A Hebrew-English Diglot Edition of Ben Sira in the Making

There is a need for a Hebrew-English diglot edition of Ben Sira. I am not the only one who feels this way. With encouragement from Jeremy Corley, a top-notch Ben Sira scholar, I have been experimenting with a format. Here is a worked example, Ben Sira 44:1-15. I would appreciate comments from readers, even if you’ve never ventured beyond reading biblical Hebrew in the strict sense. What do you find helpful about the format? What would you like to see changed?

At SBL San Diego, representatives from more than one publisher showed interest in the concept of Hebrew-English diglot editions of ancient Hebrew literature. My first thought was to put together a proof of concept for Isaiah, Amos, Lamentations, or Song of Songs. I know that literature rather better than Ben Sira.

To be sure, a diglot edition of the Tanakh already exists, with the MT in one column, and an English translation in the opposite column. I refer to the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. I recommend it highly.

The kind of diglot I have in mind is a different animal. In my view, a diglot edition of a piece of ancient Hebrew literature ought to include the following components:

(1) An eclectic unvocalized Hebrew text, reconstructed on the basis of sound text-critical criteria and formatted according to the text’s perceived subdivisions, plus a full textual apparatus in which variants preserved in the extant tradition in Hebrew and/or which seem to be presupposed in one or more ancient versions are fully listed and evaluated. It also makes sense to present the text in more conservative orthographical dress than do all or most extant manuscripts, the goal being to remove a layer of interpretation instantiated by the relatively spelled out nature of the text reflected in the orthography of extant copies. In specific cases, the textual trigger behind the genesis of particular variants is thereby made manifest.

BHQ’s approach to presenting the text of chunks of literature in ancient Hebrew is rather different. It prints a single medieval manuscript, including obvious mistakes, and notes and evaluates alternatives to textual details contained in it in an apparatus and notes. For a detailed review of BHQ 18 and 20, go here.

OHB’s approach as laid out by Ronald Hendel is also different. It is slated to print an eclectic text at variance with MT in major and minor details, but retain masoretic orthography, vocalization, cantillation, and paragraphing nonetheless. OHB will depart from MT in some respects, but MT will still be allowed to serve as (the new) text’s default interpretation by virtue of the grammatical, syntactic, prosodic, and structural parse MT instantiates in its orthography, vocalization, cantillation, and paragraphing.

(2) In an appendix, the same text, vocalized in Tiberian Masoretic style. By this means, the resolution of a number of questions of interpretation according to the wisdom of an editor is made manifest.

(3) A fresh English translation on the facing page, formatted according to the text’s perceived subdivisions, with three sets of notes: select cross-references to relevant passages in the Tanakh; cross-references to post-biblical literature (Qumran, rabbinic, NT, etc.); concise references to the more important translation and textual issues.

To my mind, diglot editions of ancient Hebrew (or other Semitic) texts prepared according to the above criteria would be immensely useful to students and scholars alike.

It’s easiest to prepare a diglot if the text-critical groundwork for the presentation of an eclectic text of the chunk of literature in question has been freshly done. There are excellent text-critical resources now available in the case of Ben Sira. Thanks to BHQ, the same holds true, to date, for the Five Scrolls, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Deuteronomy. OHB, available in samples, promises to be an even more helpful resource.

What then does my proof of concept for a diglot edition of Hebrew Ben Sira look like? It includes the following components:

(1) A critical Hebrew text on one page, arranged stichographically, with an apparatus that notes and comments on textual variants. In my sample effort, the textual apparatus makes adapted use of the conventions of BHQ. Note that the apparatus in the sample is not yet complete; references to Syriac Ben Sira, for example, have yet to be worked in. An apposite symbol is appended at the end of a lemma for which an appropriate textual note will be prepared.

Whenever it seems possible that an interlocking set of variants is attested in the textual tradition, such that at issue are not stray and unrelated textual differences, but alternative textual weaves, the proposed alternative textual weave  in its integrity is presented in the apparatus. It is not easy to figure out how best to present alternative textual weaves – probably a variety of solutions will be found helpful. Still, the prevalent practice of not presenting interlocking variants in their integrity at all is not defensible. In my sample effort, alternative textual weaves of Ben Sira 44:10-13 are presented, one in the main text and one in the apparatus.

(2) A vocalized version of (1). In printed form, it might be placed in an appendix, but if all pages were provided in loose leaf format, matching pages of (1) and (2) could be placed opposite each other. The advantage of loose leaf and electronic formats: it is possible to swap in and out the pages one wishes to face one another. If, for example, a loose leaf Greek-English diglot of Ben Sira to supplement the Hebrew-English version was produced, it would be possible to construct a Hebrew-Greek diglot on the spot.

I insist on the importance of supplying ancient Hebrew text in unvocalized format, and not just for Ben Sira. Unvocalized Hebrew is the best way to encounter ancient Hebrew literature if you want to grapple with interpreting it without necessarily following tradition. The problem is, most people, even those with considerable training in the language, choke on unvocalized Hebrew.

The vocalized version has the virtue (and the vice) of fully representing an editor’s views regarding the correct interpretation of the text.

(3) A fresh English translation, arranged stichographically, to appear on pages opposite those on which (1) one is presented, with three sets of notes: select cross-references to relevant passages in the Tanakh; cross-references to post-biblical literature (Qumran, rabbinic, NT, etc.); concise references to the more important translation and textual issues.

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

I can't help wondering if this wouldn't be better done online. There is then more flexibility, and not the copyright etc restrictions of a printed book. Of course this way there will be no funding for the scholars involved, but in practice would there any significant royalties from a book of this kind?

[Jim Getz]

I think the text looks gorgeous. I would say the type should be a little bigger so that it works in smaller books (e.g. the smaller JPS diglot).

Ironically, my NT students need to read Sirach 44-50 for Friday. I'm using it as the base text for our OT review.

[JohnFH]

Peter,

I agree entirely on the importance of online editions. They are much more useful from many points of view, especially if hyperlinked properly.

To me, it's a both/and proposition. There is a place for print editions of things, and being a bit old-fashioned, I still reach for a print edition of a resource if I have it, and not the electronic edition of the same resource I also have.

[JohnFH]

Jim,

thanks for the encouragement. I wish I had all of Hebrew Ben Sira 44-50 translated into English for your class to use already. By next year, it should be done.

I assume you realize that Benjamin Wright's NETS translation of Greek Ben Sira is out in print and also available online.

[Ken Penner]

The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha is preparing an online edition of Ben Sira. Currently, Shawn White has encoded all Hebrew manuscript evidence known to Beentjes, aligned with Rahlfs' Greek text.

[JohnFH]

Ken,

thanks for bringing this to our attention. I was thinking about preparing a post on the very important project you refer to. Two thoughts come to mind. On the Hebrew side, ideally, rabbinic citations of Ben Sira (genuine and otherwise), need to be online as well. On the Greek side, the long and short forms of the text both need to be represented.

But this is great news.