche, christian lustig, and gabriel rabo (eds.), Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach (SCS 73; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020). Pp. x + 322. Paper $49. This is the second book of collected essays coming out of an international Ben Sira conference funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Unlike the first volume (Gerhard Karner, Frank Ueberschaer, and Burkard M. Zapff [eds.], Text and Contexts of the Book of Sirach [SCS 66; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017]), which concentrated on the textual history of the book, this volume emphasizes anthropology, cosmology, and pedagogy. The collection has twelve essays in total, half of which are in German. Among the authors, only four are women, which is odd since there is large pool of women to draw from in Europe in terms of Sirach scholarship. There may have been room for a more balanced publication in terms of gender if some of the same names did not appear in this volume as in the previous one. This is to say nothing about the quality of the essays. Reshuffling the same deck of voices is an issue with the proceedings volume format in general. Nevertheless, all the essays in this work are strong, which I will now review in turn thematically rather than in sequential order. The essays by Markus Witte ("Menschenbilder des Sirachbuches"), Franz Böhmisch, ("Anthropologie bei Ben Sira im Zusammenspiel von und "), and Burkard M. Zapff ("Anthropologische Konzepte der biblischen Urgeschichte bei Jesus Sirach") all emphasize the value of a synoptic approach to the study of Ben Sira. This is not surprising, considering their roles in editing a synoptic edition of the book for a DFG project. Witte elaborates how complicated and multivalent the picture of humanity is in Ben Sira, particularly when the different versions (Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin) are taken into account. The Syriac and especially the Latin have more direct allusions to the NT as well as direct references to humanity's eschatological fate, whereas the Hebrew and Greek have a more traditional view of death and reflect more clearly the importance of humanity imitating the image of God. Böhmisch uses the Syriac version and a medieval paraphrase of Sirach 22–23 to demonstrate that the term yeṣer is not demonic or polarized in Ben Sira but is always an inner psychological state overcome only with wisdom from God. Zapff outlines all the allusions to Genesis 1–3 and their differences among the versions. For example, in 17:3 the LXX emphasizes the image of God (so see Witte), whereas the Syriac sees God's clothing humanity as a metaphor for receiving strength and wisdom. In all versions, there is a "creatio continua" between humanity's recent struggles with sin, death, and creation. Rather than a "fall," knowledge of good and evil is a gift of God. Much of this reading is not new, and it is surprising that Zapff does not mention 4QInstruction or the excellent [End Page 344] examinations of Sirach 17 by some others. Zapff does helpfully suggest that, if one reads Sirach as having a consistent theology, then Sir 25:24 can refer to Eve only as a paradigm of sin and death rather than as the exact cause of it. In a similar vein, Anthony Forte ("Male and Female in Ben Sira: What the Text Does and Does Not Say [Sir 25:13–26:18]") argues that Ben Sira is not a misogynist but simply criticizes women from a male perspective in an attempt to protect the vulnerability of his male, scribal audience. There are many problems with this reading, not the least of which is that it does not engage in any meaningful way with the excellent feminist critique of Claudia Camp (Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books: Gender and the Rise of Canon-Consciousness [HBM 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013]) regarding Ben Sira's hyper-sensitivity toward daughters and his desire to control their bodies. No feminist reading denies that Ben Sira views good women as those advantageous to men and bad women as those who threaten men...