CHAPTER II.
SIRACH'S TEACHING (continued). HIS PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT.
Passing now from Sirach's moral statements to those which
are concerned with doctrine, an honest critic must admit that
the author is here even less progressive. The Messianic
hope, in the strict sense of the word, has faded away.[1] In
xlv. 25 (comp. xlviii. 15) the 'covenant with David' is described
as being 'that the inheritance of the king should be
only from father to son;' similarly in xlvii. 22 the 'root of
David' denotes Rehoboam and his descendants. But this
want of a definite Messianic hope is characteristic of the age;
it is no special defect of Sirach. But what shall we say of
another charge brought against our author, viz. that he has
unbiblical conceptions of the Divine nature? One of these
(xi. 16; see A.V.) may be dismissed at once, the passage
having insufficient critical authority. Another—
We may speak much and not attain;
indeed to sum up, He is all (xliii. 27)—
has been misapprehended. The Bereshith Rabba says (c. 68), 'Why is the Holy One also called Mākōm (place)? Because He is the place of the world; His world is not His place.' This is all that Sirach means, and Philo, too, who uses similar words, accused by Keerl of heresy, and adds, [Greek: hate eis kai to pan autos ôn].
The doctrines of the Satan and the Resurrection, which Sirach probably regarded somewhat as we regard the 'develop-*
- ↑ Ewald (History, v. 263, n. 3) refers to iv. 15, x. 13-17, xi. 5 sq., xxxii. 17-19, xxxiii. 1-12, xxxvi. 11-17, xxxvii. 25, xxxix. 23, xlviii. 10 sq., but only for a vague Messianism (in the last passage the Greek seems to be interpolated). I would add xxxv. 17-19, xxxvi. 1-10.
