IS
THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT UNCERTAIN
By
Bobby Adams, Th.D.
The
Views of Scholar-Skeptics About Text History
There
are three periods in the textual transmission reflected in the textual evidence
of the Hebrew manuscript (ms) tradition. Respectively, they are as follows: the
first period in the textual transmission of the Hebrew mss has uncertain
origins. According to Tov,
“its beginning is not clear, since it is not known
when
it (MT) came into being, its
end coincides with the destruction of the Second Temple” (Tov,
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
29). The witnesses from Qumran were copied between 250 BC-68AD. These Hebrew
witnesses are characterized by internal differences, Tov says. Further, he
continues on page 30, that
“such
differences already existed between the various textual witnesses at an
early stage.”
The
second period of transmission with
a “relatively large amount of textual consistency, extends from the destruction
of the Second Temple until the eight century” (68AD-8th
century AD). During this period the Hebrew texts in the Masoretic tradition
diminished textual variations. Finally,
the “third period of
transmission, characterized by almost complete textual unity, extends from the
eighth century until the
Middle Ages” (Tov, 30). Tov, on page 35, informs his readers that the oldest
(Aleppo Text 925 AD) or
the
earliest Masoretic mss extant is from the ninth century. Thus they are dated
from early Middle Ages (until about 1100 and later mss).
“In all aspects the early mss are more reliable” (Tov, ibid).
Results of the Views of Scholar-Skeptics
Thus
far, a number of things surface:
*we do not possess the “originals”,
*the
earliest history of the MT is uncertain,
*mistakes were in the earliest witnesses extant,
*scholars prefer the “oldest mss” because they are “the best”.
Even
some scholar skeptics admit to a problem of corruption of some texts by
heretics.
It is
believed that the oldest is the
best despite statements by Tischendorf: “I have
no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written,
and before the authority of the Church protected
them, willful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,’
(English N.T., 1869, Introd. p.
xv).
Scrivener says,
“Besides the undersigned and, to a great extent, unavoidable differences
subsisting
between manuscripts of the New Testament within a century of its being written,
the willful corruptions introduced by heretics soon became a cause of loud
complaint in
the primitive ages of the Church”
(A
Plain Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism 4th Edition, 1894, Vol.
II, 259). One more quote from yet another critic of the past: Eusebius (Ecclesiastical
History), citing Clement of Alexandria: "The worst corruptions to which the
New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after
it was composed."
Scholars may concede Masoretic-Text accuracy, yet refuse to accept autograph
preservation
*And
finally, despite the differences present they have diminished greatly, so much
so that the Masoretes
are praised for their accuracy and we have reliable witnesses; but scholars all
agree that “no textual source contains what could be called ‘the biblical
text,’” (Tov, ibid, 2). For they merely “shed light on the
witnesses to the biblical text, hence their
name ‘textual witnesses.’” All of these “textual witnesses” differ to a greater
or lesser extent from each other. “Similar discrepancies between the various
ancient witnesses are even reflected in modern translations” (Tov, ibid). In
part this is what
Harold Scanlin took up in his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern
Translations of the Old Testament.
The
Type of Results Produced by Skeptical Views
The
following is but one example of different ancient witnesses reflected in modern
translations:
MT
(Gen. 49:10) ‘aḏ ki-yabo shi loh until comes shiloh
THE SEPTUAGINT WITH APOCRYPHA: GREEK AND ENGLISH
ἕως
ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ heós an elthn ta
apokeimai auto
“until
there come the things stored up for him”
KJB “until Shiloh come” (It seems that the KJB is the only one agreeing with the
MT.)
NRSV, NEB “So long as tribute is brought to him”
NIV “until there come the things stored up for him”
This writer, sad to say, was not able to locate the Torah Dead Sea Scrolls
online in time for this article.
ANALYTICAL KEY TO THE OLD TESTAMENT “until he comes to whom it belongs”
NJPST (The New Jewish Publication Society Translation)
ש ל ל
(Blue is the Qere or
Keri reading or what has been written in the margin. The underlined word is an
alternative spelling of Shiloh which is a cryptogram for the Messiah-Christ.)
ki-ya bo shilwo (<this is the alterative word-variant) shilo
“as long as men come to Shiloh”
IHEOT (The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament) when he-comes whose-he
(interlinear),
“until he comes to whom it belongs”
(NIV)
The above texts (NRSV, NEB, NIV, NJPST, IHEOT) all destroy the Messianic
reference by using a different Hebrew Text with a variant reading. The scholars,
in general, do not believe that they are handling the words of God, and they
would rid us of the MT along with the KJB if they could. But
changing of the words of God is no more finished for the Old Testament any more
than they’re through
working on the New Testament. Nestle-Aland has just come out with the 28th
edition for their Greek New Testament with some 34 changes in the epistles and
BHS Hebrew Old Testament are currently working on yet another Hebrew text called
the BHQ edition the fifth version with their changes. Theirs, we are told
is a “working text” in progress.
But the MT, and the KJB are settled texts.
Scholar views change and are not authoritative, but even their views can show
movement toward truth
Richard C. Steiner of Revel Graduate School, Yeshiva University, New York, NY in
his article on
“Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in
Jacob’s Blessing:
(Gen
49:3), (Gen 49:4) and (Gen 49:10)
”,
comments on the use of the word Shiloh.
He
says that even modern scholars have given up on the idea that 'Shiloh' in
Genesis 49.10 refers to the location of Shiloh. That idea has pretty much been
ruled out, even by modern scholars. So the rendering of the modern Bibles has
been rejected even by the modern scholars. Steiner says that scholars are
returning to the traditional idea that 'Shiloh' is composed of two words meaning
'Tribute Shall Come to Him', which they regard as an epithet for the Messiah.
Like, 'the One to Whom Tribute is due', Steiner says
שי
means
'tribute', and
לה
for
'lo' is an ancient spelling for 'to him'. He says that early Jewish writers
(Genesis Rabbah, Yalqut Shimeoni) said this text is a plain reference to Messiah
receiving tribute in the kingdom, and he says that modern scholars have pretty
much come to a consensus that this is true.
Scanlin
writes on page 124 (mentioned above), “While the precise meaning ‘two
manuscripts of the Masoretic Text’ may not be clear to readers, it does reflect
the fact that though there is usually uniformity
in the mss of the Masoretic tradition, there are a few textual disagreements
among the Masoretic manuscripts. Benjamin Kennicott and J. B. de Rossi, both
were working in the latter part of the
eighteenth century, published extensive examples of these textual variants.” The
point being made here is
that there are
variants within the MT’s
alright; however, they occur in the Ben Asher family which gave birth to the
Aleppo and the Leningrad 19A texts. The King James translators used an entirely
different Hebrew MT called the Ben Chayim/Daniel Bomberg type of text.
Therefore, one should be careful to be very discerning even if a Hebrew text
claims to be a Masoretic Text.
Though corruption in Hebrew mss are different than the corruption found in Greek
NT mss, that is they do not fall into a nice and neat defined history, they are
nonetheless very real as in the example cited above. Though they are subject to
fewer corruptions then the NT Greek texts there are more than one might think.
Not unlike their Greek counterpart, the Messianic verses have been corrupted as
has already been established which were written after the time of Christ. If the
reader could examine C. D.
Ginsburg’s book,
Introduction To The Massoretico-Critical Edition Of The Hebrew Bible,
and Harold Scanlin listed earlier, and Emmanuel Tov also listed earlier, it
would be seen that corruptions are apparent thus giving rise to modern versions
rendering which are very different in many places then our King James Bibles.
Conclusion
Now, let the reader see from one example cited above in Hebrew along with differing versions and the subsequent comments of scholars and judge the evidence. It is this writer’s contention, based on many years of research, that Old Testament textual critics have attacked the Messianic references, as has New Testament textual critics attacked them. These critics have assaulted and “applied the canons of textual criticism to the OT to question the veracity of the MT” (Thomas M. Strouse, ‘Old Testament passages as Examples of Doctrines Changed by Textual Alterations’, 153 of Thou Shalt Keep Them Kent Brandenburg, Editor, 2003, 2007). No, the Masoretic Text is not uncertain. Even Tov admits in his book that the majority of Hebrew manuscripts at Qumran are 'proto-Masoretic', which indicates that the Masoretic text-type was recognized even then as authoritative. To be sure the scholars’ texts may have uncertain origins and readings, but the Bomberg MT is far from being uncertain.