Biblical Hebrew Forum

["L.M. Barre" <barre AT c-zone.net>]

Dear List,

In my dialogue with Jim West, I brought arguments against his view that Psalm 
2 is Maccabean from the perspective of the development of the Hebrew Canon.  
In this regard, the prologue to Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) was introduced to 
establish an ad quem dating for it formation.  Looking into the matter 
further, I have decided that c. 130 is too young.  Because of the importance 
of the text, I now offer the prologue for consideration:

Many and wonderful are the gifts we have been granted by means of the Law and 
the Prophets and the others that followed them, an education in wisdom on 
which Israel is indeed to be complimented.  But is is not enough merely for 
those who read the scriptures to be learned in them; students should also be 
able to be of use to people outside by what they say and write.  So it was my 
grandfather Jesus, having devoted himself more and more to reading the Law 
and the Prophets and the other volumes of the fathers and having gained 
ability enough in these matters, was brought to the point of himself writing 
down some of the things that have a bearing on education in wisdom, in order 
that those studiously inclined and with obligations in these matters might 
make all the more progress in living according to the Law.

You are therefore asked to read this book with good will and attention and to 
show the indulgence in those places where, notwithstanding our efforts at 
interpretation, we may seem to have failed to give an adequate rendering of 
this or that expression; the fact is that you cannot find an equivalent for 
things originally written in Hebrew when you come to translate them into 
another language; what is more, you will find on examination that the Law 
itself and the Prophets and the other books differ considerably in 
translation from what appears in the original text.

It was in the thirty-eighth year of the late King Euergetes, when after my 
arrival in Egypt I had already spent some time there, that I found a work of 
more than common instructional  worth, which convinced me of the urgency of 
applying myself in my turn with pains and diligence to the translation of the 
book that follows; and I spent much time and learning on it in the course of 
this period, to complete the work and to publish the book for the benefit 
especially of those who, domiciled abroad, wish to study how to fit 
themselves and their manner for living according to the Law.

 (BS 1:1-35, Jerusalem Bible)

First, while one of my source identifies the King mentioned as Ptolemy VII 
Euergetes Physkon (170-117), making the thirty-eighth year 132 BCE, another 
source cites the mention of Simon the high priest in 50:1ff as an indication 
that "the book was written in Jerusalem 190-180 BC."  Furthermore, the 
prologue presumes that not only was a tripartite scripture known to Ben Sira 
but also to his grandfather.  Accordingly, this would push back its existence 
forty to fifty years and bring us very close to the traditional date for the 
production of the LXX under Ptolemy II Philadephus (283-246).  Of course, one 
must explain how the apocalyptic portions of the book of Daniel, almost 
certainly dated to c. 167-164, can post date these data.  I conclude that the 
Writings had not yet been "closed."  The terms used by Ben Sira to describe 
the third part of the scriptures also suggests this.

Is it possible to include Psalm 2 along with the very youngest compositions 
of OT Literature?  It is not for the simple reason that Psalm 2 first found 
its way into book I of the Psalter before the Psalter was included in a 
closed canon.  That Psalm 2 belonged to a once separate is shown by the 
doublet Ps 14=Ps 53 (the Elohistic Psalter).  If Psalm 2 was not a part of an 
earlier collection, first within Book I and then within the Psalter as a 
whole, it would be possible to entertain the thesis that it was Maccabean.  
But since this is not the case, I will maintain my position that a Maccabean 
milieu for the Psalm's composition is excluded.  This in addition to my 
contention that the despotic imperialism of the Psalm finds no place in 2nd 
century Hellenistic Judaism.  Finally, the arguments brought against a 
Maccabean dating for Psalm 2 also applies more decisively to the Law and the 
Prophets.  The life of grandfather Jesus provides the terminus ad quem for 
the first two parts !
of the LXX's Hebrew Vorlage and makes impossible the claim of Minimalists 
that the Old Testament is a fictive literary creation of Hellenistic Judaism.


L. M. Barre, Ph.D.

barre AT c-zone.net
www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael