The Old Testament

I. NAME

The word "testament", Hebrew berîth, Greek diatheke, primarily signifies the

covenant which God entered into first with Abraham, then with the people of

Israel. The Prophets had knowledge of a new covenant to which the one

concluded on Mount Sinai should give away. Accordingly Christ at the Last

Supper speaks of the blood of the new testament. The Apostle St. Paul declares

himself (II Cor., iii, 6) a minister "of the new testament", and calls (iii, 14) the

covenant entered into on Mount Sinai "the old testament". The Greek expression

diatheke is employed in the Septuagint for the Hebrew "berîth". The later

interpreters Aquila and Symmachus substituted for diatheke the more common

syntheke, which probably agreed more with their literary taste. The Latin term is

"f dus" and oftener testamentum", a word corresponding more exactly to the

Greek.

As regards Christian times, the expression at an early period came to signify the

whole of God's Revelation as exhibited in the history of Israelites, and because

this old covenant was incorporated into the Canonical Books, it was but an easy

step to make the term signify the Canonical Scriptures. Even the text referred to

above (II Cor., iii, 14) points to that. So, the Scriptures are called "books of the

Old Testament" by Melito of Sardis and Clement of Alexandria (ta palaia biblia;

ta tes palaias diathekes biblia). It is not clear whether with these authors "Old

Testament" and "Scriptures of the Old Testament" mean the same. Origen

shows that in his time the transition was complete, although in his writing signs

of the gradual fixing of the expression may be still traced. For he repeatedly

speaks of the "so-called" Old Testament, when meaning the Scriptures. With the

Western writers this use of term in the most ancient period cannot yet be proved.

To the lawyer Tertullian the Sacred Books are, above all, documents and sources

of argument, and he therefore frequently calls them "vetus and novum

instrumentum". Cyprian once mentions the "scriptur veteres et nov ".

Subsequently the Greek use of the term becomes established among the Latins

as well, and through them it has been made common property of the Christian

world. In this meaning, as signifying the Canonical Scriptures of the Old

Testament, the expression "Old Testament" will be used in what follows.

II. HISTORY OF THE TEXT

The canon of the Old Testament, its manuscripts, editions and ancient versions

are treated in the articles BIBLE; CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES; CODEX

ALEXANDRINUS, etc.; HEBREW BIBLE; MASSORAH; MANUSCRIPTS OF

THE BIBLE; VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. Questions concerning the origin and

contents of the single books are proposed and answered in articles on the

respective books. This article is confined to the general introduction on the text of

the parts of the Old Testament written in Hebrew; for the few books originally

composed in Greek (Wisdom; II Machabees) and those of which the Semitic

original has been lost (Judith; Tobias; Sirach, i.e. Ecclus.; I Machabees) call for

no special treatment.

A. Text of the Manuscripts and Massoretes

The sure starting-point for a correct estimation of the text of the Old Testament is

the evidence obtained from the manuscripts. In this connection, the first thing to

observe is that however distant the oldest manuscripts are -- the earliest are of

the ninth century A.D. -- from the time when the books were composed, there is

a uniform and homogeneous tradition concerning the text. The fact is all the more

striking, as the history of the New Testament is quite different. We have New

Testament manuscripts written not much more than 300 years after the

composition of the books, and in them we find numerous differences, though but

few of them are important. The textual variants n the manuscripts of the Old

Testament are limited to quite insignificant differences of vowels and more rarely

of consonants. Even when we take into account the discrepancies between the

Eastern, or Babylonian, and Western, or Palestinian schools, no essential

differences are found. The proof for the agreement between the manuscripts was

established by B. Kennicott after comparing more than 600 manuscripts ("Vetus

Testamentum Hebraicum cum cariis lectionibus", Oxford, 1776, 1780). De Rossi

has added considerably to this material ("Variæ lectiones veteris Testamenti",

Parma, 1784-88). It is obvious that this striking uniformity cannot be due to

chance; it is unique in the history of text-tradition, and all the more remarkable

as the imperfect Hebrew system of writing could not but occasion many and

various errors and slips. Besides many peculiarities in the method of writing

show themselves uniformly everywhere. False readings are retained in the same

manner, so that the text is clearly the result of artificial equalization.

The question now arises: How far back can we trace this care in handing down

the text to posterity? Philo, many authorities on the Talmud, and alter Jewish

rabbis and savants of the sixteenth and seventeenth century favoured the opinion

that the Hebrew text, as it is now read in our manuscripts, was written down from

the outset and bequeathed to us unadulterated. The works of Elias Levita,

Morinus, Cappelus have shown this view to be untenable; and later investigations

have established the history of the text in its essential features. The uniformity of

the manuscripts is ultimately the outcome of the labours of the Massoretes,

which were not concluded till after the writing of the oldest manuscripts. The work

of the Massoretes chiefly consisted in the faithful preservation of the transmitted

text. This they accomplished by maintaining accurate statistics on the entire

state of the Sacred Books. Verses, words, letters were counted; lists were

complied of like words and of forms of words with full and effective spelling, and

possibilities of easy mistakes were catalogued. The invention of the signs for

vowels and accents -- about the seventh century -- facilitated a faithful

preservation of the text. Incorrect separation and connection of syllables and

words was henceforth all but excluded.

Textual criticism was employed by the Massoretes very moderately, and even

the little they did, shows that as mush as possible they left untouched all that

had been handed down. If a reading proved untenable, they did not correct the

text itself, but were satisfied with noting the proper reading on the margin as

"Qerê" (read), in opposition to "Kethîbh" (written). Such corrections were of

various kinds. They were first of all corrections of real mistakes, whether of

letters or of entire words. A letter or a word in the text had, according to the note

on the margin, either to be changed, or inserted, or omitted by the reader. Such

were the so-called "Tiqqunê Sopherîm", corrections of the scribes. The second

group of corrections consisted in changing an ambiguous word, -- of such

eighteen are recorded in the Massorah. In the Talmud no mention has as yet

been made of them. But its compilers were aware of the " Itturê Sopherîm", or

erasures of the connecting Waw, which had been made in several places in

opposition to the Septuagint and the Samaritan Versions. When later the

Massoretes speak only of four or five instances, we must say with Ginsburg that

these are merely recorded as typical. Cases are not rare when consideration for

religious or moral feeling has led to the substitution of a more harmless

euphemism for an ill-sounding word. The vowels of the expression to be read are

attached to the written word of the text, whilst the consonants are noted on the

margin. Well known is the ever-recurring "Qerê" Adonai instead of Jahvê; it

seems to date back to the time before Christ, and probably even the first Greek

interpreters were acquainted with it.

The fact that the Massoretes did not dare insert the changes described in the

Sacred Text itself shows that the latter was already fixed. Other peculiarities

point to the same reverence for tradition. We repeatedly find in the text a

so-called inverted Nun (e.g., Num., x, 35-36). In Isaiah 9:6, there is a final Mêm

within the word. A Waw is interrupted or letters are made bigger, whilst others

are placed higher up -- the so-called suspended letters. Not a few of these

oddities are already recorded in the Talmud, and therefore must be of great age.

Letters with points are mentioned even in the "Mishna". The counting of the

letters also probably belongs to the older period. Records serving for textual

criticism are extant from the same time. In its essentials the work is completed

with the post-Talmdic treatise "Sopher m". This treatise, which gives a careful

introduction to the writing of the Sacred Text, is one of the most conclusive

proofs of the scrupulosity with which at the time of its origin (not before the

seventh century) the text was generally treated.

B. Older Witnesses

The condition of the text previous to the age of the Massoretes is guaranteed by

the "Talmud" with its notes on text-criticism and its innumerable quotations,

which are however, frequently drawn only from memory. Another help are the

"Targums", or free Aramaic versions of the Sacred Books, composed from the

last centuries B.C. to the fifth A.D. But the state of the text is chiefly evidenced

by the Vulgate Version made by St. Jerome at the end of the fourth and the

beginning of the fifth centuries. He followed the Hebrew original, and his

occasional remarks on how a word was spelt or read enable us to arrive at a sure

judgment on the text of the fourth century. As was to be expected form the

statements of the Talmud, the consonant-text of the manuscripts tallies almost

in every respect with the original of St. Jerome. There appear greater

discrepancies in vocalization, which is not to be wondered at, for at that time the

marking of vowels was not known. Thus the reading is necessarily often

ambiguous, as the saint expressly states. His comment on Is., xxxviii, 11,

shows that this statement is not only to be taken as learned note, but that

thereby the interpretation might often be influenced practically. When St. Jerome

occasionally speaks of vowels, he means the quiescent or vowel letters.

Nevertheless, the opinion that in the fourth century the pronunciation was still

fluctuating, would be erroneous. For the saint knew how, in a definite case,

ambiguous word was to be vocalized; he appealed to the custom of the Jews

standing in opposition to the interpretation of the Septuagint. A fixed

pronunciation had already resulted from the practice, in vogue for centuries, of

reading the Holy Writ publicly in the synagogue. There might be doubt in

particular cases, but, on the whole, even the vowel-text was secured.

The letters in which the manuscripts of that time were written are the "square

characters", as appears from St. Jerome's remarks. This writing distinguished

the final forms of the well-known five letters (Prologus galeatus), and probably

supposed the separation of words which, excepting a few places, is the same as

in our Massoretic Text. Sometimes the Vulgate alone seems to have preserved

the correct separation in opposition to the Massoretes and the Greek Version.

The loss of Origen's hexapla is very much to be regretted. This work in its first

two columns would have handed down to us both the consonant-text and the

vocalization. But only a few scattered remnants of the second are left. They show

that the pronunciation, especially of the proper names, in the third century

disagrees not infrequently with the one used later. The alphabet at the time of

Origen was the same as that of a century and a half afterwards. As regards the

consonants there is little change, and the text shows no essential transformation

We are led still further back by the Greek versions originating in the second

century. The most valuable is Aqulia s, as it was based upon the Hebrew text,

and rendered it to the letter, with the greatest fidelity, thus enabling us to draw

reliable conclusions as to the condition of the original. The work is all the more

valuable, as Aquila does not care about the Greek position of words and the

peculiar Greek idiom. More over, he consciously differs from the Septuagint,

taking the then official text for his norm. Being a disciple of Rabbi Aqiba he

presumably maintains the views and principles of the Jewish scribes in the

beginning of the second century. The two other versions of the same period are of

less importance for the critic. Theodotion depends upon the Septuagint, and

Symmachus allows himself greater liberty in the treatment of the text. Of the

three versions only very small fragments have come down to us. The form of the

text which we gather from them is almost the one transmitted by the

Massoretes; the differences naturally became more numerous, but it remains the

one recension we know of from our manuscripts. It must, therefore, be scribed at

least to the beginning of the second century, and recent investigations in fact

assign it to that period.

But that is not all. The perfect agreement of the manuscripts, even in their critical

remarks and seemingly irrelevant and casual peculiarities, has led to the

assumption that the present text not only represents a single recension, but that

this recension is even built upon one archetype containing the very peculiarities

that now strike us in the manuscripts. In favour of this hypothesis, which, since

the time of Olshausen, has been defended and based upon a deeper argument

especially by de Lagarde, evidence has been brought forward which seems

overwhelming. Hence it is not surprising that, of late, the assertion was made

that this view had long since become an admitted fact in the textual criticism of

the Old Testament. Yet, however persuasive the argument appears at first sight

its validity has been constantly impugned by authorities such as Kuenen, Strack,

Buhl, König, and others distinguished by their knowledge of the subject. The

present state of the Hebrew text is doubtless the outcome of systematic labour

during the course of several centuries, but the question is whether the supposed

archetype ever existed.

At the outset the very assumption that about A.D. 150 only a single copy was

available for the preparation of the Bible text is so improbable as scarcely to

deserve consideration. For even if during the insurrection of Bar-Cocheba a great

number of Scripture rolls perished, there nevertheless existed enough of them in

Egypt and Persia, so that there was no need to rely on one damaged copy. And

how could this copy, the defective peculiarities of which could not have been

overlooked, attain to such undisputed authority? This could have happened only if

it had much greater weight than the others, for instance, for its being a temple

scroll; this would imply further that there existed official texts and copies, and so

the uniformity goes further back. On the supposition that it were but a private

scroll, preserved merely by chance, it would be impossible to explain how the

obvious mistakes were retained. Why, for instance, should all copies have a

closed Qoph, or a letter casually made larger, or a final Mem within a word?

Such improbabilities arise necessarily from the hypothesis of a single archetype.

Is it not much more likely that the supposed mistakes are really not erroneous,

but have some critical signification? For several of them a satisfactory

explanation has already been given. Thus the inverted Nun points to the

uncertainly of the respective passages: in Prov., xvi, 28, for instance, the small

Nun, as Blau rightly conjectures, might owe its origin to a textual emendation

suggested by the feeling prevalent later on. The larger letters served perhaps to

mark the middle of a book. Possibly something similar may have given rise to the

other peculiarities for which we cannot at present account. As long as there

exists the possibility of a probable explanation, we should not make chance

responsible for the condition of our text, though we do not deny that here and

there chance has been at play. But the complete agreement was certainly

brought about gradually. The older the witnesses, the more they differ, even

though the recension remains the same. And yet it might have been expected,

the more ancient they were the more uniform they should become.

Besides, if one codex had been the source of all the rest, it cannot be explained

why trifling oddities were everywhere taken over faithfully, whilst the

consonant-text was less cared for. If, again, in later times the differences were

maintained by the Western and Eastern schools, it is clear that the supposed

codex did not possess the necessarily decisive authority.

The present text on the contrary seems to have resulted from the critical labour

of the scribes from the first century B.C. to the second century A.D. Considering

the reading of the Bible in the synagogue and the statements of Josephus

(Contra Apionem, I, viii) and of Plato (Eusebius, "Pr p. Evang.", VIII, vi) on the

treatment of the Scriptures, we may rightly suppose that greater changes of the

text did not occur at that time. Even the word of Jesus in Matt., v, 18, about the

jot and tittle not passing away, seem to point to a scrupulous care in the

preservation of the very letter; and the unconditional authority of the Scripture

presuppose a high opinion of the letter of Holy Writ.

How the work of the scribes was carried out in detail, we cannot ascertain. Some

statements of Jewish tradition suggest that they were satisfied with superficial

investigation and criticism, which however, is all that could have been expected

at a time when serious textual criticism was not even thought of. When

difficulties arose, it is said that the witnesses were counted and the question

decided according to numerical majority. However simple and imperfect his

method was, under the circumstances an objective account of the actual state of

the question was much more valuable than a series of hypotheses the claims of

which we could not now examine. Nor is there any reason for supposing, with

some early Christian writers, conscious changes or falsifications of the text. But

we are, perhaps, justified in holding that the disputes between the Jews and

Christians about the text of the Scriptures were one of the reasons why the

former hastened the work of unifying and fixing the text.

The manuscripts of that period probably showed little difference from those of the

subsequent epoch. The consonant-text was written in a more ancient form of the

square characters; the so-called final letters presumably came into use then. The

Nash Papyrus (the Ten Commandments) would give some information if it were

only certain that it really belongs to the first century. The question cannot be

decided, as our knowledge of Hebrew writing from the first to the third century is

quite imperfect. The papyrus is written in well-developed square characters,

exhibits division of words throughout., and always uses the "final letters". As in

the Talmud, the memory of the relatively late distinction of the double forms of

the five letters is still alive, their application in Holy Writ cannot be dated back

too far. Even the Massorah contains a number of phrases having final letters

which are divided differently in the text and on the margin, and must, therefore,

belong to a period when the distinction was not as yet in use. From the Nabat n

and Palmyrian inscriptions we learn that at the time of Christ the distinction

already existed, but it does not follow that the same usage prevailed in the land

west of Jordan and, in particular, in the Sacred Books. The Palmyrian

inscriptions of the first to the third century apply the final form of only one letter,

viz., Nun, whilst the Nabat an go beyond the Hebrew and use, though not

consistently, double forms also for Aleph and Hê. The time when the Jewish

copyists began to distinguish the double forms must then remain an open

question. Moreover, the term "final letters" does not seem very appropriate,

considering the historical development. It is not the final forms then invented, but

rather the others, that seem to be the product of a new writing. For, with the

single exception of Mêm, the so-called final forms are those of the old characters

as exhibited partly at least even in the oldest inscriptions, or at any rate in use in

the Aramaic papyri of the fifth century B.C.

C. The Bible Text before Christ

As regards the preceding centuries, we are relatively well informed. In place of

the missing manuscripts we have the ancient Greek Version of the Old

Testament, the so- called Septuagint, or Alexandrian, Version. The Pentateuch

was translated in the first half of the third century, but it cannot be determined in

what order and at what intervals the other books followed. Yet in the case of the

majority of the books the work was probably completed about the middle of the

second century B.C. Of primary importance for us is the question of the state of

the text at the time of the translation. As the version is not the work of one man

-- not even the Pentateuch has only one translator -- nor the work of one period,

but is extended over more than a hundred years, it cannot all be judged by the

same criterion. The same holds good of its Hebrew original Some of the

Old-Testament Scriptures and, at the time of the translation, existed for about a

thousand years, whilst others had just been composed. Considering this

historical development, we must, in judging the texts, not simply oppose the

whole of the M. T. (Massoretic Text) on the one hand to the whole Septuagint on

the other. Results of any practical value can be obtained only by a separate

study of the different books of the Holy Scripture.

The oldest, the Pentateuch, presents considerable differences from the M.T. only

in Exodus 36-40, and in Numbers. Greater divergences appear in Sam., Jer.,

Job, Prov., and Daniel. The M.T. of the Books of Samuel has suffered in many

places. The Greek Version often serves to correct it, though not always. In

Jeremias text-tradition is very unsettled. In the Greek Version not less than 2700

words of the M. T., about an eighth part of the whole, are missing. Additions to

the M. T. are inconsiderable. Some of the parts wanting in Septuagint may be

later additions, whilst others belong to the original text. The transpositions of the

Greek text seem to be secondary. Still the order of the M.T. is not

unobjectionable either, and sometimes Septuagint is right in opposition to M.T.

On the whole, the text of Septuagint seems to be preferable to the M.T. In Job

the textual problem is quite similar. The Greek text is considerably shorter than

the M.T. The Greek rendering of Proverbs diverges still more from the Hebrew.

Lastly, the Greek Ecclesiasticius, a translation which we must consider to have

been made by the author's grandson, is a altogether different from the Hebrew

recension lately found. These facts prove that during the third-second century

B.C. texts were circulated which manifest traces of careless treatment. But it

must be remembered that translators, sometimes, may have treated the text

more freely, and that even our Greek Version has not come down to us in its

original form. It is hard to determine how far we may recognize the official text of

the period in the present form of the Greek text. The legend of the solemn

mission to Jerusalem and the deputation of the translators to Egypt cannot be

treated as historical. On the other hand it is arbitrary to assume that the original

of the Greek Version represents a corrupted text every time if differs from M.T.

We have to distinguish various forms of the text, whether we call them

recensions or not.

For a judgment on the Septuagint and its original, the knowledge of the Hebrew

writing then in vogue is indispensable. In the case of the Minor Prophets

attempts have been made by Vollers to discover the characters employed. The

Books of Samuel have been investigated by Wellhausen and Driver; Jeremias by

K hler; Ezechiel by Cornill; Job by Beer; Ecclesiasticus by Peters. Full certainty

as to the characters of the Hebrew scrolls of the third-second century B.C. has

not as yet been obtained. According to Jewish tradition, Esdras brought over the

new (Assyrian) writing when returning from the Exile, in which script the Sacred

Books were thereafter transcribed. A sudden change is improbable. It is not

possible that the writing of the fourth century was quite similar to that of the Nash

Papyrus or of the first-century inscriptions. The Aramaic writing of the fifth

century shows an unmistakable tendency towards the latter forms, yet many

letters are still closely related to the ancient alphabet: as Bêth, Caph, Mêm,

Samech, Ayin, Tasade. How did this change take place? Did it pass through the

Samaritan alphabet, which clearly betrays its connection with the Phoenician?

We know the Samaritan letters only after the time of Christ. The oldest

inscription belongs, perhaps, to the fourth century A.D.; another, that of Nablus,

to the sixth. But this writing is undoubtedly decorative, displaying care and art,

and offers, therefore, no sure basis for a decision. Still there was presumably a

time in which the Sacred Scriptures were written in an ancient form of the

Samaritan characters which are closely related with those of the Hasmon an coin

inscription.

Others suggest the Palmyrian alphabet. Some letters, indeed, agree with the

square characters; but Ghimel, Hê, Pê, Tsade, and Qôph differ so much that a

direct relation is inadmissible. In short, considering the local nature of this

artificial writing, it is hardly credible that it exerted a wider influence towards the

west. The Hebrew square characters come nearer to the Nabataean, the sphere

of which is more extended and is immediately adjacent to Palestine.

As the change of the alphabet probably took place step by step, we must reckon

with transition writings, the form and relation of which can perhaps be

approximately determined by comparison. The Greek Version offers excellent

material; its very mistakes are an inestimable help to us. For the errors in

reading or writing, occasioned, or already supposed, by the original, will often find

their reason and explanation in the form of the characters. A group of letters

repeatedly read erroneously is a clue as to the form of the alphabet of the

original. For the well-known possibilities in the square writing of confusing Daleth

with Rêsh, Yôdh with Waw, Bêth with Caph do not exist in the same way in the

transition writings. The interchanging of Hê and Hêth, of Yôdh and Waw, so easy

with the new characters, is scarcely conceivable with the old ones; and the

mistaking of Bêth for Caph is altogether excluded. Aleph and Tau on the other

hand can easily be mixed up. Now in Chronicles, in itself recent and translated

into Greek long after the Pentateuch, Waw and Tau, Yôdh and Hê, Caph and

Rêsh have been mistaken for each other. This can be accounted for only an older

form of writing were employed. Hence we are compelled to suppose that the old

alphabet, or a transition form like it, was in use up to the second or first century

B.C. From Christ's words about the jot (Matt., v, 18) it has been concluded that

Yôdh must have been regarded as the smallest letter; this holds good with the

square characters. We know otherwise that, at the time of Christ, the new writing

was all but developed; at least the inscriptions of the Benê Chezîr and of many

ossuaries sufficiently testify to this. But in these inscriptions Zayin and Waw are

as small as or even smaller the Yôdh.

In addition to the form of the characters, orthography is of importance. The

unpointed consonant-text can be made essentially clearer by writing "plene", i.e.,

by using the so-called quiescent letters (matres lectionis). This means was often

absent in the original of the Septuagint. In the text of the Minor Prophets Aleph

seems not to have been written as a vowel-letter. Thus it came about that the

translators and the M.T. diverge, according as they suppose the Aleph or not. If

the vowel-letter was written, only one interpretation was possible. The same

applies to the use of Waw and Yôdh. Their omission occasions mistakes on the

one or other side. The liberty prevailing in this regard is expressly testified even

for a much later period. But it is going too far to consider the omission of the

vowel-letters as the rule commonly observed. The oldest inscriptions (Mesha,

Siloah) and the hole history of Semitic writing prove that this practical device was

known.

In particular cases the possibility of connecting or separating the letters

differently must be considered as another source of divers interpretations.

Whether the division of the words was expressed in the ancient manuscripts or

not cannot be shown by direct testimonies. The Mesha and Siloah inscriptions

and some of the oldest Aramaic and Phoenician divide the words by a dot. The

later monuments do not abide by this usage, but mark the division here and there

by a little interval. This custom is universal in the Aramaic papyri from the fifth

century downwards. The Hebrew fragments make no exception, and the Syriac

writing applies the word-division in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore the

conjecture that word-division was used in the old scrolls is not to be rejected at

the outset. Still the intervals must have been so small that wrong connections

easily came about. Instances are not wanting, and both the Massorah and the

Greek Version testify to that. Thus Gen., xlix, 19-20, is correctly divided in the

Greek and in the Vulgate, whilst the M.T. erroneously carries the Mêm, that

belongs to the end of verse 19, over to the following word "Asher". The passage,

moreover, is poetical and a new stanza begins with verse 20. Hence in the

archetype of our M.T. the stichic writing, known perhaps at an earlier period and

used in the later manuscripts, was not applied.

The mistakes occurring in consequence of interchanging of letters, of wrong

vocalization or connection, show how text-corruption originated, and thus

suggest ways of repairing the damaged passages. Other slips which always

occur in the handing down of manuscripts, such as haplography, dittography,

insertion of glosses, transposition, even of entire columns, must also be taken

into consideration whilst estimating the text of the Sacred Books. In books or

passages of poetical nature, metre, alphabetical order of verses and stanzas,

and their structure, supply a means of textual emendation, which ought

nevertheless, to be sued with great prudence, especially where the manuscripts

seem disarranged.

We must, however, beware of comparing the Septuagint as a unit with the

Massorah. In textual criticism we must distinguish between the questions: What

is the relation of the Greek Version of the Scriptures in general to the Hebrew?

and, How far in a particular case may one text be corrected by the other? The

Septuagint may on the whole differ considerably from the M.T., and yet often

clear up an obscure passage in the Hebrew, while the reverse happens just a

frequently. Apart from the Septuagint there is but little to assist us. The

Samaritan Text throws light on the Pentateuch, at least up the fourth century,

perhaps up the time before Esdras. Yet until the critical edition, announced a

couple of years ago, appears it must remain an open question whether the

Samaritan Text was not influenced by the Septuagint at a later period. Regarding

shorter passages, the parallel texts allow of comparison. The deviations observed

in them show that changes have taken place, which betray carelessness or

intentional or accidental variations. Jewish tradition tells of a restoration of the

Sacred Scriptures by Esdras. Underlying this narrative may be recollection of

historical events that proved disastrous both to the political and religious life of

the people of Israel and to its Sacred Books. The consequences do not

everywhere manifest themselves as much as in the books of Samuel and

Jeremias, for instance, but often enough are such that the application of all

critical means is needed to come to a readable text. Sometimes in spite of all

nothing can be done and the passage is irremediably disfigured. It will be

impossible to make the M.T. agree entirely with the Septuagint until we are

favoured by some unexpected discoveries. However, all these discrepancies do

not alter the Sacred Texts to such a degree as to affect in any way the religious

content of the Old Testament.

AUGUST MERK

Transcribed by Augustine Chau

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV

Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org