Protestants are missing out on the book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

[Wandile]

The book of Ecclesiasticus is undoubtedly one of my favourite books in the whole Bible! It is filled with so many sayings that are easy to relate to. The book rivals even the very Book of Proverbs, and if both books were to be read side-by-side, you would be the wisest person on earth!

Its is a sad thing to see our Protestant brethren miss out on some divinely inspired wise sayings of Yeshua ben Sira (Jesus son of Sirach) simply because they defiled the Word of God by excluding such a magnificent peace of writing.


What are your views concerning this book?

 

[smp501]

I agree wholeheartedly!!! I got my first Catholic Bible 2 months ago and Ben Sira is the first non-Protestant book I read. It’s great!

 

[po18guy]

It is very very easy to see why it is classed as a “wisdom book” It is not politically correct, but the truth rarely is. You may open to any chapter and find immediate wisdom in it.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Protestants don’t have Wisdom either.

 

[Link0126]

Protestants don’t have Wisdom either.

Wisdom is great. The book I mean… I don’t have the virtue.

 

[bmullins]

I had never read Sirach till a few years ago. I was amazed at the content and it blew me away that for some reason the protestants rejected it.

 

[Hubertus]

Why do the Protestants reject it anyway? (Or why did Martin Luther or King James or whoever it was reject it originally?)

I was skimming through Sirach the other day and found this very straightforward verse about being in the state of sin:

Chapter 5

4Do not say, “I have sinned, yet what has happened to me?”

for the LORD is slow to anger!

5Do not be so confident of forgiveness

that you add sin upon sin.

6Do not say, “His mercy is great;

my many sins he will forgive.”

For mercy and anger alike are with him;

his wrath comes to rest on the wicked.

7Do not delay turning back to the LORD,

do not put it off day after day.

For suddenly his wrath will come forth;

at the time of vengeance, you will perish.

This is a very important verse because this teaching is all too under-emphasized today.

 

[Wandile]

Why do the Protestants reject it anyway? (Or why did Martin Luther or King James or whoever it was reject it originally?)

I was skimming through Sirach the other day and found this very straightforward verse about being in the state of sin:

This is a very important verse because this teaching is all too under-emphasized today.

That passage is so true! It’s not biased towards God’s mercy but in fact emphasises the fact that God does also get angry at our sin. Many protestant churches lack such raw teachings. True wisdom there. Thanks for supplying the passage

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Why do the Protestants reject it anyway? (Or why did Martin Luther or King James or whoever it was reject it originally?)

I’m dredging up some old stuff that I learned a while ago, so I hope someone will help out if I get anything incorrect. From what I recall, Luther and the others used the Masoretic Text in deciding what was and wasn’t included in the Old Testament books, which is different from the Septuagint. The Apocrypha contains those books that are in the Septuagint, but not in the Masoretic Text.

The Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek) is older than the Masoretic Text (the OT in Hebrew). IIRC the Septuagint is from around 2nd Century B.C., whereas the Masoretic Text is from around 9th Century A.D. – though it could be a couple of centuries earlier.

The Gospel writers, Paul (and all the NT Epistle writers), early Christians, and the Church Fathers in those first centuries of Christianity used the Septuagint Old Testament.

 

[Andromedus]

Why do the Protestants reject it anyway? (Or why did Martin Luther or King James or whoever it was reject it originally?)

Martin Luther did not include it because the Jews don’t use it either, however, we don’t know exactly when the Jewish canon was decided and there has been people who has suggested that it was made around 100 AD. That would mean that it was decided after the Church was founded. But this position has been criticized and it might be untrue but whatever the case might be Protestants don’t (generally) use this book because the Jews at some point decided not to use it. Perhaps also because some of the books called deuterocanonical books could support Catholic beliefs.

 

[Jerusha]

My understanding is that the Jews rejected them because they were written in Greek. And as we know from Maccabees, they hated the Greeks, for what they had done to them.

 

[Andromedus]

My understanding is that the Jews rejected them because they were written in Greek. And as we know from Maccabees, they hated the Greeks, for what they had done to them.

I don’t think it was because they disliked the Greeks but because it was not in Hebrew, of course there are some texts originally written in Aramaic but they are exceptions.

 

[AlltheRoses]

Wandile, I’m so glad that you’ve discovered so much inspiration and wisdom in the Book of Ecclesiasticus. The Bible, including the deuotrocanon, is a wonderful source of knowledge and faith. It is a shame when people miss out on any of that wisdom and inspiration.

The good news about this is that not all Protestants do miss out on the inspiration and the wisdom contained in the Book of Ecclesiasticus. While Protestants don’t regard the deutrocanon, which they refer to as the Apocrayha, as a divinely inspired, canonical part of scripture, some Protestants do see them as important Christian texts worthy of study and prayerful reflection. Some Protestant Bibles contain what they refer to as the Apocrayhal texts either as supplements between the Old and New Testaments or at the end of the New Testament.

My opinion is that the Book of Ecclesiasticus contains a lot of passages that are both very deep, and, at the same time, easy to understand. As far as I’m concerned, it is part of the canon, and it is definitely worth people reading and reflecting upon.

 

[Wandile]

My understanding is that the Jews rejected them because they were written in Greek. And as we know from Maccabees, they hated the Greeks, for what they had done to them.

True but it’s more complicated than that. The jews redesigned their cannon at the 1st century Council of Jamnia in which they decided that all books that couldn’t be found originally in hebrew needed to be expelled. Clearly such reasoning was false as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was present the book of Sirach in Hebrew.

Secondly they also hated the fact that Christians were using the Septuagint to convert jews as the Septuagint points to Christ a Messiah. Look at the comparison between the LXX and Masoretic version of Psalm 22:16 :

“…like a lion they are at my hands and feet.”
(Masoretic)

“…they have pierced my hands and my feet.”
(Septuagint)

The septuagint blatantly points to the crucifixion of Christ hence the Jews revised their scriptures and edited them to come up in the 7th Century with the non- Christ like Masoretic text.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Weren’t there a lot of Greek-speaking Jews in early Christianity? For example, Matthew wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience in mind and he wrote it in Koine, which was the Greek that was used at the time. Wouldn’t those Greek-speaking Jews have used the Septuagint – even before becoming Christian? The Septuagint pre-dates Christianity.

 

[Nicea325]

The book of Ecclesiasticus is undoubtedly one of my favourite books in the whole Bible! It is filled with so many sayings that are easy to relate to. The book rivals even the very Book of Proverbs, and if both books were to be read side-by-side, you would be the wisest person on earth!

Its is a sad thing to see our Protestant brethren miss out on some divinely inspired wise sayings of Yeshua ben Sira (Jesus son of Sirach) simply because they defiled the Word of God by excluding such a magnificent peace of writing.


What are your views concerning this book?

Well at times one as a Catholic,we need to be careful not blame our Protestant brothers and sisters. Most Protestants as Catholics are not biblical scholars,thus we read what we have been raised and taught to read. I am not trying to make excuses for them,but it is true many simply do not know. Ask most Catholics why the Nicene Creed was formulated and most will not give a correct answer. However,if I am correct,the first Protestant Bibles did contain all the 73 books,but around the 19th century it became more custom to exclude them.

Peace

 

[Wandile]

Weren’t there a lot of Greek-speaking Jews in early Christianity? For example, Matthew wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience in mind and he wrote it in Koine, which was the Greek that was used at the time. Wouldn’t those Greek-speaking Jews have used the Septuagint – even before becoming Christian? The Septuagint pre-dates Christianity.

Yes the Septuagint does predate Christianity by nearly 3centuries. The thing is the Jews (those that rejected Jesus) towards the end of the first century lost favour with the LXX because it pointed to Jesus as Messiah. Thus they disqualified it and chose to create their own purely hebrew version of the OT that didn’t point as much to Christ. This all started with the various jewish recensions like that of Aquila, student of Rabbi Akiva.

Look at the Psalm 22:16 example that I provided earlier to see how they made their scriptures point away from Christ.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

However,if I am correct,the first Protestant Bibles did contain all the 73 books,but around the 19th century it became more custom to exclude them.

True. They had an Old Testament, an Apocrypha, and an New Testament. I have a KJV with an Apocrypha and one without it.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Yes the Septuagint does predates Christianity by nearly 3centuries. The thing is the Jews (those that rejected Jesus) towards the end of the first century lost favour with the LXX because it pointed to Jesus as Messiah. Thus they disqualified it and chose to create their own purely hebrew version of the OT that didn’t point as much to Christ. This all started with the various jewish recensions like that of Aquila, student of Rabbi Akiva.

Look at the Psalm 22:16 example that I provided earlier to see how they made their scriptures point away from Christ.

Thanks, Wandile. I saw your excellent example.

Wouldn’t it be better for Christians to read an OT based on the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic? For example, if Paul quotes something from the OT, he’s quoting the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Text (or any Hebrew-based OT).

 

[Wandile]

Thanks, Wandile. I saw your excellent example.

Wouldn’t it be better for Christians to read an OT based on the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic? For example, if Paul quotes something from the OT, he’s quoting the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Text (or any Hebrew-based OT).

Yes it would and that’s why us Catholics (Roman and eastern) use the Septuagint. The problem is the King James version only crowd of protestants that are fully behind the Masoretic text. It’s saddening to see some of our brethren use such a spoilt version of the OT instead of the LXX.