Talk:Sirach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

"The surname Sira means "the thorn" in Aramaic. The Greek form, Sirach, adds the letter chi. This was fairly common practice, as in the name in Luke 3:26 or Hakeldamach in Acts 1:19."

Luke 3:26 refers to Iōsēph which really obvious scribal errors have given as Iōsēch in some manuscripts, this isn't an example of an chi being used for an aleph as in ben Sira. Although the damach for dama does look like something similar. Kuratowski's Ghost 7 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

There does exist one later Midrash which quotes an account of the prophet Ezekiel taking a bath in Babylonia, whereupon a small amount of his sperm remains in the bathwater which impregnates the next bather; this is quoted as the parentage of Ben Sira. This text raises many difficulties (not to mention simply the technical improbability of such an event): the chronology here would put Ben Sira several centuries earlier than the general account; too early, in fact, for some of the Hebrew found in the text. As this is one isolated Midrash found only in later sources and not in the Talmud, most Judaic scholars would not hold it as binding. One possible non-literal interpretation of this Midrash would be as follows: in Judaism, Ezekiel is considered to have the "weakest" prophetic experience, bordering on merely "divine inspiration" ('ruach hakodesh') such as the visions of Daniel (who was not a 'prophet' per se). While Ben Sira is considered a work of wisdom, Judaism rejects the notion of his work being "divinely inspired" (and therefore it is excluded from Biblical canon). Thus, the Midrashic passage could simply be saying "Ben Sira's level of divine inspiration could not even be considered illegitimate offspring of a lower prophet!"

I leave it up to others to decide whether to quote the above difficult Midrash and, if so, whether to quote my reading of it (which as of now remains my own conjecture). If this is considered a sufficiently minority opinion to merit leaving it out entirely, I'd certainly understand.

Lastly, whether Ben Sira is Jeshua son of Shim'on or vice versa, it makes sense why he came to be known as simply "the son of Sira": the name Jeshua fell out of favor among Jews with the advent of Christianity; and the name Shim'on was so common at the time that it would be dropped. For example, the Talmudic scholars known as "Ben Zoma", "Ben Azai", and "Ben Beteirah" were all Shim'ons. (But again, that's my own speculation, so you can include it if you like, or leave it out.)

This comment has piqued my curiosity. What is it that one must have in order to be a true prophet, other than "divine inspiration?" --Reuben 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A prophet must be tested by repeatedly predicting an unlikely future event with accuracy.

In response to the author above I present the possibility that the current Ben Sira is a knockoff of the original. This would agree with those who see it as a compilation, and its apparent agreement with other text.

Contents 1 Request for page expansion 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.2 Discussion 3 Further discussion

[edit] Request for page expansion

I am removing the request for expansion tag that was placed at the top of the page in January 2007. I searched the Wiki central list of requests for expansion and found no remarks there concerning this page; nor does there seem to be an explanation of the request on this discussion page. The current article seems of reasonable length and detail. If somebody wants it expanded, of course feel free to re-tag the article, but please also explain in what way you believe it should be expanded. (Sorry if there already is an explanation of the request and I just missed it.) - Practical123 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Further discussion

For whoever concerned, I wasn't entirely sure there was consensus for the move and would be open to it being moved back or somewhere else or kept at Sirach, pending further discussion. And your addition to the article was really good Dampino. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I feel the move was executed too hastily, and with very little serious reason. Move should be reverted.Dampinograaf (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be separated as it is in the French WP. Thank you for pointing that out, by the way. And I think the author's article should be "Ben Sira", and the book's should be "Sirach". I don't think we should call the book's article Ben Sira because then what are we going to call his article? And I think the argument that we should call the book's article Ben Sira because that was the Hebrew original is weak; it doesn't seem to have been known until his grandson translated it into Greek. And it Greek it is known as Sirach. It is known through the LXX, isn't accepted as canonical by Judaism, so why should we use the less-used Hebrew name for it, when we can use the common Greek name? Also, I think it is better to used Sirach than Ecclesiasticus, because Ecclesiasticus is Latin, so I highly doubt the Eastern Christians know it as this; ergo Sirach is less embedded with POV. Please everyone, let me know what you think about these ideas, and why. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well its been nearly a week, and no one's commented, so I'm going ahead with it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I thought "Ecclesiasticus" was much clearer to show it means the Book, but your argument sounds fine, regarding to NPOV. As for Eastern Church view, while there is no overwhelming consistency, we can refer that lxx.org, which is working on Eastern Orthodox Canonical English Translation of the Bible, refers to the book as "Wisdom of Sirach [1]". --Aphaia (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lxx.org info, Aphaia; that's interesting. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)