Introduction
Ben Sira, a Jewish sage who lived and worked in Jerusalem in the early second century b.c.e., takes up the topic of pride in a discussion of politics in order to indict those who behave proudly as betraying the created nature of humans. Within his reflections on anthropology he links pride and sin in Sir 10:13 and then proceeds to assure his students that God will surely punish the proud through humiliation and calamity. Yet, from its rather unassuming role in Ben Sira's discussion of power, the link between pride and sin in Sir 10:13 became a locus of scribal activity and interpretation in subsequent centuries. As the text was transmitted and translated in Second Temple Judaism and late antiquity the versions of this verse in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin texts show vividly the interdependence between textual transmission and theological tradition. When placed within their historical context, the transformations of Sir 10:13 found in the forms of the verse evidence a dialogical interaction with current discussions regarding virtues and vices in moral theology in early Judaism and Christianity. A significant historical turning point occurred when Augustine made the Vulgate version of Sir 10:13a,Footnote 1 “pride is the beginning of every sin,” a key prooftext in his discussions of sin. Thereafter this verse came to play a central role in Western Christian hamartiology, especially as it was connected to the placement of pride at the head of the capital vices or “Seven Deadly Sins.” This article will begin with a discussion of the role of pride in Ben Sira and then trace the textual transmission of Sir 10:13 and the theological influences that shaped its transmission and translation. Additionally, the story of how Sir 10:13a became a central text in Western discussions of the nature of sin will be shown to have significant theological implications for an understanding of the relationship between canonical text and the development of theological traditions.
Ben Sira on Pride (Sir 10:6–18)
Ben Sira includes his most sustained discussion of pride as part of a larger discourse on the dynamics of political power in Sir 9:17–10:18. After a few introductory verses on the importance of prudent speech for a ruler (9:17–18), Ben Sira highlights the importance of wisdom/skill for rulers (10:1–5). He observes both that rulers are in power solely because of the providential allowance of God (10:4–5) and the effect a ruler's administration has on his subjects, for good or ill (10:1–2). Most of these descriptions of good rulers are stock ideals and can be found in both earlier Jewish wisdom, such as Proverbs, and in Hellenistic peri basileias texts.Footnote 2 Yet, the affirmation of God's sovereignty over all politics lays an important piece of theological groundwork for his assertions about pride in the following subunit:Footnote 3
The political element that runs through this subunit connects it with the previous passage about wise and undisciplined rulers. The parallelism in v. 7 connects pride with injustice/oppression (
) and v. 8 adds the dimension of aggression (
). Often interpreters view Ben Sira's reference to the role of pride and aggression in national struggles as reflecting the constant struggle between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, which formed the political backdrop of his career.Footnote 5 While highlighting the political role of pride, Ben Sira challenges the display of pride with a rhetorical question that shifts the discussion to the realm of general anthropology. The idiom “dust and ashes” in v. 9 is used by Abraham and Job as an expression of humility (Gen 18:27; Job 30:19; 42:6), but here Ben Sira uses it to refer to what humans are by nature (see Sir 17:32; 40:3). Ben Sira's basic reasoning is that, because humans are mortal and fragile, pride is foolish and futile even for the most prestigious people. It betrays the very constitution of humans as ephemeral beings. Ben Sira returns to this point in v. 18 at the end of the next subsection, forming a sort of conceptual inclusio, when he completes his discussion of pride with the claim, “arrogance was not apportioned to humans nor insolent wrath to those born of a woman.”Footnote 6 The fact that pride is antithetical to human nature and is absurd in light of the unpredictability and finality of death leads Ben Sira to contemplate the nature and source of pride in the following verses. In 10:12–13b he says:
],
].
],
].Footnote 8
The first thing to note here is that the Hebrew has two words for “pride.”Footnote 9 The word 
, which appears six times in 10:6–18, is Ben Sira's preferred term for “pride” and has the sense of an illegitimate exaltation of oneself. However, the word in v. 13a, 
, is often used by Ben Sira to denote general wickedness or transgression of the law (e.g., 9:12; 11:9; 15:7; 16:3, 10), but it is used twice in this passage with the sense of “arrogance” (10:13a, 18a; also 13:24; 35:23). Its occurrence in v. 13a may have been for stylistic reasons, creating alliteration with 
in v. 13b,Footnote 10 though the connotation of “insolence” that frequently attends 
accords well with v. 12a. The sense of “arrogance” can be found in Deuteronomic and sapiential texts in reference to brazen sin or foolishness that is a direct affront to God and, therefore, insolent and haughty (e.g., Prov 11:2; 21:24; Jer 49:16; 50:31–32; Obad 3; also see Deut 1:43; 17:12–13; 18:20–22). The context of Sirach 10 suggests that it has this specialized sense as well and, thus, it functions here as a synonym to 
.Footnote 11
Ben Sira locates the beginning of pride in defiance and clarifies this as an internal resistance to God. The reference to God as the person's Maker ties this statement to the previous subsection, which emphasizes the incongruence between pride and “dust and ashes,” suggesting humility is humanity's true and fitting condition. Verse 13 begins with “for” (
), which signals that it develops the thought of v. 12, but its exact sense is ambiguous and turns on the meaning of “reservoir” (
). The word 
denotes a reservoir or place of accumulation, a place where liquid pools. Thus, one possibility is that Ben Sira is defining sin as the accumulation, or “pooling,” of arrogance: i.e., arrogance is the prerequisite for sin.Footnote 12 This interpretation has not found many adherents because it is difficult to see how this would provide an explanation for, or development of, v. 12. Alternatively, Jan Liesen argues that sin is a receptacle into which arrogance is poured and then subsequently functions as a source or font of other abominations, which flow out (v. 13b).Footnote 13 This reading, which makes good sense as a continuation of v. 12 and of the following discussion, still leaves open the nature of the relationship between sin and pride. It could be simply that sin is the precondition for pride; without the presence of sin, here understood as a rebellion against God, pride cannot get any traction. A stronger way of construing the relationship would be to take sin as the point of origin of pride, i.e., sin has an almost magnetic quality to it that causes pride to begin accumulating around it just as water naturally pools at the lowest point. Box and Oesterley translate 
as “rallying-place” and comment, “Insolence finds its source or reservoir in sin, which also pours forth every form of depravity.”Footnote 14 It is difficult to decide how exactly to interpret the awkward phrasing of v. 13a, but it is possible that such ambiguity is deliberate on Ben Sira's part. Eric Reymond has shown that throughout his book Ben Sira is keenly aware of the inherent imprecision of language and often exploits it for rhetorical effect.Footnote 15 It is possible that the peculiar use of 
in v. 13a is likewise intended to cause the reader to pause and consider the ways arrogance and sin might be related to one another.Footnote 16 However v. 13a is to be understood, the relationship of v. 13a to v. 13b appears to suggest that as pride/arrogance begins to accumulate, an overflow of corruption is soon to follow.Footnote 17 This overflowing explains why God deals so harshly in punishing pride, as elaborated in the following verses (vv. 13c–17).
To sum up, in chapter 10 Ben Sira makes three major points: 1) pride is a betrayal of the created nature of humans and can be traced back to defiance, a departure from God, humanity's Maker; 2) those in power who refuse to be subject to God are particularly susceptible to pride; 3) pride thus cultivated, unchained from the constraints of accountability, can then proliferate corruption. In these convictions, Ben Sira shows substantial continuity with perspectives in the Hebrew Bible. In early social and legal contexts words for pride often describe a situation in which someone shows willful disregard for the law and arrogates to himself rights or privileges that are not justified. Especially in Deuteronomic and sapiential theology 
acquires a more specifically religious dimension as it is used to describe a premeditated violation of God's law (e.g., Deut 1:43; 17:12–13; 18:20, 22).Footnote 18 Importantly, these notions of pride begin to overlap with the idea of rebellion against God in narratives about paradigmatic societies and kings who disregard Israel's God. Donald Gowan has shown that what is called 
in Greek literature is embodied in the Hebrew Bible in mythic stories about the use of political power that attempts to usurp God's place as ruler of the world.Footnote 19 Examples include the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, and King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4.Footnote 20 To these could be added various biblical portraits of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (Sir 48:18)Footnote 21 and the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (e.g., Dan 7:8, 11, 20; 1 Macc 1:21). Therefore, in the Hebrew Bible the ideas of pride and rebellion can draw quite close to each other. In an environment where kings often made claims to divinity and, like Pharaoh in Exodus, would have scoffed that they did not “know” Israel's God (Exod 5:2), pride and rebellion could begin to be virtually synonymous, especially in a context of political power.
The Texts and Versions of Sirach 10:12–13b
After Ben Sira's book left his hands it was copied, translated, and disseminated among early Jewish and Christian groups. But rather than simply copying the text as they received it, these groups subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, shaped the text as it passed through their hands. Near the end of the second century b.c.e., Ben Sira's grandson translated his Hebrew copy of the book into Greek (= GI).Footnote 22 The critical edition of this text by Joseph Ziegler is based on the main uncial (i.e., A, B, C, S, and V) and minuscule witnesses of the lxx as well as early Christian citations.Footnote 23 The Hebrew of Ben Sira, however, underwent expansion over the next few centuries and probably sometime between 50 and 150 c.e. the Greek translation was also expanded and incorporated some expansions made in the Hebrew.Footnote 24 These expansions were probably piecemeal and gradual rather than representing a single recensional activity.Footnote 25 Thus, the expanded Greek text (= GII) is not fully extant in any manuscripts, but Clement of Alexandria, manuscripts belonging to the Lucianic group, the Vetus Latina, and the Syro-Hexapla each preserve some, but not all, of the expansions and alterations.Footnote 26 Since the Vetus Latina is quoted by Cyprian (d. 258 c.e.) most place it in the second century c.e.Footnote 27 The main witnesses for the Vetus Latina of 10:12–13b are the Vulgate,Footnote 28 Pseudo-Augustinus (early fifth century), and the Metz minuscule (eighth century).Footnote 29 Sometime between the second and fourth centuries c.e. a Syriac translation was made from a Hebrew Vorlage and also reflects expansion, partly from the expanded Hebrew text and partly within the Syriac itself.Footnote 30 The main manuscript used by scholars is Codex Ambrosianus (ca. sixth or seventh century).Footnote 31
In examining these other forms of Sirach, it is essential to remember that the Hebrew version of Sir 10:12–13b discussed above is found in manuscript A, an eleventh-century manuscript from the Cairo Geniza.Footnote 32 While the six medieval manuscripts (A–F) certainly reflect plenty of alterations and corruptions in their own processes of transmission, comparison with the portions of Sirach found in the Masada Scroll along with close text-critical analysis has convinced most scholars that the manuscripts are mostly authentic in regards to Ben Sira's Hebrew text.Footnote 33 However, because original and secondary readings must be established on a case-by-case basis, the versions must be compared and analyzed text-critically. For 10:12–13b they read as follows:
HebrewFootnote 34
],
].
],
].
],
].
],
].GIIFootnote 36
],SyriacFootnote 39
],
].
],
].Vetus LatinaFootnote 41
For v. 12a the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts agree in tracing pride to defiance or rebellion while the Syriac appears to have harmonized this line with v. 13a. The Hebrew is likely to be original with the Greek (and Latin) text taking 
as modifying “pride” and adding “from the Lord” to make the theological orientation of defiance more explicit. In addition, it appears that GI has introduced a stronger parallelism with the following line by translating both “defiance” and “depart” with 
. For v. 12b the agreement between the Hebrew and GI suggests that they preserve the original reading, while again the Syriac's version reads like a gloss, but perhaps one in which is read as a collective and 
is either understood as having a plural pronominal suffix (Job 42:10) or is to be read 
. For v. 13b, Israel Lévi explains the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek by suggesting that the latter reads 
instead of 
.Footnote 43 The Syriac appears to have read 
as referring to sexual immorality, a frequent connotation in its use in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Lev 18:17; 19:29; Judg 20:6; Ezek 16:27), though by the time of Ben Sira it more often had the general sense of “corruption” or a “plan with evil intent” (see Sir 51:5; CD viii 7; 1QHa xii 13; 4QpapJubh 2 i 52). The line appears to be a theological gloss.Footnote 44
The most significant issues arise in relation to v. 13a. At the outset it can be observed that readings that trace pride to sin in some way are found in the Hebrew and GI, while readings that trace sin to pride are found in GII, the Syriac, and the Latin. The most likely scenario is that the general relationship of pride and sin in the Hebrew and GI is original and the reversal of that relationship was made in the transmission process subsequent to the grandson's translation. Multiple possibilities exist for the origin of this reversal. One is that the reversal was made in the transmission of the Hebrew, which could explain its introduction into GII and its presence in the Syriac. Another possibility is that the reading of v. 13a, which posits pride as the source of sin, originated in the transmission of the Greek as part of the glosses and expansions that scholars have labeled GII. If this is the origin of the reading, its presence in the Syriac version might derive from the influence of GII on the Syriac. This is possible, but the project of proving knowledge of GII by the Syriac has remained elusive.Footnote 45 Additionally, it is possible that the reversals found in both GII and the Syriac are coincidental and were made independently of each other.
When one examines the versions of v. 13a more closely, other significant issues arise as well. In comparison with the Hebrew, GI is marked by a homogenizing of vocabulary (as in v. 12a–b above) in translating both 
and 
with 
Footnote 46 and 
(reservoir) in v. 13a with the same word used in v. 12a, 
. In Sirach and the rest of the lxx the word 
is commonly translated with 
(Sir 10:7, 9, 12; 11:30; 13:20; 16:8; 48:18), though 
is also used (10:6, 8). As with 
is frequently used to translate 
in the lxx, though 
is also common. Thus, the rendering of 
and 
as equivalents by GI is consistent with the Septuagintal usage of 
and is a defensible understanding of the passage given the context.Footnote 47 The use of 
in both v. 12a for 
and v. 13a for 
is also notable. The other two occurrences of 
in Sirach clearly have the temporal sense “beginning” or “starting point” and are also translated with 
(25:24; 51:20).Footnote 48 In the Greek of Sirach and the rest of the lxx can also have the sense of the most important part of something or the essence of something (Sir 29:21; 39:26), which allows a broader range of meaning in the Greek of v. 12a even if “beginning” is the most probable sense.Footnote 49 The parallel created by using again in v. 13a glosses the ambiguous and awkward use of 
in the Hebrew but allows for the same multivalent senses. Sin is understood as the beginning, essence, or principal part of pride. The Latin of v. 13a essentially conforms to the version in GII except for the addition of the word omnis (every). Given the absence of the word “every” from the Greek witnesses and its early and widespread attestation in the Latin, it is quite possible that the word was introduced at the translational level.Footnote 50 The Syriac has 
(source, font) for 
in v. 13a and repeats the word in the gloss in v. 13b. The same word translates 
in 50:3 and 
in 50:8 with the sense of “(water) source.” Being a mem-performative noun related to the verb for “gush” or “flow,” this word most commonly appears in Syriac literature to describe a source from which water gushes out, i.e., a fountain or spring (e.g., the Peshitta of Gen 2:6 and Josh 18:17; Aphrahat, Dem. 114.5; Ephrem, Nat. 80.10).Footnote 51 Its presence in Sir 50:3 for 
suggests that the translator probably intended a similar connotation in the translation of 
in 10:13: pride is the source or font from which sin gushes out.
Before proceeding it will be helpful to list the salient conclusions from this textual discussion:
1. The Hebrew version in manuscript A is plausible as the original reading (ca. 180 b.c.e.), especially since both the Greek and Syriac versions can be explained on the basis of it.
2. GI (late second century b.c.e.) displays a homogenization of vocabulary and glosses the main ambiguity in the passage found in v. 13a. At the same time, while following the Hebrew's tracing of pride to sin, it also allows for multiple semantic possibilities for characterizing this relationship.
3. GII (first to second century c.e.) follows GI, except that here the relationship between pride and sin has been reversed such that pride is the beginning, essence, or principal part of sin.
4. The Syriac (second to fourth century c.e.) reflects this same reversed relationship but characterizes this with an image from nature: pride is the source or font of sin. In addition, the Syriac of v. 13b appears to be a free gloss that applies the same image to sexual immorality, which is understood to be the source or font of both pride and sin.
5. The Latin text (second century c.e.) depends on GII but modifies sin with the word “every” in v. 13a. This addition is not found in any Greek manuscript and is so widespread in the Latin that it probably originated at the level of translation.
The Versions of Sirach 10:12–13b and the Idea of Capital Vices
The textual developments in the transmission of Sir 10:12–13b, which were mapped in the previous section, take on new significance when they are set against the background of the developing discussion of moral theology in the first few centuries of the Common Era during which lists of virtues and vices began to appear in Jewish and Christian literature.Footnote 52 One feature of some of these lists is an attempt to arrange virtues and vices according to a causative hierarchy. The notion of “capital vices,” which lead to other vices, is prominent in Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek moral philosophers but eventually emerges in Jewish and Christian texts as well, sometimes in connection to the influence of evil spirits.Footnote 53 For example, in the Testament of Dan the spirits of deceit incite acts of wickedness, and the spirits of promiscuity and arrogance focus their attention on the sons of Levi to try to provoke them to sin (5:5–6). In the Testament of Reuben sexual promiscuity is said to lead to idolatry (4:6), and in the Testament of Judah promiscuity and avarice lead to transgression of the law and to arrogance (18:3).Footnote 54
Within this general concern for which vices or sins lead to other sins, there is a concern in some authors of the late Second Temple period or shortly thereafter to identify vices or sins that are the root or font of all others. Statements can take the form of reflecting on historical origin, anthropological origin, or both together. In addition, statements of this kind can appear in a strong form, in which all sinful acts are traced metaphysically to one root sin, or in weaker form, in which a particular kind of sin by its nature functions as a gateway to all other kinds of sin without claiming that every individual sinful act is preceded and caused by it.
While such hierarchies of sin are not found explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, a good case can be made that the Hebrew Bible's leading candidate for the source of other sins is rebellion from YHWH, especially in the form of a departure from correct service and worship. This can be in the form of the worship of false gods, the worship of physical objects that falsely represent the true God, or the worship of the true God in ways inconsistent with God's revealed prescriptions. In any of the theological frameworks in the Hebrew Bible, transgressions of God's requirements always have this valence because of the personal nature of God's relationship with Israel. Transgression is always betrayal, rebellion against the divine.Footnote 55 Thus, it is not surprising to find that one candidate in early Judaism for the capital sin at the root of all others is false worship, especially in the form of idolatry. For example, in Pseudo-Philo's retelling of the biblical narrative in the first century c.e., God says to Israel, “And I told them not to make idols nor the works of those gods that have been born from corruption under the name of ‘graven image’ and those things through which all these corruptions have been brought about” (L.A.B. 44:7).Footnote 56 Well into the talmudic period the golden calf incident was considered the zenith of sinfulness such that in b. Sanh. 102a R. Isaac says that “no retribution whatsoever comes upon the world which does not contain a slight fraction of the first calf.”Footnote 57 In the first century, around the same time as Pseudo-Philo, the apostle Paul reflects a similar view. In Romans Paul writes that “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” (1:23 NRSV). Here he takes biblical traditions about the idolatry of the golden calf (Ps 106:20) and blends them with language drawn from Gen 1:20–27 to argue that idolatry is at the heart of human sinfulness and, therefore, is also the logical, final manifestation of sinfulness.Footnote 58
However, in the late Second Temple period other views on capital sins began to appear in early Judaism and Christianity as well. As part of the larger interest in capital vices in Greek moral philosophy, a widely attested view is that avarice is a, or the, capital vice (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.50).Footnote 59 Among Jewish texts, the third Sibylline Oracle states in the second or first century b.c.e. that the love of money “begets innumerable evils” (235).Footnote 60 An even stronger assessment of avarice is found in the Hellenistic Jewish instruction Pseudo-Phocylides, a text written around the turn of the era: “The love of money is the mother of every evil” (42).Footnote 61 Around the same time Philo makes the same assertion in multiple places (Flacc. 60; Spec. 1.24; 2.74–78; Prob. 21; Contempl. 17). Perhaps most famously, the same claim is made in the late New Testament book of 1 Timothy: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains” (6:10 NRSV).
A third vice set forth as a capital vice is that of 
, which when used of vice can mean “desire” (including lust) or “covetousness.”Footnote 62 The Stoics identified this as one of the four primary passions, and this idea was adopted by some Hellenistic Jews as well.Footnote 63 In the early first century Philo speaks of desire as the source of all evils on multiple occasions (Spec. IV, 84–85; Opif. 152; Decal. 173; Virt. 100). Near the end of the first century c.e., in the Jewish pseudepigraphal work the Apocalypse of Abraham, the narrator says that “I saw there desire and in her hand (was) the head of every kind of lawlessness; and her torment and her dispersal destined to destruction” (24:9).Footnote 64 At around the same time in its retelling of the garden of Eden story, the Apocalypse of Moses narrates, “When he had received the oath from me, he went, climbed the tree, and sprinkled his evil poison on the fruit which he gave me to eat which is his covetousness. For covetousness [
] is the origin of every sin. And I bent the branch toward the earth, took the fruit, and ate” (19.3).Footnote 65 Similarly, this view is also represented in the New Testament. In Rom 7:7, Paul says that “sin was working in me every manner of coveting, for apart from the law sin is dead.”Footnote 66 The Epistle of James is even more direct: “When . . . desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death” (1:15).
One variant of the view of desire as a capital vice is the identification of sexual sin as that which leads to other sins. Already in the third century b.c.e., the Book of the Watchers holds that the intercourse between the angelic beings and the daughters of men became the occasion for the revelation and dissemination of all sins (1 En. 9:8).Footnote 67 In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs the children of Simeon are advised to “be aware of acting impurely, because impurity [
] is the mother of all evils” (T. Sim. 5:3).Footnote 68
Finally, most germane to Sir 10:13 and its history of interpretation is the vice of pride. In multiple places Philo warns that 
is the source of all evil. For example, in Flaccus he says that “satiety engenders insolence [
], which is the source of all evil” (91; similarly, Decal. 5).Footnote 69 This statement by Philo is instructive because in this passage pride is characterized as the beginning of all evils but is itself a product of satiety. Later in the same treatise he says drunkenness leads to insolence (Flacc. 136). The notion that material comfort and wealth induce pride is found frequently in Philo (e.g., Opif. 169; Spec. 3.43), but here he claims that, once cultivated, pride breeds all other evils (similarly, Decal. 5–6; Mos. 2.13). Yet, as noted above, elsewhere Philo explicitly names desire/covetousness and avarice as the source of all evils; in addition, he also speaks of falsehood (Contempl. 39) and inequality (Spec. 1.121; Contempl. 70) in this way. That there are multiple vices that are said to be the root of all evils, even at times within the same treatise, demonstrates that in Philo's treatment of “capital” vices there is a degree of flexibility in the construction of virtue/vice hierarchies depending on the context.Footnote 70 The same phenomenon can be seen in comparing Paul's discussions of idolatry in Romans 1 and covetousness in Romans 7. In other words, the relationship among various vices is not necessarily considered absolute, but is often contingent on the author's rhetorical goals for moral formation. In addition, vices are not always hermetically sealed from one another. They can overlap and, therefore, mutually predispose someone to the others.Footnote 71
Significantly, when placed within the context of this discussion, the versions of Sirach discussed in section 3 above seem to reflect scribal interventions that participate in this discussion of capital vices in the late Second Temple period and late antiquity. For example, whereas GI has “the beginning of pride is sin,” in GII (ca. 50–150 c.e.) the relationship has been reversed so that pride is what gives rise to sin. In this version, the rejection of God results in pride (v. 12), and this pride then leads to sin and an outpouring of abominations. This reworking of the text fits nicely into the contemporary conversation among Jewish and Christian authors about vices that lead to other sins.Footnote 72 Likewise, the Syriac version (second to fourth century c.e.) displays a similar change. In both v. 13a and v. 12a the relationship has been reversed such that pride is the source of sin. Also notable is the new reading in v. 13b, which reads like a theological gloss that reflects the same kind of view of sexual immorality as a capital vice that was seen in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Sim. 5:3).
Finally, the Vetus Latina (ca. second century c.e.), which is dependent on GII, introduces a key additional element into the form of the text in its rendering of v. 13a: “For the beginning of every sin is pride.”Footnote 73 For the history of hamartiology the addition of the word “every” in v. 13a is highly significant. Whereas GII (and the Syriac) claim that pride leads to sin, the Vetus Latina goes further and traces every sin to pride.Footnote 74 If indeed this word was introduced at the translational level, the translator may have been simply rendering what was taken to be the real sense of the Greek text rather than self-consciously introducing a new element. This version of Sir 10:13a both reflects the kind of thinking on capital vices commonly found in texts from the early Common Era, but also it is now positioned to function as a perfect scriptural prooftext for the primacy of pride among the vices in Christian moral theology.
Sirach 10:13a, Pride, and the Capital Vices in Early Christianity
While early Judaism and the New Testament reflect a diversity of opinions on which vices are capital vices, in the early centuries of Christianity the primacy of pride as the capital vice began to gain momentum, despite the claim regarding avarice in 1 Tim 6:10. Though the reasons for this are not completely clear, Morton Bloomfield suggests that in the monastic life pride would have been a pressing issue and, thus, assumed the primary place in configurations of capital vices.Footnote 75 The Egyptian monastic Evagrius (345–399 c.e.) is usually credited with providing the first Christian list of the capital vices, and he places pride in the eighth and climactic position.Footnote 76 His disciple John Cassian (ca. 360–432 c.e.) also concludes his Institutes with pride, arguing that “our eighth struggle, which is the last, is against the spirit of pride. Although this disease is the final one in the combat with the vices and is placed last in order, it is nonetheless first in terms of origin and time” (12.1).Footnote 77 As his discussion unfolds, Cassian views pride as operative in the fall of Lucifer in Isaiah 14 and in the statement in Gen 3:5. He concludes:
“[Pride] is the cause of the first downfall and the ultimate origin of the disease that, once again by way of him who had let himself be cast down, crept into the first man and produced the weaknesses and the wherewithal of all the vices. For in his belief that he could attain to the glory of the Godhead by his own free will and effort, he lost even that which was his by the grace of the Creator” (12.5).Footnote 78
Interestingly, although John Cassian seems to have regarded Sirach as Scripture (Inst. 4.38), he does not cite Sirach 10 at any point in his discussion of pride. Yet the fact that the Egyptian monastic tradition and the Vetus Latina, which is of north African provenance,Footnote 79 share a similar view without any indication that one influenced the other is likely significant because it suggests that the idea reflected in the addition of omnis to v. 13a in the Vetus Latina may well have been a scribal alteration that reflects the influence of the increasing importance of pride in moral theology at the time.Footnote 80
Unlike his contemporary John Cassian, however, Augustine appeals to this particular form of Sir 10:13a as much as any other biblical text on pride (e.g., Civ. 12.6, 14.13; Lib. 3.25; Nat. grat. 33; Ennarat. Ps. 55.17; Serm. 346). Augustine's interest in Sirach 10 is quite understandable. While for him sin is an absence, a deprivation, to the degree that it has an essence Augustine characterizes the nature of sin as pride (superbia). Beginning with Adam and Eve and then recapitulated in every subsequent sin is a self-exaltation that seeks to displace God with the sinner's own self. Thus, in Augustine, sin, rebellion against God, and prideful self-exaltation are all different ways of describing the same phenomenon, which is constitutive of the fallen soul. While, for Augustine, pride underlies every sin, because it is deeply descriptive of the nature of sin itself, he views actions related to Roman imperial power as particularly revealing instantiations of this, whether in the form of political control that values power at the expense of justice, the cultural exaltation of the heroic ideal, or the epistemological aspirations of the various philosophical schools.Footnote 81 Although his thinking on pride has multiple sources, Augustine naturally grounds his teaching on pride in scriptural texts.Footnote 82 At both the ontological and historical origin of humanity's sin is the serpent's temptation of the first couple in the garden: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5 NRSV). Antecedent to this, of course, is the rebellion of Satan, which was also understood as a self-exaltation that sought to displace God from heaven's throne, typically tied to an interpretation of Isaiah 14. Similar interpretations of Isaiah 14 (and Ezekiel 28) regarding the “fall” of Satan can be found prior to Augustine.Footnote 83 While the interpretation of Gen 3:5 along the lines of pride is found in both Augustine and his contemporary John Cassian (Inst. 12.4–5), it is not prominent before them.Footnote 84 However, the verse most frequently cited by Augustine for his view of pride as the root of all other sins is the Vulgate of Sir 10:13a: “The beginning of every sin is pride.”Footnote 85 In fact, Augustine even reinforces his understanding of Adam's fall in Genesis 3 in terms of pride by an appeal to Sir 10:13 (e.g., Nat. grat. 29.33).
In addition to providing a succinct statement that reflects his view on the primacy of pride, the larger context of Sir 10:13 is significant for Augustine as well. The strong association between political power and pride found in Ben Sira surely resonated with Augustine's critique of Roman imperialism. More important, however, is Ben Sira's discussion of sin, pride, and rebellion against God together in Sir 10:12–13b.Footnote 86 For, as Russell Reno has recently argued, while Augustine holds pride as the primal sin, his phenomenology of pride as that of turning away from God and inwards toward oneself necessarily includes within it an act of rebellion and even idolatry.Footnote 87 For example, in one discussion of the nature of idolatry Augustine cites Sir 10:13 in order to make sense of Paul's progression of thought in Romans 1 (Serm. 198.33). It appears, then, that Sir 10:12–13b provided a perfect point of integration for the central importance of rebellion and idolatry in Old Testament hamartiology, which was reflected in part in the New Testament as well, and in the rising importance of pride in early Christian moral theology.
After Augustine, the particular form of Sir 10:13 found in the Vetus Latina/Vulgate assumed a central place in discussions of sin in the Western Christian world. For example, Julian Pomerius (ca. 500 c.e.), who emigrated from north Africa to Gaul, has a long treatment on pride as the capital vice in his Contemplative Life (3.2–3) in which he makes much of the word omnis:
Let Divine Scripture be consulted and let it give the reply—the Scripture which, as if we actually were asking it, set forth an unalterable statement, saying: Pride is the beginning of all sin. What could be said more clearly, what could be more convincing? The beginning, not of some sin, but of every sin is pride, it says, in order to show plainly that it precisely is the cause of all sins. Evidently, not only is pride itself a sin, but, furthermore no sin in the past, present, or future could be committed without it. For all sin is nothing but contempt of God, by which His precepts are trodden underfoot; and that which prompts men to this contempt of God is pride alone.Footnote 88
Julian Pomerius goes on to connect the teaching of Sir 10:13 with the fall of Satan and the fall of Adam. Within a century, this new centrality of Sir 10:13 played a role in reshaping the traditional list of capital vices. Gregory the Great (540–604 c.e.), who was dependent on John Cassian, reduced the list of capital sins from eight, as in Evagrius and Cassian, to seven, and classified pride as the source, or root, of the other seven and his justification for pride's new position as underlying all the rest is an appeal to Sir 10:13.Footnote 89 In his Moralia he comments:
For the tempting vices, which fight against us in invisible contest in behalf of the pride which reigns over them, some of them go first, like captains, others follow, after the manner of an army. . . . For when pride, the queen of sins, has fully possessed a conquered heart, she surrenders it immediately to seven principal sins, as if to some of her generals, to lay it waste. . . . For pride is the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness; Pride is the beginning of all sin. But seven principal vices, as its first progeny, spring doubtless from this poisonous root, namely vain glory, envy, anger, melancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust (31.45.87).Footnote 90
As in other places where Gregory discusses pride as the root of the other vices, his scriptural warrant is consistently a citation from the Latin form of Sir 10:13a, “pride is the root of every evil” (see, e.g., Hom. in Ezech. 2.6.7).
One indication of the power of this synthesis between the evolving tradition and Sir 10:13a is that this verse from Sirach consistently trumps the teaching on avarice as the capital sin in the New Testament (1 Tim 6:10). So even though Augustine cites 1 Tim 6:10 in condemning avarice as the root of every evil (e.g., Serm. 72.4 and 177.9), in multiple places he subsumes the perspective of 1 Tim 6:10 under the perspective of Sir 10:13 (e.g., Gen. imp. 11.19; Serm. 198.33).Footnote 91 Likewise, Julian Pomerius reconciles the two Scriptures by arguing that pride and covetousness (which he takes to be the subject in 1 Tim 6:10) are actually two sides of the same vice (Contempl. 3.4). Attempts to reconcile the two continued into the medieval period, as evidenced by Aquinas's lengthy treatment in Summa theologiae (1.2, q.84).Footnote 92 Even when, by the late medieval period, avarice began receiving an increased amount of attention, pride remained difficult to dislodge because its place at the head of the “Seven Deadly Sins” had acquired a fixed status.Footnote 93 Thereafter, pride continued to assume the primary position and source of the “Seven Deadly Sins,” as can be seen in such authors as Dante and Milton, as well as modern treatments like that of Reinhold Niebuhr.Footnote 94
Conclusions
As we have traced the transmission and transformation of a verse from its composition by Ben Sira to its citation as a central prooftext in Western Christian discussions of the nature of sin and the role of pride, a number of theological issues have been raised. Already in Ben Sira there can be seen an attempt not just to discuss pride, but to probe its nature and origins. Ben Sira's approach shows a great deal of continuity with theological elements present in the Hebrew Bible, but his move from political phenomena to anthropological reflection is distinctive. An exegetical and philological analysis of the key verses in his argument highlights multiple ambiguities. The meaning of words such as 
and 
as well as the imagery used to convey the relationship between sin and pride allow for multiple interpretations. While those responsible for the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions made interpretive decisions to clarify some aspects of Ben Sira's ambiguous verses, they inevitably also introduced new ambiguities and possibilities of interpretation into their own texts. Accordingly, the transmission history of Sir 10:12–13 reveals how a scriptural text is never simply a static entity; rather it is always embedded within a larger tradition that perceives and interprets its relevance. The mere phenomenon of copying and disseminating a text already presupposes judgments about its meaning and significance, which can begin to affect the text itself, especially as it crosses linguistic boundaries through translation. So, for example, if indeed the key addition of “every” in the Latin of Sir 10:13a occurred at the translational level, it may not be quite correct to claim that the Latin translator “changed” the text; rather, the translator may have simply been giving what was understood to be the true and correct sense of the Greek text. To observe, then, the way that the text of Sir 10:12–13b is recast in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions illuminates the way that insofar as a text is regarded as authoritative or scriptural, it never exists independently of the tradition that transmits it for that purpose. Even after a text gained status as Scripture within a tradition, such a text and the theological tradition continued to shape one another precisely because such communities expected the text and their tradition to cohere.Footnote 95
A second feature that has emerged in this discussion concerns the attempts to explore the nature of sin and the ethical grammar of vices such as pride in late antiquity. Ben Sira's initial move in this direction as well as his connection of pride to issues of rebellion/idolatry and political power resulted in Sirach 10's becoming a locus classicus for later writers who were reflecting on similar connections. Indeed, both the textual transformation of Sir 10:13a and its ascension in importance in moral theology were contingent on these discussions and the eventual emergence of pride as the capital vice in early Christianity. Situating the versions of Sir 10:12–13 in the context of contemporary ethical discussions among their respective Jewish and Christian communities demonstrates the dialogical nature of how theological convictions develop within a matrix of authoritative texts, a community's theological heritage, and the wider intellectual culture. This confluence has important implications for the understanding of the canonical nature of texts as well. In the West, where the Latin form of Sir 10:13a would have been relevant, this concerns primarily the Roman Catholic Church's position since Sirach is not regarded as canonical in Judaism and Protestantism (though the phenomenon could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to textually pluriform books within other canons).Footnote 96 Here it is important to note that despite the existence of Sirach in shorter and longer forms and in multiple languages, the Catholic Church has never specified that one version is canonical to the exclusion of the others. This is clear from the Council of Trent, which implicitly affirmed as canonical both the longest version of Sirach found in the Vulgate and the shorter of the Greek versions found in the Vaticanus manuscript.Footnote 97 Or, to put it another way, it is books not versions of books that are considered canonical, and any concrete text form of a book can be understood in terms of canonicity only functionally in relation to a given community that possesses a particular version. In addition, it is evident that the aspects of the theological tradition that have shaped the text into a pluriform reality are incorporated, at least implicitly, into the scriptural foundations of further theological reflection.Footnote 98 For this reason, the Vatican II document Dei verbum is careful to characterize the mutual interaction and dependence of Scripture and tradition as constituting one sacred deposit (§§8–10). The case of Sir 10:13 and its participation and subsequent role in the development of Western hamartiology highlights just how deeply these two could be interdependent in their historical development.Footnote 99
