07.01 - THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE PROLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH

1. THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE PROLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH.

Ἐνγὰρτῷὀγδόῳκαὶτριακοστῷ ἔτειἐπὶτοῦ Ἐυεργέτου βασιλέωςπαραγενηθεὶςεἰςΑἴγυπτονκαὶσυγχρονίσαςεὗρονοὐ μικρᾶςπαιδείαςἀφόμοιον: of this chronological statement of the grandson of the son of Sirach, which is of the highest importance not only as regards the date of the book itself, but also, on account of the other contents of the prologue, for the history of the Old Testament canon, various interpretations are given.¹¹⁵⁹ If it be “a matter of course” that the writer of the Prologue wishes to indicate, not the year of his own life, but the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes,¹¹⁶⁰ no doubt can exist as to the year in which the writer came to Egypt; of the two Ptolemies who bore the surname of Euergetes, the reign of the second only, Ptolemy VII. Physcon, extended to thirty-eight years, and hence the date given in the Prologue would signify the year 132 B.C. But when we find a writer like L. Hug preferring the other interpretation,¹¹⁶¹ we cannot but feel that there must be a difficulty somewhere. The chief support of those who interpret the date as the year of the prologue-writer’s age, and, at the same time, the chief difficulty of the other interpretation, lie in the ἐπί which stands between the number and the name of the king. «La prepositionἐπίparatit ici tout a fait superflue, puisque toujours le motἔτουςest suivi d’un genitif direct. On ne dit jamaisἔτουςπρώτου,δευτέρου . . .ἐπὶτινός, en parlant d’un roi, mais bienἔτους . . . τινόςουτῆςβασιλείαςτινός. Cette locution serait donc sans exemple:» the difficulty in question may be formulated in these words of Letronne,¹¹⁶² written in reference to a passage in the Inscription of Rosetta to be noticed presently. The difficulty, nevertheless, can be removed. But certainly not by simply referring, as does 0. F. Fritzsche,¹¹⁶³ to the passages LXX Haggai 1:1, Haggai 2:1, Zechariah 1:7, Zechariah 7:1, 1Ma 13:42, 1Ma 14:27, to which may be added LXX Zechariah 1:1, for, all these passages being translations of Semitic originals, the ἐπί, might be a mere imitation of לִ, and would thus yield nothing decisive for the idiom of the Prologue to Sirach, which was in Greek from the first. The following passages seem to the present writer to be of much greater force. In an Inscription from the Acropolis,¹¹⁶⁴ as old as the 3rd cent. B.C., we find in line 24f. the words ἱερεὺςγενόμενοςἐντῷἐπὶΛυσιάδουἄρχοντοςἐνιαυτῷ. Still more significant for the passage in Sirach are the following parallels of Egyptian origin. The Inscription of the Rosetta Stone (27th March, 196 B.C.), line 16,¹¹⁶⁵ runs thus: προσέταξεν [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes] δὲκαὶπερὶτῶνἱερέων,ὅπωςμηθὲνπλεῖονδιδῶσινεἰςτὸτελεστικὸν οὗἐτάσσοντοἕωςτοῦπρώτου ἔτουςἐπὶτοῦπατρὸςαὐτοῦ [Ptolemy IV. Philopator]. Though Letronne, in view of the alleged want of precedent for this usage of ἐπὶ¹¹⁶⁶ tries a different interpretation, he is yet forced to acknowledge that, if we translate the concluding words by until the first year [of the reign] of his father, the whole sentence is made to fit most appropriately into the context;¹¹⁶⁷the priests, who are hardly inclined to speak of the merits of Epiphanes for nothing, would be again but manifesting their ability to do obeisance to him, and, at the same time, to extol the memory of his father. Had Letronne known the example from the Prologue to Sirach, perhaps he would have decided for this way of taking ἐπί, which so admirably suits the context. The two passages mutually support one another. But the usage of ἐπί is further confirmed by other passages of Egyptian origin. In Pap. Par. 15¹¹⁶⁸ (120 B.C.) two αἰγύπτιαισυγγραφαί are mentioned, which are dated as follows: μιᾶςμὲνγεγονυίας [τοῦΙΗ’ ἔτουςπαχ]ὼνἐπὶτοῦΦιλομήτορος, the one of Pachon (Egyptian month) of the 18th year (of the reign) of Philometor; ἑτέραςδὲγεγονυίαςτοῦΛΕ’μεσορὴἐπὶτοῦαὐτοῦβασιλέως, the other of Mesore [Egyptian month] (of the year) 35 (of the reign) of the same king. Finally, Pap. Par. 5¹¹⁶⁹ begins thus: βασιλευόντωνΚλεοπάτραςκαὶΠτολεμαίουθεῶνΦιλομητόρωνΣωτήρων ἔτουςΔ’ἐφ’ἱερέως βασιλεύωςΠτολεμαίουθεοῦΦιλμήτοροςΣωτῆροςἈλεξάνδρου καὶθεῶνΣωτήρων,κτλ. If the interpretation advocated by Brunet against Brugsch,¹¹⁷⁰viz., under King Ptolemy . . . . , the priest of Alexander [the Great] and of the gods be correct, then this passage also must be taken into consideration. The pleonastic ἐπί of the Prologue to Sirach is thus supported by several authorities of about the same date and place. Hence also, in the light of this result, the passages from the Greek Bible, cited above, acquire a new significance. The pleonastic girl found in these is not to be explained by that excessive scrupulosity of the translators which manifests itself elsewhere; in point of fact, their desire to translate literally was assisted by a peculiar idiom of their locality, and hence we have a translation which is at once literal and accurate.