In the OT Apocrypha the Book of Wisdom by Sirach Holds a Special Place

CHAPTER THREE

niHIL AND nlHEYEIN IN JESUS BEN SIRACH In the OT Apocrypha the book of wisdom by Sirach holds a special place. It is the only one of the apocryphal books for which extensive fragments of a Hebrew original exist. Indeed, the majority of the other writings do not claim to have been originally written in Hebrew. The Greek translation of Sirach from the Hebrew 1 represents a further development ofthe use of the m or word group as faith terminol- ogy. This development will be illustrated, first of all, by a comparative study of the Hebrew equivalents of the mor words in the LXX and in Sirach and, secondly, by a study of Sirach's own understanding of the word group.

I HEBREW EQUIVALENTS OF THE nlH- WORD GROUP IN SIRACH2

Greek Sirach employs five cognates of the mor word group in 48 instances (not including the more dubious textual variants). The verbs mOTEuElv, EjJmoTEuEIV and mOTouv3 occur eleven times, twelve times and two times respectively. The noun nfoTIC; occurs ten times and the ad- jective mOToc; occurs thirteen times, either adjectivally or substantivally. In the Hebrew fragments from Cairo-Geniza (et al.) the Hebrew equiva- 1ents are lacking in 22 of these 48 instances, leaving us to rely heavily upon the reverse translation into Hebrew by M. Segal4 in our comparison of the Hebrew equivalents for the mor word group. For this study it will be helpful to keep in mind the trends of the LXX translation in general for each of the words in this Greek word group.

1.1 The Substantive mOT/(; nfOTIC; appears eleven times in Sirach, but there are only two instances where a recognizable parallel in the Hebrew fragments exists. It is therefore difficult to speak of a norm for Sirach's use of the substantive. Nevertheless, it is significant that the Hebrew equivalent, where it does

1 Ca. 132 B.C.E. 2 For an overview see "Appendix One: Hebrew Equivalents for n,or in Jesus ben Sirach". 3 n'OTOUV appears only in Sir. 27,17 and 29,3. In neither instance is there textual evidence from the Hebrew fragments of Sirach. In both instances Segal's back-translation represents the Greek passive imperative mOTw6'1T' with the niphal imperative lr.l~ii. This seems to be the normal Hebrew equivalent of the passive of mOTouv elsewhere in the LXX (cf. 2 Sam. 7,16; 1 Ki. 8,26; 1 Chr. 17,23.24; 2 Chr. 1,9; 6,17; Ps. 78,8. 37; 93,5). 4 M. Z. Segal, Das vollstiindige Buch Ben Sira (hebriiisch) (Jerusalem, 1958). 40 CHAPTER THREE exist in Sir. 15,15 and 45,4, is the substantive~. This is what one would expect from the nonnal use of nioTI<; elsewhere in the LXX.5 Where there are lacunae in the Hebrew fragments Segal's back- translation also follows the normal LXX pattern and reverts to the Hebrew ~ as the parallel for nioT!<; in the Greek. In Sir. 1,27 ~ is most likely correct, due to the parallelism with 45,4. A similar argument could be made for the use of ~ at 46,15a and 49,10, also based upon the Cairo-Geniza text of 45,4. Therefore, it is safe to say that Sirach's use of the substantive nloTI<; in translating the Hebrew root 1~ is the same as the nonnative use elsewhere in the LXX.

1.2 The Verb n'OTElJElV We have shown in the previous chapter that there is not only a pattern, but also a preference on the part of the LXX translators to represent the hiphil of lr.l~ with the Greek verb mOTEuElv or one of its compounds. Sirach also displays a strong tendency in this same direction, however with some variation from the consistency demonstrated elsewhere in the LXX. When the Greek translation of Sirach uses mOTEuElv to render 1~, the Hebrew verb always occurs in the hiphil stem. Generally the hiphil of lr.l~ is translated mOTEuElv (or a compound of the verb). 1~' in manuscript 'B' of Sir. 37,13a has no recognizable parallel in the LXX6 which follows the variant found in Mss. Bmg, D:

Likewise, mOToTEpo<; in vs. 13b follows the Hebrew )1r.l~ in Ms. D.7 So also in 15,15 the Greek follows the older text fonn: 8 )1~ mtoll'? i1J'r.l~,9 and translates accordingly with nioTlv nOIElv. Only in Sir. 45,13 does the (probable) reading l[r.ll~ii have no corresponding fonn of mOTEuEIV in the Greek. This is not to say, however, that mOTEuElv in the Greek consistently represents a fonn of ~ in the Hebrew text. Sirach deviates from the nonnal LXX equivalency by translating Hebrew roots other than )r.ltIi with mOTEuEIV. Whereas there is only one instance of such a

5 nrOTI~ in Sir. 37.26 does not represent'::O in the Hebrew! Cf. J. Ziegler (ed .• Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. in Vetus Testamentum Graecum Vol. 12.2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 1965»: Tlf.I~V; or Ms. L: 8M.av. 6 Kai f30UA~V Kap8la~ OT~OOV. 7 lOM in Mss. Bmg and B. 8 Cf. Hans Peter Riiger. Text und Text/orm im Hebraischen Sirach (Berlin: WaIter de Gruyter. 1970). p. 78. 9 The later reading is: 1::1 ],OM OM; cf. Prov. 12.22.