Page images
PDF
EPUB

prove that the curse was uttered on Gerizim, the site of the Samaritan temple, and the second out of hostility to their Egyptian brethren, and to cast a reproach on the city (Leontopolis) in which the Egyptian Jews had built their temple.

"But it is plain they are innocent in both cases. The altar was to be erected on that mountain where the Hebrew nation swore, with sacrifices and imprecations, to observe the Law. This was Mount Ebal; and the Hebrew-Jewish text justly commands that the altar shall be built there. But, on the other hand, on that mountain where the altar was to be built according to the Samaritan text,—that is, on Mount Gerizim, — where the blessings were pronounced, which the people did not swear to by sacrifices, but to which they only responded Amen, Amen,' no altar was to be erected. A wilful corruption of the second passage is still more inconceivable; for is a literal translation of Leontopolis, the place where the Egyptian temple was built. "After the birth of Christ, perhaps a polemic zeal might seduce the Jews to corrupt those passages which the Christians used as proof-texts in the controversy respecting the Messiah, so that they would prove nothing, or nothing in favor of the Christians. But here they would alter only such passages as did not speak decisively of the Messiah, and would leave unaltered the most obvious. But now, if we examine those passages on which the charge has been rested, their present appearance may be far more naturally explained without this supposition. Finally, the Fathers who charge them with falsifications, only reproach them with corrupting the Alexandrian version, and not the original text." The only passage in which there is ground for conjecturing the Jews have corrupted the text, for the sake of

, כארי כארו

avoiding a prophetic reference to Jesus, is Ps. xxii. 17, (16,) where is changed to ", so that the sense is changed from they pierced, to like a lion. But some of the most learned Jews, in the Masora, admit the former is the better reading.]"

Through the uncritical but innocent manner of treating the text, some have inserted easier, apparently more just, and less offensive, readings in the place of the genuine text. They have corrected what they conceived to be errors, which, perhaps, were not; for example, Gen. xi. 31, the Samaritan reads instead of 2 Sam. viii. 17, "Zadok, the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar," instead of "Zadok and Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub.”

с

They filled places where there seemed a chasm — Gen. iv. 4, where an addition has been made by the Samaritan and other versions, though some consider it a scholion. They altered the text to make it conform to certain preconceived opinions of their own; for example, in Deut. xxiii. 3, instead of They made the text conform to the parallel passages. Thus, perhaps, the reading, [strength to his people,] Ps.

[ocr errors]

J. D. Michaelis, in loc.]

[Eichhorn, § 111, on this reading in Ps. xxii. 17. See Kennicott, Dissertation, vol. i. p. 499, sq. Diss. Gen. p. 345, 448. 7, and Codd.

E. g. 1 Chron. ii. 48,

Codd. ; Ps. xxxvi. 2, 3, Codd. Verss.

Samar., LXX., Syr. ; Jud. xviii. 30,
xxi. 53, xxxv. 7. Ex. xxii. 9, where
puts the sing. Ex. xv. 3,

;

Num. xxvii. 7, DOEN,

3; Gen. ii. 2, 7,

for ; Gen. xx. 13,

is construed in the plural, the Sam. (of God) Samar. ' . Euphem

ism of the Samar. Deut. xxv. 12, xxviii. 12, the Keris, (§ 89, § 122, for other examples.)

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

1 Bruns, in Eichhorn's Rep. vol. xv. p. 171. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. pt. ii.

p. 435, note. Kennicott, Diss. Gen. p. 61.

xxviii. 8, instead of in, [strength to them,] arose from Ps. xxix. 11.

[Eichhorn enumerates eighteen sources of errors in text, namely, 1, from passages which occur twice in the Scripture; 2, from scholia inserted in the text; 3, allegorical explanations written in the margin, and accidentally inserted in the text; 4, alterations after the Targums, &c.; 5, conjecture; 6, designed falsification ;“ 7, transposition of letters, words, and sentences; 8, errors of sight a source of very numerous errors; 9, errors of hearing; 10, the habit of not reading the words as they were written, particularly in the three names of God, and the quiescent letters; 11, errors of memory; 12, arbitrary use of the matres lectionis; 13, acquaintance with other Oriental languages, leading to a confusion of orthography; 14, mistakes from misunderstanding the abbreviations; 15, false division of words; 16, mistaking the custodes linearum-letters put to fill up a line; 17, words of a similar termina tion; 18, fondness for a favorite manuscript.]

§ 85.

FATE OF THE TEXT BEFORE THE CANON WAS CLOSED.

The Hebrew text encountered its most unfortunate fate while the single parts of the books of the Old Testament were in circulation, each as a separate whole, before the collection of the Old Testament had acquired a certain respect and sacredness. The transcribers allowed themselves to proceed with the books before them—which were often anonymous as if they were their own productions, and so alter the text at their own

See above, p. 314, sqq.

b [Eichhorn, § 93-106.]

discretion. Examples of this kind of treatment may be seen in the note." Compilers and revisers made arbitrary insertions in the works of earlier writers, and frequently introduced what was entirely foreign to the text, as it will be shown in the introduction to the Pentateuch, Joshua, Chronicles, and Jeremiah.

[Perhaps Doctor De Wette states the corruption of the text by transcribers in terms stronger than the case requires. The psalms mentioned in the note differ, indeed, from one another; but the difference is scarcely to be ascribed entirely to the carelessness or caprice of the copyists and interpreters. At least, there is another hypothesis, which removes some of the difficulties. It may be supposed that, in some few cases, the author retouched his own work; we may then have two readings in parallel passages, and both genuine. On this supposition, some explain the difference between the odes in the historical books, and the same pieces published in the Psalms.

Those passages in the books of Kings and Chronicles which relate to the same events, and are so similar with some chapters in the Prophets, seem to be accounts of the same events, written by different hands. The later writer had the work of his predecessor before him, and adopted his opinions or words, so far as he understood its language, or as it suited his purpose. Later writers

a

Comp. Ps. xiv. and liii.; Ps. xl. 13, sqq., and LXX.; Ps. xviii. and 2 Sam. xxii.; Ps. cviii. and lvii. 8-12, and lx. 7—14; Ps. cv. and 1 Ch. xvi. 8-22; Ps. cxvi. and 1 Ch. xvi. 23—33; Isa. xxxvii.—xxxviii. and 2 Kings xviii.xix.; Jer. lii. and 2 Kings xxiv.; 1 Sam. xxiii. 8—31, and 1 Ch. xi. 10—47; Ezra ii. and Neh. vii. 6, sqq.

See these various readings collected in Cappellus, Vogel, i. 30, sqq., Eichhorn, § 139, b, and Bauer, Crit. sac. p. 236, sqq. [See a list of the parallel passages in Appendix, G.]

borrowed from their predecessors, in old times as in modern days. The different forms which devotional poems are made to assume, are well known. An ode might be changed in form to suit the liturgical purpose to which some one wished to appropriate it. The collectors of the Psalms may sometimes have recast an old piece. The errors of copyists are scarcely an adequate source of the variations in the choruses of Euripides.

Eichhorn wisely observes that kindred passages may differ from one another without giving us occasion to complain of ancient times, or of the carelessness of transcribers. By comparing these kindred passages, discoveries may be made which are important for both higher and lower criticisms. In respect to the former, we may ascertain how some books, or single passages, originated, and in what manner old works were wrought over in more modern times. In respect to lower criticism, we may obtain facts from the history of the Hebrew text, and arguments to show that many striking errors extend back to the remotest times.

"In judging upon the diversities between the parallel passages, much depends upon their authorship, whether they proceeded from the original author of the similar passage, and so are the results of a revision he has himself made of an earlier work. We are to inquire, not merely whether, in the revision, the original design and object remained the same, and the original text was only made more pleasing by more agreeable and choice expressions, and single additions; but, also, whether the two texts had not a different design. Since an earlier composition may be used for a new object, why might not the original author have occasion to return to, and make a new use of his own work?...... Similar

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »