cheenc03a.pdf

emark that the Hebrew MSS of BS fall into two
divisions: those that more rcsemble the Greek, and !
those that are nearer the Syriac ; to the former division
belongs the B-group, to the latter the A-group. This 1
clarsification holds in a general way, but may easily be 1
too far. Even io the earlier A and B material :
there are a number of passages that are adverse ro such 1
a classiScntion. and many more appear in the new 1
fl-ag~nenrs. The division into there two classes has. I
Iroirrver. been held to indicate thnt our Hebrew is a
trnnrlstion from the Greek or the Syriac. With the
new material at our diroornl it mnv be said that thir
supposition. as an explanation of the Hebrew v a whole.
seems to be definitely excluded. It appears to be set
aside ~~, hv the irreeularirv " , of the accordance of H with W
or S. by its not infrequent divergence . from and corrg- 1
tion of both theversions, by its relation to thequotations
in the Talmud and Saadia, and by its tone, which in
n,:tny ~lnces is free and inde~endent and is chnrvctrrised
by an iphoristic curtness thit a translator would not k
likely toattain. We must rather account for the general
relation between H and the verrions by rupporit~g that
11 is the descendant of early texts, some of which
were the basis of B, others the basis d S. The
otnirsionr in S call for fuller treatment than the" have
yet received. They may be due in part to the frequent
fondness of thir version for clearness and cotldmsation,
in Dart to the defrctivenerr of the ,MS frum which it war
made.
(d) Diction.-The tertimotly of the new fragments
confirms the judgment of the language expressed under
ECCI.ES1ASTICUS. After allowance hv been made for
obvious scribd errors the diction of H does not differ
m;,terinlly from that of Koheleth. Aramairms and New-
Hehrew forms md expressions may \sell have Ixen employed
by Ben-Sira himself (such forms occur even in the
Book of Proverbs), nnd, ar regards the fragments, there
was no time. from 200 R.C. to IDDO A.D., when Jewish
scribes i"0"ld not be likely to insert familiar Aramaic
words-the more that the text of Ben-Sira was not protected
by canonical sanctity. The vocnbulnry oi the
fmgmzits furnishes abunr1~otmateri:d for lexicayr.zphic?l
rcaeich3 'She limits of the ' Neiv-Hebrew' vocnbulnry
are not sharply defined: at present it is hardly possiWe
to draw the linc distinctly between ' Xeohchrnisms' and
.Svriasms,' nrld there is a similar indistincrners (though
a leis clcnriy marked one) as to Arabisms. In respect
of purity of style the fragments differ among themselves :
1 The queirion whether the'Sefer ha-Galuy' (in which the
ciwti~~nr occur) is the work of Szrdia is di\caried by D. Xar-
~aliuuth, Hnrkrw, and Bacher in IQR 1% (1899-rqao). There
xemr to he no good rearon to douht its genu,nenerr.
2 Hcre, as elrewherc, Saadia is nearer rhrn ff to the clarric
usas: rhe ~criber of H (except in CUvi and ~*dl*r) arc fond
of ,he short re]. pron. w. But this ,I%KC, fhouph dirfincrive for
a given MS. is nut n mark of thc date of a Re~x-Sin rerr, rince
it is common in lrte OT wririnzr md in the 'rillmad.
1 on this point cp the comms. or Leri and RVSKI: the
articlts of Naldckc and Hourrn~r (KC zbove, col. iS31 n. 4):
Schwrlh. Ir2iotimn rl Chnifl.ful Amm. (18gj): Frilenkel,
i. .x:&J, ,a99: jrcob, in ZATIY, .go2: art. AR~~,AIC
Lh~cu~r.r. =have, col. 2815; and \,rriour dixusrionr in /OR
and RE/.
SIRACH
h,td a rert thnt w ; substantinlly ~
identical with ours; I CLci is relntirelg free from faults : parts of A and B
iris citations may be co~~ridertd lo establish. as far aa ! are gre~tly disfigured. The blemishes testify mostly to
thry go, a tert of the tenth century, though of its hlstor). the number of hands through which the MSS have
we know nothing.' Its special -lirniiarity to that of our passed, not to the work of 8, tr;olslutor. The aphoristic
Hebrew MSS may be a reruit oi the proximity in time cnrtnesr of style of the fragments has been referred to
of the two. Snadia also quotes us burn the ' \\'irdom of above.
lileazai bell Irni ' a pvrage that is found in our Ben-Sir* On the other hand, whilst the fragments produce a
( 3 f ), ~ and ~ the text quoted by h~m differs from that ot gecrera1 impression of orig,e+1ity, the text appears in
our Hebrew in only a couple of unimportant for1ns (H EmploymentsOl"e parsager to have ken translated
nrris, Sand. K'BI~; H w ma. Sand. ,rn~>);' the
fro", or conformed to that of a version
Of
natural conclusion is that the book of Elearar klr lrai and
Versiom
Talmud or of the Talmud. Some instances of
(:f this name really belongs to a separate author and is
roba able and nooarent ..
imitation of
not n corruption of ' Eleamr hco Sim') contained ex- Versions are mentioned above (Ecc~~sl~srrcus, 5 51,
tracts from Brn~Sira or from some work based on Ben- arid others have bee" pointed out by critics: most of
sirn.
the ercmples cited relate to the Syriuc, a few only to
(c) Relation uf H lo B and S-It is a common fh" Grcrk.' There cares, which are relatively not
numerous. do not prove a general translation or
imitation, but exhibit the procedures of particular scribes
in the passages in which they occur. Thesame remark
is to be made of carer in which H appears to follow the
Talmud ;l such imitations by late scribes are narursl.
The corruotions of the BS tert benan " earl" and contirlued
a long time; there was little to restrain the
fancier and the negligence of copyists, Taking into
coll~ideration the two reti, of fmts-the evidelrcer of
originality and the evidences of slavish imitation-the
more reasonable conclllrion seems to be that the tert of
the fmements " is in eeneral - - eenuine. but full of carruptioes.
It is hardly possible at present to make a helpful
clarsification of the Heb. MSS of Be,>-Sirn : for such a
"Iaslification we nccd more Heb.
6. CwC8-
ma'e'ial. 4" obvious and rilrlple
ti onof= eb. principle of division would be the relam88,
tion of the fragments to the two main
groups of Greek texts (6-c atr. and eBetr) or to the
two Greek and the S~riac. Bot, in addition to the fact
that the relations of the vrrsiunal texts to one another
and to the origins1 Hebrew are not clear, there is the
dimculty that the fragments show a confusing variety of
similarity and dissimilarity to the Versions and to one
another. This is true of all the Heb. MSS so far
publirlred: in the same paragraph, and even in ,be
same couplet, the text sometimes turns from one
version to another, or, abandoning both, goes its o\vn
independent wq. It is obvious that it has experienced
a vnrirty of fortunes, and tliat, whilst it sometimes
corrects the Versions or is corrected by them, it in some
c;lses goes bask to rourcer different fro", theirs. It
can br. therefore, only n rough classification thnt ir
based on rerenrblances to the Versions. The direct
tc~timonv to the Hebrew text is contained in the Talmud
(about 700 years alter the composition of Ben-Ssa'r
book) aud Sarlia (abut 400 years after the Talmud).
The Talmudic readiner " differ a eood " deal from oar H.
but Saadin is substantially identical with the latter; the
differences between the citations in the Talrnud and
those in Sandin inlay Lr ,:,ken to represent ruughly the
changer undergone by the Heb. text in the interval
between the two. The text of the Talmud is in general
accord with the unglosrerl Greek (6X), but ir free from
the scribal rnrintionr that crept into the latter: it may.
thus, represent a Hchrew tert (perhnpr as early as the
2nd cent. of our ern) which *.as in substantial accord
with the Gk. text that unrlcrlay our two main tik.
recensions. This Heb. text was probably the Lwsir
1 On the acrostic, 51 13-30. see Taylor in Schechter and
Taylor.\ i1,iiddln 4 Bm Sim, p: 1rxri 'x Lev;, in /?'TI.
1800. eiuer a numb~r of carer of im~titinn. I%at 4620 1% not a