Criticising God’s Word

EDITORIAL

WE have the Hebrew Bible in several versions which we can group together as being from antiquity. These are in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Syriac.

Syriac

The youngest of these is the Syriac Peshitta translation which, although well preserved by the Patriachate of the Syrian Orthodox Church, is a comparatively late translation based on an incomplete Hebrew base text supplemented by the earlier Greek translations. It is certainly not reliable as evidence for the "true original Bible" many textual critics are searching for. For example, the Peshitta of Psalm 1:1 swaps the first two clauses around, giving:"Blessed is the man who walks not in the way of the wicked, And does not stand in the counsel in the ungodly …"

They did this because it made more sense to the translators for the blessed man to walk in a way than in a counsel!! Thus the translators of the Syriac Bible were in the habit of changing God’s word to suit their own perception of what makes sense.

For this reason, one finds it strange that textual critics, and even supposedly Christian Bible translators, are prepared to rely on the Peshitta for readings rather than the Hebrew text. For example, the New International Version explicitly states that it makes use of the Syriac Peshitta version. The use of the Peshitta is also implied in the New American Standard version. See the discussion below on 2 Chronicles 3:4.

Greek

The principal Greek translation is the Septuagint, which we abbreviate to LXX. Made for the Greek speaking Jews who could not read Hebrew, this translation was made in Egypt sometime during the third or second centuries BC. This translation does have its uses - for instance it serves as a link between the Greek of the New Testament and the Hebrew of the Jewish Scriptures, so that we are able to link linguistic terms between the two.

As a translation, however, there are severe problems. For instance, the LXX text of Jeremiah is a complete mess, missing the equivalent of over 3,000 words from its original Hebrew version. The LXX also moves the position of the oracle against Egypt (Jer 46), probably to soften the impact the passage would make in the area it was translated. So again it seems remarkable that Christians are prepared to accept the LXX instead of the Hebrew text. Most recent translations such as the New International Version make use of the LXX at the expense of the Hebrew text. They claim to use it in order to shed light on the Hebrew text, but often they give a translation based upon the LXX rather than the original Hebrew. An example of this is given in the case study below.

Aramaic

Parts of the Hebrew Bible were translated into Aramaic around the time that Jesus lived onwards. These translations are called Targums, and they vary greatly. They were, however, very idiomatic and often added to the text to explain the meaning and fill out the story. They did this because the Targums were not intended to replace the Hebrew text, but to supplement it and make it more accessible to those who struggled with Hebrew. Their value lies in that they give us an understanding of early Rabbinical exegesis, but one would certainly not adopt a different text to the Hebrew on the basis of a difference in a Targum. Again recent translations such as the New International Version are prepared to do this, which seems rather strange.

Hebrew

The Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament dates from the latter part of the first millennium AD, and is the Hebrew text preserved by the Jews as authentic and representing the proper text of the Bible. The preservation of the Jews throughout the so-called Christian era, despite all the persecution they have suffered, is surely a miracle. What makes this miracle of direct benefit to us is that they carried with them a preserved and carefully maintained manuscript tradition through which God preserved His Word.

The Hebrew language is usually written only in consonants - of which there are 22 in the Hebrew Alphabet. Thus the Hebrew Bible was originally a purely consonantal text. The Masoretic text, however, also has a system of dots and dashes called pointing which has been added to the consonantal text in order to aid pronunciation. This pointing was added in the Medieval period by the Masoretes - hence the title Masoretic text.

This leaves us with the question "What is inspired?" Is the whole Masoretic text inspired, or simply the consonantal text? Jesus was clear on this subject when He declared that no "jot or tittle" shall change in the text of the Word, (Matt 5:18). The "jot" refers to the letter yodh - which is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" is the smallest of strokes which distinguishes between different letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus Jesus appears to be speaking of the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible only - which makes sense considering that the vowels were not in existence at the time.

Case Study

2 Chronicles 3:4

A literal translation of the Hebrew text of the first part of this verse would read:
And the porch which was in front of [the house], the length [was] according to the breadth of the house - twenty cubits, and the height [was] one hundred and twenty …

This verse describes the porch which Solomon builds at the front of the temple. This porch is described as being twenty cubits wide, which is the width of the temple (see 2 Chronicles 3:1-3). The porch is then described as being one hundred and twenty cubits high. The height of the rest of the temple is thirty cubits (see 1 Kings 6:2). This means that the porch reaches ninety cubits above the rest of the temple - a possible location for the upper rooms mentioned in 1 Chronicles 28:11.

This is quite easy to understand and should cause no problem to the translator or reader. Certain modern Bible translators, however, have struggled with this. For example, the New International Version reads: "The portico at the front of the temple was twenty cubits long across the width of the building and twenty cubits high."

The NIV then notes at the foot of the page that the Hebrew reads one hundred and twenty cubits, rather than their twenty cubits. None of the other English translations I consulted do this - only the New International Version. The question is "Why?" The NIV notes that some LXX and Peshitta manuscripts have their twenty cubits. This raises two issues. Firstly, what they have stated is inaccurate. The LXX reading is quite plainly 120 cubits just as in the Hebrew text. The Syriac is alone in its reading of twenty cubits. Secondly, even if the NIV were correct in attributing their twenty cubits reading to the LXX and Syriac versions (which it is not), we are still left with the question as to why trust the LXX and the Peshitta rather than the Hebrew text, when the LXX and Peshitta are often so flawed?

The reason is obvious to those who study the Bible from a "critical" perspective - the "science of textual criticism" as Mr Spencer Gear referred to it in his letter.

Higher critics have, for the last century at least, preferred the reading "twenty cubits" for the height of the temple. Some of them have suggested that even this is incorrect and should be changed to "thirty cubits". They did this because they believe that the Hebrew text is itself corrupted and in need of a critical analysis. Following such a critical analysis, the "errors" which these scholars perceive are then "corrected" according to a number of factors:

1. comparison with the ancient translations mentioned above
2. comparison with non-Biblical and even heathen literature
3. their own ideas

This is the "science of textual criticism". It is supposedly carried out according to rules and principles, but these are very subjective. It all resembles a group of people turning up to play a game of football, but with one small problem - none of them respect the rule book. Bit by bit, as the game wears on, different sections of the rule book of selected, criticised, amended and inserted back into the rule book until, by the end of the game, no spectator can recognise the game being played.

Coming back to 2 Chronicles 3:4, where does all this leave us?

We saw how the New International Version chooses to translate 2 Chron 3:4, not according to the Hebrew text, whose meaning is clear enough, but according to the later Syriac translation and a misunderstanding of the LXX tradition. It is surprising, in view of the corrupt nature of these later translations, that the translators of the New International Version should show so little regard and trust in the Hebrew text.

We are quite prepared to accept the Hebrew text when it says that the height of the temple porch was one hundred and twenty cubits. We are quite happy to humble ourselves and submit to the content of the text of God’s Word. Now all this may seem rather trivial - after all, the height of the porch hardly pertains to salvation does it? But there is a serious point here. The "science of textual criticism" also tells us that the Flood Story is an ancient Near Eastern myth borrowed from the pagan Sumerians. It also tells us that Genesis 1-11 is purely recycled pagan myth. It tells us that Old Testament prophecy was written after the events foretold had occurred and that the Bible was written by means of a process which saw it tossed between rival Jewish factions who all added to it and twisted it to suit their own purposes. Obviously, this is not acceptable.

We believe that the Hebrew text preserved by the Jewish Masoretic tradition was preserved over the centuries, despite appalling persecution against Jewish communities, because it is the inspired Word of God. It was the very presence of the true scriptures amongst those people which stirred the wrath of Satan against them.

While the Roman Catholic Church banned the Bible, and sanctioned only the use of the Latin translation in controlled circumstances, there existed communities of people throughout the world who possessed the original, and preserved it with a reverence and awe worthy of its contents. In preserving the Jewish people, God preserved His Word as He promised to do.

The alternative to this view is rather depressing: If the Hebrew text of the Bible is corrupt, and has to be corrected according to imperfect ancient versions, the logical conclusion would be that God only preserved His Word in an imperfect state, allowing it to be corrupted. Also, Jesus would be made a liar (remember Matt 5:18 as discussed above). Hence God’s perfection and the integrity of His Word is challenged. We dare not challenge either.

[Next time we will examine the textual matters relating to the New Testament which brings up different issues].

God bless, Ed.

[ TOP ]

Appeared in Issue 5 -- Februaury 1999
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3