This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 29 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sirach to Book of Sirach. The result of the discussion was moved. |
"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.)
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.
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)
consensus to move page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ben Sira → Sirach — More common name. That, or to Ecclesiasticus. — SigPig | SEND - OVER 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I'm poking my head in from WP:RM. There seems to be a consensus for a move, but not for which of the two titles are preferred. Please clarify where the page should be moved through further discussion. Vassyana ( talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Septen: From your comment, you feel that Sirach is used of the author, and not of the book. This is why you do not want it moved to Sirach?
Spartan: Why do you prefer Ecclesiasticus to Sirach?
Carl.bunderson ( talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
For the information of those who take part in this discussion: The French Wikipedia has two distinct articles: fr:Ben Sira on the author and fr:Siracide on the book.
Whatever the decision on a possible split of the article, I suggest that either the whole or otherwise the part concerning the book should retain the present title, since it refers to the Hebrew original. Please refer to the section I added on "Title and versions".
Dampinograaf ( talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I don't really understand what the bit about Chadwick's claim is. Is this misquoted? We shall compare the verses: Matthew 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (NIV) Sirach 51:27 "See for yourselves! I have labored only a little, but have found much." ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.32.223 ( talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just spent some time cleaning up the citations, and where possible cite checking for the principle cited. I note that some of the text is directly from the public domain "Sirach, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of" entry in the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. I also note that in the New World Encyclopedia entry under "Ben Sira" it says: New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. Apparently this was done as of September 2007; after which point the two articles diverge. I was unable to check the source: "Amidah", entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing. I am not sure what private prayer has do with this article, except for, perhaps, the unanswered prayer that Philippe Guillaume suggests helps date the work. I note that it was added in an edit of 18 May 2003 by RK. I am tempted to leave that source out, but will let any of you provide some help regarding it before I do. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
23: [30] This man shall be punished in the streets of the city, and he shall be chased as a colt: and where he suspected not, he shall be taken.
[31] And he shall be in disgrace with all men, because he understood not the fear of the Lord.
This means Jesus Christ is not the son of god (the lord, a talking fire) but IS jesum christum dominum nostrum (god the creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.198.36 ( talk) 03:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
For these reasons:
1) There is no reason given to think that the Jews were unaware of the Hebrew-original of Sirach at the time of the formation of their canon (late first century). Indeed, it seems likely that they were aware of it, given the dates of the Hebrew manuscripts mentioned in the article.
2) The source cited says nothing about Sirach on page 241. Presumably the correct citation is to page 222:
Clearly this is not support for the claim that Jews or Protestants rejected Sirach because they didn't know there was a Hebrew original!
Gmoothart ( talk) 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Please Restore or Make Better.
References
This article italicizes the names of books of the Bible throughout. E.g., Matthew. This is idiosyncratic; such book names are not italicized in standard English nor indeed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Unless anyone has a good reason to leave the italics, I think we should remove them throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsquire3 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The name Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira spans four generations. That is, Shimon was the great-grandson of Sira. If Shimon wrote Ecclesiasticus, why is Sira credited as author? Was Shimon (or Yeshua?) in fact the one who translated the original Hebrew (written by Sira) into Greek? Or was the name Sira used simply out of familial respect? The unnamed translator, in his Prologue, credits his grandfather, Yeshua son of Eliezer, with authorship. And, where is the name, Shimon, found? Exposition of details such as these might help readers sort through a plethora of theories regarding the book. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The Name of the Book Should read, The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach or " Ecclesiasticus" and no the "Book of", = I've got three Original Bibles open in front of me. NRSV, 1611 Authorized by his Majesty, 1582 Douai Rheims Bible = All three says the title is The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiasticus-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/
In order to reach a wider audience, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Page move request for Sirach. Dougweller ( talk) 11:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Mishnah Kiddushin 4:14 Miistermagico ( talk) 21:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't Weiſsheit be re-written rather as Weißheit or Weiſsheit than as Weissheit? The original writing does not use ⟨ss⟩, but ⟨ſs⟩, which later formed the ligature ⟨ß⟩. Galtzaile ( talk) 15:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The section on canonicity has a reference to "Catalogue of Cheltenham" which links to the city of that name. What's the "Catalogue of Cheltenham"? I am not a subject matter expert but cannot see this anywhere? Vandalism? Missing link? Rob Burbidge ( talk) 19:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Keeping the redirect Sirach to the book for now, so as not to break all incoming links since there is not a strong consensus to change it. I suggest a separate WP:RfD discussion to change that. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sirach → Book of Sirach – Every other Biblical book page is on this format. Having the book be "Sirach" and the person be "ben Sira" makes no sense, these are just alternate spellings and this is not how any source distinguishes the book from the person. GordonGlottal ( talk) 13:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I know that the Book of the Wisdom of Joshua Ben Sira has a prologue, but in earlier KJV Bibles, it has two prologues. Bible, King James Version (umich.edu) It includes "A Prologue made by an uncertain Author" before the familiar prologue we read to-day, "The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach." Shouldn't we include this fact in the article? Fox's Account ( talk) 16:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 29 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sirach to Book of Sirach. The result of the discussion was moved. |
"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.)
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.
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)
consensus to move page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ben Sira → Sirach — More common name. That, or to Ecclesiasticus. — SigPig | SEND - OVER 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I'm poking my head in from WP:RM. There seems to be a consensus for a move, but not for which of the two titles are preferred. Please clarify where the page should be moved through further discussion. Vassyana ( talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Septen: From your comment, you feel that Sirach is used of the author, and not of the book. This is why you do not want it moved to Sirach?
Spartan: Why do you prefer Ecclesiasticus to Sirach?
Carl.bunderson ( talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
For the information of those who take part in this discussion: The French Wikipedia has two distinct articles: fr:Ben Sira on the author and fr:Siracide on the book.
Whatever the decision on a possible split of the article, I suggest that either the whole or otherwise the part concerning the book should retain the present title, since it refers to the Hebrew original. Please refer to the section I added on "Title and versions".
Dampinograaf ( talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I don't really understand what the bit about Chadwick's claim is. Is this misquoted? We shall compare the verses: Matthew 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (NIV) Sirach 51:27 "See for yourselves! I have labored only a little, but have found much." ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.32.223 ( talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just spent some time cleaning up the citations, and where possible cite checking for the principle cited. I note that some of the text is directly from the public domain "Sirach, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of" entry in the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. I also note that in the New World Encyclopedia entry under "Ben Sira" it says: New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. Apparently this was done as of September 2007; after which point the two articles diverge. I was unable to check the source: "Amidah", entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing. I am not sure what private prayer has do with this article, except for, perhaps, the unanswered prayer that Philippe Guillaume suggests helps date the work. I note that it was added in an edit of 18 May 2003 by RK. I am tempted to leave that source out, but will let any of you provide some help regarding it before I do. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
23: [30] This man shall be punished in the streets of the city, and he shall be chased as a colt: and where he suspected not, he shall be taken.
[31] And he shall be in disgrace with all men, because he understood not the fear of the Lord.
This means Jesus Christ is not the son of god (the lord, a talking fire) but IS jesum christum dominum nostrum (god the creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.198.36 ( talk) 03:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
For these reasons:
1) There is no reason given to think that the Jews were unaware of the Hebrew-original of Sirach at the time of the formation of their canon (late first century). Indeed, it seems likely that they were aware of it, given the dates of the Hebrew manuscripts mentioned in the article.
2) The source cited says nothing about Sirach on page 241. Presumably the correct citation is to page 222:
Clearly this is not support for the claim that Jews or Protestants rejected Sirach because they didn't know there was a Hebrew original!
Gmoothart ( talk) 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Please Restore or Make Better.
References
This article italicizes the names of books of the Bible throughout. E.g., Matthew. This is idiosyncratic; such book names are not italicized in standard English nor indeed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Unless anyone has a good reason to leave the italics, I think we should remove them throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsquire3 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The name Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira spans four generations. That is, Shimon was the great-grandson of Sira. If Shimon wrote Ecclesiasticus, why is Sira credited as author? Was Shimon (or Yeshua?) in fact the one who translated the original Hebrew (written by Sira) into Greek? Or was the name Sira used simply out of familial respect? The unnamed translator, in his Prologue, credits his grandfather, Yeshua son of Eliezer, with authorship. And, where is the name, Shimon, found? Exposition of details such as these might help readers sort through a plethora of theories regarding the book. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The Name of the Book Should read, The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach or " Ecclesiasticus" and no the "Book of", = I've got three Original Bibles open in front of me. NRSV, 1611 Authorized by his Majesty, 1582 Douai Rheims Bible = All three says the title is The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiasticus-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/
In order to reach a wider audience, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Page move request for Sirach. Dougweller ( talk) 11:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Mishnah Kiddushin 4:14 Miistermagico ( talk) 21:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't Weiſsheit be re-written rather as Weißheit or Weiſsheit than as Weissheit? The original writing does not use ⟨ss⟩, but ⟨ſs⟩, which later formed the ligature ⟨ß⟩. Galtzaile ( talk) 15:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The section on canonicity has a reference to "Catalogue of Cheltenham" which links to the city of that name. What's the "Catalogue of Cheltenham"? I am not a subject matter expert but cannot see this anywhere? Vandalism? Missing link? Rob Burbidge ( talk) 19:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Keeping the redirect Sirach to the book for now, so as not to break all incoming links since there is not a strong consensus to change it. I suggest a separate WP:RfD discussion to change that. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sirach → Book of Sirach – Every other Biblical book page is on this format. Having the book be "Sirach" and the person be "ben Sira" makes no sense, these are just alternate spellings and this is not how any source distinguishes the book from the person. GordonGlottal ( talk) 13:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I know that the Book of the Wisdom of Joshua Ben Sira has a prologue, but in earlier KJV Bibles, it has two prologues. Bible, King James Version (umich.edu) It includes "A Prologue made by an uncertain Author" before the familiar prologue we read to-day, "The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach." Shouldn't we include this fact in the article? Fox's Account ( talk) 16:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)