Bengel (1769-1826),* that the Latin version Wi». based imiiiediatelj' on the lost Hebrew original, has turned out to be wrong ; but even the latest investigation (H. Herkenne, de Veteris Latince Ecclesiastici capitibus i-.\liii, Leipzig, 1899) has arrived at the result : ' Nititur Vetus Latina textu vulgari gra'co ad tcxtum hebraicum alius recen- sionis Greece castigato.' It is all the more to be regretted that its text has not yet been published in a satisfactory way.
It is generally believed that the text in our ordinary editions of the Vulgate is the Old Latin untouched by Jerome.t But his expression ' calamo temperavi' does not exclude, in our opinion, those stylistic emendations which we perceive when comparing the current Latin text with older docu- ments, either MSS or quotatioiis.:^
The most convenient edition of the Latin Vulgate is that of van Ess (pub. 1S24), which gives on the margin the variations of the Sixtina and Clemen- tina after the Vatican editions of 15'J0, 1592, 1593, and 1598.
Sabatier (see vol. ii. 53) reprinted the official text with the collation of four MSS ' optimte nota;' (i6. 389, ' Corbciensesduos, unum Sangerman- cnseni, & alium S. Theoderico ad Rhenium'). The Corbeiensis I. is now Paris 11,532 (9th cent.; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, 104, 107) ; Sanger- nianensis 15, now Paris 11,553 (9th cent.; Berger, 65, 4US).
In 1740 J. Blancliiiius published, in his Vindicim canon, script. Vulgatm Latina: cditiunis, a collation of the codex Toletanus, with Hciiten's edition (1509) ; repeated in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxix. 9S5.
After the collations of the Amiatinus by Heyse- Tischendorf (Lips. 1873) the whole text of this JIS was jjublished for Wisd. and Sirach by Lagarde, Mitth. i. 283-377 ; see also p. 191.
Ph. Thielniann devoted to the Latin Sirach two articles in Wollilin's Arrhiv, and showed that chs. 44-50 were due to another hand than the rest of the book ; the former of European, the chief part of African origin {Archiv fur lat. Lexikogr. viii. 501-561, ix. 2, 247 11.) ; see vol. ii. p. 10.
The text published by C. Douais {une ancienne version latine de I' Ecclisiastimie, Paris, 1895, 4to) is, according to Thielniann and Kennedy, an appar- ently Spanish text, a revision of the primitive African version (ch. 21"-22-''-). In the judgment of the present writer it maj' be just as well a new translation, indepeii<li;iit of the former.
Ph. Thielmanu ('iJericht iiber das "esammelte handschriftliehe Material, zu einer kritischen Aus- gabe der lateiuischen Llbersetzungen biblischer BUcher des alten Testameutcs' in Miinchener Sitz.-Ber., 1899, ii. 2, 20511.) gives for Sirach the collation of twenty-three MSS (1-4 S[ianish, 6, 6 Anglo-Saxon, 7-12 French before Ch.-irlemagne, 13-16 St. Gall and Italy, 17-19 Theodulf, 20-23 Aleuin), and specimens from fourteen MSS more ; some fragments cod. Veron. i. and cod. Ambr. U. 50 f. (olim Bobb.) are of the 6tli cent. But still older are the —
Quotations of the Latin FATnERS. — Ang- ustiiie's .Speculum is mentioned above ; it contains whole chapters from Siraeh, and its text agrees closely with that of the codex Amiatinus; but other quotations in the writings of Augustine
• ' Ueber die muthmaaslifhe Quelle tier alton latcinischen UebtTHftzung dc8 Buclms Sirach ' in Kiciihurii's AUijtineine liHilu.lhfk der b\bl. Lilt, 17011, vii. pp. 832-804.
f Kiicrshcim : 'Jerome ttlls us exprciwily tiiat he hod left th« text of the Vetus Latina uiitouolied (ralamii (rmperavDin the (apocryphal) Wisdom of Solomon, and in Sirach ' (Proi/. in edit, liiir. .S'alotn. iiixta Sept. itUerj/r., ed. Vallarsi, 10,4UU).
t Comp. the siiTHf expression on his version of tlie LatlD Oospelw in the IJpiahtia ad Damtuvm: 'qum ne multuni a lerlionis Latinm consnetudine discroparent, it* eaiamo temper* aritnu4,nt ilia tAntum quo) Bensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremutf ut fuuiunU'
646
SIRACH (BOOK OF)
SIRACH (BOOK OF)
(collected by Sabatier and Lagarde) show strange variations.
See, for instance, lo^ * laxamentum peccandi' (or'spatiiim p.' (' spalium ' also in the Speculum}.* Not a single one of his MSS, OS Tliiehimnn informs the present writer, has tiiis word * la.\u- mentuni ' ; yet it is found for this p;i.vsage also in that other i^pecutum falsely n^t'ribed to Au^rustine, now called iiber <fc divhiis script uriji (etiilcd tojjetherwilh the former by Weihrich), and nmst for internal reasons be considered as the ori^al read- in^ of the Latin version.
For 'opprobrium,' 20^, this Speeuium has ' supervacuitas ' (In no MS of ThielnmnD); further, 22'^ 'conservationem' in- stead of 'custotliara' (no I3iblical MS) ; Augustine 'si^ac'ulum astutum ' instead of * cerium ' ; 2o>^ instead of * beatificat virum suum' the liihirr has *consentit in anj^stio virosuo'; in this case Uomplutensis I agreeinjj with it (only * an^istiis ') ; 285 in. stead of 'dum caro sit servat iram' {cecfii att) the Liber has *cujpit retinere ir:im ' ( = <i/;x*'*)*. 2911 we find in the Liber tlie imperative 'anim;e(niitarda' (= ttocaccoyy ;*»:«*), a word to be added to the new Thesaurus Latiiuv li/ujuce for 'animo fort.ior esto' of the Vul^te, or 'animxquior esto' of Compl. 1, Metz 7 (first hand, second hand=Vulgate). Here we ha\'e tliree stajjes of subsequent reviaiotis.
The greatest surjtrise is 31^ By a comparison with the Syriac it seemed clear that instead of iia^Stpa.^ we must read Jia^o^a, and vXxirMffi-^ctt instead of ^'/.xrHr^ciTtci (see Ball, Variorum Apocrypha ; Nestle, Mar<jinalien^ p. 56. The KV does not materially alter the AV : * he that f olloweth destruction shall have the fill of it'); *qui insequitur destructionem replebitur ea' : for this the Liber has 'qui ins. uiului, in illis imptana'ji- tur* i.e., just as proposed, oja^s^a and v>.et>v,S*iFtTcu. Of all MSS collated by Thielmann, only the first hand of Metz 7 has preserved a remembrance of tliis rendering, reading *7nulta in iliis inplicabitur' (sic).t