TEXT, VERSIONS, LANGUAGES OF OT TEXT, VERSIONS, LANGUAGES OF OT

a comparison of the LXX with the Hebrew texts. A much smaller amount of material is to be derived from the quotations in the NT and other early Jewish works, such as the Book of Jubilees, written, according to Dr. Charles, at the close of the 2nd century b.c; but so far as it goes this material bears witness of the same general character as that of the LXX.

19. A correct solution of the main problem here raised depends on three things: (1) the establishment of the original text of the LXX; (2) the detection of the Hebrew text which lay before the translators; and (3) in cases where the Hebrew text there recorded differs from the present Hebrew text, the determination of the more original of the variants. A complete solution of the problems will never be reached, for it will be no more possible to establish beyond dispute the original text of the LXX than the text of the NT; the detection of the underlying Hebrew text must inevitably often remain doubtful; and when variants are established, there will be in many cases room for differences of opinion as to their relative value. But though no complete solution is to be hoped for, a far greater approximation to such a solution than has yet been reached is possible. A good beginning (though no more) towards the recovery of the original text of the LXX has been made (see Greek Versions of OT, § 13), but of really systematic work on the recovery of the underlying Hebrew text there has been far too little. What commonly happens is that in particular passages where the sense of the LXX and of the Hebrew text differs, the Greek is re-translated without exhaustive reference to the methods of the translators, and the re-translation thus obtained is cited as the variant. In many cases the true variant even thus has undoubtedly been obtained, but in many others a closer and more systematic investigation of the methods and idiosyncrasies of the translators has shown or will show that, through misinterpretation, the support of the LXX has been cited for variants which there is no reason for believing ever had any existence.

20. Distinction between real and apparent variants. — A difference in sense between the Greek version and the Hebrew text as subsequently interpreted by no means necessarily points to a variation in the Hebrew text that underlay the version.

Septuagint. — Judged from the standpoint of their Importance for recovering the original text of the OT, and for the kind of service which they render to OT textual criticism, the primary versions fall into two groups: (1) the LXX, (2) the rest. The LXX differs, and often differs widely, from the Massoretio text; the remaining versions closely agree with it: the LXX dates from before the Christian era and, what is more significant, from before the rise of the Massoretic schools; the remaining versions date from after the Christian era, and, with the possible exception of the Syriac, from after the close of 1st cent. a.d. The agreement of these versions made direct from the Hebrew text at various dates subsequent to 100 B.C. confirms the conclusion suggested above, that since that date the Hebrew text has suffered relatively little in course of transmission. Such variations as do occur in these versions from the Hebrew consist largely (though not exclusively) of varia-tions in the interpretation of the consonants, i.e. while presupposing the same consonants as the present Hebrew text, they presuppose also that these consonants were pronounced with other vowels than those which were added to the text after the 5th cent. a.d. These variations therefore do not, strictly speakuig, represent variants in the text of the OT, but merely in the com-mentary on that text, which at the time the versions were made was still oral, and only later was committed to writing in the form of vowels attached to the con-sonants, of which alone the Scripture proper consisted. A fuller discussion of the versions of the OT other than the LXX would carry us into minvMce of the subject which do not belong to a brief sketch such as the present. On the other band, the LXX claims further attention even here.

17. The early history of the Hebrew text. — The history of the Hebrew text since the 2nd cent. a.d. is uneventful; it is a history of careful transmission which has preserved the text from any serious deterioration since that date. But the fortunes of the text before that date had been more varied and far less happy. They cannot be followed completely, nor always with certainty. But the main fact is abundantly clear, that between the ages of their several authors and the 2nd cent. a.d. the Hebrew Scriptures had suffered corruption, and not Infrequently very serious corruption. Nor is this sur-prising when It is remembered that the text in that period consisted of consonants only, that in the course of it the character of the writing was changed from the Old Hebrew to the square character still in use (the difference between the two being greater than that between old black letter type and the Roman type now commonly used), that in the earlier part of the period copies of the books cannot have been numerous, and that in times of persecution copies were hunted for and destroyed (1 Mac 1"'). We are here concerned, of course, merely with such changes as crept into the text accidentally, or such minor changes as the introduction of the expressed for the implicit subject, which belong to the province of textual criticism. The larger changes due to the edituig and redacting or union of material belong to the province of higher criticism, though in the case of the OT it is particularly true that at times the line between the two is not sharply defined. Our chief clues to the earlier history of the Hebrew text, and to the solution of the problems connected with it, will be found in a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint version, and in certain features of the Hebrew text itself. The remainder of this article will be devoted to elucidating and illustrating these two points.

18. The Hebrew Text between c. B.C. 250 and c. a.d. 100. The LXX and the Massoretic Text. — The materials tor forming a judgment on the general character of the changes undergone during this period by the Hebrew text, and for the existence of early variant readings in particular passages, are to be drawn mainly from

For example, parts of the three Hf brew verbs ^BH (to lead captive) , and YSB (to dwell) and of S WB {to return) are india-tingmshable in the Hebrew consonantal text; the lettera WYSB may have among others the following meanings, and he dwelt, and he returned, and he brought back, and he took captive.

The substitution of one of these meanings for the other occasionally reduces the Greek version to nonsense; inconvenient as this must have been for those who used that version, or versions, like the Old Latin, made from it, it presents no difficulty to those who are attempting to recover the Hebrew original of the Greek version. It may sound paradoxical, yet it is to a large extent true, that for textual criticism the LXX is most useful when it makes least sense; for when a passage makes no sense in the Greek, but can be explained as a transla-tion from the Hebrew, we have the best of reasons for believing that we have before us the original text of the Greek, and through it can recover a Hebrew text of early date. Copyists and translators do not deliberately turn sense into nonsense, and sense does not frequently, through mere accidents of transmission, become the particular form of nonsense that can be accounted for by a misunderstanding of a Hebrew original.

As a further illustration we may refer to the Greek trans-lation of the lettera BY; these very commonly occur with the meaning in me, but they also represent a particle of entreaty Oh I or I pray I; this particle occura but rarely, about a dozen times altogether, and its existence was un-known to some of the Greek translatora. In the Pentateuch and Joshua it is correctly rendered; but elsewhere it is rendered 'in me' with ridiculous results, as the English reader will see if he substitutes these words for 'Oh' in Jg 6", 1 S 1».

911