Skip to main content

Full text of "The Hebrew Ecclesiasticus"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 



The problem is so complicated, and my contribution 
so small, tbat it would be unsafe to theorize. What one 
wants to know chiefly is the method of working. What is, 
for instance, free translation ? how is one to know when the 
translator misread or misunderstood the original, and when 
he knowingly diverged from it? Take, for example, the con- 
jectural Wl? strings (xxxix. 15 c), which is in the Greek quite 
different ; the only example cited to confirm the conjecture 
is in an admittedly corrupt Psalm (xlv. 9), and there is no 
ancient authority for this interpretation of ''ft?. In such 
a context, and where so many B>'s occur, we ought probably 
to read *]in»l? &2W )W bsm p (cf. Is. xxv. 6). Or take 
njmra, next line, where Gk. lv l£o/xoA.oy?j<r«, Lat. in con- 
fessione, imply miro ; whether the translator, overlooking 
the quiescent 5?, misread the original, or had nfina in it, 
cannot from the Greek alone be decided. But the Syriac 
proves almost to a certainty that something is wrong with 
his original. NOT xbpy\ KmirDl is either a double trans- 
lation of tynna (cf. Syr. Vulg., Num. xxiii. 21), or represents 
alternative readings. It will, therefore, be more practical 
to begin with the lesser difficulties. 

xxxix. 1 8 b, -i1tfj», Gr. os ekarrda-ei, implies "Vjra» (cf. Gr. 
Jer. xxx. 19). vnymb, Gk. rd a-cnT^piov avrov; Syr. roipis^ 
must therefore be an error for rupTia^. xxxix. 24 b, ii>hnD\ 
Gk. Trpoa-KonixaTa may be an error for ■upo^dip.aTa (cf. 2 Sam. 
xx. 15, 2 Kings xix. 32, Ezek. xxi. 27, Dan. Theod. xi. 15). 
xl. 2 a is wanting in the MS., but the Gk. roi»s bia\oyi<rixovs 
am&v and Syr. ;innni3K>n imply a misreading, by one of 
them, of an original form of 3B>n or rot? ; it must therefore 
have existed in Hebrew, xl. 6 a, ptrh : as the Greek is also 


obscure, I should suggest that yeX&v or yeXav, representing 
an original pintJ^, fell out as dittograph after oXiyov. xl. 6 c, 
J?t3 DJ?D : the error here is due to the oj?D immediately above, 
the original being ytajJDO, formed like j?nj?riD, Gk. TeQopvfit)- 
fxivos, Lat. cor turbatus (conturbatus) ; the Syrian translator, 
however, read it as a form of BJP, e.g. ~\bvr>ttl. xl. 14b, 
DXns, Gk. 01 irapaftalvovres, Lat. praevaricatores, implies 
BWS (cf. LXX, Is. lx. 24, and Vulg. Amos iv. 4). xl. 15 a, 
npJ\ It is to be noticed that, according to the margin, 'o, 
15 b, belongs to this line, and is not represented by Greek 
or Latin ; which suggests that, owing to the similarity of 
the words of p?.i' 1 a^J, the original was corrupted. Gk. 
■nXtiOvvel icXabovs. Compare LXX ir\r)6vv6ri<rovT<u for pair 
(Ps. xcii. 15). xl. 16 a, mmipD : the editors' conjectural 
nwnp reeds is a genuine Talmudic word (cf. T. B. Shabbath, 
viii. 1 ; Erubin, xxii. 1). Gk. &x et is the same word which 
stands for WN (Gen. xli. 2, 18). The Latin has a double 
translation, e. g. sonant, the last word in 15 b represents 
axei as verb (Doric for ?/x«i), an d viriditas is the meaning 
of mx in Egyptian (see Brown's Hebr. Lexicon), xl. 16 b, 
-iDD, Gk. ypprov, Syr. p-iv, suggests *QO, the error being, 
perhaps, due to the s immediately above. In Exod. x. 15, 
pT>, the single instance of the word being used for green of 
tree and herb, is represented by Syr. nqid. xl. 18 b, Drwwi, 
Syr. pr6 mpriDTi, misreading DWODI, BOJ being generally 
represented by anp (cf. Syr. xlv. 5 b, 16 b). xl. 19 a, "Vjn *6*, 
Syr. Nip^Xi Nmn is an error of transposition. Read Nan 
NIYnpl. xl. 19 d, npKTU has not much sense in this context ; 
it is, perhaps, an error for rOBTO, the Gk. afzw/uos koyi{zTat. 
represents the latter in the sense in which it is often used 
in the Talmud, xl. 26 d : Ndldeke is right in saying that 
fiDOO "can hardly be right" {Expositor, May, 1897, p. 358). 
fiorjOeiav and Syr. NmyiD suggest jjo, which is so rendered 
by these Versions in Ps. vii. 1 1 . The latter often represents 
the word by VDD nijjo (cf. Gen. xv. 1, Deut. xxxiii. 29, 
2 Sam. xxii. 3, 31 = Ps. xviii. 3, 31 ; Ps. iii. 4, xxviii. J, Prov. 
ii. 7). xli. 1 b, irOttD, Gk. iv rois VTr&pxovcnv avrov, Syr. 


»mD33, implies inapt: (cf. LXX, Gen. xxxi. 1 8, xxxvi. 7, xlvi. 6). 
xlii. 6 : I would suggest that n after niST is a dittograph, 
and the » of tan should be in its place, and to read new by 
nriep man dt Dipoi tin Dtan nyn ( c f. Greek), xlii. 8 d, 
Dr. Nbldeke says " yiav is certainly not humble. In Jewish 
Aramaic jjax is often prudent " (ib. p. $6$). This is question- 
able. (1) It means to put by in a particular place, to stow 
away; (2) to hide, transitive and intransitive; (3) to be 
modest, from the notion of being reserved, retired. In Mic. vi. 8 
Rashi and Kimchi explain the word in secret, and in Prov. 
xi. 2 the LXX renders Tairnv&v, and so does Theodotion as 
represented by the Syro-Hexaplaris, e.g. nmd (see Buxtorf, 
whose citations should be read in their context). In this 
context, modest would be more suitable than humble. 
xlii. 9 c, nun : Dr. Nbldeke is right in saying that the word 
cannot mean to commit adultery in Sirach (ib. p. 36a). 
The 1 is an error for 2, and the word is "»)on, a very common 
word in the Talmud, meaning to arrive at the age of puberty, 
or a woman who is beyond the age of a iTij». This corre- 
sponds with the Gk. TrapaKp-da-r). But the Syrian translator 
read "ton, Nntsxn. The former reading is confirmed by the 
fact that in the parallel passage (Synhedrin, 100 b), as 
cited by the editors (p. xxvii), the word is used, e.g. mn. 
xlii. jo a: /3e/3rjA.o>0fj may represent na&n, which the LXX 
represents by the same word in an identical context (Num. 
v. 12, 19, 20, 29). xlii. 10 d : only a "i is certain of the last 
word in the line, which is a remnant of TXjm , Gk. o-retpcoo-jj. 
Compare LXX, teal crrdpav eTroCrja-a for Tnxjtt (Is. lxvi. 9). 
xlii. 21 a, pn, Gk. eKoa-^rja-ev rather represents |pn (cf. Eccles. 
i. 15, vii. 13, xii. 9). xliii. 2 a, Gk. ijkios h dwrao-ia butyyikkcov 
kv e£o8&> includes the marginal iriNM, e.g. inNX3 JP30 BW 
irma. xliii. 2 b, Gk. ovceSos, Syr. NJNE, imply that ncn is an 
error for DKsn (Gen. xxi. 14, 15, 19), often used in the Talmud 
for watersldn, or simply vessel, xliii. 4 a : a D has fallen 
out as dittograph. Read pOTO Dono niBJ -na. In the Gk. 
(j>v\ao-<r<ov is an error for <pv<rakovv (not <pvcr&v, Nbldeke, 
ib. 360), iv epyois Kavp.aTos should be opydfa xaveupaTa, Syr. 


N^p casting work or object of casting. For ptfia compare 
i Kings vii. 37, Job xxxviii. 38. xliii. 4c: in this very 
obscure line the Gk. ar^ibas and Syr. Nioy imply that in 
}1KB& there is a corruption of jb>j?. 'Efupvcr&v points plainly 
to row as a derivative of 3E>3 to blow. But aKrivas can 
only have a Hebrew equivalent in nVinn, which may be 
concealed in this and the next line. The word is oftener 
used in the Talmud (cf. nan bw men, Tttb bu> TiaTi, Toma, 
xxviii. a). I should, however, provisionally suggest the 
following : naw fcOtt) n">1Na J1XE& " For a multitude of lights 
but a (single) coal is blown upon." But tool or man coal, 
is found in biblical Hebrew, xliii. 5 b, in»3K , Gk. iropeiav, 
Syr. nna^n, plainly imply Vi3y his motion, xliii. 6 b, rbwcfo, 
Gk. av&bei&v, Syr. sn^nn, imply that it is a participle with 
the sense to liken an illustration. If the first a were 
a dittograph the word would be a feminine construct ; for 
we find a plural rvbwo in the Talmud. The LXX, curiously 
enough, renders J0"i, ira/xi§eiy/xa (Jer. viii. 2, ix. 31, xvi. 4). 
xliii. 8 c : read vfcJ for "£33 £Ae regions above (cf . Job xxxviii. 
30, Mai. i. 4). xliii. 31b, nui error for ni3\ parallel to p^i, but 
the Greek translator read it n33' 1 , airoo-fiivei. xliii. 33 : the 
corruption in this is mainly due to the proximity of similar 
words, ND1,"lQJ>, sum. The Gk. Kara <nwvbriv must be Kara 
a-iTobov, "iBJflD ; read itiavdeiva for a-navr&a-a, and sjjm for jnia . 
Compare LXX Trtav&jo-erai for JiBJP' 1 (Ps. lxv. 13). xliii. 23 a, 
piB* , , is all that is left of the original which corresponds 
to the Gk. eKOTtaa-ev, Lat. siluit. From the Gk. Xoyio-fx^ and 
Lat. in sermone it may be inferred that 3 before in3B>na fell 
out as dittograph after 3~ity. Perhaps i'W is the remnant 
of pf . ; a reminiscence of Ps. lxxviii. 15, rm niainna pW 
and pig* also occur in 31a. The Versions show that we 
ought to read p , n?', and ri3T is nominative; for it cannot 
be inferred from aftvo-aov that the Hebrew was Hiph. 
because the accusative after Koira(. is against idiom, and 
no Hiph. occurs in biblical Hebrew. It should be noticed 
that pnt? occurs only four times, and in the instances where 
the sea is subject Ko-nafa is used, and as a neuter verb, 


e.g. Koircurei fi d&kacraa (Jon. i. II, I a), xliv. 16, riJJI n>N, 
Gk. vnohnyfia ^ravolas. Dr. Noldeke says, " The puzzle that 
Enoch is referred to as an example of repentance is removed 
by the Hebrew njn ri1N ; read hvolas instead of peTavolas." 
Ifc might, however, be urged (1) how can we account for 
so serious an error ? (2) It may be simply the translator's 
exegesis, of which we have a great many examples in the 
LXX. Take, for instance, yT». Kal is represented some- 
times by fxavOavco, hiayiyvaxrKca, emo-nonea) (Exod. ii. 4, Deut. 
viii. 2, Esth. ii. 11). Niph. yvapCCerai, e&Xao-Otio-eTcu (Exod. 
xxi. 36, I Sam. vi. 3). Hiph. <n^/3i/3afw, a-rj/xaiva), heUvvp-i 
(Exod. xviii. 16, 20, Gen. xli. 39), avayyiXXca, 8i§ao-Kto (Josh, 
iv. 22, Job x. 2). In such a context the word might have 
that meaning: the knowledge of God before death may 
be equivalent to repentance. (3) But it is quite possible 
that the translator had in his mind the tradition, preserved 
in the Midr. Eab. (Gen. Pareshah, 25), that "Enoch was 
a spn, sometimes he was p^X and sometimes j)t>n, and the 
Almighty said, ' I will take him up while he is still in his 
righteousness.'" xlv. 7 d, DK"t niajnm, margin for mi "lNin, 
Gk. TsepicrroX^v botjrjs suggests nan niSBJJM or 1ND HDJJD3 (cf. 
Heb. and Gk. Is. lxi. 3). xlv. 7 e, ffoittjjs , perhaps, tPOJji , 
referring to the ordinary priestly garments and to those 
worn in the Holy of Holies. It should be noticed that 
tftMSN and nijnJD are not mentioned in the list (Exod. 
xxviii. 40). xlv. 1 7 d, (poovrja-at, Lat. lucem dare represents 
misreading fpavrjacu. xlv. 23 c, lN3p3 , Gk. iv ra ^qk&aai, Lat. 
in vmitando implies a form of ros ; for the Vulg. renders 
this word assimilo, aequo (Is. xliv. 5, Job xxxii. 21). 
xlvi. 4 a, Toy, Gk. bvenobio-ev, Syr. Dp, Lat. impetus est must 
be an error for impeditus est. xlvi. lib, NtM error for nyro 
rather than ntM (editors). Syr. nyo, Lat. corruptum est, 
Gk. (£eTropv€v<r(v is probably an error for k^enovzvp-qcrzv (cf. 
LXX, Jer. xlii. 20). xlvii. 15: Dr. Noldeke says that D?P 
to praise arose out of /caAws, bravo (ib., p. 363). In Rabbinic 
literature there are a few instances where the word may 
be of Greek origin, and then it is spelt D)bap , to show that 


it is a loan-word. But the verb cbp is identical with the 

biblical word ; the two opposite senses having arisen from 

the fact that what is a triumph to one is a humiliation 

or mockery to the person over whom he triumphs (cf. 

Rashi, Hab. i. 10). p? has also seemingly contrary senses. 

xlvii. 1 6 a, b is not in the Hebrew. In b for h rrj elprtvy 

(tov the Latin has in pace tua, Syr. "\yQvh. At first sight 

one is led to infer that, owing to the very slight difference 

between j> and b, the Syriac is an error for "ycbvh. But one 

hesitates to do so in the face of the following facts. 

Lagarde's Lat. xlvi. 16, equal editors' 13, is dilectus a deo 

suo Samuhel, Gk. fiya.Tnnj.ivos iwb Kvpiov avrov ; this is all 

we have for the Hebrew verse, the second line of which 

begins ^N15J>DH. Does not all this suggest that the two 

verses are somehow identical, and the cause of corruption 

is to be traced to the similarity of ^KlEW! , If&vh, *\ymh ? 

xlvii. 18 c, ^naa, ws Kaa-airepov, Syr. t03K 7>N, equal imaa, 

which is a more likely parallel to may. xlvii. 22 : I do not 

think that we can infer that the translator " intentionally 

gives a free translation when he renders" b^, bia<p6aprj 

(Nbldeke, ib., p. 348). The Greek represents a misreading 

biy (cf. LXX, Exod. xviii. 18). The Latin seems to represent 

a double translation or alternative readings, et non cor- 

rumpet neque ddebit. We may also question the correctness 

of Dr. Noldeke's statement that the translator "tries to 

improve upon the original " when " he writes katxirds, which 

appears more suitable, for furnace, Ton, xlviii. 1 " (ib.). 

Who says that Ton means furnace ? Surely, if the Greek, 

which has a richer vocabulary, uses Ittvos for furnace, oven, 

and lantern, is it not probable that the Hebrew, with a very 

limited one, would use nun for Kpij3avos and Xap.irds'i 

xlix. 6a, WW), Gk. eveirvpiaav, Lat. incenderunt, Syr. ripj>, 

is not an error for npN , but implies a misreading UfW (cf. 

Syr. Exod. xxxiv. 13, Lev. xi. 35, xiv. 45, Deut. vii. 5, xii. 3). 

They stumble over these two words. They render jto as 

ntf 1 (Jer. iv. 26) and ny as ym (Jer. ii. 15). 

N. Heez.