>Bethke on manuscript history

>Bruce Bethke writes an interesting post titled Relevance. Expanding how a simple question can have so many underlying assumptions.

Some days you can ask what seems like a simple question, and find that instead of plucking off a loose thread, you’ve started unraveling the entire sweater. For example, this morning I asked my wife one simple question, and before I knew it, we were deeply into a wide-ranging discussion of Old Testament history, subtext, context, and translation issues.

…To begin comprehending her answer, then, we should first examine the embedded subtext of the question I didn’t even know I’d asked: does a book written 2,000 years ago really have any relevance to our lives today?

…It was the Septuagint that was widely read and circulated in the early Christian Era and used as the basis for the Latin translation (the Vulgate) written by St. Jerome in the 4th century CE,… The King James version in turn became the basis for almost all subsequent English-language Protestant Bibles except the Lutheran version, which is based on Luther’s German translation, and a careful reader will note many subtle differences between the English-language Catholic, Lutheran, and other Protestant versions of the Bible. (For example, even today the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments omits the prohibition against worshiping graven images, while the Episcopalian version has been shortened to the Nine Suggestions.)

It is worth reading for his conclusion, a modern application of an ancient biblical passage.

>The Dead Sea Scrolls are to be placed online

>Exciting stuff.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, at least the initial manuscripts, were found in 1947. Different groups were given the task of transcribing and translating the discoveries; probably a good thing given how long at least 1 group took. Reasonable quality photographs could have been made at the time the time of the discovery (and in fact were) with facsimiles distributed to interested parties around the world, but this didn’t happen.

If all the photos manage to be uploaded then hopefully interested groups will be able to create text files. Much of this may have already been done. These can subsequently be integrated into a database of various Bible manuscripts. This kind of open access resource could aid in creating a more accurate Old Testament text.

Newer technologies allow photographing in other wavelengths. The image on the right above being an infrared image. This should help in clarifying hard to read passages.

In similar news the Codex Sinaiticus is gradually being uploaded. Though photos of previous photos are already available online.

>The postdiluvian patriarchs

>Only the age at the birth of the son and the remaining years are mentioned for the postdiluvian patriarchs. The age at which they died can easily be calculated. Again the figures vary depending on the texttype.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Name	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died
Noah	502	448	950	502	448	950	502	448	950
Shem	100	500	600	100	500	600	100	500	600
Arphaxad	35	403	438	135	430	565	135	303	438
Shelah	30	403	433	130	330	460	130	303	433
Eber	34	430	464	134	370	504	134	270	404
Peleg	30	209	239	130	209	339	130	109	239
Reu	32	207	239	132	207	339	132	107	239
Serug	30	200	230	130	200	330	130	100	230
Nahor	29	119	148	79	129	208	79	69	148
Terah	70	135	205	70	135	205	70	75	145

The figures for Terah are to his first son. Genesis 12 and Acts 7 imply that Abram was 75 at Terah’s death and therefore Terah was 130 when Abram was born, so the year in which Abram was born is 75 years prior to Terah’s death.

So we can calculate the year of the flood, the year in which Abram was born and the time elapsed.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Period	Flood	Gap	Abram	Flood	Gap	Abram	Flood	Gap	Abram
	1656	352	2008	2242	1132	3374	1307	942	2249

Again I prefer the Masoretic. There seems to be a rationale for lengthening the times so as to make one’s culture ancient, but to shorten the timeframe would seem unlikely. As there is no summary age as there is in Genesis 5, the fact of the systematic change in Genesis 5 and the frequent difference of 100 years suggests this was conscious, not accidental.

If the Masoretic is original, then the Samaritan has added years till the year of the first child but subtracted them for the remaining years leaving the total calculated age the same even though this is not given in Scripture. The exceptions being Eber and Nahor. The interesting thing about Eber is that the age after the son was born is 100 years less than the Septuagint. Was there are further Hebrew text which gave 370 years to Eber after his son was born?

Explaining the derivation of the Septuagint is difficult. Arphaxad, Salah and Eber don’t appear to derive from the Masoretic at all. A smoothing effect (so that the ages drop off steadily from 900 years) is not clearly apparent and is an inadequate explanation.

If the Masoretic is correct we have the situation where Abram potentially could have known his ancestors. Abram was born in 2008 AM. Note the year of death.

Name	Birth	Death
Noah	1056	2006
Shem	1558	2158
Arphaxad	1658	2096
Shelah	1693	2126
Eber	1723	2187
Peleg	1757	1996
Reu	1787	2026
Serug	1819	2049
Nahor	1849	1997
Terah	1878	2083
Abram	2008	2183

Of Abram’s 10 ancestors following the Flood, 7 of them were alive at his birth. Noah died 2 years before Abram was born. And Peleg and Nahor also died prior to his birth. The others were all alive. Shem, who had seen the Flood, only died 25 years before Abram, Abram would have been 150 years old and Isaac 50. Eber, from whom the Hebrews derive their name, outlived Abram!

>The antediluvian patriarchs

>The ages the patriarchs had their sons and their age at death differs according to the various text types. Most English Bibles use the Masoretic figures.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Name	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died
Adam	130	800	930	230	700	930	130	800	930
Seth	105	807	912	205	707	912	105	807	912
Enosh	90	815	905	190	715	905	90	815	905
Kenan	70	840	910	170	740	910	70	840	910
Mahalaleel	65	830	895	165	730	895	65	830	895
Jared	162	800	962	162	800	962	62	785	847
Enoch	65	300	365	165	200	365	65	300	365
Methuselah	187	782	969	167	802	969	67	653	720
Lamech	182	595	777	188	565	753	53	600	653
Noah	500	450	950	500	450	950	500	450	950

Noah was 500 when he became the father of Japheth. Genesis 7 tells us that Noah was 600 when the Flood came. This would make the date of the Flood according to the various texttypes:

• 1656 AM, Masoretic
• 2242 AM, Septuagint
• 1307 AM, Samaritan

So which is correct?

The corrupt texts have been deliberately changed. This is obvious because in Genesis 5 the age of fathering the son, the remaining years and the total age is given. As the first 2 figures sum to the 3rd an error in one of the figures would lead to an incorrect sum yet in all texttypes all figures add up. Josephus gives different figures again though they are similar to the Septuagint. I have not seen figures for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I do not know whether there are any manuscripts of the early chapters of Genesis found. It would be interesting to know as some Dead Sea Scrolls preserve in Hebrew a more Septuagint texttype.

One thing that points away from the Septuagint is that by its chronology Methuselah outlives the Flood which is not possible. If the meaning of Methselah is “when he dies it shall be sent,” then this points to the accuracy of the Masoretic and the Samaritan which both have Methuselah’s death in the year of the Deluge.

A further possible argument against the Septuagint is that is was translated perhaps 250 BC. Many cultures claimed antiquity for themselves. There may have been a desire to lengthen Hebrew history, either to make claims for priority, or to allow time to accommodate the claims of other cul
tures; it would not do to have Yahweh creating the earth many years after Egypt was founded. Egyptian history is not as old as is sometimes claimed, it postdates the Flood which leaves even less time for it to develop, but this is a possible argument for the translators changing the figures in Genesis 5 and 11. Interestingly the age at fatherhood for the Septuagint is exactly 100 years greater than the Masoretic for most men. Setterfield suggests a mark for 100 has been omitted in the switch from paleo-Hebrew glyphs to the square Hebrew (Setterfield favours the Septuagint as being original as did many church fathers). I am not convinced this is an adequate explanation as there is a loss of 100 years for the years they lived after fathering the relevant descendant: a deliberate change in whichever texttype is errant.

This does raise an interesting point though, how old was Jared when Enoch was born? If the Masoretic is original and the Septugint routinely added 100 years (except for Noah for other reasons) why not make Jared 262? Is the Samaritan correct here? Was 262 seen as just too old? Noah was 500. Does the Samaritan decrease the age in line with the surrounding patriarchs? But why would a culture want to minimise its ancestry? And if we decide to follow the Samaritan then both Methuselah and Lamech die in the year of the Flood. Possible but it does seem a little convenient.

The fact that the first 2 figures add up to the third in all versions (corrupt and original) is evidence that the men changing the ages in translation understood the chronology to be airtight, there are no gaps.

Though I think the Septuagint is underrated in current English translations, I tend towards the Masoretic figures in Genesis 5. I have no desire to make the world any older or shorter than it is. Claims of cultural antiquity no longer bother me, all cultures must post date the Flood and even using the Septuagint leaves one at odds with secular dating for many post-Flood artefacts. And good arguments can be made for shortening many chronologies.

There is a place for looking for common themes amongst the varying figures. The problem is that the corrupt figures are not accidental, they are deliberate, and deducing the original is that much harder. It is not the case that a misread letter explains variant readings. The most similarities can do is fix ages for specific men. The only agreement for the antediluvian patriarchs across all 3 texttypes is that of Noah.

It would be wonderful to find a manuscript in paleo-Hebrew. It may help point us toward the original.

>Should we favour the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?

>I think undue emphasis has been placed on the Masoretic text in translating English Bibles. This is somewhat understandable in that we have many Masoretic manuscripts and they are very similar. Further, the Septugint, while not only varying from the Masoretic type, varies from manuscript to manuscript. I think, however, there are several issues that have been inadequately dealt with.

The similarity of the Septuagint to some Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls suggests that there was a Hebrew text type that the Septuagint was translated from, and that was not the Masoretic text type. One can argue that this Hebrew vorlage may be inferior to the Masoretic but that is another issue; the point is we have a competing text that must be interacted with.

Different books were likely translated by different scholars. So one cannot treat the Septuagint as a whole. I understand that much more attention was paid in translating the Pentateuch than the other books. Therefore it may be potentially legitimate to claim the the Septuagint’s Pentateuch vorlage is closer to the original than the Masoretic, while arguing for the Masoretic with other books.

New Testament quotes of the Old Testament do not always conform to the Masoretic. Some quote the Masoretic, some the Septuagint. Horn states,

I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators used.

Other options for the New Testament authors could include: a different source text, the source texts are similar enough at the passage to preclude identification, or the quote is a paraphrase. The authors of the New Testament would have been aware of Hebrew variants and the Greek translation had been used in some synagogues.

An aside, I have no concerns with the New Testament authors being free in their Old Testament quotes. If what they write has the same meaning as the original—in terms of the point they are drawing from it—then the quote is accurate. If, however, the point is only apparent in the variant and the variant is not original this becomes more difficult to justify. This is because the reason for quoting the Old Testament is its authoritative nature. It is similar to Christians defending the trinity from 1 John 5. The trinity can be defended from Scripture but not based on this verse if it is not original. (One may be able to show the early churches’ views based on the insertion of this verse though).

Josephus (and others) don’t use the Masoretic. Given that Josephus’ ages of the ante- and postdiluvian patriarchs parallel the Septuagint (and these are most likely to have been changed in translation) he is likely quoting the Septuagint not a Hebrew variant, so this does not add further evidence. I vaguely recall that Josephus at times uses a text that is not comparable to Septuagint which may suggest a further text, or at least a variant Septuagint type.

A further issue of much importance is that while we can take confidence in the accuracy of the transmission of the Masoretic text, this does not automatically carry over to the origin of the Masoretic text. The proverbial weakest link in a chain. If the Masoretic endeavour began after the resurrection there could be ulterior motives of the scribes given the antagonism of many Jews to the new Christian sect. This could be as sinister as removing or changing a text, one that Christians interpreted favourably in their defence of Jesus’ Messiahhood; or it could be by merely favouring a text type that provided less apologetic power to the Christians. This may not seem in line with what we know of the Masoretes. However selecting a text is not the same as fastidiously transmitting it over the centuries.

Those involved in recovering the original text of the Old Testament undoubtedly know all this and more. There may be other compelling reasons to favour the Masoretic text. But I think the pendulum needs to swing back a little and we need to give more credence to the Septuagint, at least parts of it, as did some of the church fathers. There are likely groups involved in trying to recreate the original Septuagint. If it was translated over time there may have been more than one early translation of the same passage.

Resolving the Hebrew the Septuagint translators used is possible (to a degree) and this is compared with the Masoretic text. I think we need to be prepared to weight some books of the Septuagint heavier than currently.

As it is currently, in some passages the Septuagint is thought to represent the original over the Masoretic. But we need to shift this bias. If we acknowledge the Septuagint is usable when the the Masoretic is clearly wrong, then it is obvious that the Septuagint is a preferable text some of the time. This means that it may be a preferable text in other places where the Masoretic is not clearly wrong but appears inferior. Then we go from the assumption that the Masoretic is reliable unless proven otherwise to the Masoretic is one among several competing witnesses.

>Concerning the Old Testament sources

>I have not read a lot on this topic but have some preliminary thoughts. I think the search for the original text is warranted and helpful. If the text is inerrant, there can be subtle things to learn from analysing the minutia of Scripture—so long one doesn’t lose sight of the major themes. I doubt any significant doctrine of Christianity is affected by the current text we have. And there is always the issue over whether we appreciate what the text meant at the time even if we know exactly what it said.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a small amount in Aramaic. Major sources include the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a Samaritan Pentateuch which is a further source.

The Masoretic text in square Hebrew charcters post-dates the destruction of the temple. The text was hand copied down through the centuries. Many have written on the care that the Masoretes took with the text such that we can be very confident that the text we now have is similar to the text they started with. The oldest extant Masoretic texts come from the 9th century. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 showed similarities in some manuscripts that suggest the Masoretic type text dates from at least the same time and demonstrated the accuracy of the Masoretes. Modern English Bibles place much weight on the Masoretic text.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation that post dates the completion of the Old Testament and predates Christ. It is thought to have been written approximately 250BC. It is possible that the Pentateuch was translated first with other books in the following years. Though some Septuagint fragments date to the 2nd century BC, more complete copies post-date the birth of Jesus by > 300 years.

The Dead Sea scrolls date over several centuries up until about the time of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. While some manuscripts bear testimony to the Masoretic text, some of the Dead Sea scrolls seem to follow at text type similar to the Septuagint.

For reasons I will post on later, I think more credence should be given to parts of the Septuagint. The variations are not solely due to translation but existed in the source text. That this vorlage existed is confirmed by the Dead Sea scrolls. The question is whether it is more accurate at times.