Take the next verse which lies before as in two MSS of it)—
4*^ ffi ti,i) fffTco if x'^tp aov iKT€Tafxivij (Is t6 Xa/3etV xal iv Tift dTroOi5i}vai ffvv^(rra\t^vtj.
SnnS KD'sp m.ini
• In the T/ieiaitrtu of StephanusIIase ' Eocl 4' and 'Sir *»'
are quoted as difTerent ^o-ssau'es I The wrong (orm ^tran*- r«*«i, is translated mispicaz by Qrotius. Nobilius gives arre- pticiuM', even Uybscl translates as if it came (rom viwrtit, 'Oe- KI>('n8teraeher,'i.f. argwohnisch, misstrnuischohnethatsaohlichen Grund. AV 'frantick' (see vol. ii. 06), UV 'fanciful*; Fraakel translated n;:t< 'cniel' (for 'lion' t':'p) ; p n'xri'9} IK^'^ 'boister- ously rebukelul' (whether intluenccd by S? or reading $i/rj«-T): on the Coptic see Ilerkenne, who thouglit for O of some word (rom ^/lysi (Job 413), for X of ^/qvo (Is 10»3), and adduced (rom the Apophtheffjiuxta Anl<mix et ilaxiiiii, p. 602 ('morosus')
I, voif OIK. ff«u tuii rctwiit^f rout vteoxupiouf ffou ( —XX
t The Hebrew word is diiTerent (rom N'D*?.
t Or tlavu. If we derive muy (rom ni:y^ (Job 1»), aa sug- gested to the present writer by Dr. Driver', and independently to the e<iitor by Dr. A. It. Davidson.
} The Unit o( them 1110 is not clear ; see 0-N and K (.SK, 1900, o7y) ; the latter compares 1*8 00". We suspect a corrup- tion o( rii = rjyi, see Expot. Timet, xl. 330 note ; (or NTnD B proposes pn^ or j'rip ' ruwartend, lan;:s;un ' I
I The piuuiage Is discussed with a ditfercnt result by Taylor (JThSl, I. 678). He considers n'1« an/cA and NTnD mithyari to be the original ; O may have turned the latter Into nKinC ; ' the synonymous nnrnD with a clerical error accounts for incnD O. The first two suppositions ore natural, but when, where, and why should KVno have been tomed Into inunD, to •• to arrira at inBnD?
548
SIEACH (BOOK OF)
SIKACH (BOOK OF)
jj agrees in the first clause completely with &, in the second it has
KD'Sp I'Js'ji
Kow take A and C—
A nnpS nmna -t "•"in Vit
[no linn n^-api C nica'7 ncsno it "nn ^M
miBp ncn nyai
that is to say : instead of a common orifjinal we have two versions differing mxire from one nnotJicr than the two Syrian, every word for which there is more than one Hebrew eciuivalent available being rendered dillerently —
stretch out ^/ nna and bb*' receive "p^ and xo)
in
give (back) shut
■T|in3 and nya jni and Tun f sp and lap
A third passage is —
5^^ (G Kai iir] iropcvou iv Ticr-g irpaxi}
A n'?i:E' iiT n:!n
C Vne- SdV iSn '7NI
A is translated by Taylor, ' and turning the way of the stream,' C agrees with (£. Further, v." —
C = (5 with the addition ipBriv, which is found otdy in 248, 253 and p «^«6 -Jf.
S SboDT p T3 ' through him that is speak- ing.'
KBI3 TI'S
nsu T3 ^ vrZffis avTutv Iin*? ND-i ' throws them down '
IB'SiO
A C
A
C V.isb ffi
S A C
(C being, of course, a corruption of A).
72s 15 iiipTiaai avT-ftv
S n"3n give her
A (nnn join her
C m3i grant her.*
What follows from these passages? That the question is a very complicated one. Not even of C is it possible to say that it is a simple retrans- lation of <&, for even in C there are pa.ss.iges which are at variance with (5. On tlie otiier hand, it is equally impossible to maintain that 11) has preserved every^vhere the original, iniieiiendent of ffi and S. There are passages in It) wliicli can- not be explained in any other way than by the supposition that they rest on a corrupt and glossed text, sometimes of C&, sometimes of ».
A passage which, for the present writer at least, is perfectly convincing is —
25". 'The wickedness of a woman. . . darkeneth her countenance like sackcloth,' AV (mg. ' Or, like a bear'), RV a.? a bear doeth (without even men- tioning the other reading).
• 72» AC p':V K!i"l n3 NSin, (3 ««' in niAn^ Ifyf fi.iya, S K'plK'V plEJl, AC pDV NS'I ; 'anrt the trouWe (or strife, see B-T p. 47) has pone ■ ; c(. the witty though rude saying of Schopenhauer at the death of an old woman whom he had to care for : obit anut, abil onut. It Is clear that here 0 cannot rest on (3.
© B, etc. lis aiKKOv ; G AS, etc. is dpiros.
IL combining both readings : tanquam ui-sw, et
quasi saccum. r 1 j _j
«, 'makespale thefaceof Ajr AMSftomrt and
mrkes'it black like the colour of asacky-,* now C has ="'7 **33 Tip-i ' makes black (Aw or her ; the letters are torn away) face . . . to a 6ear.'
All rules of textual criticism (the general one : scriptioni proclivi pra-stat ardua, and the special one for Sirach, the agreement between C and 5) must be nought, or C is here tlit retranslatwn oj a corrupt Greek text. . , _ . . 4. j
The close connexion of C with (5 is corroborated by other passages. The very first words preserved in C-it begins 4^ (ina^n nx) p-pn, for which A has the synonymous pB.n-do not "C'^^r. 't is true m the received Greek text, but in the MSS 106, 248 053 (c) • C even preserved such glosses (mentiouea Ibove, p. 544'') as S" ylvovraxOs (C F! = ?)/'' «'^P»- d<r« aov + aya8v (C naiB=106. 218, 253 p), ^ai_^ fMKpoevidq. ipeiyyoo iTrixpiaiv + ipeiii' (O m-i-.Vi,