Attacking the Masoretic text: uninformed puritanic Hebraists

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil, ThD)
Kyungpook National University
Sangju Campus
South Korea
Conjoint lecturer Avondale College
Australia

Imperfect Masoretic Text theorists

A number of scholars have the approach that the Masoretic text is an "imperfect text" full of corruptions and they list all the so-called errors that they could find.

J. A. Thompson, S. Talmon and I. Seeligmann listed them in IDBS as follows:

a. incorrect word-division
b. transposition of letters
c. transposition of words (metathesis)
d. confusion of similar letters
e. confusion of words which sound alike
f. omission for various reasons (homoioeteleuton, homoiarchton, haplography)
g. addition through dittography
h. assimilation of parallel passages
i. conflation of readings
j. combination of readings
h. substitution
k. harmonization
l. removal of objectionable expressions

Scholars working with the corrupt Masoretic Text scenario

The scholars working with the hermeneutics of suspicion rather than the hermeneutics of affirmation, see no reason to pay attention to alternatives in their suggestions or if they do mention it, it is allocated to footnotes and quickly passed over or isolated as non-relevant. We list some of them ringing the same bell: E. Wurtwein (1957), M. Noth (1966), R. W. Klein (1974), D. E. Payne (1974), J. A. Thompson , F. E. Deist (1978), E. Tov (1978). They do not think that the original text of the original authors still exist and secondly do not think it is possible to restore their original text and thirdly, do not think that the aim of textual criticism is to arrive at the original text of the original authors.

4QDana as control check for the Transmission Perfection of the Consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition

The greatest argument against these scholar with a hermeneutics of suspicion is 4QDana that compares 99% with the Masoretic text in its consonantal form and this high percentage of comparison and perfection of transmission permits and allow us to say that the rest of the Masoretic text were equally preserved in its exact form since the original authors. The consonantal text of the Masoretic traditions is the original text of the original authors and while we do the same science with the same data with the hermeneutics of affirmation, they prefer to do it with the hermeneutics of suspicion. All of us, whether they with their hermeneutics of suspicion or us with the hermeneutics of affirmation, come to the "ugly ditch" of non-data from where we have to make a leap into the dark or non-data to the original authors: they saying without any data that the text we now have is different from the original authors although we do not really have any data to compare then and now, and us, leaping with faith across the abyss of non-data believing that 4QDana give us a firm basis for such a leap of exactitude to claim perfection of transmission between 99-100% between the original authors and the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. My doctoral examiners admitted that this was the strongest argument against the scholars with the hermeneutics of suspicion and they cannot really answer to this transmission perfection of 4QDana.

Vein to attempt to discover the Urtext-theorists

For the above scholar of the hermeneutics of suspicion, it is impossible to find the biblical Urtext and they claim that it is vein to look for it. As 4QDana gives us evidence of, nothing can be further from the truth. If a text is 99% the same over a period of 1000 years, you can assume it is the same 1000 years earlier, or your assumption that it is the same earlier is stronger than the assumption that it is not (as advocated by these scholars working with the hermeneutics of suspicion).

Ochla we-Ochla and the case of variants in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition

When one investigates the Ochla we-Ochla which is a listing of examples of how there are spelling differences of names, nouns, verbs, and other items within the same books and different books of the Old Testament, then one may superficially jump on the band wagon of the above scholars. If one investigates the topic linguistically with factors like geographical dialectics, geronti writing or geronti dictation, geronti memory versus same author in his youth writing, dictation of earlier writing in doublets and so on, then the whole matter of imperfection suddenly becomes irrelevant. The serious student of hermeneutics of affirmation in textual criticism needs to get S. Frensdorff, Das Buch Ochla W'ochlah (Hannover: 1864, reproduced in Tel Aviv, 1969).

Doublets and their variants and the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition

It is very common for these scholars supra to use the doublets to demonstrate how errors or corruption of the text is present in teh consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. There is a book dealing with all the doublets and variants in nouns, verbal forms, and other aspects of omission or addition or spelling differences are real. But again, the linguistic aspects of geronti memory, geronti writing as opposed to youth writing within the same author (Isaiah) or geographical dialects and other factors are very important to explain the variants. Audience change can also lead to reformulation by the same author adapted for a different audience. In fact, the serious student of hermeneutics of affirmation in textual criticism needs to get the book by Abba Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible (Jerusalem: Carta, 1972).

Variant readings in the Hebrew Manuscripts as listed in G. de Rossi's Variae lectionis

There is a third book that is used by these scholars superficially to support their own arguments that the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is corrupt. It is the book by G. de Rossi, Variae lectionis Veteris Testamenti librorum, ex immensa manuscriptorum editorumque codicum congerie haustae et ad Samaritanum textum, ad vetustissimas versiones, ad accuratiores sacrae criticae fontes ac leges examinatae (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969). The book is written two hundred or more years ago but very valuable listing the variants in the various Hebrew manuscipts regarding certain readings. All the above listed examples by Thompson et al, can be found in these variants. However, what these scholars overlook, is that these variants are normal human slips: slips of the tongue, hand, eye, ear and memory. They form the exception and is marginal errors. The host of manuscripts in large quantities have the reading of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition.

Those working with the hermeneutics of affirmation will soon learn that the science of textual criticism makes more sense when one works with the absolute norm that the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is the perfect, exact words of the original authors, preserved as such through exact transmission by the assistance of the editor of these writings, the Holy Spirit.

Our English Bibles, KJV and NIV and all literal translations were translated carefully to the point of nearly 97% accuracy so that what we need for salvation is indeed the living Word of God in English or other modern languages from the very original Hebrew as preserved over such a long time.

End item