STOP
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
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
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
contact support@jstor.org.
NOTES TO SIRACH XLIII. 20 AND XL. 12 I59
NOTES TO SIRACH XLIII. 20 and XL. 12.
mpo M^ap' 1 apiai yw pax nn wx
De. Taylob's interpretation of this passage (in the Jewish Qtjab-
TEBLY Review, X, 471 sq.) has the advantage that it does justice to
the text without any alterations or conjectures. But the proof that
the LXX took the word 3p"i in Job xiii. 28 to mean "skin-bottle,"
does not alter the fact that the word was misunderstood in that
passage, and that it is an Aramaic word which Sirach would not
have used, because it does not occur in holy writ. But apart from
this, the possibility of the word having been used by Sirach in that
sense is disproved by the incongruity of the expression. You can
collect liquids in a skin-bottle, but you cannot make them freeze
to it.
All other attempts to explain the passage are objectionable because
they attribute most incongruous similes to the poet, besides having
recourse to violent alterations of the text. The reading is correct
beyond doubt, even Smend has nothing to say against its accuracy.
Bacher's suggestion to read Vp'Ol (J. Q. R., IX, p. 552) is inadmis-
sible, because the alteration is gratuitous, and the simile would
become improbable. Schlatter, p. 48, inserts his conjecture 3[pn]31
into the text ; but it is just the passage in Job x. 10 which proves
that Sirach would not have employed the congelation of milk as
a metaphor of the power of the frost which hardens all water.
NOldeke conjectures from the Greek translator that these must have
been l"Pp31 in his copy. But the absence of any particle of com-
parison in Ka\ nayr](T(Tai KpvaraWa <i<f>' v&aroc proves that there was
no 3 in his text. I am of opinion that he had an abbreviated word
in his text, namely 'p">31, of which he made np")31 instead of 3p"01,
and which he translated xpuoraXXoy (cf. Israel Levi in Revue des
Ittudes Juites, XXXIV, 14). The passage must certainly not be trans-
lated et comme se durcit la boue, both the words and the metaphor
are against it '.
1 Isr. Levi, L'Ecclesiastique, Paris, 1898, p. 75.
l6o THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The phenomenon which Sirach wishes to describe is the sudden
metamorphosis of the liquid into the solid state, the moveable into
the rigid. It is therefore necessary that the metaphor he would
employ should be something symbolizing firmness and hardness.
It is known how easily a 1 is sometimes misread for a , in Hebrew
writing, and this at once disposes in our passage of all that the
metaphor demands. God causes the cold north wind to blow, and
he causes the springs 1 to become rigid like a winepress — 3p*31.
The icy surface of the spring resembles the smooth, hard bottom
of the vat of the winepress. The springs, which formerly moved
joyfully between their banks, have now become like so many wine-
presses by the frost of the north wind. The striking aptitude of
the simile is obvious, and the probability of the suggestion is
clear from a poetical point of view. But it is, besides, supported,
firstly by the Greek translator, and secondly by several parallel
cases in the Hebrew original. In the immediately following verse :
ffnp^ D'D HDJJC ?D , the translation runs : eVi irao-av avvaymyriv
vbaros KaraXva-ei, the translator's copy had evidently had dip* which
he misread as D" 1 ?'' = KarnXvo-ei 2 . Another obscure passage in Sirach
also receives light from the assumption that the letters 1 and * were
sometimes interchanged. The introduction to the description of the
glorious rising of the sun has at its very beginning the following
stumbling-block : HD3 imiO JTaD EW. It is true the marginal
note 1J1NS3 clears the way, but how can we explain the troublesome
irr«3 of the MS.? I think that one of the MSS., from which the
various readings of our Sirach text took their origin, showed TO
instead of 1DKV3, which again was turned into the enigmatical VT1X3.
The letters , and 1 ought to be utilized as clues for the solution
of several difficulties in the text of our translator. His translation
of xxxix. 1 6 p'SD" 1 1]"IJD *pii? ?31 by (cal nav npocrTnyua iv Katpa avrov
Harm can be understood at the first glance. His text had the
abbreviated written word "US which he misread as , 1S instead of
completing it into "pttf. Again, in xl. lib ODD bx DVIOO lEW
was turned into Kal anb vbdrtov «r 8aKa<j(Tav avaKafinrei. : the case is
simply that he misread "*D ^N ''DD for '"ID bti 'iDD of his text.
In the same way I see the reading of his text through the break
in chapter xlii. 3 b. There K"1 iTTIJ is rendered KXrjpovonias fralpap.
Now, the C was in all ancient MSS. usually written with only two
heads when occurring at the end of a word, and was thus easily
1 I assume that the original copy had 'mpo which must be completed
into rmipn.
2 Cf. Levi, 1. c. 74.
NOTES TO SIRACH XLIII. 20 AND XL. 12 l6l
mistaken for a V- The translator read JH1 for K*!. A clinching
proof for the frequent confusion of the two letters caused by the
writing is afforded also by xlviii. 13 b, where ~W2 K"Q3 TWIDDl
is rendered ko\ £v kgi/xt/ctci eirpo(f>r)Tcv(rev to owfia airoii : here it is
evident that N , 33 was read for K"03 .
This confusion of the vowel letters of the original text of Siracb
was not of rare occurrence, especially of the letters , and 1, which
were of almost identical shape in the old writing. We need only
think of the substitution of mm for the tetragrammaton, where thus
11 and 1 appear as quite identical. But I will add one other example
which will solve a riddle of the Greek translation. Verse xL 12 has
not, unfortunately, been preserved in the Hebrew original. What
then may have been the stumbling-block in the text by which the
translator was tripped up ? For such nonsense as nav bS>pov xa\ dducia
i£akci(f)6!i<T(Tai cannot have been written by Sirach. Why should
the gift be destroyed ? How can the innocent gift be synonymous
with injustice ? I do not doubt but that the copy before the trans-
lator was written "ipE-'l 1K> ?3. Our poor Hebraist read this as
ipen ^ bo 1 .
But the verse xliii. 20 is also syntactically unexceptionable. flJ^X
*2X mi is not bad Hebrew, certainly not as Isr. Levi, I. c. 74, assumes.
Instead of the adjective— in this case the cold north wind — a sub-
stantive joined to the final word in status constructus is used, quite
in accordance with a nice syntactic usage in Hebrew. Thus Genesis
iii. 23, instead of a " flaming revolving sword " we have 3inn DH?
rDSnnCfl, and instead of the "fulminating weapon" we read in
Nahum iii. 3 J"p;n p~Q. So also here, instead of the "cold north
wind" we have in unexceptionable Hebrew |1SV im WS.
Sirach keeps faithfully to Biblical Hebrew in other passages also.
Thus, in xli. 3 he has TplPI H1CD Iran ?N, quite after the pattern of
Vn Drp "WtDil, Prov. xxx. 8. Strange enough, no translator has
hitherto noticed this. In modern usage the verse says : "Do not be
afraid of thy assured death."
Altogether, Sirach is so full of biblical reminiscences, and applies
quotations to such an extent, that passages from the Bible must be
constantly referred to for the purpose of elucidating his tropes and
expressions. Thus, he says, xliii. 20 c CD *1CJ?D ?3 ?]}, only because
it reminds us of the expression D'D TluJ?' 1 D'HH 7]} of Ps. civ. 6, a fact
of some weight in the explanation and justification of an expression
which may otherwise appear strange and questionable.
In the same way it seems to me that the expression xlii. 4 m?C
1 This disposes of Levi's explanation in R. &. J., XXXIV, 43 sq.
VOL. XI. M
l62 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
ffnn pvT COB', which the Variants prove to be the correct reading,
is established by a Biblical reference. The TpmXaa-icos of the Greek
translator, who is slavishly followed by the Syrian, is a desperate
shift, which does not hold good against the readings n7lE> and ITW.
His copy had undoubtedly the abbreviation 'w, which he could
not complete into anything except the unmeaning B>w. But Sirach
wrote without doubt m?K>, and intended to imitate therewith a
classical passage of the Bible. He thought he was allowed to form
an expression BW m^C? in imitation of DW EHJ 1JD01 of Deut.
xxxiii. 14. This parallel would secure the reading as meaning "the
shooting out of the beams of the sun."
David Kaufmann.
