Text, Versions, and Languages of Ot – Text, Versions, and Languages of Ot

Text, Versions, and Languages of Ot

1. Languages of the OT. — The OT, except certain small sections, was written in Hebrew, and it has been preserved in its original language. But Jeremiah 10:11, Daniel 2:4, Ezra 4:8 T’^-m are in Aramaic, though it is disputed in the case of Daniel 2:4 whether this was the original language, or that of an Aramaic version which has replaced a Hebrew original. Hebrew and Aramaic alike belong to the group of languages known as Semitic, of which Assyrian (or the language of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians) and Arabic are also important members.

2. The Hebrew language: Character and History. — Hebrew is closely allied to Phoenician, to the language of the Moabites represented by Mesha’s inscription (c. B.C. 800), and to the language spoken in Canaan before (as well as after) the Hebrew invasion, known in part from the Canaanite glosses in the Tell el-Amarna tablets (c. B.C. 1400), in part from Canaanitish names contained in ancient monuments, as, for example, the list of places in Canaan recorded as among his conquests by Thothmes in. (c. e.g. 1600). It is held by some scholars that the conquering Israelites adopted the language of Canaan, having previously spoken a language more nearly akin to Arabic (so, e.g., Hommel, AHT 120, 218). From the time at least when they were once well settled in the country, Hebrew was alike the colloquial and the literary language of the Israelites. Some difference, such as is usual, no doubt always existed between the colloquial and the literary language,though our knowledge of the colloquial is only such as we can draw by inference from the literature. But there came a time when Hebrew ceased to be the colloquial language, being replaced by Aramaic, and survived only as a literary language. The disuse of Hebrew in favour of Aramaic cannot be precisely dated, and was probably enough gradual; according to 2 Kings 18:26, in the time of Isaiah (8th cent. B.C.), Aramaic was unintelligible to the Jewish populace, but as a language of diplomacy was spoken by Assyrian and Jewish officials alike. Apparently as late as Nehemiah (5th cent. B.C.) the colloquial language of the Jews in Palestine was still Hebrew, called ‘Jewish’ (Nehemiah 13:24 as in 2 Kings 18:26). In the first century a.d., as the few sayings of the popular language preserved in the NT (such as Talitha cumi) prove, it was Aramaic. Between these two dates, and, as we may infer from the increasing influence of Aramaic on the later books of the OT, considerably nearer the earlier than the later date, the change was made. Long before Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the spoken language, it exercised an influence through the spoken on the written language such as is commonly exercised by the language of one neighbouring people on another, — that is to say, Hebrew borrowed words from Aramaic, as English borrows words from French and French from English. The Northern Kingdom was first brought into closer proximity with Aramaic-speaking peoples, and later the Southern Kingdom; and Aramaisms have consequently been regarded as pointing to a northern, or to a relatively late, origin of the writings in which they occur. Certainly any large presence of Aramaisms, and in particular any conspicuous Aramaizing of the syntax, due to the influence on their writings of the language which the later writers commonly spoke, such as we find, for example, in Daniel and Ecclesiastes, points to a late date.

Other languages besides Aramaic contributed to the vocabulary of Hebrew: Assyrian, indirectly through the Canaanites from the earliest times to an extent not easily to be defined, and later directly; Persian, after the Persian conquest of Babylon in 538; Greek, after the time of Alexander (332 B.C.); and Latin, after the establishment of Roman suzerainty over Judsea in the first century B.C. Latin words are found in the Hebrew of the Mishna, but not in the OT; a few Greek words in the latest writings of the OT (particularly Daniel, about B.C. 167) and very many in the Mishna; Persian words in some of the post-exilic literature (Esther, Canticles, Tobit).

3. The Hebrew alphabet vowelless. — The Hebrew alphabet used by the OT writers consisted of twenty-two consonants: it contained no vowels, in this resembling Phoenician, Moabitic, and the ancient Arabic and Syriac alphabets. Our knowledge of the pronunciation of Hebrew words, as far as the vowels are concerned, depends on three main sources: (1) Jewish tradition, which is embodied in vowel signs invented between the 4th and 9th centuries a.d., and written under, over, or in the consonants of the ancient text; (2) the Greek versions, which transliterate a large number of Hebrew words, especially, but by no means only, the proper names; (3) the Assyrian texts: these, being written in a language which expressed in writing vowel sounds as well as consonantal, give us the vowels of such Hebrew names as they cite.

Though in the oldest Hebrew MSS of the Bible the consonants of the original text are accompanied by the vowels which express at once the traditional pronunciation and the traditional interpretation of the text, it Is now as generally accepted that the vowels formed no part of the original text as that the earth revolves round the sun. Down to the 17th century it was otherwise; and that century was marked by a final and keen discussion of this point.

4. Transliteration of Hebrew adopted in this article.— Since considerable importance attaches to this Jewish tradition as to the pronunciation, it will be necessary to represent the vowels in our discussion of the text, but it is important also to indicate their secondary origin and subordinate position. Throughout this article, then, the Hebrew consonants will be represented by equivalent or approximately equivalent English capitals, except the 1st and 16th letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which, being gutturals with no approximate equivalent in English, will be retained in their Hebrew form (N, y), and may be passed over unpronounced by the English reader. The vowels will be represented by English small letters printed under the consonant after which they are to be pronounced; thus DBR,

& a pronounced dabar. The Jewish scholars distinguished by different signs between long and short vowels; no attempt will be made here to mark these distinctions, and the peculiar half-vowels, the shiva’s, as they are termed, will be left unrepresented. Letters doubled in pronunciation, but without a vowel between them, were represented by the letter written once, not twice. The Hebrew vocalists distinguished these doubled letters by inserting a dot in the middle of them. This dot or daghesh will be represented here by the sign above the letter: thus DIJR, pronounced dibber.

i e

5. Date of the addition of vowels to the OT text. — The date at which the vowels were attached to the consonants of the Hebrew text can be determined only within broad limits. It was after the beginning of the 5th cent, a.d., for the way in which Jerome speaks leaves no room for doubt that the Hebrew Scriptures in his day were unvocalized; it must have been before the 10th cent., for the fully developed system is employed in the earliest Hebrew Biblical MSS, which date from the beginning of the 10th cent, (or, according to some, from the 9th cent.).

6. Earlier attempts to represent vowel sounds. — Long before the invention of vowel points certain consonants had been used, though neither systematically nor consistently, to indicate the vowel sounds: thus H was used to indicate a, and sometimes e; W to indicate o or u, Y to indicate i. This practice in some measure goes back to the times, and doubtless also to the actual usage, of some of the writers of the OT; but in many cases these consonants used to indicate vowels were added by scribes or editors. This we learn from the fact that passages which happen to occur twice in the OT differ in the extent to which, and the particular instances in which, these letters are employed. Psalms 18 occurs not only in the Psalter, but also in 2 Samuel 22; the Psalm expresses these consonants used vocalically 17 times where 2 Sam. does not, e.g. 2 Sam. writes KDMNY (v. 6) and HH§YM (v. 31). where the Ps. writes KDM WNY and HHWSYM. In some cases Rabbinic discussions prove that words now written with these vowel letters were once without them; so, e.g., it appears from a discussion attributed to two Rabbis of the 2nd cent. a.d. that in Isaiah 51:4 the word LSWMY (‘my nation’ RV) was at that time written without the W, thus LJJMY. The importance of this fact for the textual criticism will appear later.

7. Character of emdence for the text of OT. — The text of the OT has been transmitted to us through circumstances singularly different from those which mark the transmission of the NT text; and the results are a difference in the relative value attaching to different classes of evidence, and a much less close and sure approach to the original text when the best use has been made of the material at our disposal. Quotations play a much less immediate and conspicuous part in the criticism of the OT than in the criticism of the NT; and here we may confine our attention to the nature of the evidence for the text of the OT furnished by (1) Hebrew MSS, (2) ancient Versions.

8. (1) Hebrew MSS. — One well-established result of the examination of Hebrew MSS is that all existing MSS are derived from a single edition prepared byJewish scholars in accordance with a textual tradition which goes back substantially to the 2nd cent. a.d., but became increasingly minute. This is proved by the existence in all MSS of the same peculiarities, such as the occurrence at certain places of letters smaller or larger than the normal, of dots over certain letters, or broken or inverted letters. For example, the H in the word BhBRKM (Genesis 2:4) is written small in all Hebrew MSS; it was doubtless written originally so by accident or owing to pressure of room; but under the influence of a school of Jewish scholars, of whom R. Aqiba in the 2nd cent. B.C. was a leading spirit, all such minutiae of the Scripture acquired a mystic significance. Thus the word just cited really means ‘when they were created,’ but the small H was taken to mean that the words were to be translated ‘in the letter H he {i.e. God) created them’ (the heavens and the earth), and this in turn led to much curious speculation. As another illustration of this method of interpretation, which was so important in securing from the 1st or 2nd cent. a.d. onwards a remarkably accurate transmission of the text, the case of the word WYYZR in Genesis 2:7 may be cited. The word means ‘And he formed’; an alternative orthography for the word is WY?R (with one Y). Why, it was asked, was it here written with two Y’s? Because, it was answered, God created man with two Y?RS (i.e. two natures), the good nature and the bad. In order to secure the perpetuation of the text exactly as it existed, a mass of elaborate rules and calculations was gradually established; for example, the number of occurrences of cases of peculiar orthography, the number of words in the several books, the middle word in each book, and so forth, were calculated and ultimately embodied in notes on the margins of the MSS containing the Scriptures. This textual tradition is known as theMassorah,and those who perpetuated it as Massoretes. The Massorah also Includes a certain number of variant or conjectural readings; in this case the one reading (Kethibh ‘written’) stands in the text, but provided with vowels that do not belong to the consonants in the text, but to the consonants of the alternative reading (Qere ‘read’) given in the margin. E.g., in Job 9:30 the word BMW, which means ‘with,’ should, if vocalized, have the vowel o over the W; but in the Hebrew text the vowel actually supplied to the word is e under the M, which is the vowel that really belongs to the marginal reading BMY, and this means ‘in the water of.’ These Massoretic variants are for the most part relatively uninteresting. The value of the Massorah in perpetuating a form of the Hebrew text for many centuries has doubtless been great; but it has also long served to obscure the fact that the text which it has perpetuated with such slight variation or mutilation was already removed by many centuries from the original text and had suffered considerably.

In spite of the Massorah, certain minute variations have crept into the Hebrew MSS and even into the consonantal text. The vowels, it must be repeated, are merely an interpretation of the original text of Scripture, and not part of it, and different Hebrew MSS show as a matter of fact two distinct systems of vocalization, with different symbols.

9. The earliest MSS. — Among the earliest Hebrew Biblical MSS are the Prophetarum posteriorum codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, dated a.d. 916; a codex of the Former and Latter Prophets now in the Karaite synagogue at Cairo, and written, if correctly dated, in a.d. 895; a codex of the entire Bible, written by Samuel ben Jacob, now at St. Petersburg, and written, if the dating be genuine, in a.d. 1009.

10. Critical editions of the Massoretic text. — The most accurate reproductions of the Massoretic text are the edition of the Hebrew Bible by S. Baer and Fr. Delitzsch and that by C. D. Ginsburg. These are critical editions of the Massoretic text, but make no attempt to be critical editions of the OT text, i.e. they make no use whatever of the Versions or of any other evidence than the Massoretic tradition.

11 . The Samaritan Pentateuch. — Before passing from the evidence of Hebrew MSS we have to note that for the Pentateuch, though unfortunately for the Pentateuch only, we have the invaluable assistance of a Hebrew text representing an entirely different recension. This is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch is a form of the Hebrew text which has been perpetuated by the Samaritans. It is written in the Samaritan character, which far more closely resembles the ancient Hebrew characters than the square Hebrew characters in which the Massoretic MSS are written, and is vrithout vowels. The available MSS of the Samaritan Pentateuch are considerably later than the earliest Massoretic MSS; nor is it probable that the copy at Nablus, though perhaps the earliest Samaritan MS in existence, is earlier than the 12th or 13th cent. a.d. But the value of the recension lies in the fact that it has descended since the 4th cent. B.C. in a different circle, and under different circumstances, from those which have influenced the Massoretic MSS. Though in some respects, as for example through expansion by insertion of matter from parallel passages, the Samaritan is more remote than the Jewish from the original text, it has also preserved better readings, often in agreement with the LXX. An instance is Genesis 4:8; here in the ordinary Hebrew MSS some words spoken by Cain have certainly dropped out; the fact is obscured in the RV (text), which mistranslates; the Hebrew text really reads, ‘And Cain said to Abel his brother’; the Samaritan text and the LXX have the additional words, ‘Let us go into the field’; this is probably right (see next clause).

12. The Samaritan Targum. — No thoroughly critical edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch at present exists. The material for establishing a critical text consists of the several MSS and also of the Samaritan Targum — a translation of the Samaritan recension into an Aramaic dialect. The colloquial language of the Samaritans, like that of the later Jews, was different from that in which the Scripture was written.

13. Papyrus payment of OT text. — Thanks to a recent discovery, we have a further witness to a fragment of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. This is the Nash papyrus. The papyrus is apparently not later than the 2nd cent. a.d. ; and it contains the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 6:4 f. in Hebrew. The text, which is of course unvocalized, is several times in agreement with the LXX against the Massoretic text. This fragment was edited by Mr. S. A. Cook in PSBA (Jan. 1903).

14. (2) Versions: Earliest MSS. — We come now to the second main branch of evidence for the text of the OT. The evidence of Versions is of exceptional importance in the case of the OT. In the first place, the actual MSS of the Versions are much older than the earliest Hebrew MSS; the earliest Hebrew MSS date from the 10th cent, a.d., but there are Greek MSS of the OT of the 4th cent. a.d. and there is a Syriac MS of the greater part of the Pentateuch of the date a.d. 464. But secondly, and of even greater importance, the Versions, and especially the LXX, represent different lines of tradition; in so far as the original text of the LXX itself can be established, it is a witness to the state of the text some two to four centuries before the date at which the stereotyping of the Hebrew text by the Massoretes took place.

The Versions of the OT are either primary, i.e. made direct from the Hebrew text, or secondary, i.e. made from a Version. Secondary Versions are of Immediate Importance in establishing the true text of the primary version from which they are made; and only indirectly witness to the Hebrew text. Among them the Old Latin Version is of exceptional importance in determining the text of the LXX-^ On this and other versions of the LXX, see Greek Versions of OT, § 11.

15. Brief account of the Primary VersiOTis. — The Primary Versions of the OT, arranged in (approximately) chronological order, are as follows: —

(1) The earliest Greek Version, commonly known as theSeptuagint. Theearliest part of this version, namely, the translation of the Pentateuch, goes back to the 3rd century b.c. The remaining parts of the OT were translated at different later periods; but the version was probably, in the main at least, complete before the end of the 2nd cent. B.C. See Gr. Versions of OT.

(2) The Targums. These Aramaic versions may be considered next, inasmuch as they rest on a tradition earlier than the date of the versions yet to be mentioned; it is probable, however, that no Targum was actually committed to writing till some centuries later, after the later Greek versions, perhaps, too, after the Syriac Version, had been made.

The quotation from Psalms 22:1 in Matthew 27:46 II Mark 15:34 is in Aramaic; and Ephesians 4:8 agrees more closely with the Targum than with the Hebrew text of Psalms 68:4. From these facts we may perhaps infer that an Aramaic version had to some extent become orally fixed by the 1st cent. a.d.

TheTargumsarein large part very free, and even diffuse, paraphrases rather than translations of the Hebrew text. They owe their origin to the custom of explaining the Hebrew passages of Scripture read in the synagogues in the language spoken by the people, which was Aramaic. Thelearliest (as is most generally believed) and least paraphrastic of these versions is the Targum

2 P of Onkelos on the Pentateuch; it does not appear to have been committed to writing before the 5th cent, a.d., and is first mentioned by name by Saadiah Gaon in the 9th century. Far more paraphrastic is the Targum of the Pentateuch known as the Targum of Jonathan, or the Jerusalem Targum. Fragments of yet a third Targum of the Pentateuch survive, and are known as the 2nd Jerusalem Targum. Quite distinct from these is the Samaritan Targum, whichis atranslationoftheSamaritan recension of the Hebrew text (see § 11). The chief Targum of the Prophets is that known as the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel : it is not much younger than the Targum of Onkelos, and is by some considered to be even earlier. There are also fragments of another Targum of the Prophets. Targums of the Hagiographa (with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel) exist, and there are two of the Book of Esther. Cf. art. Targums.

The text of the Targums will be found in Walton’s (and other) polyglots, with a Latin translation. Onkelos has been separately edited by Berliner (1884), and the Prophets and Hagiographa by Lagarde (1872, 1874). See, further, Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Targum.’ There is an English translation of the Targums of the Pentateuch by Etheridge (2 vols., London, 1862-1865).

(3), (4), and (5) The Greek Versions (which have survived in fragments only) of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of the 2nd cent. a.d. See Greek Versions of OT, §§ 15-18.

(6) The SyriacVersion, commonly called the Peshitta. The date at which this version was made is unknown. The earliest extant MS of part of this version is, as stated above, of the year 464 a.d. ; and the quotations of Aphraates (4th cent, a.d.) from all parts of the OT agree with the Peshitta. The character of the version differs in different books, being literal in the Pentateuch and Job, paraphrastic for example in Chronicles and Ruth. ‘The text in the main agrees closely with the Massoretic Hebrew text, though in parts (e.g. in Genesis, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and Psalms) it has been influenced by the LXX.

(7) The Vulgate. — The OldLatin Version was a translation of the LXX. To Christian scholars acquainted with Hebrew the wide differences between the LXX and versions derived from it and the Hebrew text then current became obvious. As it seemed suitable to Origen to correct the current LXX text so that it should agree more closely with the Hebrew, so at the close of the 4th century Jerome, after first revising the Old Latin, making alterations only when the sense absolutely demanded it, prepared an entirely fresh translation direct from the Hebrew text. The Vulgate is derived from this direct translation of Jerome’s from the Hebrew in the case of all the canonical books of the OT except the Psalms; the Psalms appear commonly in editions of the Vulgate in the form of the so-called Galilean Psalter; this was a second version of the Old Latin, in which, however, after the manner of Origen’s Hexaplario text, the translation was brought nearer to the current Hebrew text by including matter contained in the later Greek versions but absent from the LXX, and obelizing matter in the LXX which was absent from the later versions. Jerome’s Latin version of the Psalms, made direct from the Hebrew, has been edited by Lagarde {Psalterium jfuxta Hebrwos Hieronymi, 1874). On the extent to which editions of the Vulgate differ from Jerome’s translation, see Vulgate. In some cases additional matter (e.g. 1 Samuel 14:41, on which passage see § 24) has been incorporated from the Old Latin.

The effect of the substitution of Jerome’s version from the Hebrew text for the Old Latin version of the LXX was to give the Church a Bible which was more elegant and intelligible and in much closer agreement with the Hebrew text current in the 4th cent, a.d., but which at the same time was in many passages more remote from the original text of the OT.

16. Two groups of versions. Pre-eminence of the a comparison of the LXX with the Hebrew texts. A much smaller amount of material is to be derived from the quotations in the NT and other early Jewish works, such as the Book of Jubilees, written, according to Dr. Charles, at the close of the 2nd century b.c; but so far as it goes this material bears witness of the same general character as that of the LXX.

19. A correct solution of the main problem here raised depends on three things: (1) the establishment of the original text of the LXX; (2) the detection of the Hebrew text which lay before the translators; and (3) in cases where the Hebrew text there recorded differs from the present Hebrew text, the determination of the more original of the variants. A complete solution of the problems will never be reached, for it will be no more possible to establish beyond dispute the original text of the LXX than the text of the NT; the detection of the underlying Hebrew text must inevitably often remain doubtful; and when variants are established, there will be in many cases room for differences of opinion as to their relative value. But though no complete solution is to be hoped for, a far greater approximation to such a solution than has yet been reached is possible. A good beginning (though no more) towards the recovery of the original text of the LXX has been made (see Greek Versions of OT, § 13), but of really systematic work on the recovery of the underlying Hebrew text there has been far too little. What commonly happens is that in particular passages where the sense of the LXX and of the Hebrew text differs, the Greek is retranslated without exhaustive reference to the methods of the translators, and the re-translation thus obtained is cited as the variant. In many cases the true variant even thus has undoubtedly been obtained, but in many others a closer and more systematic investigation of the methods and idiosyncrasies of the translators has shown or will show that, through misinterpretation, the support of the LXX has been cited for variants which there is no reason for believing ever had any existence.

20. Distinction between real and apparent variants. — A difference in sense between the Greek version and the Hebrew text as subsequently interpreted by no means necessarily points to a variation in the Hebrew text that underlay the version. Septuagint. — Judged from the standpoint of their Importance for recovering the original text of the OT, and for the kind of service which they render to OT textual criticism, the primary versions fall into two groups: (1) the LXX, (2) the rest. The LXX differs, and often differs widely, from the Massoretio text; the remaining versions closely agree with it: the LXX dates from before the Christian era and, what is more significant, from before the rise of the Massoretic schools; the remaining versions date from after the Christian era, and, with the possible exception of the Syriac, from after the close of 1st cent. a.d. The agreement of these versions made direct from the Hebrew text at various dates subsequent to 100 B.C. confirms the conclusion suggested above, that since that date the Hebrew text has suffered relatively little in course of transmission. Such variations as do occur in these versions from the Hebrew consist largely (though not exclusively) of variations in the interpretation of the consonants, i.e. while presupposing the same consonants as the present Hebrew text, they presuppose also that these consonants were pronounced with other vowels than those which were added to the text after the 5th cent. a.d. These variations therefore do not, strictly speakuig, represent variants in the text of the OT, but merely in the commentary on that text, which at the time the versions were made was still oral, and only later was committed to writing in the form of vowels attached to the consonants, of which alone the Scripture proper consisted. A fuller discussion of the versions of the OT other than the LXX would carry us into minvMce of the subject which do not belong to a brief sketch such as the present. On the other band, the LXX claims further attention even here.

17. The early history of the Hebrew text. — The history of the Hebrew text since the 2nd cent. a.d. is uneventful; it is a history of careful transmission which has preserved the text from any serious deterioration since that date. But the fortunes of the text before that date had been more varied and far less happy. They cannot be followed completely, nor always with certainty. But the main fact is abundantly clear, that between the ages of their several authors and the 2nd cent. a.d. the Hebrew Scriptures had suffered corruption, and not Infrequently very serious corruption. Nor is this surprising when It is remembered that the text in that period consisted of consonants only, that in the course of it the character of the writing was changed from the Old Hebrew to the square character still in use (the difference between the two being greater than that between old black letter type and the Roman type now commonly used), that in the earlier part of the period copies of the books cannot have been numerous, and that in times of persecution copies were hunted for and destroyed (1 Maccabees 1). We are here concerned, of course, merely with such changes as crept into the text accidentally, or such minor changes as the introduction of the expressed for the implicit subject, which belong to the province of textual criticism. The larger changes due to the edituig and redacting or union of material belong to the province of higher criticism, though in the case of the OT it is particularly true that at times the line between the two is not sharply defined. Our chief clues to the earlier history of the Hebrew text, and to the solution of the problems connected with it, will be found in a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint version, and in certain features of the Hebrew text itself. The remainder of this article will be devoted to elucidating and illustrating these two points.

18. The Hebrew Text between c. B.C. 250 and c. a.d. 100. The LXX and the Massoretic Text. — The materials tor forming a judgment on the general character of the changes undergone during this period by the Hebrew text, and for the existence of early variant readings in particular passages, are to be drawn mainly from

For example, parts of the three Hf brew verbs ^BH (to lead captive) , and YSB (to dwell) and of S WB {to return) are indiatingmshable in the Hebrew consonantal text; the lettera WYSB may have among others the following meanings, and he dwelt, and he returned, and he brought back, and he took captive.

The substitution of one of these meanings for the other occasionally reduces the Greek version to nonsense; inconvenient as this must have been for those who used that version, or versions, like the Old Latin, made from it, it presents no difficulty to those who are attempting to recover the Hebrew original of the Greek version. It may sound paradoxical, yet it is to a large extent true, that for textual criticism the LXX is most useful when it makes least sense; for when a passage makes no sense in the Greek, but can be explained as a translation from the Hebrew, we have the best of reasons for believing that we have before us the original text of the Greek, and through it can recover a Hebrew text of early date. Copyists and translators do not deliberately turn sense into nonsense, and sense does not frequently, through mere accidents of transmission, become the particular form of nonsense that can be accounted for by a misunderstanding of a Hebrew original.

As a further illustration we may refer to the Greek translation of the lettera BY; these very commonly occur with the meaning in me, but they also represent a particle of entreaty Oh I or I pray I; this particle occura but rarely, about a dozen times altogether, and its existence was unknown to some of the Greek translatora. In the Pentateuch and Joshua it is correctly rendered; but elsewhere it is rendered ‘in me’ with ridiculous results, as the English reader will see if he substitutes these words for ‘Oh’ in Judges 6. 1 S 1». But again .there 19 no difficulty in seeing beneath the nonsense of the Greek the true sense and the actual reading of the Hebrew. The ignorance of the translatora is as useful to the textual critic as their knowledge.

21. Euphemistic translations. — But there are many variations in sense which point to no real textual variants, though both Hebrew and Greek in themselves yield a good sense.

The last clause of the 19th Psalm in the AV, ‘O Lord, my strength and my redeemer,’reads admirably; but though the translators give us no clue to the fact, it is not a translation of the Hebrew, it is a translation of the LXX. The Hebrew reads’ My rock and my redeemer’ (so RV). In this case the LXX rendering is due not to ignorance, but to religious scruple: their rendering is a euphemism. So in On 5:24 the Greek version substitutes ‘Enoch was wellpleasing to God’ (hence Hebrews 11:5) for the anthropomorphic walked with God’ of the Hebrew text; in these cases, if we had not also the Hebrew text we could not discover the original from the LXX with certainty, or, perhaps, even be sure that the translators were paraphrasing and not translating.

22. Relative values of Greek version and Hebrew text. — These illustrations may suffice to show both that much care is required in using the LXX for the recovery of the Hebrew underlying it, and also that it is wide of the mark to depreciate the textual value of the version by emphasizing the ignorance of the translators. Before either the fullest or the securest use of the version can be made, an immense amount of work remains to be done; but the impoirtance of doing this work is clear, for even the most cautious deductions have already proved that the text underlying the LXX and the present Hebrew text differ widely, and that in many instances the LXX text is superior. The relative values differ in the case of different books; and to avoid misunderstanding it should be added that in no case would a simple translation of the LXX bring us as near to the sense of the original document as a translation from the Hebrew text; nor would it be possible, unless the Hebrew text had survived, to detect by means of the LXX the correct text and the sense of the original. Issues are sometimes contused, and the distinctive characteristics and virtues of our two chief witnesses to the text of the OT obscured, in discussions as to the relative values of the LXX and the Massoretic text. Perhaps the most important general point to remember is that neither the one nor the other would be nearly as valuable by itself as it is when used in combination with the other.

23. Examples of important readings preserved by the Greek Version only. — We may now pass to some illustrations of Important variations in which the LXX has clearly preserved an earlier text than the Hebrew. These are much less numerous in the Pentateuch than elsewhere; probably the Law, as the most important Scripture, received at an early period something approaching to that great care in transmission which was later extended to the entire OT. It is the more remarkable, therefore, that in one section of the Pentateuch (Ex 35-39) we find striking differences in the arrangement of sections in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Other instances of different arrangement or of marked differences in the extent of the material occur in the Books of Job and Jeremiah (see, further, Swete, Introd. to the OT in Greek, 221 ff.). This type of difference connects the textual with the higher criticism of these books, and cannot be pursued further here.

24. In some cases matter subsequently lost (through homoioteleuton or otherwise), and now absent from the Hebrew text, survives in the Greek.

A striking illustration of this occurs in 1 Samuel 14:41. The Hebrew text underlying the Greek veraion reads, ‘Saul said unto Jahweh, the God of Israel [wherefore hast thou not answered thy servant to-day? If this iniquity be in me, or in Jonathan my son, O God of Israel, give Urim, but if this iniquity be in thy servant Israel], give Thummim.’ The words in square brackets are absent from the Hebrew text, but certainly belonged to the original, and the origin of the error is clear: the scribe’s eye accidentally passed from the first occurrence of ‘Israel’ to the third, and the intervening words were lost. With the loss of these the sense of the last two words ‘give Thummim’ became obscure, and the punctuators, followed by RV, gave them an indefensible interpretation.

26. In other cases the Greek version is nearer to the original by its relative brevity; the additional matter now present in the Hebrew text was subsequently interpolated.

As an instance of this we may cite 1 K &°- which RV, following the Hebrew text, renders, ‘And he covered the altar [with cedar. So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he drew chains of gold across] before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold.’ The bracketed words are absent from the Greek; it is probable that of these words ‘with cedar’ stood in the original text, but that the rest were absent. The Greek text has also for the first four words above (before the bracket) the (superior) reading, ‘And he made an altar.’

26. At times, when either the sense or the text of both the Hebrew and the Greek is remote from the original, it is possible, from a comparison between the two, to recover the original.

An interesting example of this is furnished by Isaiah 37 = 21219 RV, followingthe Heb. text, renders, ‘They were as the grass of the field, and as com (Is. *a field of com’) blasted before it be grown up. But I know thy sitting down and thy going out and thy coming in.’ The Hebrew text of the underlined words is LPNY QMH WSBTK; the Hebrew equivalent of *I know* stands much lower in the sentence, and though it may with difficulty be taken as in the RV, more naturally demands a different object. A reading of the Greek text preserved only in a Syriao version of it, but nevertheless probably the original reading of the Greek text, has, for thesame underlined words,’ before thy rising up, and thy sitting down’; this presupposes the Hebrew LPNY QMK WSBTK, which differa from the present Hebrew text by one letter only. The Hebrew text here presupposed is probably original, but has been mis undeistoodby the translators. The first word,if vocalized as in the Hebrew text and by the Greek translators LPNY,

i e means before, but if vocahzed LPNY it means before me. Adopting the latter vocalization, we recover (at leastso far as the three words are concerned) the original sense, ‘They wer« as grass of the field . . . and as com that is blasted. Before me is thine uprising and thy down sitting (cf . Psalms 139:2) and thy going out and thy coming in I know.’ So great is the difference in sense that the corruption of a single letter may make in a text which contained only consonants, and no marks of punctuation whatever. The true reading of the Hebrew in this case was first divined by Wellhausen; it remained for Mr. Burkitt to point out that it was the reading of the Greek translators.

27. The Hebrew text before the date of the Greek version. — If the Hebrew text suffered to a very considerable extent in the ways just illustrated, during the three or four centuries that intervened between the time when the LXX version was made and the time when the Hebrew text was stereotyped and the later Greek versions were made, by nothing short of a stupendous miracle could the text have been preserved free from errors of transmission, during the centuries that separate the original autographs from the date of the Greek version. This intervening period differs, of course, widely in length; between the age of Isaiah and the Greek translation of the Book of Isaiah lay some six centuries; between the age of Deborah (Judges 5) and the translation of Judges little short of a thousand years; between the age of David (2 S and the translation of Samuel 800 or 900 years. On the other hand, between the compilation of the Hexateuch, or the first composition of books such as Ecclesiastes or Daniel, and the translations in the several cases, not more than a couple of centuries elapsed.