POST TWO OF TWO
Sometimes the type of errors cause minor translations changes (but there are many such conflicts) while there are fewer major translational changes (but some are very important to theology). Again, we are, so far, only speaking of the difficulties caused by single letter changes that were associated (in the main) with the addition of the matris lectiones.
We have not even touched upon the more complicated and more significant changes, but we can speak of them if it becomes important to do so.
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the St. Petersburg Codex of 916 a.d. had been the oldest dated Manuscript (MS) known. Though it’s Massoretic List gives examples of passages emended, the list does not tell us what the original text was which were altered by the Jewish Sopherim.
The Mechilta is the oldest partial list of a few alterations and there are multiple other lists.
For example, the list in the Midrash Tanchuma is quite important to any discussion of the specific alterations done by the Jewish Sopherim. This list contains more examples than the Mechilta, but also tell us what the original text was in at least eleven out of the seventeen passages which it adduced and it claims that primitive readings were altered by the Members of the Great Synagogue or the Spiritual Authorities who created one of the various Canons of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Massorah also provides a List of Sopheric alterations (
with original readings). For examples, the Manuscripts Orient 1397 and Orient 2349 not only ascribed the changes to the Sopherim, but declared that according to the opinion of some Schools the changes were made by Ezra Himself. Whether Ezra actually did make the changes or this claim simply represents a mechanism to increase credibility that the changes were authorized can’t really be proven.
The manuscript Orient 1425 also preserved a list of textual changes as well as containing a basic Hebrew Grammar called
Maase Ephod by Prophiat Duran. The list of changes is small, only fifteen changes, but it’s evident the list is sourced from another source prior to the Massoretic recension .
SOME CHANGES ARE VERY IMPORTANT
Example of changes to the text :
Gen XVIII:22 : IN
Genesis 22, the introduction context of the chapter is “
And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre…” (vs 1). The story then follows that three men came to Abraham who bowed to them (vs 2) As talk turns to the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah at least two of the men went toward Sodom. The sentence in verse 22 of the later Jewish massoretic reads And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom,
“but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”
In all three Massoretic Rubrics in the manuscripts Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365, each emphatically states that the original reading was “
but the Lord stood yet before Abraham” but that the text was altered. Other lists such as the ancient List of the Maase Ephod confirms that the text was originally
“and the Lord still stood before Abraham”.
The greatest scholar on the Massorah, Ginsberg himself tells us : “
With such an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post-biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehensible for the redactors of the text to state that they have here altered the text and also to give the original reading when they had in fact done no such thing.” The context, and the logical continuity of the original narrative is more logical and reasonable and smoothly transitions in the original as compared to the textual change. It was the Lord who
came down to see and tell Abraham whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to heaven;
The reason for this and other changes is often that a phrase is deemed derogatory to the character and station of Deity.
Those who changed the text were trying to honor God rather than attempting to corrupt a text. For example, the phrase to “
stand before another” is often a stock phrase denoting a state of inferiority and homage (comp Gen XVIII:8; XLI:16, Deut I:38; XVIII:7 etc) such as when one “
stood before” a judge. Thus, it seemed derogatory to say that the Lord stood before Abraham. Hence in accordance with the Massoretic rules “
to remove all indelicate expressions”, this and other phrases were altered by the Sopherim.
For example : In
Numb XI:15 All four ancient records and Massoretic Lists, mark this passage as an alteration of the Sopherim. The three Yemen MSS. And the Massorah inside the
Maase Ephod tell us the original text was
“Kill me I pray thee out of hand if I have found favour in thy sight that I may not see thy evil”. Since the statement might be construed as ascribing evil to the Lord, the Sopherim altered it into
“that I may not see my evil” (which the AV and the RV render “
my wretchedness”).
Changes were made not only to make the text conform to the editors interpretation of what "protected and enhanced God", but to protect and enhance the character of other individuals as well.
For example, The lists of emendations include
I Sam III:13 which originally said : “
because his sons cursed God”.
However, It seemed to lessen the stature of the Eli, if his own sons openly blasphemed God without Elis’ reprimand. Thus, the Sopherim altered the text by omitting the aleph and yod and changing אלהם (God) into להם (
them). Thus, they cursed “
THEM” in the altered texts (rather than cursing God).
The early Judeo-Christian God was quite anthropomorphic (i.e. had similar characteristics to mankind). This was uncomfortable to the various later Judaisms and thus certain anthropomorphisms were to be removed as well. Following this rule explains certain changes to the text. For example :
2 Sam XVI:12 was changed so that “
Lord will behold with his eye “ (the official Keri) was changed to a Kethiv, reading
“on mine iniquity”, or “
on mine affliction”. This was done in accordance with the recensional canon rule that anthropomorphisms are to be removed.
This same motivation (removing anthropomorphisms) was the motive underlying the change to
Ezek VIII:17 . Though the present version reads
“and lo, they put the branch to their nose”, the ancient authorities list this as a change made by the Sopherim. The original phrase was :”
and lo, they put the branch to my nose”, (i.e. to my “face”)
Hosea IV:7 : is another alteration of the Sopherim. The list tell us the original text read “
My glory they have changed into shame” which the Sopherim altered into
“Their glory I will change into shame."
Hab I:12 currently says : “
Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die. “ whereas the original was “
Art thou not from everlasting? O Lord my God, mine Holy One, thou diest not.”
Rashi (1040-1105) made the original text a basis of his explanation. “
The prophet says why art thou silent to all this. Art thou not from everlasting my God, mine Holy One, who diest not.” This change is so well known that the RV tells us in the margin “according to an ancient Jewish tradition “
thou diest not”. Like many prior examples, The reason for the alteration is that it was considered offensive to say of God, : “
thou diest not”. Hence “
we shall not die” was substituted.
My point in offering examples of intentional changes made and the justification which motivated intentional changes is simply to show a different TYPE of change that was made to the text. It should be kept in mind that the Sopherim and Massoretes and others who made changes to the text were
not attempting to contaminate stories, but, to alter the text to fit their own religious values. This is not unlike the many interpretations and theories of Christians who did similar things for similar reasons. It did not occur to them that the original readings may have fit perfectly, religious worldviews other than their own.
We could go on and on and on in describing errors in the various versions of the early texts. My point is NOT that the bible is not a good witness for the existence of God, his nature and his relationship to us, but simply that the biblical text in any version of any significant size, contains errors.
In any case, the point in discussing errors is NOT to say the biblical text is not a good witness for spiritual truths. It is. BUT, it the text is NOT "perfect" nor is it "Inerrant". We do not need to ascribe to it any characteristics it does not have. There is nothing to fear from education regarding the text.
I hope your journey in life is good and insightful and wonderful Good-Ole-Rebel.
Clear
ειειφιακω
