Page images
PDF
EPUB

4. They transposed whole passages. Ps. xcvi. 9— 11. Compare 1 Ch. xvi. 30-32. [Eichhorn maintains that Job xl. 32-xli. 3, is transposed from its true place.]"

5. They omit letters, words, and sentences, especially when two sentences have the same ending."

II. They heard wrong, or confounded in their mind, letters of a similar sound."

III. Mistakes of memory. Where the transcriber copied freely, or trusted entirely to memory, he might make mistakes:

1. By transposing words and sentences, as described above, (I. 3, 4.)

2. By omitting words and sentences, (I. 5.)

3. By confounding synonymous words, as in Levit. xxv. 36, with 2; 2 Kings i. 10, 7 with ¬¬.

אדוני is often exchanged for יהוה

4. By alterations from the parallel passages. Jes. vii. 8, 7, Cod. 96, form, after the frequent parallels; Jes. lxiii. 16, 7, for

the former often occurs.

a

למען שמך ; מעולם שמך

Allg. Bib. vol. ii. p. 617, sqq., § 95. Kennicott, Diss. Gen. § 22, 23, 71.
Cappellus, p. 115, sqq., enumerates many erroneous examples. See

ז ז

Vogel's remarks, p. 119, sqq. Neh. xi. 5, 2, 1 Ch. ix. 5, 7; Ps. xviii. 42, 1, 2 Sam. xxii. ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 25, comp. 1 Ch. xi. 27 ; Gen. xxxvi. 11, 12, comp. 1 Ch. i. 36; Jos. xxi. 23, comp. 1 Ch. v. 53, 54.

Eichhorn, § 105, following Köhler, Repert. vol. ii. p. 261, finds such an omission from duoitéhɛvrov, in 1 Ch. xi. 13. Comp. 2 Sam. xxiii. 9—11. According to him, Repert. vol. vi. p. 13, there is another in Ps. xxxvii. 28; (see the LXX., Symmachus, the Vulgate, and Cappellus, l. c. p. 119, sqq. ;) another in 1 Kings xiv. 25. Comp. 2 Ch. xii. 2-9. Perhaps Num. xxvi. 3, 4, belongs here.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

IV. Errors of understanding.

1. In the division of words, (Ps. xlviii. 15, -by 77)

(, הרחיב וממצוקותי for הרחיבו ממצוקותי,17.Ps. xxv ; עלמות and

and by the marks in the margin, which were brought into the text.

2. In the use of abbreviations. [Eichhorn cites an error of this kind from Symmachus. Isa. xlii. 19,

-servant of Jeho ,כעבד יהוה which stands for) כעבד י"

vah) he translates 8 doulós μov, my servant." Jer. vi. 11,", in the Seventy, vuóv pov; as if it were

ן. חמתי

3. In the use of the custodes linearum. [The transcribers of the Hebrew Bible did not allow themselves to divide a word, when the line would not contain the whole of it, nor to leave a vacant space; so they filled it with some favorite letter, in general with the initial of the next word; but they wrote the next word fully, in its proper place, as if its initial had not been written before. An ignorant or careless copyist was easily led astray by such letters. On the one hand, learned transcribers have sometimes fancied these letters when there were none, and so have omitted what belonged to the text.] There is an example of this mistake in Isa. xxxv. 1, where is put instead of ; for the may belong to the next word, 2, and be written as a custos.'

יששום

In this manner, explanatory scholia are drawn into the text. So, Isa. vii. 17, according to

• Rosenmüller, in loc.; other examples in Eichhorn, § 103, Kennicott, Diss. § 28.

Kennicott, Diss. Gen. § 25. Jahn, i. 477. Stark, in Odis Davidis, has collected numerous examples of this kind, from the old versions of the Psalms. See Conjectures in Eichhorn, § 102.

[blocks in formation]

Koppe and Gesenius. Liturgical notes in the margin, also, have come into the text, as, perhaps,

66

.

[Such explanative scholia are the following: Isa. xl. 7, Truly the people is grass," according to Jahn, and the number 50,000, in 1 Sam. vi. 19, which alarmed Tindal and Voltaire so much. So, perhaps, 1 Sam. xvii. 12 -31, 41-50, 55—58, xviii. 1—5, 9—11, 17—19, came into the text through the same channel. Originally they were not in the Seventy, but were added by Origen from Theodotion, and the other Greek translators of the second century after Christ.]'

§ 84.

2. FALSIFICATION BY DESIGN.

The charge has often been brought that the Jews have falsified the text. But the fact cannot be proved. Sometimes Jerome seems to accuse them. "We hold it to be uncertain whether the Seventy added the words every man and in all to Deut. xxvii. 26, or whether they were in the old Hebrew, and have been erased by the Jews....... While reading the Hebrew volume of the Samaritans with reference to this, I found was written in the text, agreeing with the Seventy. Therefore it was in vain that the Jews took it away, so that they might not seem to lie under the curse if they did not fulfil all which is written; for the more ancient writings of both nations bear witness that it was placed there." But again, in Jes. chap. vi., he says, "If any one should say the He

a

[ocr errors]

Bertholdt, p. 256.

[See Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xii. p. 196, and xx. p. 31. Kennicott, 1. c. p. 407. Jahn, 1. c. vol. i. n. 479, sqq.]

brew books were falsified by the Jews, let him listen to what Origen has to answer to this question in the eighth volume of his explanations of Esaias, namely, Our Lord and the apostles (who accuse the scribes and Pharisees of other crimes) would never have been silent respecting this, which was the greatest of all. But if it should be said the Hebrew books were falsified after the coming of the Lord, and the preaching of the apostles, I cannot refrain from laughter, that the Savior, and evangelists, and apostles, should have produced testimonies which the Jews were afterwards able to falsify."

• Hieron. Com. in Gal. iii. 10:.... Incertum habemus, utrum LXX. interpretes addiderint 5 Mos. xxvii. 26, omnis homo et in omnibus, an in veteri Hebræo ita fuerit et postea a Judæis deletum sit.......Quam ob causam Samaritanorum Hebræa volumina relegens inveni scriptum esse et cum LXX. interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulerunt Judæi, ne viderentur esse sub maledicto, si non possent omnia complere, quæ scripta sunt: cum antiquiores alterius quoque gentis litteræ id positum fuisse testentur.

Joseph. c. Ap. i. 8, (§ 15, b.) Hieron. Com. in Jes. cap. vi.: Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebræos libros postea a Judæis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem, quid in octavo volumine explanationum Esaiæ huic respondeat quæstiunculæ: quod nunquam Dominus et apostoli, qui cætera crimina arguunt in scribis et Pharisæis, de hoc crimine, quod erat maximum, reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint post adventum Domini Salvatoris et prædicationem apostolorum libros Hebræos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et evangelista et apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judæi postea falsaturi erant. See this charge brought against the Koran, (Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 125,) by Is. Vossius (de LXX. int. p. 18, sqq. Compare Append. p. 68, sqq.) Will. Whiston, (Essay towards restoring the true Text of O. T.; Lond. 1772.) See Rosenmüller, 1. c., and Carpzov, Crit. sac. iii. p. 958, sqq., and Kennicott, (diss. ii. 1, p. 17, sqq., and Diss. Gen. § 27,) on account of Deut. xxvii. 4.

Against their corrupting it wilfully, see Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, ii. 2, 7. Glassius, De Textus Heb. in V. T. Puritate, in Bauer, Crit. sac. p. 76, 102, 186. Cappel. Crit. sac. i. p. 1, sqq. Carpzov, p. 109, sqq. According to Eichhorn, § 95, it is probable they have corrupted only Ps. xxii. 17, and Isa. xix. 18, at the most. [Carpzov admits there are faults in each of the MSS. of the O. T., but maintains that all the MSS. now extant, when taken together,

At the utmost, this charge has the appearance of probability only during the period that has elapsed since the origin of Christianity, and here it is rebutted by the history of the text.

["Since we have so little reason," says Eichhorn, "to call in question the testimony of Josephus as to the great veneration which the Jews were wont to pay to their sacred national writings, it is plain that no one, up to his time, would venture to alter them by additions or omissions; and since there are evident marks that, after his time, they copied the text of the sacred books with scrupulous carefulness, it follows that the greatest part of their books are free from intentional alterations. Conjecture can go no farther than to suppose that some Jews, for private ends, have corrupted certain passages.' "Before the birth of Christ, they would have made no intentional falsification, as there was no occasion for it. But this charge is brought against the Palestine Jews, that before the birth of Christ, they changed the word Gerizim for Ebal, in Deut. xxvii. 4; and on, the city of the sun, Isa. xix. 18, for y, the city of destruction. They are charged with making the first of these falsifications out of hatred to the Samaritans, to

contain the genuine text. He distributes all who are of a contrary opinion into two classes-1. The professed enemies of gospel truth. 2. Critics without knowledge or prudence, or who are maliciously skilled in criticism, and wish to brand the Scripture as corrupt, and pierce its side. They are divided into Mohamedans, Papists, and Socinians. He places Spinoza (Tr. Theol. pol. ix. p. 122) at the head of those who assert that the writings of the O. T. are too corrupt to be trusted. Peyrere followed Spinoza, (System. Præ-Adamitarum, pt. i. lib. iv. p. 172,) and said, "God suffered the autographs to perish, and only very imperfect copies to come down to us." Joh. Morinus contended (Exercit. in Pent. Sam.) that the Samaritan was the authentic text. On this question, see Lud. Cappellus, Clericus, Is. Vossius, Rich. Simon, &c.]

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »