TEXT,
VERSIONS,
LANGUAGES
OF
OT
TEXT,
VERSIONS,
LANGUAGES
OF
OT
before
the
date
of
the
Greek
version.
There
are
in
all
more
than
80
variations.
Of
these
just
over
20
are
cases
of
vowel
letters
(§
6)
present
in
the
one
text,
and
absent
from
the
other;
in
the
great
majority
of
instances
it
is
the
Psalm
that
has
the
vowel
letters,
and
2
S
22
that
lacks
them.
Among
the
remaining
variations
are
cases
of
the
following
kinds:
—
(1)
Omissions
or
additions:
Ps
IS^
is
absent
from
2
S.,
so
also
is
v.^^;
on
the
other
hand,
2
S
228"
is
absent
from
thePsalm.
In
about
a
dozen
other
instances
single
words
present
in
one
text
are
absent
from
the
other;
(2)
in
two
or
three
cases
a
word
has
been
lost
through
the
substitution
for
it
of
a
word-repeated
in
a
parallel
or
neighbouring
line:
so
'
billows
'
in
Ps
18*
has
accidentally
given
place
to
'
cords
'
from
V.'
(cf.
2
S.);
(3)
the
variations
from
Ps
18'i'>-
«'>
in
2
S
22'2-
*3
are
due
to
the
confusion
of
similar
letters;
(4)
Ps
1828-
31
differs
from
2
S.
in
respect
of
the
Divine
name
used
(in
V.''
the
Ps.
has
Eloah,
2
S.
El);
(5)
inversion
of
words
(not
shewn
in
EV),
Ps
18*^;
there
are
also
cases
of
inversion
of
lettera;
(6)
use
of
different
synonyms,
Ps
18'".
The
variation
of
Ps
18"**
from
2
S
22*5'*
is
more
complicated,
and
the
significance
of
several
of
the
variations
is
clear
only
in
the
Hebrew.
32.
Evidence
of
mutilated
literary
forms.
—
(1)
Acrostics.
—
Thus
the
comparison
of
parallel
texts
furnishes
one
line
of
evidence
of
the
way
in
which
the
Hebrew
text
had
suffered
in
transmission
before
the
date
of
the
Greek
version.
Another
proof
may
be
found
in
the
mutilated
form
in
which
certain
fixed
literary
forms
survive
in
the
present
Hebrew
text.
Most
conclusive
is
the
ease
of
the
acrostic
poems
(see
Acrostic).
At
times
two
considerations
converge
to
prove
a
particular
passage
corrupt.
For
example,
the
early
part
of
Nah
1
consists
of
a
mutilated
acrostic:
in
the
middle
of
v.-"
a
word
beginning
with
D
should
occur;
instead,
the
word
XMLL
beginning
with
K
is
found;
but
this
word^MLL
occurs
again
in
the
parallel
line;
in
the
light
of
Ps
18*
(see
previous
§,
instance
2)
it
is
probable
that
iJMLL
in
the
first
has
been
accidentally
substituted
for
a
parallel
word
which
began
with
D.
33.
(2)
Rhythm
and
strophe.
—
It
is
possible
that
further
study
of
the
laws
of
Hebrew
rhythm
or
metre
may
give
us
a
valuable
instrument
for
the
detection
of
corruption;
much
has
already
been
attempted
in
this
way,
and
in
some
cases
already
with
results
of
considerable
prob-ability.
Similarly,
in
some
cases
the
strophic
division
of
poems
admits
of
conclusions
that
are
again,
if
not
certain,
yet
probable.
Thus
in
Is
QS-IO*
and
5"-"
we
have
a
poem
in
five
strophes
marked
off
from
one
another
by
a
retrain
(Isaiah
[Book
of],
p.
390»):
in
the
present
text
the
first
strophe
consists
of
13,
the
second
of
14,
the
third
of
14,
the
fourth
of
14,
and
the
fifth
of
15
lines;
the
probability
is
that
originally
each
strophe
was
exactly
equal,
and
that
the
first
strophe
has
lost
a
line,
and
that
the
fifth
has
been
enlarged
by
the
interpolation
of
a
line.
34.
Limited
extent
of
corruption
of
text
of
OT.
—
The
considerations
adduced
in
the
two
preceding
para-graphs
have
a
double
edge.
They
show,
it
is
true,
that
the
Hebrew
text
has
in
places
suffered
considerably;
but
they
also
indicate
certain
limits
within
which
corrup-tion
has
taken
place,
or,
to
state
it
otherwise,
the
degree
of
integrity
which
the
transmitted
text
has
preserved.
If
in
the
ways
just
indicated
we
can
detect
the
loss
or
Intrusion
of
lines
or
words,
or
the
substitution
of
one
word
for
another,
we
can
elsewhere
claim
a
strong
presumption
in
favour
of
a
poem
having
preserved
its
original
length
and
structure.
For
example,
the
majority
of
the
acrostics
have
come
down
to
us
with
little
or
no
mutila-tion
that
affects
their
length
or
the
recurrence
at
the
right
place
of
the
acrostic
letters.
Similarly
the
very
possibility
of
determining
rhythm
must
rest
on
a
con-siderable
amount
of
the
text
having
reached
us
free
from
far-reaching
corruption.
A
further
consideration
of
a
different
kind
may
be
found
in
the
fact
that
a
large
number
of
proper
names
(which
are
peculiarly
exposed
to
transmissional
corruption)
as
handed
down
in
the
Hebrew
text
have
been
paralleled
in
ancient
material
brought
to
light
by
modern
discovery.
In
many
cases
it
is
beyond
question
that
names
have
suffered
in
the
course
of
transmission;
but
the
correct
transmission
of
rare,
and
in
some
cases
strange,
names
is
significant.
35.
Secondary
nature
of
vowel
letters:
bearing
on
textual
criticism.
—
So
long
as
we
deal
with
parallel
texts,
we
are
not
brought
face
to
face
with
the
question
of
how
to
deal
with
a
Hebrew
text
resting
on
a
single
authority.
Yet
the
great
bulk
of
the
OT
is
of
this
class.
How,
then,
is
it
to
be
dealt
with,
especially
when
there
is
no
control
over
it
to
be
obtained
from
fixed
literary
forms?
The
first
duty
of
sound
criticism
is
to
disregard,
or
at
least
to
suspect,
all
vowel
letters
(see
§
6).
We
cannot,
indeed,
assert
positively
that
the
original
writers
made
no
use
of
these
letters,
for
we
find
them
employed
in
certain
cases
in
early
inscriptions
(Moabite
stone,
Siloam
inscription)
;
but
in
view
of
the
evidence
of
the
parallel
texts
of
the
Hebrew
Bible,
of
the
LXX,
and
of
Rabbinic
references,
it
is
certain
that
in
a
large
number
of
cases
these
vowel
letters
have
been
added
in
the
course
of
transmission.
The
consequence
is
that
we
cannot
claim
any
particular
vowel
letter
for
the
original
author;
he
may
have
used
it,
he
may
not:
particularly
in
the
case
of
earlier
writers,
the
latter
alternative
is
as
a
rule
the
more
probable.
In
other
important
respects
the
form
of
the
present
Hebrew
consonantal
text
differs
from
what
there
is
reason
to
believe
was
its
earlier
form.
36.
Similarity
of
certain
letters
a
source
of
confusion.
—
We
have
seen
above
(§
17)
that
the
alphabet
in
which
existing
Hebrew
MSS
are
written
differs
widely
from
that
in
use
at
the
time
when
the
OT
was
written;
the
letter
yod,
proverbially
the
smallest
(Mt
S"^)
in
the
alphabet
in
use
since
the
Christian
era,
was
one
of
the
larger
letters
of
the
earlier
script.
It
is
necessary
in
doubtful
passages
to
picture
the
text
as
written
in
this
earlier
script,
and
to
consider
the
probability
of
a
text
differing
from
the
received
text
merely
by
letters
closely
resembling
one
another
in
this
earlier
script.
Thus
the
letters
D
and
R
are
similar
in
most
Semitic
alphabets,
in
some
they
are
indistinguishable;
for
example,
in
the
Assouan
papyri,
Jewish
documents
of
theSth
cent.
B.C.
recently
discovered
and
published
(1907),
D
and
R
cannot
be
clearly
distinguished,
and
it
is
disputed,
and
is
likely
to
be
(^sputed,
whether
a
particular
word
which
occurs
several
times
is
DGL
or
RGL.
It
becomes
important,
therefore,
in
dealing
with
the
Hebrew
text
of
the
OT
to
consider
the
variants
which
arise
by
substituting
D's
for
R's.
The
Heb.
words
for
SyriaandEdom
are
NRM
and
!<
DM
respectively;
the
context
alone
is
really
the
only
safe
clue
to
the
original
reading
in
any
particular
passage,
and
the
mere
fact
that
the
present
Hebrew
text
reads
the
one
or
the
other
ia
rela-tively
unimportant;
thus,
for
example,
the
Heb.
text
is
obviously
wrong
in
2
S
8'»,
and
probably
in
2
Ch
20".
37.
Division
of
text
into
words
secondary.
—
Finally,
it
must
be
remembered
that
there
is
good
reason
for
believing
that
the
division
of
the
consonants
of
one
word
from
those
of
another
has
not
been
a
constant
feature
of
the
text.
Consequently
we
cannot
safely
assume
that
the
present
division
corresponds
to
that
of
the
original
writers.
38.
The
starting-point
of
criticism
in
attempting
to
detect
the
earliest
errors
in
the
text.
—
From
all
this
it
follows
that
sound
criticism
requires
us
to
start
from
this
position:
the
original
writers
wrote
in
a
different
script
from
the
present,
used
no
vowel
signs,
no
marks
of
punctuation,
and
even
vowel
letters
but
sparingly;
either
they
themselves
or
copyists
wrote
the
texts
con-tinuously
without
dividing
one
word
from
another,
or
at
least
without
systematically
marking
the
divisions.
Consequently
the
canon
that
the
history
of
the
text
justifies
is
that
that
division
of
consonants
and
that
punctuation
of
clauses
and
sentences
must
in
all
cases
be
adopted
which,
everything
considered,
yields
the
most
suitable
sense;
obvious
as
this
canon
may
appear,
it
by
no
means
always
obtains
recognition
in
practice;
the
weight
of
Jewish
tradition
is
allowed
to
override
it.
And
yet
there
are
most
obvious
cases
where
the
Hebrew
text
gives
a
division
of
consonants
or
clauses
which
are
not
