Some excerpts are being
quoted below from some authorities to afford the reader a first hand
knowledge of corruption and interpolation in the Old Testament.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the article ‘Bible’, explains that the books
of the Bible are younger by almost 1,000 years than its earliest text and
during this gap (i.e. prior to the 2nd century AD), owing to various causes,
a larger number of corruptions indisputably were introduced into the Hebrew
text:
The form in which the
Hebrew text of the OT [Old Testament of the Bible] is presented in most
manuscripts and printed editions is that of the Masoretic text, the date of
which is usually placed somewhere between the 6th and 8th centuries AD. It
is probable that the present text became fixed as early as the 2nd century
AD [i.e. ca. one thousand four hundred years after Moses], but even this
early date leaves a long interval between the original autographs of the OT
writers and the present text. Since the fixing of the Masoretic text [the
2nd century AD] the task of preserving and transmitting the sacred books has
been carried out with the greatest care and fidelity, with the result that
the text has undergone practically no change of real importance; but before
that date [the 2nd century AD], owing to various causes, a larger number of
corruptions indisputably were introduced into the Hebrew text. Originally
the text consisted only of consonants, since the Hebrew language had an
alphabet without vowels. It is also likely that in the earliest texts the
words and sentences were not divided [stress added]. The evolution of the
Masoretic text was an attempt to make up for both these deficiencies. It
supplied vowels by adding marks to the consonantal text, and it divided the
words and sentences. For many centuries it was believed that these vowel
points formed part of the original text; some theologians argued that the
points were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But subsequently research has
proved beyond doubt that they are younger by almost 1,000 years than the
text itself.
The Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that the
credibility of even the Massoretic text is not above board and it is obvious
that the text has been tampered with in some places:
On the basis of a variety of evidence it is
possible to show that the Masoretic text is not a completely reliable index
to the readings of the autographs of the OT. Even a superficial comparison
between its readings and the Septuagint
translation discloses many passages in which the translators of the OT into
Greek ascribed different vowels to the consonantal text or divided the words
differently from the way they are now divided in the Hebrew text [stress
added]. In other passages, they simply had another text before them.
Considering that the Septuagint translation antedates the Masoretes by so
long a span, we are forced to admit that the Hebrew text underlying it
sometimes comes closer to the original reading of a particular passage than
does the Masoretic. Other evidence, too, renders an uncritical acceptance of
Masoretic readings impossible; it is obvious that the text has been tampered
with in some places.
According to this article of the Enc.
Britannica, the case of the Septuagint (LXX) is also very disappointing.
Some of its texts are confused:
What complicates the task is, among other
things, the sorry state of the Septuagint text itself. Parts of it are well
attested and may form the basis for judgements about the Hebrew, but other
parts are so confused textually that in some instances scholars are inclined
to posit two or more translations. After all, without a reliable text of the
translation, the translation cannot very well be used to emend the text of
the original. What is more, a study of the Septuagint also reveals many
passages in which the translators purposely paraphrased the text or changed
its meaning when the original was either embarrassing to them or unclear;
for example, certain concrete terms in Hebrew are translated into abstract
terms in Greek to avoid the charge of anthropomorphism.
The Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that
the Dead Sea Scrolls provide the evidence of the existence of several
textual traditions even in Hebrew:
They [The Dead Sea Scrolls] make clear the
existence of several textual traditions even in Hebrew; they have therefore
made important contributions to the textual criticism of the OT, but they
have not solved its fundamental problem. Barring a major discovery of
manuscript materials, this problem is probably insoluble, and the best that
can be achieved is an approximation of the text of the OT.
To sum up the above article of the
Encyclopedia Britannica, it is presented as follows. Attempt has been made
to remain as close to the writer’s words as possible:
1.Probably the present text became fixed [canonized] in the 2nd
century AD [ca. 1400 years after Moses].
2. Before the 2nd century AD, owing to various causes, a number of
corruptions indisputably were introduced into the Hebrew text.
3. The original text consisted only of consonants, without
vocalization or vowel signs, which was a large source of confusion.
4. The words and sentences were not divided in the earlier texts.
5. Even a superficial comparison between the Hebrew Masoretic text
and its Greek translation (Septuagint or the LXX) discloses that in many
passages of the LXX the words are differently divided from the present
Hebrew text.
6. As the texts have obviously been tampered with in some places,
the task of arriving at a reliable text is very complicated.
7. The sorry state of the Septuagint text itself also complicates
the task.
8. The translators of the LXX purposely paraphrased the text or
changed its meaning when the original was either embarrassing to them or
unclear.
9. The Dead Sea Scrolls make clear the existence of several textual
traditions even in Hebrew.
10. The best that can be achieved is an approximation of the text of the OT.
AD 1988 Edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica has afforded a 104 page article on ‘Biblical Literature’. It has
explained the theme under the sub-heading ‘Textual Criticism: Manuscript
Problems.’ Some of the relevant passages are reproduced hereunder. It
asserts that the vowel signs were introduced to the Bible text between the
7th and 9th centuries CE:
The text of the Hebrew printed Bible consists
of consonants, vowel signs, and cantillation (musical or tonal) marks. The
two latter components are the product of the school of Masoretes
(Traditionalists) that flourished in Tiberias (in Palestine) between the 7th
and 9th centuries CE. The history of the bare consonantal text stretches
back into hoary antiquity and can be only partially traced. (….); there is
much evidence for the existence of a period when more than one Hebrew
text-form of a given book was current. In fact, both the variety of
witnesses and the degree of textual divergence between them increase in
proportion to their antiquity.
According to the writer of this article of
the Encyclopedia Britannica, the biblical text must have endured a long
period of oral transmission before its committal to writing:
In the case of some biblical literature,
there exists the real possibility, though it cannot be proven, that it must
have endured a long period of oral transmission before its committal to
writing. In the interval, the material might well have undergone
abridgement, amplification, and alteration at the hands of transmitters so
that not only would the original have been transformed, but the process of
transmission would have engendered more than one recension from the very
beginning of its written, literary career. (….), the possibility of
inadvertent and deliberate change, something that effects all manuscript
copying, was always present.
The evidence that such, indeed, took place is
rich and varied. First there are numerous divergences between the many
passages duplicated within the Hebrew Bible itself — e.g. the parallels
between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. (…). There are also rabbinic traditions
about the text-critical activities of the scribes (soferim) in Second Temple
times. These tell of divergent readings in Temple scrolls of the Pentateuch,
of official ‘book-correctors’ in Jerusalem, of textual emendations on the
part of scribes, and of the utilization of sigla (signs or abbreviations)
for marking suspect readings and disarranged verses. The Samaritan
Pentateuch and the pre-Masoretic versions of the OT made directly from the
Hebrew originals are all replete with divergences from current Masoretic
Bibles. Finally, the scrolls from the Judaean desert, especially those from
the caves of Qumran, have provided, at least, illustrations of many of the
scribal processes by which deviant texts came into being. The variants and
their respective causes may be classified as follows: aurally conditioned,
visual in origin, exegetical, and deliberate.
According to it the ‘Problems resulting from
Aural Conditioning’, ‘Problems Visual in Origin’, ‘Exegetical Problems’, and
‘Deliberate Changes’ are as follows:
1. Aural Conditioning
These would result from a mishearing of
similar sounding consonants when a text is dictated to the copyist. Negative
particle lo’, for example, could be confused with the prepositional lo, ‘to
him’, or guttural het with spirant kaf so that ah ‘brother’ might be written
for akh ‘surely’.
2. Problems Visual in Origin
The confusion of graphically similar letters,
whether in paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic script, is another cause for variations.
Thus, the prepositions bet (‘in’) and kaf (‘like’) are interchanged in the
Masoretic and Dead Sea Scroll texts of Isaiah.
i. The Order of Letters also might be
Inverted. Such ‘Metathesis’, as it is called, appears in Psalms, in which
qirbam (‘their inward thoughts’) stands for qibram (‘their grave’).
ii. Dittography, or the inadvertent
duplication of one or more letters or words, also occurs, as, for example,
in the DSS (Dead Sea Scroll) text of Isaiah and in the Masoretic text of
Ezkiel.
iii. Haplography, or the accidental omission
of a letter or word that occurs twice in close proximity, can be found, for
example, in the DSS text of Isaiah.
iv. Homoeoteleuton occurs when two separate
phrases or lines have identical endings and the copyist’s eye slips from one
to the other and omits the intervening words. A comparison of the Masoretic
text I Samuel, chapter 14 verse 41, with the Septuagint and the Vulgate
versions clearly identifies such an aberration.
3. Exegetical Problems
This third category does not involve any
consonantal alteration but results solely from the different possibilities
inherent in the consonantal spelling. Thus the lack of vowel signs may
permit the word DBR to be read as a verb DiBeR (‘he spoke’, as in the
Masoretic text of Hosea) or as a noun DeBaR (‘the word of’, as in the
Septuagint). The absence of word dividers could lead to different divisions
of the consonants. Thus, BBQRYM in Amos could be understood as either
BaBeQaRYM (‘with oxen’, as in the Masoretic text) or as BaBaQaR YaM (‘the
sea with an ox’). The incorrect solution by later copyists of abbreviations
is another source of error. That such occurred is proved by a comparison of
the Hebrew text with the Septuagint version in, for example, II Samuel,
chapter 1 verse 12; Ezkiel, chapter 12 verse 23; and Amos, chapter 3 verse
9.
4. Deliberate Changes
Apart from mechanical alterations of a text,
many variants must have been consciously introduced by scribes, some by way
of glossing—i.e. the insertion of a more common word to explain a rare
one—and others by explanatory comments incorporated into the text.
Furthermore, a scribe who had before him two manuscripts of a single work
containing variant readings, and unable to decide between them, might
incorporate both readings into his scroll and thus create a ‘conflate text’.
After pointing out the forms of corruption in
the text of the OT, the writer of the article describes the difficulties in
the reconstruction of the original text:
The
situation so far described poses two major scholarly problems. The first
involves the history of the Hebrew text, the second deals with attempts to
reconstruct its “original” form.
As to when and how a single text type gained
hegemony and then displaced all others, it is clear that the early and
widespread public reading of the scriptures in the synagogues of Palestine,
Alexandria, and Babylon was bound to lead to a heightened sensitivity of the
idea of a ‘correct’ text and to give prestige to the particular text form
selected for reading. Also, the natural conservatism of ritual would tend to
perpetuate the form of such a text. The letter of Aristeas, a document
derived from the middle of the 2nd century BCE that describes the origin of
the Septuagint, recognizes the distinction between carelessly copied scrolls
of the Pentateuch and an authoritative Temple scroll in the hands of the
high priest in Jerusalem. The rabbinic traditions about the textual
criticism of Temple-based scribes actually reflect a movement towards the
final stabilization of the text in the Second Temple period. (…).
In regard to an attempt to recover the
original text of a biblical passage―especially an unintelligible one―in the
light of variants among different versions and manuscripts [MSS] and known
causes of corruption, it should be understood that all reconstruction must
necessarily be conjectural and perforce tentative because of the
irretrievable loss of the original edition. But not all textual difficulties
need presuppose underlying mutilation. (…) Furthermore, each version, indeed
each biblical book within it, has its own history, and the translation
techniques and stylistic characteristics must be examined and taken into
account. (…). None of this means that a Hebrew MS, an ancient version, or a
conjectural emendation cannot yield a reading superior to that in the
received Hebrew text. It does mean, however, that these tools have to be
employed with great caution and proper methodology.
Texts and manuscripts. Sources of the
Septuagint. A Greek translation of the OT, known as the Septuagint [LXX]
because there allegedly were 70 or 72 translators, six from each of the 12
tribes of Israel, and designated LXX, is a composite of the work of many
translators labouring for well over 100 years. It was made directly from
Hebrew originals that frequently differed considerably from the present
Masoretic text. Apart from other limitations attendant upon the use of a
translation for such purposes, the identification of the parent text used by
the Greek translators is still an unsettled question [stress added].
The salient features of the above quotation
are being afforded hereunder as a recapitulation to make the concept clear.
Attempt has been made to remain as close to the writer’s words as possible:
1. Vowel signs were introduced into the Heb. Bible by Masoretes between the 7th
and 9th centuries CE [AD]. They did not exist before it.
2. More than one Hebrew Text-forms of the books of the Bible existed for a long
time.
3. Some Bible books must have endured a long period of oral transmission before
their committal to writing.
4. Between its oral transmission and committal to writing the material might
well have undergone abridgement, amplification, and alteration at the hands
of the transmitters.
5. The possibility of inadvertent and deliberate change was always present. The
variants and their respective causes may be classified as follows: (a)
Aurally conditioned; (b) Visual in origin; (c) Exegetical; and (d)
Deliberate.
6. Problems resulting from aural conditioning occurred due to mishearing of
similar sounding consonants when a text was dictated to a copyist.
7. Problems visual in origin: (a) The confusion of graphically similar letters,
e.g. ‘B’ and ‘K’, which respectively mean ‘in’ and ‘like’; (b) Metathesis,
i.e. inversion in the order of letters in a word, e.g. ‘qibram’ [their
grave] was changed as ‘qirbam’ [their inward thoughts]; (c) Dittography,
i.e. Duplication of one or more letters or words; (d) Haplography, i.e.
Omission of a letter or word that occurs twice in close proximity; (e) Homoeoteleuton, which occurs when two separate phrases or lines have
identical endings and the copyist’s eye slips from one to the other and
omits the intervening words.
8.
Exegetical Problems: (a) due to different possibilities inherent in the
consonantal spelling in the absence of the vowel signs; (b) the incorrect
solution of the abbreviations by the later copyists.
9.
Deliberate Changes: Glosses and explanatory comments consciously introduced
by the scribes and subsequently incorporated in the text.
10. In
regard to an attempt to recover the original text of a biblical
passage―especially an unintelligible one―in the light of variants among
different versions and MSS and known causes of corruption, it should be
understood that all reconstruction must necessarily be conjectural and
perforce tentative because of the irretrievable loss of the original
edition.
The Cambridge History of the Bible is a
reliable reference book and an excellent source of knowledge. It has dealt
with the theme in a number of articles. Some excerpts from only one of them,
‘The Old Testament Text’, written by Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor of Bible,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem are afforded below:
Any account of the development of the text
prior to c. 300 B.C., i.e. in the Persian period, not to mention the periods
of the Babylonian exile or the first Temple, must perforce rely upon
conjecture and, at best, upon deductions and analogies derived from later
literature and later manuscripts. (….).
The absence of vowels meant that many a
Hebrew consonant group could be differently pronounced [stress added], and
from this resulted the fact that a variety of meanings could be attached to
one and the same word in the original. When ultimately vowels were
introduced into the Hebrew text of the Bible, these pronunciation variants
sometimes became the basis of variae lectiones.
The lack of any system of interpunctuation in
written Hebrew at that time was another factor which gave rise to different
interpretations of many passages. These diverging interpretations may also
in the end turn up as variants in versions which are based on fully
interpunctuated manuscripts.
The learned writer of this article asserts
that ‘In fact not one single verse of this ancient literature has come to us
in an original MS, written by a biblical author or by a contemporary of his,
or even by a scribe who lived immediately after the time of the author’. He
asserts:
There is probably no other extant text,
ancient or modern, which is witnessed to by so many diverse types of
sources, and the history of which is so difficult to elucidate as that of
the text of the OT. The task of the scholar who endeavours to trace the
antecedents of the text as we know it today is further complicated by the
fact that he is concerned with sacred literature, every word of which is
considered to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible. However, having
been handed down by human agents for more than two millennia, the text of
the scriptures suffered from the shortcomings of man. It becomes faulty to a
greater or less degree and even at times distorted. It must therefore be
subjected to scholarly critical analysis like any other ancient literary
document [stress added].
The OT books were handed down, as has been
said, not only in their original Hebrew or, in some passages, Aramaic
tongue, but also in a variety of translations into Semitic or non-Semitic
languages. All these textual traditions, as we know them today, differ from
one another. What is more, even the witnesses to one tradition, in the
original language or in a translation, often diverge from one another. As a
result, the scholar who takes a synoptic view of all the sources at his
disposal is confronted with a plethora of variae lectiones in the extant
versions of the OT books. This fact obviously does not become apparent in
the common editions of the OT, in Hebrew or in translation, which are in
every-day use. However, it should be borne in mind that the printed editions
represent the end of a long chain of textual development and of editorial
activities which were aimed at unifying the sacred texts. These late
editions can in no way be taken to exhibit faithfully the autographs of the
biblical authors. In fact not one single verse of this ancient literature
has come to us in an original MS, written by a biblical author or by a
contemporary of his, or even by a scribe who lived immediately after the
time of the author. Even the very earliest manuscripts at our disposal, in
Hebrew or in any translation language, are removed by hundreds of years from
the date of origin of the literature recorded in them [stress added].
Even a cursory perusal of the sources
available immediately reveals that not one tradition and not one MS is
without fault. Each and every one patently exhibits errors which crept into
it during the long period of its transmission in the oral stage, when
written by hand, and even, though to a lesser degree, when handed down in
the form of printed books. [stress added]
In spite of all his above findings the writer
of the article has stressed that these errors and textual divergences
between the versions materially affect the intrinsic message only in
relatively few instances. He asserts:
It should, however, be stressed that these
errors and textual divergences between the versions materially effect the
intrinsic message only in relatively few instances. Nevertheless this may
occur. Some examples of variants significant from a theological or ideo-historical
angle may in fact be found. In most instances the differences are of a
linguistic or grammatical nature, which resulted either from the
unpremeditated impact of the linguistic peculiarities of successive
generations of copyists, or from their intentional attempts to adjust the
wording of scripture to changing concepts of linguistic and stylist norms.
The writer of the article has admitted that
the older the biblical MSS (manuscripts) be, the wider is the over-all range
of textual divergence between them. He says:
The above remarks do not, however, absolve us
from accounting for the fact that the further back the textual tradition of
the OT is followed, i.e. the older the biblical MSS perused, and the more
ancient the records which come to the knowledge of scholars, the wider is
the over-all range of textual divergence between them. The existing
variants, therefore, cannot be simply explained as having arisen solely from
the cumulative effect of imperfect copying and recopying of the text over
many centuries. The very earliest biblical MSS known―and in this respect the
biblical scrolls from Qumran are of decisive importance ― exhibit
practically all types of variants found in later witnesses.
According to the learned writer of the
article, Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, it is almost impossible to trace back the
original text of some book of the OT:
Even if by retracing the steps of textual
development we may be able to arrive at the Ur-text
of this version or that, the question still remains open whether we shall
ever be able to recover the ipsissima verba
of a biblical author.
Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon points out that
originally oral variations may ultimately turn up as textual variants. He
further states that by the early third century B.C., the written
transmission of biblical literature had completely replaced the oral
tradition:
It should, however, be pointed out that
originally oral variations may ultimately turn up as textual variants
between duplicate texts within the OT. Such instances are found in two
versions of one and the same Psalm embedded in a book of the Former Prophets
and Psalms (e.g. 2 Sam. 22 = Ps. 18), in Chronicles and Psalms (e.g. 1 Chron.
16:8-36 = Ps. 105:1-15; 96: 1-13; 106: 1, 47-8), or in the Book of Psalms
itself (e.g. Ps. 31: 2-4b = 71: 1-3; 60: 7-14 = 108: 8-14). Again, we meet
with two or even three presentations of a piece of biblical literature in
parallel passages in the Former and Latter Prophets (2 Kings 18:13 - 20:19 =
Isa. 36:1 - 38:22 = 2 Chron. 32:1-20; 2 Kings 25:1-22 = Jer. 39:1-10 =
52:4-27; 2 Kings 25:27-30 = Jer. 52:31-4). To some extent also quotations
from an earlier book in a later one may exhibit textual variants. However,
in these cases literary license and a possible tendency towards intentional
variation or rephrasing on the part of the writer who is borrowing may lie
at the root of the present divergences. (…). The definite shift of emphasis
from oral to written transmission of the biblical books would thus have
become clearly apparent during the period of Return, i.e. at the end of the
sixth and in the fifth century B.C., in what, from a wider historical
viewpoint, may be termed the Persian period. (….) at this stage [i.e. the
early third century B.C.], the written transmission of biblical literature
finally and, to all intents and purposes, completely replaced oral
tradition.
The writer of the article under study, Prof.
Shemaryahu Talmon, asserts that while translating the Hebrew text of the OT
neither proper care had been observed nor authorized supervision:
At first, the translation of the scriptures
into Aramaic was most probably sporadic and undirected. (…). Lacking
authorized supervision, the resulting translation often assumed the form of
a somewhat free paraphrase of the original, rather than of an accurate
rendering into the translator’s language. But even when a word-by-word
translation was attempted, divergence from the Hebrew Vorlage
was inevitable. Translation from one language into another always produces
inaccuracies since there is no exact correspondence between the vocabulary
and the syntax of the two, even if they belong to the same language family.
Moreover, the probably divergent first renderings of the Hebrew scriptures
into Aramaic were based on originals which may well have differed among
themselves to a smaller or larger degree, for reasons set out above.
The same considerations apply with additional
force to the translation of the OT books into Greek, a non-Semitic language.
This translation was required, for reasons similar to those mentioned above,
by Jews living within the sphere of Hellenistic culture, whether in
Ptolemaic Egypt, where the Jewish community of Alexandria was the focal
point, or in Palestine. Tradition maintains that in this case official
non-Jewish agents also showed interest in rendering the OT into Greek, and
instigated a properly supervised scholarly translation. This tradition will
be further discussed subsequently. The Pseudepigraphic letter of Aristeas
credits King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) with having inaugurated
the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek by seventy sages. As a result
of their concerted effort, the Septuagint, commonly designated LXX, was in
the Pentateuch less open to the controlled impact of translators’
idiosyncrasies. It contains indeed fewer deviations from the Hebrew text
here than in the renderings of the other books. But it is still open to
discussion that this reputedly official undertaking is to be considered the
first attempt at translating the OT or parts of it into Greek and to have
provided the impetus to further ventures of the same kind, or whether it
should rather be viewed as an event which crowned a long series of previous
diffuse attempts with a standardized version. (…). The ensuing embarrassing
textual diversity of the versions of the sacred books soon called for the
application of the methods of textual analysis and textual criticism to
remedy this deficiency. As stated above, the ground for this new approach
had been laid by the conjunction of scholarly norms borrowed from the Greeks
with the care for the accurate transmission of the inspired literature which
had been developed within Judaism.
The writer notes that deviations of the
Samaritan Hebrew text―rediscovered by Pietro della Valle in 1616 and printed
in 1632 by Morinus in Paris alongside the other versions―from the Massoretic
text were estimated at about six thousand:
The Samaritan text [the Samaritan Hebrew
Pentateuch was rediscovered by Pietro della Valle in 1616] was made
available to scholars shortly afterwards when Morinus first printed it in
1632 alongside the other versions in the Paris Polyglot. Its many deviations
from the Massoretic text, later estimated at about six thousand, were soon
observed [stress added]. It was further established that approximately one
third [i.e. about two thousand] of these variae lectiones could be traced
also in the LXX. This concurrence enhanced the doubts which had been raised
concerning the veracity of the Massoretic text. It was maintained that,
having been revised by the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple, in
the first half of the second century A.D., it did not represent the
ipsissima verba
of the divinely inspired message, but a faulty text, resulting from incuria
librariorum or from wilful malicious tampering with it on the part of the
Jews. (…). The rich crop of individual variants which were recorded in the
apparatus of these works at first sight appeared to disprove the compactness
and stability of the Hebrew text. However, closer scrutiny more and more
strengthened the conviction that almost all of them can and should be
classified as intentional or unintentional secondary scribal alterations.
(….), the Greek tradition was deemed especially valuable for the purpose of
purging the OT of anti-Christ falsifications which allegedly had been
introduced into the Massoretic text by the rabbis.
The worthy writer has also elucidated the
impact of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the oldest extant
MSS of Bible, on the credibility of the text of the OT. He asserts, ‘The
Hebrew scrolls from Qumran prove beyond doubt the actual existence of
variant readings in the biblical books of the Hellenistic or Roman periods.’
He concludes, ‘the very notion of an exclusive textus receptus had not yet
taken root at Qumran:
This (the First Isaiah Scroll, IQIsa), like
many other MSS from Qumran, precedes the oldest extant MSS of any part of
the OT in the Hebrew Massoretic tradition by more than a millennium, and
those in Greek or any other translation by several centuries. (…). [p.183]
Because of their diversity, the kaleidoscope of the textual traditions
exhibited in them, their concurrence here with one, here with another of the
known versions, or again in other cases their exclusive textual
individuality, the biblical MSS found at Qumran, in their totality, present
in a nutshell, as it were, the intricate and variegated problems of the
Hebrew text and versions. (….) [p. 184ff].
The coexistence of diverse text types in the
numerically, geographically and temporally restricted Covenanters’
community, the fact that some or most of the conflicting MSS had very
probably been copied in the Qumran scriptorium and that no obvious attempts
at the suppression of divergent MSS or of individual variants can be
discovered in that voluminous literature, proves beyond doubt that the very
notion of an exclusive textus receptus had not yet taken root at Qumran
[stress added]. (p.185)
We have no reason to doubt that this
‘liberal’ attitude towards divergent textual traditions of the OT prevailed
also in ‘normative’ Jewish circles of the second and first centuries B.C.
According to rabbinic testimony, even the model codices that were kept in
the Temple precincts―the ‘azārāh―not only exhibited divergent readings, but
represented conflicting text-types. [p.185] (…). The difference consists in
the fact that in the end the Temple codices were collated, probably in the
first century A.D. and, what is more important, that rabbinic Judaism
ultimately established a model text and strove to banish deviant MSS from
circulation. [p.185,86] (…). However, even the latest MSS from Qumran which
provide evidence of the local history of the text in the crucial period, the
last decades before the destruction of the Temple, do not give the slightest
indication that even an incipient textus receptus emerged there, or that the
very notion of a model recension was ever conceived by the Covenanters.
The writer says that mostly the textual
variations involved are of the simplest and most common types:
In a majority of cases the textual variations
involved are of the simplest and most common types: interchange of
graphically similar letters or auricularly close consonants; haplography or
dittography; continuous writing of separate words or division of one word
into two; plene
or defective spelling (as in the cases adduced above); metathesis;
differences of vocalisation, sometimes entailing a change of verb
conjugations.
He observes that the deliberate alterations
into the text of scripture for various reasons of style and dogma have been
incorporated in both: the MSS of Qumran and the Jewish MSS alike. He further
says that the development of biblical text-transmission may be considered
prototypes of phenomena that emerge concurrently and subsequently in the
text-history of the OT in Jewish and Christian tradition:
(….), the deliberate insertion of textual
alterations into scripture for various reasons of style and dogma, and
uncontrolled infiltration of haphazard changes due to linguistic
peculiarities of copyist or to their characteristic concepts and ideas,
which may be observed in the wider transmission of the text, have their
counterparts in the ‘Qumran Bible
’ [p.190] (…). We thus encounter in the
Qumran writings development of biblical text-transmission which may be
considered prototypes of phenomena that emerge concurrently and subsequently
in the text-history of the OT in Jewish and Christian tradition, albeit in
less concentrated form, and at different grades of variations.
It is important to note that the worthy
writer admits the actual existence of variant readings in the biblical
books:
The Hebrew scrolls from Qumran prove beyond
doubt the actual existence of variant readings in the biblical books of the
Hellenistic or Roman periods which until their discovery had been beyond the
scope of textual research proper.
To conclude and sum up the esteemed
observations of Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor of Bible, the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, they are presented as under:
1. Any account of the development of the text prior to c. 300 B.C.
rely upon mere conjecture.
2. The absence of vowels meant that many Hebrew consonant groups
could be differently pronounced and, consequently, a variety of meanings and
interpretations could be attached to one and the same word in the original.
When vowels were introduced into the Hebrew text of the Bible, they
sometimes became the basis of variae lectiones.
3. Having been handed down by human agents for more than two
millennia, the text of the Scriptures suffered from the shortcomings of man.
It becomes faulty to a greater or less degree and even at times distorted.
4. In fact not one single verse has come to us in an original MS,
written by a biblical author or by a contemporary of his, or even by a
scribe who lived immediately after the time of the author.
5. Even a cursory perusal of the sources reveals that not one
tradition or MS is without fault. Each and every one patently exhibits
errors which crept into it during the long period of its transmission in the
oral stage, when written by hand, and to a lesser degree, when handed down
in the form of printed books.
6. These errors and textual divergences effect the intrinsic
message only in relatively few instances.
7. The older the biblical MSS be, the wider is the over-all range
of textual divergence between them.
8. It is almost impossible to trace back the original text of some
book of the OT.
9. Originally oral variations may ultimately turn up as textual
variants.
10. While translating the Hebrew text of the OT neither proper care
had been observed nor authorized supervision.
11. Deviations of the Samaritan Hebrew text from the Massoretic text
were estimated at about six thousand.
12. The Hebrew scrolls from Qumran prove beyond doubt the actual
existence of variant readings in the biblical books of the Hellenistic or
Roman periods.
13. Textual variations involved are of the simplest and most common
types: interchange of graphically similar letters or auricularly close
consonants; haplography or dittography; continuous writing of separate words
or division of one word into two; plene or defective spelling; metathesis;
differences of vocalisation.
‘Peake’s Commentary on the Bible’ is a
renowned and reliable work. One of its ‘Introductory Articles to the OT’ is
‘Canon and Text of the OT’, written by B. J. Roberts. The writer observes
that ‘the text transmission of the LXX was far from strict’:
From the very outset, and certainly from a
very early time in the Christian era, the text transmission of the LXX was
far from strict: indeed from the early 3rd cent. A.D. we have a comment by
Origen, the first scholar, in our sense of the word, in the history of
Christendom, that the MSS showed the greatest divergence, due both to
scribal errors and, what is worse, to revision of the text and additions and
omissions of ‘whatever seems right’ to the revisers [stress added]. (…), the
Church in various areas adopted different recensions of the LXX, which
further added to the chaos. After the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313 and the
consequent acceptance of Christianity by Constantine as an empire religion,
there was an attempt to secure for the OT, just as for the NT, a semi-standardisation
of the text; but one need only look at the Greek Codices of the Greek Bible
which were produced as a result of the Edict, to realise that there was very
little consistency used in the production of such a text, and still less
success in establishing the textual minutiae.
Jerome was commissioned by the then Pope to
produce a Latin rendering of the whole of the Bible, who accomplished his
work, Vulgate, in the late 4th and early 5th cent. BC. B. J. Roberts
observes in the same article:
(…), he [Jerome] stressed that, in
translating, ‘if we follow the syllables we lose the understanding’, and
there are innumerable instances of departure from the Heb. Text to
accommodate Christian dogma and interpretation.
The same writer says that there are numerous
scribal errors and textual divergences from the LXX and other MSS
(manuscripts):
(…), the Isa. A document, which contains the
whole of Isa. apart from a few minor lacunae due to wear and tear of the MS.
It was the first biblical MS of the scrolls to be published, and even now it
is by far the best known. The average person who reads about the Dead Sea
Scrolls―and his number is legion―is reassured by the authorities that the
scroll agrees to a remarkable degree with the text of the standard Hebrew
Bible, and there is no need to dispute this verdict, at least as far as the
average reader is concerned. But textual criticism is a detailed study, and
from this standpoint it is quite misleading to emphasize this very great
measure of agreement. Apart from scribal errors which are numerous, the
following divergences stand out: (a) the scroll, especially in the second
half, presents a widely divergent orthography and grammar from that of the
classical text; (b) there are numerous divergent readings, some of which
correspond to known alternatives, e.g. in the LXX and in the Kere and
Kethibh variants, whereas others were previously unknown; (c) in some
instances the proper names agree not with the form they have in the common
Isa. text but with that in later books, e.g. Chr. That is, the text in MS A
might be regarded as a recension, approximating to the classical form, but
by no means identical with it.
It is remarkable to note that one of the
reasons of errors and misunderstandings in the biblical texts was the
absence of any kind of vocalization system in the Hebrew script. It was only
after the advent and under the influence of Islām that it was introduced in
the Bible texts, as the writer asserts:
Some time in the 7th cent., probably under
the indirect influence of Islam and of developments in the Syriac language,
a rough and ready beginning was made to vocalise the consonantal text by the
addition of vowel signs.
The text of the Bible was changed both (a)
due to deliberate alterations by the scribes and (b) due to
accidental/involuntary errors. As regards the first type, i.e. deliberate
alterations the writer asserts:
Long before the text assumed its present form
it was modified for reasons known to us and unknown. Glosses were added,
explanatory, pious, habit (e.g. the adding of the words ‘of the covenant’ to
‘ark’ in many places), and others [sic.]. Unfortunately, some commentaries
in the past have shown an undue enthusiasm for this class of textual
corruption, and any phrase in the text which might contradict a preconceived
theory was apt to be dismissed as a gloss: on the other hand it is generally
recognized that, e.g. the book of Ezek. contains numerous instances of the
glossator’s work. Other early interferences were made by scribes who
expunged the names of foreign deities and substituted for them the word
bosheth (‘shame’), e.g. Mephibosheth for Meribaal.
From the period which
followed the fixing of the consonantal text we have Rabbinic evidence of
textual criticism. Tikkune ha-Sopherim (emendations of the scribes),
mentioned in Rabbinic commentaries, refer to attempts to avoid
anthropomorphisms in the text by a change of suffix, in as many as eighteen
passages. ‘Itture ha-Sophcrim (omissions of the scribes) refer to
grammatical points. Sopherin are marginal notes inserted in the Massoroth to
indicate that the form is ‘unexpected’ and should probably be replaced by
another word. Nekuddoth (puncta extra-ordinaria) are dots placed over words
in ten passages in the Pentateuch which were queried by Massoretes on
textual or exegetical grounds, and the fact that they are frequently
mentioned in the Mishnah and other Rabbinic writings shows that they were
commonly acknowledged. Again the retention of Kere and Kethubh variants
shows Massoretic concern for textual criticism.
There are other places
where scribes can be held responsible for textual corruption. There are
innumerable instances where a vocalization is queried on the basis of an LXX
reading, and it lies to hand to suggest that if any case is to be made for a
‘recension’ in the Massoretic text, it is in the interpretation given to it
by the Massoretes
responsible for the Tiberian vocalization. On the other hand, it is
sometimes thought these late Massoretes confused the meaning of a passage
because they had failed to understand it and consequently pointed it
wrongly.
As regards the second type, ie involuntary
scribal errors, the writer asserts:
The possibility of involuntary scribal errors
is well demonstrated by the very carelessly written Qumran Scroll 1QIsa, and
in a recent introduction to the study, The Text of the OT, by E. Wurthwein
(Eng. Tr. P. R. Ackroyd, 1957), very good use is made of the MS to
demonstrate the types and classes of error in the Heb. MT. The only caveat
which might be entered is that 1QIsa is not a Massoretic MS nor does it
belong to Judaism but rather to a sect, and perhaps it is not fair to the
Massoretes to put them to this undeserved disrepute. A better source would
be the fragments from the Cairo Geniza, where the same types of error occur,
but the incidence is not nearly so common.
There have been useful manuals of textual
corruption published―one in English by J. Kennedy (ed. by N. Levison), An
aid to the Textual Amendment of the OT (1928). It discusses such errors as
confusion of similar letters, in both the archaic and Aramaic scripts, e.g.
Beth and Kaph, Daleth and Resh; inversion of letters; haplography (writing a
letter once where it should be repeated, or omission of a word which is
similar to the adjacent word); dittography (the reverse of the previous
error); homoeoteleuton (where phrases and even passages have been omitted
from between two similar words or even endings of words). How such omissions
could have taken place in such official texts as the prototype of the
present Biblia Hebraica and all the MSS supporting it defies explanation,
because the Rabbis were strict in the matter of checking and correcting
standard MSS, but it is a fact that they exist. For instance in I Sam.
14:41a lengthy passage has disappeared by homoeoteleuton with the word
‘Israel’, which occurs immediately before the beginning of the lost passage
and which ends the passage.
Other assumed errors or sources of error are
disputed among scholars. It is sometimes thought that abbreviations,
particularly in the divine names, coupled with the wrong division of words
constitute a possible error. That such abbreviations occur in the Geniza
fragments is demonstrable, but it is still open to argue that they did not
occur in more official MSS. Another debatable point is whether or not MSS
were copied by dictation. This could have been a common source of corruption
and would account for the numerous variations between similarly sounding
gutturals; but, again, there is skepticism among scholars on the
possibility.
The final note, however, in any discussion of
textual errors must be one of caution. The prestige of the Massoretic
scribal activity, increasingly recognised of recent years, makes the a
priori likelihood of errors less than was previously believed. Increased
study of Hebrew philology and semantics, and better acquaintance with
cognate languages show that departure from the accepted text is frequently
hazardous, and fresh information, particularly from the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Cairo Geniza, makes the history of the text not only more interesting
but enhances its standing as a text-form, the early standardisation of which
made it unique among all textual transmissions.
Almost similar views have been expressed by
the Dummelow’s Commentary in its introductory articles in a different way:
For many centuries no vowel signs were used
at all, and the consonants were written without any spaces between words.
The scribes who copied were undoubtedly very careful, but sometimes the same
consonant was written twice. Sometimes, of two consonants of the same form
one was omitted; or a word might occur twice in one verse, and the scribe
going on to the second as he copied the first would omit the intervening
words. About the third century A.D. certain consonants began to be used to
express unchangeably long vowels. This was called scriptio plena, i.e. full
writing. About the middle of the sixth century when the Jews were much
scattered, the danger arose that the proper pronunciation of Hebrew would be
lost. A set of scribes called Masoretes, i.e. Traditionalists, introduced a
complete system of points to indicate the vowels as traditionally
pronounced.
Encyclopedia Americana has afforded 73 pages
(p. 647-719) for Bible and its related themes under different topics by
different writers. The topic of its 4th article is ‘Textual Criticism of the
OT’ which is written by J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University. The author
of the article has also pointed out similar forms of corruptions in the text
of the Bible:
The purpose of textual criticism is to
reconstruct the original text of the OT. It frequently is called lower
criticism, to distinguish it from higher criticism, which deals with
questions of authorship, date, source analysis, historical background, and
the like.
This type of criticism
is not peculiar to Biblical studies. It must be practiced on any piece of
literature that we wish to study seriously and that has not come down to us
in a copy made by the author’s own hand. There is a textual criticism, for
example, of the plays of Shakespeare. The peculiarities of OT textual
criticism arise from the nature of the Hebrew language and the history of
the OT text.
The OT is written in
Hebrew, with the exception of the following passages, which are in the
closely related Aramaic language: Ezra 4:8 to 6:18; 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4b to 7:28; and
Jeremiah 10:11, and a few isolated words or expressions in Genesis. In
ancient times these languages were written with consonants only, the
pronunciation of vowels being preserved only by oral tradition [stress
added]. In time some of the vowels were indicated by the use of certain
consonant letters (called matres lectionis), and eventually all vowels were
marked by these or by vowel points. Certain of the letters of Hebrew and
Aramaic are similar, either in appearance or in sound. For example, in the
square script that came into use about 200 B.C. the following pairs of
letters are very similar in appearance and may easily be confused: D and R,
B and K, H and CH, T and CH. Certain letters may be readily confused in
sound; there are two K-sounds, three S-sounds, and two T-sounds. In ancient
times the words often were not divided in manuscripts, and verses were not
separated as they are now. These features of the original languages of the
OT have helped to make errors possible in the transmission of its text.
The same writer, J. Philip Hyatt, traces the
history of the text as follows:
The books of the OT were written between 1000
and 100 BC., and the canon was closed toward the end on the 1st Christian
century. Not a single book has come down to the present in its original,
autograph form [stress added]. The earliest manuscripts are those generally
known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in the caves of Wadi Qumran
and Wadi Murabbaat and elsewhere in the desert region of Palestine near the
Dead Sea. Complete scrolls or fragments have been found of all books of the
OT except Esther. Many are from the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C. These
manuscripts contain several difficult kinds of Hebrew text. Some are like
the Greek Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch, while others are very
similar to the Masoretic text, which is discussed below.
(…). It is probable, therefore, that a
‘proto- Masoretic’ text was established by the year 100 A.D. This was the
result of a process extending over two or three centuries, climaxed by needs
that were felt in Judaism as the result of the rise of Christianity and the
capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. Rabbi Akiba may have been the
leader in the final stage of this process.
For four centuries after Akiba the textual
scholars were the Sopherim, the Scribes. While they were concerned mainly
with the correct copying of the text, they were students of it as well. In
various ways they sought to point out difficulties in the text: by the
‘extraordinary points’ placed above words in fifteen passages, which point
out passages that are doubtful in one respect or another; by the eighteen
‘emendation of the scribes’ (tiqqune ha-sophrim), most of which attempt to
avoid blasphemy against God; and by the Sebirin, which point out
‘unexpected’ forms. The Scribes made subdivisions in the text that
eventually became chapters and verses.
It was not until the time of the Masoretes
that a really standard text was established. The Masoretes were biblical
scholars who lived in the period between the 6th and 10th centuries A.D. the
word Masorete means ‘one who hands down the tradition’. These scholars were
not scientific critics of the text but men who sought to preserve the best
traditions regarding the reading of the text. There were several Masoretic
schools, both in Palestine and Babylonia. The Masoretes sought to fix a
standard, authoritative text on the basis of the MSS available to them, and
to provide the text with the notations that would be of aid in its study.
One of the most important of their activity was to provide the text with
complete vowel points. They also provided it with elaborate symbols to aid
in the correct reading of the text, partly the equivalent of modern
punctuation marks. They furnished in some cases indications of variant
readings in two families of MSS (the so called kethib-Qere).
Under the sub heading ‘Reconstruction of the
Original Hebrew Text’ the writer, J. Philip Hyatt, explains the types of
corruption of the biblical text:
It should be obvious from this history of the
text that a period of a thousand years or more elapsed between the
completion of the latest book of the OT and most of the MSS on which modern
study is based. During this time the text was repeatedly copied and recopied
by hand. When one thinks of the errors that may arise even with the use of
modern typewriters and composing machines, it is not difficult to realize
why errors arose in this repeated copying by hand. Errors could arise from
failure to read a text properly, failure to hear correctly when manuscripts
were written from dictation, fatigue, failure to understand what one was
writing, and even sheer carelessness. Sometimes material originally written
in the margin was incorporated in the text.
It can be proved that errors have slipped
into the text by comparison of parts of the Hebrew Bible that give the same
material in two places: for example, II Samuel 22 and Psalm 18; or Psalm 14
and Psalm 53; or Isaiah 36 to 39 and II Kings 18:13 to 20:19. More extensive
comparison may be made of the material in I-II Chronicles that has been
adapted from I-II Samuel and I-II Kings. Small or large differences suggest
that one form or the other [or none of them] may be original.
Errors also are obvious to the modern scholar
in passages that do not make sense, even when read by one who has a thorough
knowledge of Hebrew. The purpose of textual criticism, therefore, is to
remove as many errors as possible from the present text and thereby to
recover the original text.
A comparison of the available Hebrew MSS
helps only a little in recovery of the original text of the OT. Careful
studies have shown that the Masoretic MSS that have come down to us contain
few significant variants. Those that occur are largely differences in
orthography or vocalization (and possibly dialects) and seldom give
differences in meaning. The task of the OT textual critic is therefore
different from that of the NT textual critic, who must rely largely upon
careful comparison of early Greek MSS.
The complete Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea
Scrolls (known as IQIsa) is one of the earliest and best known pre-Masoretic
MSS. While it very often agrees with the Masoretic text, it offers in a few
places readings that appear to be superior to the readings of that text. For
example, the Masoretic text of Isaiah 3:24 may be translated as follows:
Instead of sweet spices there will be
rottenness,
And instead of a girdle, a rope;
Instead of well-set hair, baldness,
And instead of a robe, a girdling of
sack-cloth;
Branding instead of beauty.
The last line of this verse presents two
difficulties: it reverses the order of the words in the four preceding
lines, and it assumes a meaning for the common Hebrew word ki, here
translated ‘branding’, that it has nowhere else in the Bible. The Dead Sea
Scroll of Isaiah contains an additional word to the last line, which makes
it possible to render it as follows:
For instead of beauty (there will be) shame.
In a few instances the Dead Sea Scroll of
Isaiah supports the reading of the Septuagint or another ancient version.
(Consult the marginal notes to Isaiah in the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible, where these readings often are cited.)
The writer observes that the original text of
the OT was altered in very ancient times, before the earliest known MSS and
versions:
In a small number of cases the original text
of the OT was altered in very ancient times, before the earliest known MSS
and versions, for example, in II Samuel the word Baal (the name of a
non-Hebrew deity) in personal names has been replaced by the word bosheth,
which means ‘shame’. In Chronicles, however, the original forms have been
retained. For example, the name of Saul’s son is given as ish-bosheth in II
Samuel 2:8, but as Esh Baal in I Chronicles 8:33. It is certain that his
original name was not one that meant ‘man of shame’, but rather ‘man of
Baal’.
The writer asserts that sometimes the textual
critic must resort to emendation of the received Heb. text; but his purpose
should be to recover the actual text rather than to improve what was written
by the ancient author:
Recovery of the original text often requires
more than comparison of ancient Hebrew MSS and comparison of parts of the
OT. The textual critic sometimes must resort to emendation of the received
Hebrew text. The purpose of an emendation never should be to ‘improve’ what
was written by an ancient author but simply to recover what he actually
wrote. OT scholars in the latter part of the 19th century and the first
quarter of the 20th very often emended the Hebrew text and frequently seemed
to have little respect for the Masoretic text [stress added]. Scholars now
have greater respect for that text and resort to emendation only as a last
resort. This heightened respect has come in part from the discovery of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, in part from increased knowledge of the history of the
text and the recovery of the relatively early MSS, and in part from careful
study of the Semitic languages that are cognate with Hebrew.
Thus the primary concern of the scholar
should be to understand and interpret the Masoretic text; if he cannot do
that, he may resort to emendation.
The writer has classified the task of
emendation in the following three categories:
Emendations of the Hebrew text may be
classified as follows:
1. Those that rest on the evidence of
an ancient version, such as the Septuagint;
2. Those that are based on conjecture
without versional support; and
3. Emendations that involve both
conjecture and occasional evidence.
As regards the emendations based on the
evidence of an ancient version, such as the Septuagint, the writer writes:
Several of the ancient versions of the OT
were produced before the time of the Masoretes. The most important are the
Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin
Vulgate of St. Jerome. These versions sometimes differ in detail from the
Hebrew Bible. It is possible, therefore, that in some instances they
represent the original text and the Masoretic text does not.
It is frequently very difficult to decide
whether one of these versions or the Masoretic text represents the original
reading. It is rash to assume that in every case of difference the
Septuagint or another version is more original only because it is older than
our Masoretic MSS. The scholar must very carefully consider every individual
case of variation. For example, in comparing the Septuagint with the Hebrew
text, the scholar must exercise great care. He must realize that the various
translators of the Septuagint differed in their competence and in care they
took in their work. Sometimes they paraphrased rather than translated
literally; sometimes they misunderstood a verse or passage. Corruptions have
taken place in the MSS of the Septuagint itself, as in the Hebrew text.
Nevertheless, even when these and other possibilities have been considered,
the Septuagint and other ancient versions sometimes do give sound aid in
restoring the original Hebrew. The writer has afforded here ‘an example’
that ‘will illustrate their use in textual emendation’. He explains:
In I Samuel 14:41 a long clause obviously has
dropped out of the Masoretic text but has been preserved in the Septuagint
and the Vulgate. In the following translation, the words in italics are
omitted in the Hebrew:
And Saul said to the Lord, God of Israel,
‘Why hast thou not answered thy servant today? If the guilt be in me or
Jonathan my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim; but if the guilt be in thy
people Israel give Thummim’. Jonathan and Saul were taken, and the people
escaped.
It is clear that this longer form of the
verse is necessary to the sense, and it is easy to see why the Hebrew scribe
made the omission. His eye skipped from the word ‘Israel’ near the beginning
of the verse to the same word near the end, and he unconsciously omitted all
the intervening words. This type of error is known as homoioteleuton. The
same error sometimes is made by typists today [stress added].
Another kind of error may be illustrated from
Psalm 49:11. The first half of the verse in Hebrew may be translated
literally: ‘Their inwardness (qirbam) is their home for ever, their dwelling
places to all generations’. This is nonsense, which is not adequately
relieved by the King James Version: ‘Their inward thought is, that their
house shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all
generations’, the words in italics not being in the Hebrew at all but
inserted in order to attempt to make sense of the verse. Yet, when one turns
to the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Targum, one finds that the verse should be
read: ‘their graves (qibram)’ are their homes forever, their dwellingplaces
to all generations.” The scribal error was simply that of transposing B and
R, so that what was originally written as qibram eventually became qirbam.
A few suggested emendations of the Masoretic
text have been confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah.
For example, the Masoretic text of Isaiah 49:24, 25 reads as follows:
Can prey be seized from the mighty,
or the captives of a righteous man be
rescued?
For thus says the Lord”
Even the captives of the mighty shall be
seized,
and the prey of the tyrant be rescued;
For I will contend with those who contend
with you,
and your children I will save.
In the second line the italicized term seems
strangely out of place. It breeds the poetic parallelism, and one expects on
the basis of the reading of the fifth line a word such as ‘tyrant’. That is
just the word that is presupposed by the Septuagint, Peshitta, and the
Vulgate, and the Hebrew word for ‘tyrant’ occurs in the Dead Sea Scroll. The
error probably arose from the fact that in the Hebrew square script the word
caris (‘tyrant’) and saddiq (‘righteous man’) are very similar in
appearance.
As regards the emendations that are based
wholly on conjecture the writer of the article explains:
Emendations that are based wholly on
conjecture must be the last resort of the textual critic, yet they are
sometimes necessary and sound. They may be suggested out of a knowledge of
the types of errors that scribes can make, the forms of the Hebrew letters,
and common sense as to the meaning of a passage. One very simple emendation
that has commended itself to most modern scholars may be found in Amos 6:12.
The first half of the verse reads in Hebrew: ‘Do horses run on the rock?
Does one plow with oxen?’ the first rhetorical question implies the answer
‘no’, but the second implies ‘yes’. One naturally expects in the light of
the context that both questions imply the same answer. The King James
Version attempts to resolve difficulty by translating, ‘Will one plow there
with oxen’, but ‘there’ is not in the Hebrew. A simple solution gives a
suitable rendering. The Hebrew word babeqarim, ‘with oxen’ can be divided
into two Hebrew words, bebaqar yam, ‘with oxen the sea’. We thus translate
the emended text: ‘does one plow the sea with oxen?’ the difficulty arose
from the fact that in ancient times manuscripts did not always separate
words, or in some cases words were wrongly separated.
As regards the emendations that are exercised
partly on the basis of ancient versions and partly by conjecture, the writer
elucidates as follows:
Sometimes the text may be emended partly on
the basis of ancient versions and partly by conjecture. A good example is
Proverbs 25:27. Translated literally, the Hebrew seems to say: ‘It is not
good for one to eat much honey; and searching out their glory is glory’. The
meaning of this is far from apparent. One may attempt to restore the
original text by comparing the Septuagint and Targum and adopting their
reading at the end of the verse, and then conjecturing that the first word
(in Hebrew) of the second half of the verse is the same as the first word in
the Proverbs 25:17. One then gets the proverbial saying: ‘It is not good for
one to eat much honey; so be sparing of complimentary words’.
However, it is heartening to note that the
learned writer has, ultimately, acknowledged the worth and credibility of
the biblical literature to some extent. He has observed:
Textual criticism has made great progress in
the attempt to restore the original text of the OT. Much remains to be done,
but on the whole the original text of the OT is as well known as that of any
other book that has survived from antiquity and probably better known than
most.
The Dummelow’s Commentary asserts that the
Mosaic authorship regarding the Pentateuch is not genuine:
The traditional view was that Moses was the
author of the five books which bear his name in our Bibles; and until
comparatively recent times this belief was accepted without question or
inquiry regarding its grounds. A thorough study of these books, however, has
led many to the conclusion that this view of their authorship does not fit
in with the facts, and that another view is necessitated by the evidence
which the books themselves present [stress added].
The Dummelow’s Commentary expresses the view
that the Pentateuch was anonymously written and it is not fair to ascribe it
to Moses in its present form:
It must also be noted that as a whole the
five books are anonymously written, and that there is no passage in the OT
which claims Moses as their author. The ‘Law of Moses’ indeed is frequently
spoken of, and it is unquestionable that Israelite law did originate with
him; but this expression is not evidence that Moses was the writer of the
Pentateuch as we have it, or that the laws which it contains represent
throughout his unmodified legislation. (….).
On close examination, however, it must be
admitted that the Pentateuch reveals many features inconsistent with the
traditional view that in its present form it is the work of Moses. For
instance it may be safely granted that Moses did not write the account of
his own death in Dt 34. (…). In Gn 14:14 and Dt 34 mention is made of Dan;
but the territory did not receive that name till it was conquered by the
Danites, long after the death of Moses (Josh 19:47 Jg 18:29). (….).
A careful examination has led many scholars
to the conviction that the writings of Moses formed only the rough material
or part of the material, and that in its present form it is not the work of
one man, but a compilation made from previously existing documents [stress
added]. In this connexion it must be remembered that editing and compiling
is a recognised mode of authorship in OT history. Just as St. Luke tells us
(Lk 1:1) that before our Four Gospels were written, there were many earlier
accounts of our Lord’s life already in existence, so the OT writers tell us
of similar accounts already written of the facts which they record. And not
only so, but they distinctly indicate that they used these earlier accounts
in composing their own books. It is most interesting to find embedded in the
existing books fragments of the old literature of ancient Israel, as
geologists find the fragments of the lost animal life of early ages embedded
in the rocks of to-day. See, for example, ‘the book of the Wars of Jehovah’
(Nu 21:14), ‘the book of Jesher’ (2S 1:18) ‘the book of Gad and Nathan’ (1Ch
29:29), ‘the book of Shemaiah and Iddo’ (2Ch 12:15). Here we have evidence
of the existence of sources of information to which editors and compilers of
later days had access. We find also several ancient poems incorporated in
the sacred text, eg. Gn 4:23f, Ex 15, 17:16, Nu 21:17,18,27f, Jg 5, etc.,
and it is probable there were other early writings available besides those
which can now be traced. There is thus nothing strange in the suggestion
that the books of the Pentateuch were based on preexisting materials [stress
added].
Hereunder the Dummelow’s Commentary affords
the main grounds of the conviction that the Pentateuch is not the original
work of one man, but a compilation of the previously existing documents:
Composition: The following are the main
grounds of the conviction that the Pentateuch is not the original work of
one man, but a compilation of the previously existing documents:
(1) In the historical parts we find duplicate
accounts of same event, which do not always agree in detail [stress added].
Sometimes the two accounts are set down side by side; sometimes they are
fused together more or less completely; but in many instances no attempt has
been made either to remove or to reconcile their differences. Thus two
distinct and independent accounts of the Creation are given, one in Gn
1-2:4, the other in Gn 2:4-25. Two accounts of the flood may be detected on
a careful reading of Gn 6-9. Again we find two sets of instructions for the
observance of the Passover in Ex 12, one in vv. 1-13, the other in vv.
21-27. We may also instance the contrasts between such passages as Gn
27:1-45 and 27:46-28:9, where Rebekah is actuated by one motive in the
former and by quite another in the latter; Gn 28:19 and 35:9-15, where the
name is given to Bethel in very different circumstances; Gn 35:10 and 32:28.
Compare also Ex 3:1-6:1 with 6:2-7:13, where the latter section takes no
account of the former, but begins the story of the mission to Pharaoh anew,
as if 3:1-6:1 had never been written.
(2) Similarly in the legislative portions of
these books we find apparent contradictions, and these not in minor or
insignificant details, but in fundamental enactments [stress added]; and the
only way in which we can solve the problem thus presented is by
understanding that in these books (especially Exodus to Deuteronomy) we have
the records of laws laid down at various periods of the national history,
and dealing with radically different conditions of life. In Ex 20-23, e.g.,
we have a set of laws which are evidently suited to the circumstances of an
agricultural and pastoral community scattered over a considerable tract of
country with their flocks and herds. This legislation is of a very simple
and practical nature, based on the fundamental principles of truth and
righteousness, and having reference to a primitive state of society. (….).
In the book of Deuteronomy we find a more
advanced type of legislation, applying evidently to different circumstances.
Many injunctions, indeed, are repeated, but many others are changed. The
principles are the same as in the older legislation, but the rules are
largely modified. (….).
Again, in the book of Leviticus, with parts
of Exodus and Numbers, we find another type of legislation, founded still on
the same Mosaic principles, but more elaborate, more priestly, more rigid
than that of Ex 20-23 or that of Deuteronomy. (…).
(3) Different parts of the Pentateuch exhibit
marked differences of vocabulary and literary style. Many of these
differences, especially of vocabulary, can only be appreciated by those
acquainted with Hebrew; but any one can see that the book of Deuteronomy is
written in a much more rhetorical style than, say, the book of Leviticus,
and can appreciate its lofty and inspiring eloquence. Again, in one set of
passages, of which Gn 1-2:4 is a type, the Almighty is called God (Hebrew
Elohim), while in another set, of which Gn 2:4-26 is an example, He is
designated Lord (Hebrew Jehovah); and there are many other points of
difference which are most satisfactorily explained by the theory that the
writer of the Pentateuch, as we have it, made use of and incorporated into
his work documents originally separated.
Following up the clue given by these
differences, scholars have endeavoured to disentangle the separate documents
from which it is suggested that the Pentateuch was compiled, and we shall
now give a brief outline of the results of their investigations.
The writer has also tried to trace the
various sources of the material contained in the books of the Pentateuch:
4. Sources.
(a) There is first what we may call the
Primitive source (itself resting upon older written authorities), usually
denoted by the symbol JE. (…). It begins at Gn 2:4, and may be said to
supply all the more detailed and picturesque narratives in Genesis, and
Exodus, part of Numbers, and the first twelve chapters of Joshua. (…). It
makes use of the term ‘Jehovah’ for God from the very outset of its
narrative. Plausible attempts have been made to analyze it into two
components, J and E; but for these reference must be made to larger works.
(….).
It seems probable that the older written
authorities underlying this Primitive or Prophetic narrative were drawn up
not later than 750 B.C., and perhaps even a century earlier; (…).
(b) There is, secondly, the Priestly document
(usually designated P). This work so called because it regards the history
of Israel from the Priestly point of view, (…).
This Priestly document avoids all
anthropomorphic representations of God, and in this respect is in striking
contrast to the Primitive writing JE, which represents God as thinking and
acting like a man: (…). A feature of its references to God is that it makes
use of the name Elohim (God) for God almost exclusively (…). The writer of
this document evidently belonged to the priestly class; his aim was entirely
a religious one; (…). The Priestly thus exhibits signs of the discipline and
purification which the nation experienced in the exile and is appropriately
dated at the close of that event.
(c) The third document underlying the
Pentateuch is the book of Deuteronomy, usually cited as D, and identified in
its main parts with the Law-book discovered in the Temple by Hilkiah in the
eighteenth year of King Josiah, 621 B.C. (…).
It is supposed that these three documents―the
Primitive writing, the Priestly writing, and the the book of
Deuteronomy―were welded together somewhat in this way. The first attempts to
write a history of Israel probably originated in the schools of the prophets
in the ninth century B.C.: and in the Primitive writing JE we have the
finished result. About the same time as JE was composed, the Second
Legislation (D) was set down in writing and made public as recorded in 2K
22. This was afterwards combined with the earlier writing, which gave it a
historical background. Then during, or immediately after the exile, the
ritual law was drawn up in accordance with the priestly traditions, and
given an appropriate setting in a historical framework, the result being the
Priestly writing (P). Finally a later historian, taking these as his
authorities, wove them together into a complete whole, connecting them by
notes and explanations, where these were necessary; not putting the history
in his own words or presenting it from his own standpoint as a modern
historian would do, but piecing together the sections of the sources which
referred to the same events, and thus preserving not only the history, but
the very words in which it had reached him, for all coming generations. In
this writer’s work we have the Pentateuch of the OT Scriptures.
Geddes MacGregor has afforded, inter alia,
another type of corruption in his esteemed book ‘The Bible in the Making’.
It would be pertinent to give an excerpt from it as well:
(…). For all the care that scribes often
devoted to their task, a great many errors inevitably crept in. Deviations
occur even among the most reliable of the ancient Greek manuscripts.
Before the invention of printing, the
difficulty of reproducing the Bible did not consist solely in the labour of
copying by hand. Parchment was scarce, so that contractions were very freely
used. Sometimes a valuable manuscript, such as the Codex Ephraemi, a
fifth-century Bible now in the Bibliotheqe Nationale, Paris, was treated so
that, the writings have been erased by scraping and pumicing, the pages
might be used over again for making another book. The lower writing was not
usually quite obliterated, however, though it was extremely difficult to
decipher it until chemical means were found to revive what had been rubbed
out. Such a book, with one set of writing superimposed upon another, is
called a palimpsest [stress added]. Again, MSS were often corrected by later
copyist who scraped out with a knife what seemed to them incorrect, and
modern scholars know that in many cases it was the corrector, not the MS,
that was at fault. Sometimes a note would be made in the margin which a
subsequent copyist would take to be part of the text. The hazards of
inaccuracy in copying out the Bible by hand in the circumstances that
prevailed in those days were so great that it is indeed astonishing that a
text has been preserved which, despite technical problems it presents to the
learned, may be taken as generally not straying very far from the sense of
the original.
Point-wise recapitulation summaries have been
afforded for some of the early parts of this article. They cover almost all
of the important points. Thereafter, it was not deemed necessary. It was
also not considered proper to quote more authorities. All the important
themes have been elucidated. Moreover, almost all of the real and unbiased
authorities unanimously endorse these themes. It can safely be concluded on
the basis of the above evidence that the text of the OT of the Bible,
verbatim et literatim, cannot be taken as free from corruption and
alteration. However, the real message can be collected from it, using the
critical and analytical apparatus. It may be noted that these types of
corruption crept into the text of the Bible in spite of all the humanly
possible care that had been sincerely afforded by the early scholars of the
Bible. Geddes MacGregor has noted some measures taken towards the faultless
transmission of the Bible texts. He notes:
(…). With the fall of the Temple at Jerusalem
in that year [A.D. 70], the ritual worship with its animal sacrifices was at
end, and the dispersed Jews had nothing to take with them on their
wanderings but their Bibles. To the copying out of these they devoted
immense care. The regulations for making a copy of the Scriptures are set
forth in the Talmud (the great post-Biblical collection of Jewish law and
legend) and show how scrupulously careful the scribes had to be. The scroll
of the Law for use in a synagogue had to be fastened, for instance, with
strings made from the skin of ‘clean’ animals. The length of each column was
prescribed: not more than sixty nor fewer than forty-eight lines were
permitted. Lines had to be drawn before the writing was done, and if a
scribe inadvertently wrote more than three words without first lining his
copy, the whole thing was rendered worthless. He had to see that the space
of a thread lay between each two consecutive letters that he wrote, and he
was not allowed to write even a single letter from memory, without first
looking at the approved text from which he was making the copy. He had to
see that he never began the sacred name of God with a pen newly dipped in
ink, lest he spatter this. The ink had to be black, made exactly according
to a carefully delineated prescription. Throughout the whole of his work,
the scribe was required to sit in full Jewish dress, and he was forbidden to
speak to anyone, even a king. Any copies that did not entirely conform to
the exacting standard had to be destroyed. What chiefly accounts for the
absence of early Hebrew MSS, however, is the fact that as soon as any scroll
became worn out it had to be put in a special room called Geniza, adjoining
the synagogue, the contents of which room were periodically cleared out and
destroyed. The Jews had no interest in preserving tattered old copies of the
Scriptures for the sake of their antiquity: what they wanted were accurate
copies, and so long as accuracy of current copies was ensured by the rigid
regulations, old ones could be discarded.
It can thus be safely concluded that the text
of the OT had to suffer many a type of setback due to a number of reasons as
detailed above. As such all possible analytical and critical measures should
be adopted to ascertain the validity and intent of its text. But, at the
same time, withal its shortcomings, it has preserved a lot of theological,
historical, and prophetic substance in it and is not to be discarded
outright.
|