THE OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPT BIBLE; THE MASORA.
WE must not further delay speaking of the history of the Text in the hands of scribes. Old Testament criticism was yet in its infancy when the Sopherim, or scribes, put forth their activity, down to about the sixth century after Christ. This was what has been called the age of the Talmud. The critical work of these scribes is of little account.
The consonants alone represent the Hebrew Text. Relics of the past, such as Inscriptions, Stones and Coins, have only consonants. As late as Jerome's day the Text was still unpointed. The Talmud, closed in the fifth or sixth century, never alludes to vowel points: it gives instances of the different ways in which words were vocalized. In the appendices to Baer's editions will be found lists of ancient readings, which relate only to the consonants, and are called respectively Oriental' (or Babylonian) and `Western' (or Palestinian) readings. On the other hand, in Walton's Polyglott, besides the Rabbinical Bibles and Baer's editions, we meet with lists associated respectively with the names of Ben Naphtali (Babylonian) and Ben Asher (Palestinian), which relate to the vowels and accents, and are said to belong to the eleventh century (A. C.)
The vowels had in the meantime been added by the Masorites, or authors of the Masora, who were Jewish critics between the sixth and tenth centuries. After the close of the Talmud, their work began in the Jewish Academies, as at Tiberias. Aben Esra says, ` We have received the whole punctuation from them:' see Bacher's 'Abraham Ibn Esra als Grammatiker ' (1880), p. 37 note. Another system of vocalization appears to have obtained in the Babylonian schools, exhibited in the ancient MS. of which a facsimile was published by Strack in 1875. It is called the Codex of St. Petersburg.'
The Masorites then, amongst other things, labored honestly to fix the pronunciation of the Text when Hebrew was becoming a dead language. This appears to have been their earliest and their best work. They must also have invented the elaborate system of accents which, besides being phonetic symbols, provide an analysis of the sentence, showing what words go together. The interpreter is rash who departs from them without very good reason. Amongst the minutiæ with which the Masorites occupied themselves was the counting of words and letters; the attention of the reader is directed to the middle word of a book, and so on. They took note of every `jot and tittle.' The points must have been intended as the permanent expression of the traditional pronunciation. Notwithstanding that they have been subject to much controversy from the days of Buxtorf (seventeenth century), all scholars agree in following them in the main. Thrupp says, 'Nothing can be more remote from the truth than that we are at liberty to supply vowels to the text at our own unfettered discretion'; and De Wette, On the whole, the Masoretic text is a much better witness for punctuation than the often ignorant versions and hasty critics.' The accents stand upon the same footing.
We must now consider the history and condition of the Text represented by the MSS. The existing MSS. are based upon a strictly Jewish arrangement of the Text belonging to Christian times. Upon this Recension'—if the expression be correct—have we to depend; so that there is no such variety of MS. evidence for any Hebrew readings of Old Testament texts as may be obtained for Greek readings in the New Testament writings. This doubtless damps the ardor of critics, which finds vent in an often too free use of versions: this is all that they have to fall back upon. The Text must for the most part have acquired a fixed form before the birth of Christ, as Aquila and the other Greek translators, of whom we shall have more to say, depart from it less than do the LXX. Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Targumists, or Chaldee Paraphrasts, also follow it very closely. The essential agreement of the Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament is beyond comparison greater than that of Greek MSS. of the New. The former do on the whole give the same Text, that is, the Text which underlies the Masora: it is in the truest sense substance of tradition. The Jews have so far been faithful to their trust. We may contrast with it the corrupt state of Mahommedan texts of which Arabic scholars complain. A proof of the general accuracy of the Hebrew Text we possess is afforded by the variation that exists between parallel passages, in which the temptation to alter would be strong: cf. Psa. 14 and 53; Psa. 18 and 2 Sam. 22. The state of the Greek Text of the New Testament in this respect stands on a much lower level.
The Sopherim followed rules for copying the Text prescribed by the Talmud. They appear to have been most scrupulous in retaining what doubtless they felt were errors of transcription made in earlier days. Of such errors the following are the chief:
1. Where the sight of the copyist deceived him. He would sometimes confound similar letters:
נ and כ, that is b and k.
ד and ר, d and r.
ו and י, v and j (y).
ט and ש, t and s (or sh).
Sentences: cf. 1 Chron. 16:30-3230Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The Lord reigneth. 32Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. (1 Chronicles 16:30‑32) and Psa. 96:9-119O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. 10Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. 11Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof. (Psalm 96:9‑11). Letters, words, or whole sentences were left out: cf. 1 Chron. 9:55And of the Shilonites; Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons. (1 Chronicles 9:5) and Nehem. 11:5; Gen. 36:11-1211And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. 12And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife. (Genesis 36:11‑12) and 1 Chron. 1:3636The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. (1 Chronicles 1:36); Josh. 21:2323And out of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh with her suburbs, Gibbethon with her suburbs, (Joshua 21:23) and 1 Chron. 5:53, 54; and especially from what is called omoioteleuton, or a similar ending of two sentences, as in 2 Sam. 23:9-119And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away: 10He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the Lord wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil. 11And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. (2 Samuel 23:9‑11), compared with 1 Chron. 11:1313He was with David at Pas-dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a parcel of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines. (1 Chronicles 11:13).
3. His memory might fail, as with אךני put for יהוה or vice versa. According to Baer, on Psa. 30:99What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? (Psalm 30:9), there are 134 passages in which the Masorites would substitute 'In ארני for יהוה. Again, a parallel passage might come into the mind to mislead. As we have said, this last finds but little illustration.
As to spelling, we cannot do better than repeat a remark made by Dr. Payne Smith: Fixity of spelling is a modern idea, the result of printed books.' Two forms of a name may occur in one verse: see 2 Chron. 23:55And a third part shall be at the king's house; and a third part at the gate of the foundation: and all the people shall be in the courts of the house of the Lord. (2 Chronicles 23:5), and cf. 2 Kings 8:21; 11:2, 12:221So Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots with him: and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about, and the captains of the chariots: and the people fled into their tents. (2 Kings 8:21); Jer. 28:1212Then the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, (Jeremiah 28:12) (Heb.) This of course connects itself with what has been said as to the transposition of letters. The unusual size or shape of letters sometimes in the Text is an indication doubtless of various readings, and so with Gen. 23:22And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her. (Genesis 23:2), of which the Jews have as usual a puerile explanation.
Very little has been fixed on the Jews (and that not quite certainly) of intentional corruption of the Text. The servile minuteness,' to use the words of the late Isaac Taylor, of the Jewish copyists in transcribing the Hebrew Scriptures' and unexampled exactness afford security enough for the safe transmission of the text; and if there were any grounds for the suspicion that the Rabbis, to weaken the evidence adduced against them by the Christians, willfully corrupted some particular passages, we have other securities, as we shall see, against the consequences of such an attempt.' The following passage from Taylor is as interesting as it is important: The Hebrew nation has almost throughout the entire period of its history, been divided both by local separation, and by schism. Probably the Israelites of India, and certainly the Samaritans, have been the keepers of the books of Moses, apart from the Jews, during a period that reaches beyond the date of authentic profane history. Throughout times somewhat less remote the Jews have not only been separated by distance, but divided by at least one complete schism—that on the subject of the Rabbinical traditions, which has distinguished the sect of the Karaites from the mass of the nation.' Again: As to the Jewish Scriptures.... evidence reaching far beyond the mere proof of antiquity and genuineness is ample and precise enough to establish the integrity of nearly the entire text of the books in question. These writings were not simply succeeded by a literature of a similar cast, but they actually created a vast body of literature altogether devoted to their elucidation; and this elucidation took every imaginable form of occasional comment upon single passages—of argument upon certain topics, requiring numerous scattered quotations and of complete annotation, in which nearly the whole of the original author is repeated. From the Rabbinical paraphrases, and from the Works of the Christian writers of the first seven centuries, the whole text of the Scriptures might have been recovered, if the original had since perished.'
It will at this stage be convenient to speak of the two sets of readings by which a reader of the Hebrew Bible is confronted at the outset of his studies. They are technically called Chetivs or textual, and Keris or marginal readings. As transmitted to us side by side, they are further evidence for the scrupulous dealing of the Jews with the Text. As to the respective vocalization of the Chetiv and Keri, see Gesenius' smaller Grammar, § 17.
The Keris are due to the Masorites. The materials they employed in their work would seem to have been traditional, but they evidently compared MSS., and used their own discrimination to a large extent. Citations from the Talmud seem to be usually according to the Keri. For this reason perhaps it is that Kennicott puts a high value on the Keris. The learned Dr. John Lightfoot believed they represented the readings of copies going back to the time of the Captivity (see his English Works, 1684). Modern critics, however, generally follow De Rossi's views as to the marginal readings. Gesenius amongst the Germans, speaks of the false critical judgment' by which easier and more euphonious readings were preferred to harsh and archaic forms, in violation of the rule, proclivi scriptioni prcestat ardua. The present writer believes Dr. Payne Smith right in saying that whenever the Chetiv gives a fair sense, it is to be preferred; and that there was a tendency with scribes to substitute the Keri, not merely because it was regarded as an authoritative correction, but as being suggested by the memory, the Keri being always read in the synagogue.'
The Masora may be studied under the guidance of Ginsburg, who is the chief recent authority in England. Buxtorf's Tiberias' is an older (1620), but not yet quite antiquated, work. Steinschneider, a Jewish scholar, speaks of it as the most thorough book by a Christian upon the Masora.'
To speak next of the copies in particular.
Like the Jews themselves, the MSS. are scattered far and wide: some, being the Synagogue rolls, are in the custody of Jewish congregations of all lands; others, being private copies, in our great British libraries. The Jews regard the Spanish copies as of most value; De Rossi and his followers prefer the Italian and German. However this may be, De Rossi seems right in regarding those MSS. of greatest excellence which are ancient (see his 16th canon), and doubtless it is satisfactory when they agree with the ancient versions (56th canon).
According to Schrader there would be no MS. older than that preserved at St. Petersburg, and called Codex Petropolitanus,' of the tenth century; but there seems no reason to doubt that the MS. preserved in the Synagogue at Aleppo, which the Jews of that place allege is Ben Asher's own copy, ranks first for antiquity. It has not yet been collated. Strack is our chief authority upon this manuscript. As to the ancient MSS. of which, as far as is with certainty known, we still possess only a record, see Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis,' §§ 54, 55, or Horne's Introduction. Vicissitudes from Divine judgment or from persecution would account for the loss of the autographs of Old Testament and New Testament writings. Church history tells the story of the dire destruction of the Christian Books. The oldest MSS. of the Old and of the New Testament alike are copies. The reader may consult Westcott for the ordeal through which the Christian Books passed in early days.—De Rossi, although he considered his No. 634 to be of the eighth century, says that Hebrew MSS. of the twelfth century are 'very ancient: ' this will afford an indication of the recent character of existing copies.
In lieu of Kennicott's large edition, the handy Hebrew Bible of Döderlein and Meissner (1793) might be used with advantage, because it is furnished with variant readings taken from both Kennicott and De Rossi, who together collated about 1500 MSS. and more than 400 printed documents. Kennicott's opinions can be learned from his 'Dissertation,' De Rossi's from the Prolegomena to his Variæ lectiones Vet. Test.' (1784—88). The most recent writer on the subject of the Text and of MSS. is Strack.
The Text of the Pentateuch is divided according to subject-matter into so-called Parashahs, or sections; some major, others minor; they are in MSS. and Editions alike respectively denoted by the letters פ and ס at the beginning. In the Prophets and Hagiographa there is a similar division, called Haphtarahs. Both of these divisions are referred to in the Mishna.' Where triple letters occur, it is to denote the combination of these sections with the paragraphs used for the Sabbath lessons.'
Our present division of chapters is of Christian origin, but the Jews have accepted it. It goes back to the thirteenth century, and has been variously attributed to Hugh de St. Cher—author of a Concordance to the Vulgate—and to Stephen Langton. Bomberg's Bible of 1526 was the first edition in which it was adopted. It will be seen that no kind of authority attaches to the chapter-division, which sometimes displays a most unhappy lack of discrimination. Dr. Payne Smith, speaking of Gen. 2 says, In the divisions of our Bible into chapters, with a carelessness only equaled by that perversity which has formed the ninth chapter of Isaiah out of the end and the beginning of two incongruous prophecies, the seventh day's rest is separated from the account of the six working days, and thus the very purpose of the narrative is concealed.'
Of less importance is the division into verses. In the prose Books they are marked by the Pesukim, of which also the Mishna speaks. Not only do the ancient Versions, however, differ as to them, but the Talmud, it seems, never speaks of any sign being employed for verse-divisions; hence it is probable that the Soph Pasuk (:) is of later growth; though it is earlier than the punctuation and accents, because found in unpointed MSS. In poetical Books and passages we find special divisions by verses, which appear in the oldest MSS.
Of the English Bibles which appeared in the sixteenth century, the Genevan was the first to contain verse-divisions. The Bishops' Bible' followed it in this respect, as did our present Authorized Version,' which dates from the beginning of the next century: the verse-numbers there follow those of the Vulgate, not the Hebrew. We shall in a subsequent chapter describe English Bibles.