New Light on Ben Sira 6:14

Thanks to the discovery of four additional pages of ms C, a remix of selected contents of Hebrew Ben Sira, it is possible to explore the history of the משל בינה ‘keen saying’ preserved in Ben Sira 6:14, and reconstruct its original wording with more confidence.

My goal in this post is to show how rewarding text-critical study of ancient Hebrew poetry can be. The study of the prosodic regularities ancient Hebrew poetry instantiates is very important. That remains my research focus. But the text of a line of ancient Hebrew poetry has to be established first, down to the last yodh and heh.

The exact contents of ancient texts changed in the course of transmission. This is true of texts in and outside of the Bible. Within the Bible, some psalms are preserved in two versions. For example, Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 report the same psalm. A synoptic comparison of Ps 18:2-4 and 2 Sam 22:2-4 turns up a host of differences. Each version lacks/contains a verset the other contains/lacks. Each version shows no knowledge of/includes individual words the other includes/shows no knowledge of.

Here is 2 Sam 22:2-4, subdivided at points against MT, with half-lines numbered consecutively, words in common with the parallel text in yellow:

1  יְהוָה סַלְעִי וּמְצֻדָתִי

2  וּמְפַלְטִי־לִי אֱלֹהֵי

 

3  צוּרִי אֶחֱסֶה בּוֹ

4  מָגִנִּי וְקֶרֶן יִשְׁעִי

5  מִשְׂגַּבִּי וּמְנוּסִי

6  מֹשִׁעִי מֵחָמָס תֹּשִׁעֵנִי

 

7  מְהֻלָּל אֶקְרָא יְהוָה

8  וּמֵאֹיְבַי אִוָּשֵׁעַ

Here is Ps 18:2-4, subdivided at points against MT, with half-lines numbered consecutively, words in common with the parallel text in yellow:

1  אֶרְחָמְךָ יְהוָה

2  חִזְקִי יְהוָה

3  סַלְעִי וּמְצוּדָתִי וּמְפַלְטִי

 

4  אֵלִי צוּרִי

5  אֶחֱסֶה בּוֹ

 

6  מָגִנִּי וְקֶרֶן יִשְׁעִי

7  מִשְׂגַּבִּי מְהֻלָּל

8  אֶקְרָא יְהוָה

9  וּמִן אֹיְבַי אִוָּשֵׁעַ 

The changes themselves are worth cherishing, though not all changes, as it were, are created equal. Furthermore, it is not particularly obvious in a poetic text of this kind how to subdivide the running text into lines and half-lines. An examination of markers of delimitation preserved in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac witnesses reveals a core of commonalities but also considerable variation in detail.  In antiquity textual difference of a variety of kinds was not the deal-breaker it is for some moderns. In an excursus at the end of this post, I delve into the topic from a theological point of view.

Here is Ben Sira 6:14 [6:13 in some numberings] according to the Hebrew and Greek:

ms A:

אוהב אמונה   אוהב תקוף

ומוצאו מצא הון

A faithful friend   is a strong friend:

he who finds one has found abundance.

ms C (from a just-discovered page):

אוהב אמונה   מגן תקיף

ומוצאו מצא הוא הון

A faithful friend   is a strong shield:

he who finds one, he has found abundance.

φίλος πιστὸς σκέπη κραταιά

ὁ δὲ εὑρὼν αὐτὸν εὗρεν θησαυρόν

A faithful friend is a strong shelter,

and he who finds one has found a treasure.

All three versions are praiseworthy aphorisms and correspond to self-evident truths of the kind aphorisms like to bring to the fore.

Still, as Jeremy Corley observed before the discovery of ms C 6:14 (2002: 37, 58), ms A probably represents a non-original text, insofar as both it and the Greek translation are best explained on the assumption that the Vorlage of the Greek, equivalent to the putative original form of the proverb, read as follows:

אהב אמונה   אהל תקיף

ומוצאו מצא הון

A faithful friend   is a strong tent:

he who finds one has found abundance.

On this hypothesis (here Corley follows Rudolf Smend), somewhere along the line, אהל was misread as אהב by assimilation to the preceding אהב. The result is somewhat tautological, but not non-sensical. It is possible that the text was written plene at the time of inadvertent revision: אוהב to אוהל, as attested in ms A. But this would not change the substance: given אוהב in ms A, it is economical from a text-critical point of view to assume that σκέπη reflects אוהל.

σκέπη ‘shelter’ is a fine dynamic equivalent of  אוהל 'tent.' Greek Ben Sira, like Greek Isaiah, is known for a translation technique that leans in the direction of dynamic equivalence.

The reading in ms C confirms Corley’s suggestion. That’s because מגן תקיף 'strong shield' makes sense as a biblicistic rewording of an original אהל תקיף 'strong tent.' מגן 'shield' is used often enough in the books found in the Tanakh in a metaphorical sense to refer to someone, God or man, who serves as a protecting shield for someone else. אהל 'tent' on the other hand is not so used, except in the personal names אהליאב, which probably means ‘Father (= divine epithet) is my tent [abode],’ and אהליבמה, which probably means ‘the High Place is my tent [abode].’ It is of course abnormally interesting, as Duane Smith would say, that two other personal names in which אהל is used figuratively are known from epigraphic Hebrew: אוהל ‘(DN is) my tent [abode] (Jerusalem Bulla 29:2), and חמיאהל ‘My Husband’s Father (= divine epithet) is a tent [shelter]’ (Hestrin 34:1).

Since the discovery of the Masada ms  of Ben Sira, it has become clear that Ben Sira’s language, insofar as it has not been “biblicized” in the manuscript tradition, was excellent 3^rd cent. bce Hebrew. Indeed, the language of Ben Sira is very early 3^rd cent. bce Hebrew, and probably differs little from 4^th cent. bce Hebrew.אהל תקיף discussed here, insofar as it appears to have been a part of the original wording of Ben Sira 6:13, confirms the general picture.

The importance of this datum point has yet to receive the attention it should in the discussion of the history of the Hebrew language. If the datum point were taken seriously, minimalists would immediately discover that they have their work cut out for them.

Excursus on Text Criticism and the Theological Theory of Inerrant Autographs

In order to deal with difference of the kinds observable across Ps 18:2-4 and 2 Sam 22:2-4 (see above),  some inerrantists based on their first principles must posit two autographs, each of which preserved the ipsissima verba of an original text from the hand of the selfsame author of which Ps 18:1 and 2 Sam 22:1 speak.

But such an assumption lacks a credible text-critical foundation. The study of ancient manuscripts demonstrates that the fine-grain and large-grain differences that distinguish Ps 18:2-4 from 2 Sam 22:2-4 are of a piece with fine-grain and large-grain differences to be observed in the history of transmission of countless other texts. Said differences do not typically go back to a single author responsible for multiple versions of the same text. The appropriate default hypothesis is that the differences are the result of changes introduced by various hands over the course of time.

The authors of Ps 18:1 and 2 Sam 22:1 knew themselves to be passing on a song that tradition ahead of them attributed to David. It is over-reading to suggest that they also knew themselves to be passing on the song’s original wording down to the last detail. Rather, the authors of Ps 18:1 and 2 Sam 22:1 passed down the wording of the song known to them. They may or may not have introduced modifications to said wording in accordance with contingencies or preferences relevant at the time.

The only reason one might suggest otherwise is because a particular theory of Scripture requires it. On this theory, small and large-grain differences instantiated by distinct versions of a singular biblical text must be equally original.

To which I would reply: Yes, in the sense that in principle all the differences are original to God on a high view of Scripture. But also: No, in the sense that the differences between Ps 18:2-4 and 2 Sam 22:2-4 do not need to be attributed to the one and only human author explicitly referred to in the text (the “original” author).

To suggest otherwise overlooks a characteristic of texts and the transmission thereof in antiquity. Virtually all texts in antiquity have multiple authors. It cannot be determined in advance what part if any of quotations attributed to a literary persona (Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, and Daniel in the Bible; Gilgamesh, Wen-Amon, Nabonidus, Ahiqar, and Socrates outside of the Bible) goes back to the historical persona. One has to allow for the fact that the literary persona of a historical persona could be extensively developed without scandal by subsequent tradition. Furthermore, it cannot be determined in advance what part of a particular text goes back to the original version, and what part of it bears the marks of subsequent revision.

It is certainly possible that the psalm found in Ps 18:2-51 // 2 Sam 22:2-51 goes back to David, though allowance should be made for the fact that Ps 18:51 // 2 Sam 22:51 reads like a later addition which adapts the psalm to use in public worship. It is also the case that other parts of the psalm may not be original to David. Ultimately, a reconstruction of the history of the text of the psalm cannot but remain in the realm of hypothesis.

A high view of Scripture will nonetheless regard Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22 in toto as equally God-breathed. A reconstruction of the archetype of Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22, insofar as the evidence takes us, may also be considered God-breathed, insofar as it faithfully reflects a form the text had at an earlier point in the history of the text’s transmission than the points to which we have access thanks to the available witnesses to Ps 18 / 2 Sam 22. To be sure, the necessary phrase “insofar as” throws a monkey wrench into things. However, that same monkey wrench is already in the works, “insofar as” it is important to associate inerrancy with the autographs, which we do not have, and not with the texts we do have.

To be perfectly honest, I think that virtually any old manuscript of a biblical text was and is inerrant in the appropriately religious sense of the term. The attribution of inerrancy to the autographs alone, which we don’t have, is as far as I know a rather recent doctrine, with a whiff of heresy about it.

Still, the discipline of text-criticism has its own rewards. Its results serve as a check on doctrine-building which bases itself on textual forms that are exclusively secondary relative to a primary Sondergut, but also the reverse, on textual forms that are exclusively primitive relative to secondary, corrective developments.

Bibliography

Jeremy Corley, Ben Sira's Teaching on Friendship (BJS 316; Atlanta: SBL, 2002)