Problem and/or Typoe with LES Sirach 13:24

Page 1 of 1 (16 items)
This post has 15 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Dec 31 2019 5:52 PM

My friend and I were struck by a discrepancy between The New American Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, The New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Lexham English Septuagint, The Rick Brannan project. I did try reporting the typo. I have no idea whether it went through. I proposed "godly" be changed to "ungodly"

 

(Paste verses)

 

22 When the rich speak they have many supporters; 

         though what they say is repugnant, it wins approval. 

         When the poor speak people say, “Come, come, speak up!” 

         though they are talking sense, they get no hearing. 

         23 When the rich speak all are silent, 

         their wisdom people extol to the clouds. 

         When the poor speak people say: “Who is that?” 

         If they stumble, people knock them down. 

 

         24 Wealth is good where there is no sin; 

         but poverty is evil by the standards of the proud. 

         25 The heart changes one’s face, 

         either for good or for evil. 

         26 The sign of a good heart is a radiant face; 

         withdrawn and perplexed is the toiling schemer. 



New American Bible, Revised Edition (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Sir 13:22–26.

 

Riches are good if they are free from sin; 

    poverty is evil only in the opinion of the ungodly




The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Sir 13:24.



When a rich person staggers, many are his helpers; 

         he spoke things not to be spoken, and they justified him. 

      A humble person staggered, and in addition they rebuked him; 

         he uttered sense, and no place was given to him. 

      23      A rich person spoke, and all kept silent, 

         and they exalted his word up to the clouds. 

      A poor person spoke, and they said, “Who is this?” 

         And if he should stumble, they will even overturn him. 

      24      Wealth in which there is no sin is good, 

         but in the mouths of an impious person poverty is wicked. 

 

      25      A person’s heart changes his face, 

         whether for good things or bad. 

      26      A heart’s footstep in good things is a cheerful face, 

         and the invention of illustrations is conversations along with toils. 



Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Sirach,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Benjamin G. Wright (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Sir 13:22–26.

 

When the rich stumbles, there are many protectors; 

       he said unspeakable things, and they justified him. 

     The humble man stumbled and they rebuked him; 

       he spoke with intelligence, and no place was given to him. 

     23 The rich spoke, and everyone was silent, 

       and they exalted his word up to the clouds. 

     The poor spoke, and they said, “Who is this?” 

       And if he stumbles, they will overturn him. 

     24 Wealth that has no sin is good. 

       And poverty is evil in the mouths of the godly. 

     25 The heart of a person changes his face, 

       whether for good things or bad. 

     26 The mark of a heart in good times is a cheerful face, 

       and the discovery of parables is thought with toil. 



Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Sir 13:22–26.

 

We discovered that the Lexham English Septuagint translation’s “godly” was the Greek εὐσεβοῦς (god fearing, genitive plural)

  JGSM (6)

  εὐσεβής



The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012).


While those that used “impious” were right, by their own lights, to do so, as their text gives ἀσεβοῦς (lacking fear of God). Also, my friend discovered that the morphological tool in Logos even gave ἀσεβοῦς as the Lexham Septuagint gave “godly.” Deciding to look into this textual difficulty, my friend found corroborating evidence for the derisive interpretation in the Hebrew original of the same passage (courtesy of https://www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=A&PageNum=10), Which reads “Proud.” My friend and I are not sure whether this is a typographical error in Lexham’s LXX or their use of a version which read εὐσεβοῦς.

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 1 2020 6:08 AM

My original post is a copypaste of what I asked my friend who helped me to write down. "my friend" in the previous post is me. I'm hoping logos staff will look into this if reporting a possible typo didn't work.

Posts 3779
Forum MVP
PetahChristian | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 1 2020 7:47 AM

Chrisser:
I did try reporting the typo. I have no idea whether it went through.

FL used to send out an email acknowledgment, but that no longer happens.

The report did go through, but typos may not get fixed immediately.

Thanks to FL for including Carta Jerusalem and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 1 2020 8:09 AM

Oh I didn't expect it to be fixed immediately. I actually am not sure if it is a typo or not. It could be a textual variant I just couldn't find evidence of one.

Posts 8694
LogosEmployee

I've brought attention to your post internally. Someone may reply after the holidays.

Posts 44
LogosEmployee
Isaiah | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 2 2020 10:32 AM

Chrisser:

The Lexham English Septuagint is directly translated from the Cambridge edition of the Septuagint by Swete (https://biblia.com/bible/otgrkswetetxt/Sir13.24), which follows a single manuscript (Codex Vaticanus by default, but where verses or books aren't attested in Vaticanus, other codices and manuscripts are used, e.g. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Theodition, etc.).

You can always run a Text Comparison of LOGOSLXX (Rahlfs edition) against the Swete LXX and the LES (and RSV and NRSV where available, as well as Brenton -- both the Greek and the English translation -- if you have those) to help see the differences. Checking the LXX Apparatus notes is also quite beneficial. 

Hope this helps.

Isaiah.

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 2 2020 10:34 AM

Thanks. I'll see if I have it when I get home.

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2020 12:15 PM

Hi everyone. Apologies I've been distracted. Any updates on this / comments from FL?

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2020 12:23 PM

im pulling up the septuagint manuscript explorer

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2020 12:41 PM

it looks like I do not own the dataset(s) I would need.

Septuaginta: Apparatus Criticus is referenced. I don't know if that's it. This looks like a problem I cannot solve. NET translation does not give me corresponding lexigraphical or interlinear information for NET. I dont have it on NRSV either.

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2020 1:04 PM

Why does the LES use a manuscript with pious instead of impious? I think it would prudent to give older collections like Alexandrinus and Siniaiticus priority over Vaticanus. Consider a substantial difference in meaning, I think LES should reconsider.

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2020 1:44 PM

another update. the word for poverty, according to the Liddell-Scott lexicon, which friend pulled up, the word is an abstract noun, implying the "need to beg" and that makes think that "impious" should be the preferred translation because it makes sense for an impious man to hate people who are "in need to beg" for their survival. It doesn't make sense for pious man to do that. I think the original codex vaticanus scribe just got it wrong.

Posts 11196
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2020 3:57 PM

Chrisser:

it looks like I do not own the dataset(s) I would need.

Septuaginta: Apparatus Criticus is referenced. I don't know if that's it. This looks like a problem I cannot solve. NET translation does not give me corresponding lexigraphical or interlinear information for NET. I dont have it on NRSV either.

Chrisser, the referenced sources that Isaiah mentions are resources. I keep my PC offline, but took a picture of the resources below:

Top-left is Rahlfs Top-Right is Swete

Btm-Left is Gottengen Btm-Right is the Gottengen apparatus (mss sources per word). 

As to what to choose, translating, you 'could' bounce between mss's. Logos chose a straight source, which at least from a user standpoint, makes tracing easier. Then apply text comparison (as Isaiah suggests). Keep in mind, there's many LXX readings.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 44
LogosEmployee
Isaiah | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2020 7:28 AM

Chrisser:

The simple answer is: we used Vaticanus (primarily) because we used the Cambridge Swete edition as the text for translation (which happens to be royalty/license free), and Vaticanus is the primary text used throughout the Swete edition.

Why does Swete start with Vaticanus as a base, using Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus as a supplement only where Vaticanus is missing? Because it is considered the oldest text. The Preface to first volume of the Cambridge Swete edition states the following:


The text of the Vatican MS. was selected as that "which on the whole presents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively oldest form." Where the Vatican MS. is defective, its defects are supplied from the Alexandrine MS., or in the very few instances where both these MSS. fail us, from the uncial MS. which occupies the next place in the point of age or importance.

Because we are relying on this single witness of the LXX text (of necessity), and have not created our own critical edition, we must be true to the text itself, even where the translation may not make perfect sense.

Isaiah.

Posts 331
Chrisser | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2020 7:35 AM

I see. How do you know Vaticanus is older? both Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus disagree with Vaticanus. Sinaiticus is the same century. 

Posts 29636
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2020 2:52 PM

Chrisser - to find the answer to your question

  1. Explorer the data in the LXX Manuscript Explorer interactive tool
  2. Run a search on each codex to see what your resources say
  3. See if either the NETS translation or Leiden LXX critical edition project web sites gives you additional information

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Page 1 of 1 (16 items) | RSS