Page:Job and Solomon (1887).djvu/216
sisting of 22 distichs (li. 1-12), in the Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1882, pp. 326-332.
We must reserve our opinion on Bickell's theory till the
appearance of a complete edition from his pen. Meantime
three passages (xxiv. 27, xxv. 15, xlvi. 18) may be referred
to as giving striking proof of the Hebrew original of the
work. In xxiv. 27 the translator seems to have found in his
Hebrew copy (
Hebrew characters), i.e. properly (Hebrew characters) 'as the Nile' (the weak
letter (Hebrew characters) being elided in pronunciation as in (Hebrew characters), Am. viii. 8),
but as he supposed (Hebrew characters) 'as the light.' In xxv. 15, he found
(Hebrew characters), which in the context can only mean 'poison,' but which
he inappropriately rendered 'head.' In xlvi. 18, the Hebrew
had (Hebrew characters), i.e. (Hebrew characters) 'enemies,' but, according to the translator,
(Hebrew characters) 'Tyrians.' Compare also in this connection the allusions
to the meanings of Hebrew words in vi. 22 ('wisdom')
and xliii. 8 ('the month'). There are still questions to be
decided which can only be adverted to briefly here. Did the
translator make use of the Septuagint, and more particularly
of the portion containing the prophets? He certainly refers
to a translation of the Scriptures in his preface, but Frankel
thinks that a Targum may be meant, and even doubts the
genuineness of the passage; he explains the points of contact
with the Septuagint which are sometimes so interesting[1]
in the Greek version of Sirach by Ueberarbeitung, i.e. the
'working over' of the version by later hands.[2] This seems
to me a forced view. It is more probable that a Greek
version is meant, or perhaps we may say Greek versions; no
special honour is given to any one translation. Next, as to
the position accorded to the Wisdom of Sirach. It is often
cited in the Talmud with formulæ which belong elsewhere to
the Scriptures, and was therefore certainly regarded by many
as worthy to be canonical (see Appendix). In strict theory,
this was wrong. According to the Tosephta Yadayim, c. 2,
the book of Ben Sira, though much esteemed, stood on the
border between the canonical and extraneous or non-canonical
books. Such books might be read cursorily, but were not to