Comparing the Word of God to Qumran Cave 4 Targum Leviticus

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

22 April 2010

There are online views and standard views around the world that all biblical texts are the Word of God. If one takes this "wide view" or maximalist view of the texts of the Bible, one stands before the problem that God had many tongues and sometimes even contradicted Himself. This is untenable. Escpecially for a Seventh Day Adventist. For that reason, a normative approach should transform the relativistic approach popular after the Second World War. The consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is the very Word of God. However, any deviation from it due to slips of the tongue, hand, ear, hand or memory, is not permissible to represent that Word. Perfection is required and expected. Codex Aleppo of 1008 CE is the closest one can get to that perfection. Tested? Yes, by the same cave at Qumran that we are going to look at here. 4QDana compares 99.9% the same as codex Aleppo.

In this writing we will compare 4QTarg Lev 16:12-15 with the consonantal text of the Masoretic text.

We will use a number of Targumim, the Syriac and Samaritan text to look at this fragment of a Targum from cave 4 on Leviticus. The standard is the Word of God or consonantal text of the Masoretic text. It is the ruler with which you can see the line is scew or not.

MT Leviticus 16:13           wksh `nn

4QTargLev                       wksh `nn

Targum Neophyti              wyksy tnnh

Targum Onkelos               wyhpy `nn

Samaritan Pentateuch      wytmr `nnh

Syriac                              dtksyhy `nn'

MT Leviticus 16:13          wntn

4QTargLev                      wyswh        (unique)

Targum Neophyti             wytn

Targum Onkelos              wytyn

Samaritan Pentateuch     wyhb

Syriac                             wnsym

MT Leviticus 16:14          `l pny hkprt

4QTargLev                      `l ksy'       (unique)

Targum Neophyti            `l 'py kprth

Targum Onkelos             `l 'py kpwrt'

Samaritan Pentateuch     lqpbl kprth

Syriac                             wqdm hwsy'

MT Leviticus 16:15          wsht

4QTargLev                      wyks       

Targum Neophyti             wykws

Targum Onkelos              wykws

Samaritan Pentateuch      wynks

Syriac                             wnkws

MT Leviticus 16:20          w't 'hl mw`d

4QTargLev                     [w`l] mskn zmn'

Targum Neophyti            wyt mskn zymn'

Targum Onkelos             w`l mskn zymn'

Samaritan Pentateuch    wyt mskn zymwnh

Syriac                            w`l mskn zbn'  

van wyk notes:

1. It is clear in Leviticus 16:13, that Qumran compares very well with the Syriac version from Milan. Does this mean that quantity of text determines truth? No. Even if all the texts or versions differ with the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, they are still defective due to one of the five slips.

2. In Leviticus 16:20 Qumran, Targum Onkelos and the Syriac compares to each other probably due to consultation of the same defective manuscript.

3. Most of Qumran manuscripts are defective and some scholars are suggesting that Qumran was a space where defective manuscripts was "thrown away".

4. Qumran proves that the form of the text of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is not a Middle Age Jewish fabrication with additions and omission at own will for propaganda purposes. However, the degenerative state of the manuscripts make some of the fragments unfit for a correct form representing the Word of God.

5. In Leviticus 16:14 Qumran is unique in its form of reading. The Syriac form from Milan does not stand that distant from the Targum of Qumran form. This does not proof that there were more than one form during the Second Temple period or multiplicity of forms as E. Tov et al is trying to consider.

6. Of the two unique readings of the Targum from Qumran both shows a remarkable correspondence with the Syriac version, remarkable the more so, since after the first discoveries of the manuscripts from cave One in 1947, those manuscripts were first brought to the Syriac Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, if I am not mistaken on my detail. It is also a Syriac text of the ninth century CE that was translated by Paul Kahle that gives us information of manuscripts that were found in cave near the Dead Sea in ca. 810 CE. The question of contamination and the role of the Syriac church cannot be taken off the table totally although conspiracy theories were given enough attention over the past 60 years since their discovery.