Marduk’s Basket and the Heavenly Treasury: Comparing Charity in the Dialogue of Pessimism and Sirach

The article treats the value of economic generosity (usātu) in the Babylonian Dialogue of Pessimism and compares it to almsgiving in the biblical book of Sirach. It attempts to resolve a longstanding obscurity: whether usātu is placed in Marduk’s “ring” (kippatu) or “basket” (qappatu). External evidence suggests that, while both readings have support and a similar theological significance, the reading “basket” (qappatu) is preferable and should be related to the temple quppu, “cash box,” used for collecting donations. The article then addresses the relevance of mortality to the Dialogue’s discussion of doing usātu. Appeal to other Akkadian wisdom literature suggests that doing usātu was connected with a reward of extra life. An analysis of the theological structure of usātu in the Dialogue and Akkadian wisdom literature leads to a comparison with the theology of almsgiving and the heavenly treasury in Ben Sira and other Second Temple Jewish literature.

La sapienza biblica

Uno dei criteri per riconoscere l’esistenza di una tradizione sapienziale all’interno della Bibbia è la presenza di una chiara teologia della creazione. Per quanto riguarda la teologia della storia sembra, a prima vista, che essa sia assente da Proverbi, Giobbe e Qohelet, la sapienza in lingua ebraica. La dimensione della storia resta in realtà sullo sfondo del pensiero dei saggi ed emerge con chiarezza prima di tutto in Ben Sira che in Sir 44-50 rilegge in chiave sapienziale la storia di Israele. E’ nel libro della Sapienza tuttavia che avviene un incontro fecondo tra teologia della creazione e teologia della storia, in una prospettiva che si apre anche a una dimensione escatologica.

Ben Sira on the Free Will Problem: A Comparison with Chrysippus

This article deals with the similarities and differences between Ben Sira and Chrysippus regarding their solutions to the tension between free will and determinism. Both Ben Sira and Chrysippus argue for compatibilism, the theory that free will and determinism are compatible. However, Ben Sira and Chrysippus have different understandings of freedom required by moral responsibility. According to Chrysippus, consent is the internal cause of persons’ actions, and, thus, they should be responsible for these actions. By contrast, Ben Sira claims that although being shaped by God’s plan, persons could have done otherwise and, in this sense, are responsible for their sins. The first section of this article examines the texts of Ben Sira and Chrysippus regarding the problem of free will. The second section discusses the positions of Ben Sira and Chrysippus on compatibilism. The last section explains the possible influence of Chrysippus on Ben Sira and the main difference between their understandings of freedom.

A Re-examination of Homonymic and Polysemic Roots

This paper re-examines the classification of two roots from the book of Ben Sira that are defined as homonymic and polysemic, respectively. The re-examination is carried out in light of a novel principle suggested by Prof. Chaim Cohen. The examination of the roots in Ben Sira includes a comparison with biblical evidence. In some cases, the re-examination supports the generally accepted classification, while in others it is shown that a re-classification is needed.