The
Text of the Bible
and
Some Types of Corruption
in
it
The Bible
is initially divided into two major parts: the Old Testament;
and the New Testament. The NT relates to Jesus Christ and his Apostles. It
was
originally written in the Greek language, whereas Jesus delivered his
message/gospel in the Aramaic language in which language it was never
written.
It consists of 27 books. First four books are the Gospels according to
Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. The next is ‘The Acts of Apostles.’ Then
there are 21
Epistles (letters) ascribed to Apostles. The last one is
‘Revelation’.
The OT consists of 39 books. It was mainly written in
the
Hebrew language with the exception of some chapters of Daniel and Exra
etc.1.
First five books―Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy―are
called ‘Pentateuch’ or ‘Torah’. They were attributed to
Moses
who belonged to ca. 14-13th century BC.
But no portion of the OT had been committed to writing until ca. 4
centuries
after him, except perhaps a song, ‘the Song of Deborah’.
Some
Types of Corruption
In
the Text of the OT
Some excerpts are being quoted below from some
authorities to
afford the reader a first hand knowledge. 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 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.2
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. (…).3
According 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.
(…).4
The Encyclopedia Britannica writes 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.5
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:
-
Probably
the present text became fixed [canonized] in the 2nd
century AD
[ca. 1400 years after Moses].
-
Before
the 2nd century AD,
owing to various causes, a number of corruptions indisputably were
introduced into the Hebrew text.
-
The
original text consisted only of consonants, without vocalization or
vowel
signs, which was a large source of confusion.
-
The
words and sentences were not divided in the earlier texts.
-
Even
a superficial comparison between the Heb. 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.
-
As
the texts have obviously been tampered with in some places, the task
of
arriving at a reliable text is very complicated.
-
The
sorry state of the Septuagint text itself also complicates the
task.
-
The
translators of the LXX purposely paraphrased the text or changed its
meaning
when the original was either embarrassing to them or
unclear.
-
The
Dead Sea Scrolls
make
clear the existence of several textual traditions even in
Hebrew.
-
The
best that can be achieved is an approximation of the text of the
OT.
AD 1988
Ed 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.6
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 ƒ¢¢â€š¬¢â‚¬
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.7
According to the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ the
“Problems
resulting from Aural Conditioning“, “Problems Visual in Origin“, “Exegetical
Problems“, “Exegetical
Problems,” and “Deliberate Changes” are as follows:
Aural Conditioning 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 h~et with spirant kaf so that
ah~ “brother” might be written for akh
“surely.”
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.
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”).
Dittography, or the inadvertent
duplication
of one or more letters or words, also occurs, as, for example, in the
DSS text
of Isaiah and in the Masoretic text of Ezkiel.
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.
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.
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.
Deliberate
Changes.
Apart from mechanical alterations of a text, many variants must have
been
consciously introduced by scribes, some by way of glossingƒ¢¢â€š¬¢â‚¬i.e.
the insertion of a more common word to explain a rare oneƒ¢¢â€š¬¢â‚¬and
others by explanatory comments incorporated into the text. Furthermore,
a
scribe who had before him two manuscript 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‘.8
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].9
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:
-
Vowel
signs were introduced into the Heb. Bible
by
Masoretes between the 7th and 9th centuries
CE
[AD].
They did not exist before it.
-
More
than one Hebrew Text-forms of the books of the Bible
existed
for a long time.
-
Some
Bible
books
must have endured a long period of oral transmission before their
committal
to writing.
-
Between
its oral transmission and committal to writing the material might well
have
undergone abridgement, amplification, and
alteration
at the hands of the transmitters.
-
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.
-
Problems
resulting from aural conditioning occurred due to
mishearing
of similar sounding consonants when a text was dictated to a
copyist.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Deliberate
Changes:
Glosses and explanatory comments consciously introduced by the scribes
and
subsequently incorporated in the text.
-
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
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
interpuctuated manuscripts. (…).11
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.”
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]12
In spite of all his above findings the writer of the
article
has stressed that these errors and textual divergences between the
versions
materially effect 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.13
The writer of the article has admitted that the older
the
biblical MSS 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. 14
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-text15
of this version or that, the question still remains open whether we
shall ever
be able to recover the ipsissima verba16
of a biblical author.17
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 Bookof 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.18
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 authorised supervision:
At first, the translation of the scriptures into
Aramaic
was most probably sporadic and undirected. (…). Lacking authorised
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 Vorlage19
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 standardised 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.20
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
verba21
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.22
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
‘aza$ra$h―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.23
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;
plene24
or defective spelling (as in the cases adduced above); metathesis;
differences
of vocalisation, sometimes entailing a change of verb conjugations.25
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]
[stress added]. (…). 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.
[p.190]
(….).
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 [stress added] which until their discovery had been
beyond
the scope of textual research proper.26
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:
-
Any
account of the development of the text prior to c. 300 B.C.
rely
upon mere conjecture.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
These
errors and textual divergences effect the intrinsic message only in
relatively few instances.
-
The
older the biblical MSS be, the wider is the over-all range of textual
divergence between them.
-
It
is almost impossible to trace back the original text of some book of
the OT.
-
Originally
oral variations may ultimately turn up as textual
variants.
-
While
translating the Hebrew text of the OT neither proper care had been
observed
nor authorised supervision.
-
Deviations
of the Samaritan Hebrew text from the Massoretic text were estimated
at
about six thousand.
-
The
Hebrew scrolls from Qumran prove beyond doubt the actual existence of
variant readings in the biblical books of the Hellenistic or Roman
periods.
-
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.27
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 [stress
added].28
The same
writer
says that there are numerous scribal errors and textual divergences from
the LXX
and other MSS:
(…), 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 Heb. 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 emphasise 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.29
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 Isla%m 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.30
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. 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 recognised 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
vocalisation 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 vocalisation. 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.31
As
regards the second type, i.e. 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 scepticism among
scholars
on the possibility.
The final
note,
however, in any dicscussion 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.32
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.33
Encyclopedia
Americana has afforded 73
pages (p.647
to 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.34
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).35
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 [stress
added].
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.)36
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.”37
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.38
The writer has classified the task of emendation in the
following three categories:
Emendations of the Hebrew text may be classified as
follows:
-
Those that rest on the evidence of an ancient
version,
such as the Septuagint;
-
Those that are based on conjecture without
versional
support; and
-
Emendations that involve both conjecture and
occasional
evidence.39
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
following example will illustrate their use in textual emendation.
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 dwellingplaces
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 dwellingplaces to all
generations,”
the words in italics not being in the Hebrew at allbut 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 captive s 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.40
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.41
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.”42
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.43
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].44
The Dummelow’s Commentary expresses the view that
the
Pentateuch was anonymously written and it is not fair to ascribe it to him
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
Israelitish 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].45
Hereunder the writer 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.46
The writer has also tried to trace the various sources
of the
material contained in the books of the Pentateuch:
-
Sources.
-
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; (…).
-
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.
-
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 thr 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.47
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.48
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.49
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.
Some
Types of Corruption
In
the Text of the NT
Like the OT text there is a variety of corruption in
the NT
text as well. The scholarly book named ‘The Text of the NT, its
Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration’50
deals exclusively with this theme. The heading of Chapter VII of the book
is
“The Causes of Error in the Transmission of the Text of the NT”. It would
be
very pertinent to undertake a study of its themes. The learned writer has
divided it in two sub-headings: (I) Unintentional
Changes; and (II)
Intentional
Changes.
Dealing with the Unintentional
Changes, the
writer has
taken up the subject under
following sections:
-
Unintentional
Changes:
Errors Arising from
Faulty
Eyesight:
The scribe who was afflicted with astigmatism51
found it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters which
resemble
one another, particularly when previous copyist had not written
with
care. Thus in uncial52
script the sigma, the epsilon, the theta, and the omicron were
sometimes
confused, etc.53
When two lines in the exemplar from which the
ascribe
was making a copy happened to end with the same word or words, or
even
sometimes with the same syllable, his eye might wander from the
first to
the second, accidentally omitting the whole passage lying between
them.
Thus is to be explained the curious reading at John xvii, 15 in
Codex
Vaticanus, which lacks the words which are enclosed in square
brackets:
‘I do not pray that thou shouldst take them from the [world
but that
thou shouldst keep them from the] evil one.’
(…).
Many other examples of omission, called haplography54,
occur in a wide variety of MSS. (…). Sometimes the eye of the
scribe
picked up the same word or group of words a second time and as a
result
copied twice what should have appeared only once (this kind of
error is
called dittography).55
Errors
Arising from Faulty Hearing :
When scribes made copies from dictation, or even
when a
solitary scribe in his own cell pronounced to himself the words which
he was
transcribing, confusion would sometimes arise over words having the
same
pronunciation as others, but differing in spelling (as the English
words ‘there’
and ‘their’
or
‘grate’ and
‘great’).56
Errors of the Mind:
The category of errors of the mind includes those
variations which seem to have arisen while the copyist was holding a
clause
or sequence of letters in his (somewhat treacherous) memory between
the
glance at the MS to be copied and the writing down of what he saw
there. In
this way one must account for the origin of a multitude of changes
involving
the substitution of synonyms, variation in the order of words, and the
transposition of letters. (….).57
Errors of Judgement:
Words and notes standing in the margin of the older
copy
were occasionally incorporated into the text of the new MS. since the
margin
was used for glosses (that is, synonyms of hard words in the text) as
well
as corrections, it must have often been most perplexing to a scribe to
decide what to do with a marginal note. It was easiest to solve his
doubt by
putting the note into the text which he was copying. Thus it is
probable
that what was originally a marginal comment explaining the moving of
the
water in the pool at Bethesda (John v.7) was incorporated into the
text of
John v. 3b-4 (see the KJV for the addition). Again, it is altogether
likely
that the clause in later MSS at Rom. Viii. 1, ‘who walk not
according to
the flesh but according to the spirit’, was originally an
explanatory note
(perhaps derived from vs. 4) defining ‘those who are in Christ
Jesus’.
(…). Other errors originated, not because of the exercise of faulty
judgement, but from the lack of judgement altogether. 58
-
INTENTIONAL
CHANGES:
Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought were
more
dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what
lay
before them. Many of the alterations which may be classified as
intentional
were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that
they
were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had
previously
crept into the sacred text and needed to be rectified. A later scribe
might
even re-introduce an erroneous reading that had been previously
corrected.59
Changes Involving
Spelling and
Grammar:
The Book of Revelation, with its frequent
Semitisms and
solecism, afforded many temptations to style-conscious scribes.
[The writer has given here some concrete examples of the Greek
language to
elaborate the theme].60
&n
bsp;
Harmonistic
Corrections:
Some harmonistic alterations originated
unintentionally; others were made quite deliberately. Since monks
usually
knew by heart extensive portions of the Scriptures, the temptation
to
harmonize discordant parallels or quotations would be strong in
proportion
to the degree of the copyist’s familiarity with other parts of
the Bible. The words which belong in John xix. 20, ‘It was written in
Hebrew, in
Latin, and in Greek’, have been introduced into the text of many
MSS at
Luke xxiii. 38. (…). Frequently OT quotations are enlarged from
the OT
context, or are made to conform more closely to the Septuagint
wording.
For example, the clause in the King James version at Matt. Xv. 8,
‘[this
people] draweth nigh unto me with their mouth’―a
clause which is not found in the earlier MSS of Matthew―was
introduced into later MSS by conscientious scribes who compared the
quotation with the fuller form in the Septuagint of Isa. xxix.
13.
[There are other
examples in it as well to elaborate the point].61
Addition of Natural
Complements
and Similar Adjuncts:
The work of copyist in the amplifying and
rounding off
of phrases is apparent in many passages. Not a few scribes supposed
that
something is lacking in the statement in Matt. ix. 13, ‘For I
came not
to call the righteous, but sinners’, and added the words
‘unto
repentance’ (from Luke v. 32). So, too, many a copyist found it
hard to
let ‘the chief priests’ pass without adding ‘the
scribes’ (e.g.
Matt. xxvi. 3), or ‘scribes’ without ‘Pharisees’
(e.g. Matt. xxvii.
41); or to copy out the phrase, ‘your Father who sees you in
secret will
reward you’ (Matt. vi. 4, 6), without adding the word
‘openly’.
(…). A good example of a growing text is found in Gal. vi. 17,
where the
earliest form of the text is that preserved in
[the writer has given here some reference] ‘I bear on my
body the
marks of Jesus’. Pious scribes could not resist the temptation
to
embroider the simple and unadorned
[the writer has given here the actual Greek word] with
various
additions.62
Clearing up Historical
and
Geographical Difficulties:
in earlier MSS of Mark i.2 the composite
quotation from
Malachi (iii.1) and from Isaiah (xl. 3) is introduced by the
formula,
‘As it is written in Isaiah the prophet’. Later scribes
sensing that
this involves a difficulty, replaced
[the writer has given here the Greek words] with the general
statement [the writer has
given
here the actual Greek words]. Since the quotation which
Matthew
(xxvii.9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from
Zechariah
(xi. 12f.), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend
the
error, either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the
name
altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine
account of
the chronology of passion with that in Mark by changing ‘sixth
hour’
of John xix. 14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark xv.
25). At
John i. 28 Origen altered …to … in order to remove what he
regarded a
geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS.
[?] and
many others, including those which lie behind the KJV. The statement
in
Mark viii. 31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things …
and be
killed and after three days (?) rise again’, seems to involve a
chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to
the more
familiar expression, ‘on the third day’ (?).
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places
the
golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. ix. 4), which is
contrary to the OT description of the Tabernacle (Exod. xxx. 1-6).
The
scribe of codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version
correct the account by transferring the words to ix. 2, where the
furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.63
Conflation of
Reading:
What would a conscientious scribe do when he found
that
the same passage was given differently in two or more MSS which he had
before him? Rather that make a choice between them and copy only one
of the
two variant readings (with the attendant possibility of omitting the
genuine
reading), most scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy
which they
were transcribing. This produced what is called a conflation64
of readings, and is characteristic of the later, Byzantine type of
text. For
example, in some early MSS the Gospel according to Luke closes with
the
statement that the disciples ‘were continually in the temple
blessing
God’, while others read ‘were continually in the temple
praising God’.
Rather than discriminate between the two, later scribes decided that
it was
safest to put the two together, and so they invented the reading
‘were
continually in the temple praising and blessing God’.
In the early MSS at Mark
xiii. 11 Jesus counsels his followers not to be ‘anxious
beforehand‘ (…).
Other
MSS of Mark read ‘do
not practice beforehand‘
(…), which is the expression used also in the Lucan
parallel
(xxi. 14).
Rather
than choose between these two verbs, a good many copyists of Mark gave
their
readers the benefit of both. In Acts xx.
28 the two earlier readings, ‘church of God’ and ‘church
of the
Lord’, are conflated in later MSS, producing ‘the church of
the Lord and
God’. 65
Alterations Made because of
Doctrinal Considerations:
The number of deliberate alterations made in the
interest
of doctrine is difficult to assess. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers accused the
heretics of
corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special
views.
In the mid-second century Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel
according to luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus.
Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels contains several textual
alterations which
lent support to ascetic or encratite views.
Even within the pale of the Church one party often
accused another of altering the text of the Scriptures. Ambrosiaster,
the
fourth-century Roman commentator on the Pauline Epistles, believed
that
where the Greek MSS differed on any important point from the Latin MSS
which
he was accustomed to use, the Greeks ‘with their presumptuous
frivolity’
had smuggled in the corrupt reading. In revising the Old Latin text of
the
Gospels, St. Jerome was apprehensive lest he be censured for making
even
slight alterations in the interest of accuracy―a
fear that events proved to be well founded!
The MSS of the NT preserve traces of two kinds of
dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or
alteration of
what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and
those
which introduce into the Scriptures ‘proof’ for a favourite
theological
tenet or practice.
In transcribing the prologue to the Third Gospel,
the
scribes of several Old Latin MSS as well as the Gothic version
obviously
thought that the Evangelist should have referred to divine approval of
his
decision to compose a Gospel, and so to Luke’s statements (i.3),
‘It
seemed good to me . . . to write an orderly account . . .’, they
added
after ‘me’ the words ‘and to the Holy Spirit’. The
addition imitates
the text of Acts xv. 28, which reads, ‘For it has seemed good to
the Holy
Spirit and to us . . .’.
The inconsistency between Jesus’ declaration in
John
vii. 8, ‘I am not going up to the feast, for my time has not yet
fully
come’, and the statement two verses later, ‘But after his
brothers had
gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in
private’
(a discrepancy which Porphyry seized upon to accuse Jesus of
‘inconstantia
ac mutatio’), led some scribes to change … (‘I am not
yet going
up …’). Jesus’ statement, ‘But of that day and hour no
one knows,
not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only’
(Matt.
xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32), was unacceptable to scribes who could not
reconcile Jesus’ ignorance with his divinity, and who saved the
situation
by simply omitting the phrase (….).
In Luke ii there are several references to Joseph
and
Mary which, in the ordinary text, doubtless appeared to some persons
in the
early Church to require rephrasing in order to safeguard the virgin
birth of
Jesus. In ii. 41 and 43 instead of the words ‘his parents’
some MSS read
‘Joseph and Mary’. In ii. 33 and 48 certain witnesses alter
the
reference to Jesus’ father either by substituting the name Joseph
(as in
vs. 33) or by omitting it altogether (as in vs. 48). 66
The section
of the OT was concluded with the following passage, which is
equally true in respect of the NT with some modifications
that have been duly incorporated in it:
It can thus be safely concluded that the text of the
NT had
to suffer many types of setbacks 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.
7  
;
Encyclopaedia Britannica,
University
of Chicago, 1988,
Vol. 3,
p. 759f.
8  
;
Encyclopaedia Britannica,
University
of Chicago, 1988,
Vol. 3,
p. 759f.
‘The Old Testament Text‘,
written by Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor of Bible, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, in The
Cambridge History of the Bible, Cambridge, at the University Press,
1970, p.
159f.
i.e. The very word.
24 &nbs
p;
Plene = pertaining to a system of full orthographic notations in
Hebrew,
whereby vowel sounds are indicated by certain vocalic signs.
27 &nbs
p;
Peake’s Commentary on the
Bible, OT Ed H. H. Rowley, Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd, London, 1967,
p. 75.
Peake’s Commentary on the
Bible, OT Ed H. H. Rowley, Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd, London, 1967,
p. 76.
29 &nbs
p;
Peake’s Commentary on the
Bible, OT Ed H. H. Rowley, Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd, London, 1967,
p. 77..
30 &nbs
p;
Peake’s Commentary on the
Bible, OT Ed H. H. Rowley, Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd, London, 1967,
p. 78.
Peake’s Commentary
on the
Bible, OT Ed H. H. Rowley, Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd, London, 1967,
p. 79.
32 &nbs
p;
Peake’s Commentary
on the
Bible, OT Ed H. H. Rowley, Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd, London, 1967,
p. 79.
34 &nbs
p;
J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University’s article “Textual
Criticism of the OT” in The Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier
Incorporated, Vol.3, 1984, p.
658.
39 &nbs
p;
The Encyclopedia Americana, op.cit., p. 661.
40 &nbs
p;
The Encyclopedia Americana, op.cit., pp. 661f.
47 &nbs
p;
A Commentary on the HB, Ed The Rev. J. R. Dummelow, NY, The
Macmillan
Co, 1956, pp.
xxvii-xxix.
49 &nbs
p;
Prof. Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Dean of the Graduate School of Religion
and
Professor of Philosophical Theology in the University of Southern
California, John Murray, Albemarle Street London, 1961, pp. 8f.
51 &nbs
p;
A defect in an eye, lens or mirror by which rays from a single
point
are not focused at a single point.
52 &nbs
p;
Uncial, i.e. written in majuscule (large letters) writing with
rounded unjoined letters found in manuscripts of the
4th-8th
century, from which modern capitals are derived.
53 &nbs
p;
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the NT, Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1964, pp.
186f.
54 &nbs
p;
The inadvertent writing once what should have been written
twice (the
Chambers Dictionary., p.762).