Interlopers Reunited: The Early Translators of Ben Sira

In 1977 I published evidence indicating that the Syriac translation of Ben Sira had been a two-stage process. The initial translation from Hebrew had been made by the Ebionites, and it was subsequently revised by post-Nicene orthodox Christians for inclusion in the Peshitta.¹ In the years that followed, this thesis was widely accepted.² Needless to say, some authors have taken note of my theory but remained neutral or unconvinced of its correctness.³ I respect the opinions of writers who disagree with my views, and I could present the old arguments again in the light of what my critics have stated. However, important new evidence has come to light that was not available in the 1980s. It has transformed the debate completely, and I feel that it would be unproductive to go over the familiar ground yet again. I ask the readers' patience, and I trust that the new evidence that I present in this article will convince them of the correctness of my original thesis.

In recent years I had the opportunity to return to the Syriac version of Ben Sira, and this phase of my investigation produced evidence that the Syriac version contains traces of Essene influence as well.⁴ This discovery provided totally unexpected confirmation of the theory, put forward in the middle of the twentieth century by Oscar Cullmann and others, that the Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites had its origins among converted Essenes.⁵ I will present the evidence for this extraordinary discovery further on in this article, after I have discussed the wider context of the influence of the Essenes and their interest in the book of Ben Sira.

The presence of Essene influence in the Syriac translation led me back to the Greek version for reasons that will become apparent shortly. For many years students of Ben Sira have been familiar with the existence of the expanded Greek version known as G2. It is longer than the basic Septuagint version by some 110 lines and is found in a consistent pattern in a clearly defined group of manuscripts. As they are not just accidental variants, but evidence of a systematic revision, Joseph Ziegler has incorporated them into the main body of the text in his critical edition of the Septuagint but in smaller type. It is generally accepted that these additions were made to the Hebrew text before it was translated (for the second time) into Greek. What is less widely known is that some of these additions occur in the Syriac translation, and even more of the same kind are to be found in the Old Latin version. Their presence in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin translations represents snapshots, so to speak, of three stages in the evolution of that particular Hebrew manuscript tradition.

These facts are generally accepted by OT scholars, but there is less agreement on who was responsible for these modifications of the basic Hebrew text. In 1951 Conleth Kearns put forward the theory that the version originated among the Essenes.⁶ He based his theory on the presence of one consistent characteristic among the alterations and additions to G2, namely, indications that implied the immortality of the human soul. Whereas the OT frequently refers to God's rewards or punishments for virtue or sinful activity in this life, the modifications in G2 indicate subtly that those rewards or penalties also take place beyond the grave. In other words, the human soul survives death.

In the period immediately preceding the Christian era, this view was held in the mainstream of Jewish tradition by the Essenes. In this respect they differed from the Pharisees, who believed also in the resurrection of the body. This characteristic belief of the Essenes is best known from the testimony of Josephus. His clearest statement on the matter is found in The War of the Jews:

For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they come out of...