From textual criticism to textual analysis: the Adventist way

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

5 March 2010

One of the fundamental aspects of textual criticism is the role of general linguistics in the origin and transmission of texts. General linguistics of text origin and transmission may be divided into four categories that are related to each other, intersecting each other: visual linguistics; articulatory linguistics; acoustical linguistics and cognitive linguistics. These four areas of general linguistics are cardinal for a proper understanding of the mechanism of scribal activities with texts in general and the biblical texts in particular. Errors that result in visual linguistics may be coined slips of the eye since they are dealing with misreadings of graphical form and shape and other aspects of orthography. Errors in articulatory linguistics may be named slips of the tongue and N. Poulisse (1999) has done already a substantial work on it. Errors that result in acoustical linguistics received attention by Z. Bond (1999) in her book slips of the ear. The data-bank of both books have much in common and the analysis also. There are many overlapping areas. Lastly, we would mention errors that result due to cognitive processes in linguistics or slips of the memory. The cognitive area really have two classes of activities that we may extrapolate here: planning and memory. Whereas planning looks forward to what is to come, memory looks back to what was in the past. It is not always easy to keep these four areas in the linguistics apart and to distinguish them from the data in the databank or in our case the textual data. What we suggest is that the whereas slips of the eye lie on the plane of graphical or orthographical misreadings, slips of the tongue lies on the plane of phonological misproductions and slips of the ear on the plane of phonological misperceptions. How does it work then practically in the copying process of texts of the bible? If the scribe cannot read well due to weak eyes, high age, too dark in the room, he cannot articulate well and prosody will suffer and thus emphasis on some syllables may cause certain consonants or vowels to be added or certain consonants or vowels to be omitted in acoustical perception of the scribe who receives the dictation from him. The text will reflect that. If the scribe is relying on his memory and have problems in short-term memory, or acoustical short term memory, he will revert to the planning section of his cognitive processes and create new words or non-words or select synonyms from his mental lexical bank and substitute it for the loss. The order of the constituents may differ from the target and when there is surprising aspects in word order or phrases moved around, it is probably due to this aspect of problems in memory. Bond and Poulisse did not allocate these aspects to the area of cognitive linguistics but it is not denied by them that they belong there. They had to discuss those aspects of their particular focus that interacts with cognitive linguistics. Lexicon, Syntax, Word-order and subjects like non-words and weird expressions may be due to slips of the memory.

In the compositional phase the scribe may cite from his memory and dictate his ideas to a scribe who listens and write it down. There may be slips of the tongue while he is dictating, there may be slips of the ear while the scribe is listening. No matter which aspect of linguistics suffer during this process, what eventually arrived in the text as we have it in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is the very word of God, or the word in the form God wanted it to end.

It may be scribbled on wax first and then printed on papyrus and then deciphered from their on neat copies. The scribe may compose his own work directly. He rely on his lexical bank, acoustical short term memory and long term memory.

The scribes that God chose for writing down His messages are people who wrote with grammatical problems, spelling problems, syntax problems, but what they wrote, how defective a perfectionistic grammarian may evaluate it, is the Divine chosen form for His message. No further editing is needed when the Spirit chose it that way. Thus, nothing can be added or taken away. Seventh Day Adventists prefer the word "analysis" rather than "criticism", thus, we are doing textual analysis and literary analysis and source analysis.

For Seventh Day Adventists, a variant can only be an error when the text differ or is at variance with the Masoretic text of the consonantal tradition. Variants in the versions or translations of the Hebrew, results due to one of the above slips (of the ear, eye, tongue, memory or hand) that happened.

Seventh Day Adventists also do not believe in a development of the text, that is, that Isaiah wrote a core and later scribes added or deleted parts of what he wrote. Emmanuel Tov's (et al) presentation of the transmission history of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, is based on gaps and guesses more than on data. The text (representing the Word of God) was not fluid in the Second Temple Period. The consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition was stable and secure already the moment Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, et al, completed their writing. That form was transmitted with high accuracy until the Second Temple Period. Qumran is evidence, not of other forms of the text (Tov's multiplicity of texts theory) but of the defectiveness of scribal accuracy in the Second Temple Period.

Seventh Day Adventists do not believe that eclecticism should be used to "find" the Word of God in various versions and textual forms. Any version will be secondary and only the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition (Hebrew text) is the very Word of God. The Greek of the New Testament is also the very Word of God. Translations, even very literal ones, are secondary. The more paraphrastic they are, the further removed are they from the Word of God. A Targum is a paraphrase of the Word of God. It is sometimes very helpful in understanding a sentence or verse but in similar vein, it can be very deceptive and off the mark at other times.  

Some say that they cannot read Hebrew or Greek and that they are only dependent upon a translation. They want to know which translation is the best for them. The answer is: as literal as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. People will say that they cannot understand the Word of God in its literal form so clearly. The answer is that the role of the Holy Spirit is to guide people into the whole truth and understanding. Reason alone is not sufficient to understand the Word of God properly.

Some say that the Septuagint is the Bible of Jesus and therefore the Septuagint is inspired and the Word of God. The Septuagint shows remarkable correspondences to the citations of the writers of the New Testament, but to conclude that they used the Septuagint in its form that we have it in Ralphs or Gottingen or Brooke-Macleans, is not wise. There were two Septuagints in use during Jesus days, is the opinion of this researcher: one corrupt defective and the other literal and proper. The one which survived in our royal editions today, is unfortunately the defective ones. Evidence of the good Septuagint, or the original one, are remnants of the Greek texts at Qumran and other caves. They display a stronger affinity, more literal to the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition than the LXX editions on our shelves today.

Anyone involved in textual analysis, will look at textual history, textual transmission, textual witnesses and textual variants. By seeing how textual misunderstandings originated, it is possible to bypass and push through to a proper understanding of the content of the Hebrew.

Seventh Day Adventists do not operate with conventional textual criticism as represented by Emmanuel Tov and his publications. The reason is very simple: any theory (Tov is just one theory among many alternatives) that cast suspicion on the text of the Word of God or that minimize the value of the text in any part or parts, is insufficient as an explanation for the history, transmission, and witnesses of the Word of God. Adventists are operating with an hermeneutics of affirmation and not with an hermeneutics of suspicion. Careful analysis of the original examples and sources that Tov used to make his axioms from, demonstrated that they can be approached from an alternative focus that sometimes lead to a conclusion in the opposite direction of that of Tov. One example will be given: Emmanuel Tov makes a big deal about the conclusions of F. M. Cross in the 1950's about a fragment from Samuel. Cross and Tov (concurring) elaborate how this demonstrate that some parts of Samuel were omitted by the Masoretic text and that thanks to Qumran, now it can be added back. However, Izak Eybers from a South African University, has written in the 1960's on the very same topic as Cross and came to a conclusion 100% in the opposite direction. The one scholar (Cross [and Tov]) cast doubt and suspicion on the consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition and the other scholar (Eybers) demonstrate with affirmation its veracity. All of them very able Semiticists. That is why, Seventh Day Adventists are very careful in their choice of sources, in their consideration of all alternatives, since doubt and suspicion is already wrong.

Dear God

Help us to protect your Word from suspicious and critical scholars when it is in our ability to do so. Truth is positive and affirmation has shown time and again that your Word is the Truth. In your loving name, Amen.