Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Various Readings Of The Old Test
Subjects in this Topic:
It is now universally admitted that the text of the Old Test. has not come down to us without mistakes. Like all other ancient books, the Bible has suffered from the errors of transcribers; and thus, in the course of repeated copying, many small variations crept into the text, and various readings came into existence. These varice lectiones may be assigned to two sources. They were made unintentionally or purposely.
I. Accidental Mistakes. — By far the greater number of existing various readings owe their origin to accident, and may be traced back to the following sources:
1. Transcribers saw amiss, and therefore they confounded letters similar in shape. Beth and Kaph. Gimel and Nun, Daleth and Resh, He and Cheth, are so like that they were exchanged. Thus, in Neh_12:3 we read ùëéä , but in Neh_12:14 ùáðéä ; 1Ch_9:15, æëøé , but Neh_11:17, æáãé ; Gen_10:3, øéôú : but 1Ch_1:6, ãéôú ; Gen_10:4, ãåãðéí , but 1Ch_1:7, øåãðéí ; 1Ch_18:12, îàãí , but 2Sa_8:12, îàøí , etc. From the same cause the copyists transposed letters, words, and sentences. Thus we read, Jos_21:2 T, âìåï , but in 1Ch_6:56, âåìï . 1Sa_1:1, áïàּúçå , but in 1Ch_6:19, áïàּúåç . 2Sa_23:31, äáøçîé , but in 1Ch_11:33, äáçøåîé . 1Ki_10:11, àìîâéí , but in 2Ch_9:10, àìâåîéí . Psalm 58:46, åéçøâå , but in 2Sa_22:46, åéçâøå . 2Sa_18:5, áâåéí éäåä , but in 2Sa_22:50, éäåä
éëçùåàּìé ìùîò àæï éùîòå ìé áðé ðëø áâåéí , but in 2Sa_22:45, ðëé éëçùåàּìé ìùîåò àæï éùîòå ìַé áðé . Comp. also Psa_96:9-11 with 1Ch_16:30-32. From the same cause they omitted letters, words, and sentences, especially when two periods or clauses terminated in the same way. Thus Neh_11:5, îòùéä , but 1Ch_1:36; 1Ch_6:15, òùéä ; Psa_18:42, éùåòå , but 2Sa_22:42, éùòå . Words were omitted; as in 1Sa_1:3, where, after îòéøå , probably îïàּøîúéí (Sept. ἐê ðüëåùò áὐôïῦ ἐî Á᾿ñéáèáßì ) was left out. The omission of clauses or sentences we notice, e.g. 1Sa_5:3, where, after îîçøú , the words åéáàå áéú ãâåï åéøàå were omitted, for the Sept. reads êáὶ åἰóῆëèïí åἰò ïéêïí Äáãὼí êáὶ åéäïí . The last two examples of omission bear the technical name of ὁìïéïôÝëåõôïí .
2. Transcribers heard amiss, and fell into mistakes. Here the same observations can be made as above. Thus 1Sa_17:34, we find æä , as in several cod., instead of ùä . “22:18, ãåéâ , but the Kerin, ãàâ . 2Ki_20:4, äòéø , çöø . Psa_96:12, éòìæ , but 1Ch_16:32, éòìåֹ . Isa_65:4, ôø÷ , but Keri, îø÷ . To this cause must be ascribed the seventeen identifications of ìà with ìå noted in the margin of the Bible.
3. Transcribers made mistakes from memory. Where the copyist trusted too much to his memory, he confounded synonymous terms, as in Lev_25:36, àì with áì ; in 2Ki_1:10, åéãáø with åéàîø , and éäåä with àãåðé ; or he altered the word, after the more frequent forms, in parallel passages. Thus, in Isa_63:16, some have ìîòï ùî instead of îòåìí ùî , ִ because the former is the more common.
4. Transcribers made mistakes in judgment. They misapprehended the text before them, and therefore divided words badly, misunderstood abbreviations, and blundered with regard to the letters called custodes linearum, as well as marginal notes. One word was improperly separated into two, or two combined into one. An example occurs in Psalm 48:15, where the text has òì îåú instead of òìîåú , unto death instead of forever. The latter reading is found in many MSS. and editions; Sept. åἰò ôïὺò áἰῶíáò ; Vulg. in scecuia. On the contrary, by, 16, éùéîåú , the textual reading, denoting desolations, is directed by the Keri to be divided into éùé îåú let death seize. This is adopted by many MSS., editions, and old translators, as. Sept., Vulg., Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, Arabic, Jerome.
Abbreviations were usually made by writing the first letter of a word and appending a small stroke or two to indicate the omission of some letters. Hence the omission was sometimes erroneously supplied, or the abbreviated word was considered complete in itself. Thus, éäåä was shortened into é 8or é 8 8. In Isa_42:19, the Sept. has translated éäåä ëòáã by ὁ äïῦëüò ìïõ , showing that they mistook ëòáã é 8for ëòáãé . So also in Jer_6:11, çîú éäåä , the fury of Jehovah, is translated by the Sept. èõìüí ìïõ , showing that they mistook çîú é 8for çîúé ; Psa_31:7, ùðàúé , I hate, all ancient translators understood for ùðàú éäåä , thou, Lord, hatest; and this reading is found in God. 170. It is well known that the Jews did not divide a word between two lines. When there was a vacant space at the end of a line too small to contain the next word, they added letters to fill it up and preserve the uniform appearance of the copy. These supernumerary letters were generally the initials of the following word, though it was written entire in the next line. Ignorant transcribers may have taken these superfluous letters, called custodes linearun, “keepers of the lines,” into the text. Thus it is thought by some that in Isa_35:1, the common reading éùùåí îãáø arose from éùùå í îãáø by joining the superfluous î to the end of the verb. On the other hand, transcribers suspected the existence of these custodes linearum in places where they did not occur, and omitted part of the text. So in Exo_31:8 the word ëì , “all,” appears to have been omitted because of the following ëìéå . The omitted word is found in the oldest versions. Errors also arose from taking marginal annotations into the text. Probably Isa_7:17 furnishes an example, for the clause àú îì ִàùåø is unsuitable. To such marginal annotations must be ascribed those passages in which to one word a second or even a third translation is added. Thus in 1Sa_12:14 the Sept. reads, for åìà øöåúðå , êáὶ ïὐ êáôåäõÜ óôåõóáò ἡìᾶò ( êáὶ ïὐ åèëáóáò ἡìᾶò .
In some cases the MS. itself may have been the cause of errors, be it that it was illegible or that some letters were obliterated. After all, it must be obvious that n intentional errors were made, and the existence of various readings is purely accidental.
II. Intentional Errors. — After what has been said, it would be useless to speak of intentional errors were it not for the very fact that Church fathers, Mohammed, and scholars of renown have brought such a charge against the Jews. But the charge has not been substantiated. Their veneration for the sacred books was too great to allow them to make alterations, knowing them to be wrong. Josephus (Cont. Apion. 1, 8) says, Ôïóïý ôïõ ãὰñ áἰῶíïò ἤäç ðáñῳ÷çêüôïò , ïὔôå ðñïóèåῖíáß ôéò ïýäÝí ïὔôå ἀöåëåῖí áὐôῶí ïὔôå ìåôáèåῖíáé ôå ôüëìçêåí ; and Eusebius (Prcep. Evang. 8:6) cites from Philo: Ìὴ ῥῆìÜ ãå áὐôïὺò ìßíïí ôῶí ὑð᾿ áὐôïῦ (Moses) ãåãñáììÝíùí êéíῆóáé , ἀëëὰ ê § í ìõñéÜêéò áὐ ôïὺò ἀðïèáíåῖí ὑðïìåῖíáé èᾶôôïí , ἢ ôéῖò ἐêåßíïõ íü ìïéò êáὶ ἔèåóéí ἐíáíôßá ðåéóèῆíáé . Like the Samaritans, the early Christians brought the accusation of corrupting the text against the Jews. But these were not competent witnesses or righteous accusers. For when the Jews quoted from the Hebrew Bible passages differing from the Sept., which some of the fathers regarded as inspired, it was very easy to say that the Jews had corrupted Scripture in such places. This was all the reply they could make, being themselves ignorant of the Hebrew original. It was different with Mohammed (see the Koran, sura 2, 73,176-178; 3, 188; 5, 17). His charge is equally directed against Christians as against Jews, because of his inability to find any support in the Scriptures for his prophetical pretensions.
The earliest among Christians who made the charge against the Jews of corrupting the text was Justin Martyr (comp. Trypho, c. 71, 72, 73), who was followed by Irenseus, Tertullian, and others. All these fathers knew nothing of Hebrew; they had to avail themselves of the Sept. Of more importance is the testimony of Origen and Jerome, because they knew Hebrew. It is true that Jerome, in his Commentary on Galatians 3, appears, indeed, to charge the Jews with erasing the word ëì in Deu_27:26; for he says, “Incertum habemus utrum LXX interpretes addiderint Deu_27:26 omnis homo et in omnibus, an in veteri Hebrseo ita fuerit et postea a Judseis deletum sit.... Quam ob causam Samaritanorum Hebraea volumina relegens inveili ëì scriptum esse et cum LXX interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulerunt Judeai, utn viderentur esse sub maledicto, si tnon possehnt omnia complere quae scripta sunt cum antiquiores alterius quoque gentis literse id positum fuisse testentur.” But this charge does not appear to have been his deliberate opinion, as can be seen from his Commentary on Isaiah, ch. 6 where he says, “Quodsi aliquis dixerit, Hebraeos libros postea a Judseis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem, quid in octavo volumine explanationum Esaise huic respondeat qusestiunculse quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui caetera crimina arguunt in scribis et Pharisasis, de hoc crimine, quod erat maximum, reticuissent sin autem dixerint post adventum Domini Salvatoris et prsedicationem Apostolorum libros Hebrseos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangelistae et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judaei postea falsaturi erant.” In spite of this important testimony, there were not wanting some who renewed the old charge. Foremost among them were Isaac Vossius, W.Whiston, J. Morinuns setc., who again were refuted by Carpzov, De Muis, Teglor, Boote, Cocceius, Grabe, Trigland, Bellarmine, R. Simon, Glassius, Capellus, and a host of others, who, examining the question sine studio et ira, were not apt to let their sober reason run astray.
There are two or three places in which the charge of intentional corruption has a plausible appearance, viz. Psa_16:10; Psa_22:17; and Zec_12:10; but, without entering upon an examination of these passages, as beyond the province of this article, we may state that a close examination proves the folly of the charge.
With regard to the other classes of alterations arising from a well-meaning desire on behalf of the text, we see no good reason to doubt that readings apparently easier or less objectionable were occasionally substituted for others; that supposed mistakes were rectified; places, where something appeared to be wanting, filled up; and passages made conformable to parallel ones. Examples of this kind are found in Gen_2:2, where, for äùáéòé , the Samaritan, Sept., and Syriac have äùùé ; Num_27:7, where, instead of àáéäí , various MSS. with the Samaritan read àáéäï with the feminine suffix; Jdg_18:30, where, for îùä , was put îðùä ; 1Ch_2:48, where, for éìã , several MSS. read éìãä in the feminine; Psa_36:2, where, for ìáé , many MSS. and versions read ìáå . In like manner îîæø , in Deu_23:2, was separated into îåí æø ; and òæ ìîå , in Psa_28:8, was changed in some MSS. into òæ ìòîå , the latter taken, perhaps, from 29:11.
After all, it must appear that all readings must be ascribed to purely accidental causes, such as have been enumerated above. SEE KEIR AND KETHIB. (B. P.)