De Moor II:9: The Authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek Originals Defended, Part 2

But let us see what then they might Object:  these are, for example,

α.  The Mutilation of entire Sentences, examples of which our AUTHOR has from Exodus 2:23 and Romans 3:10-18.

More specifically, 1.  in Exodus 2, after verse 22, is inserted in the Vulgate Version a little verse, which according to the observation of the Most Illustrious BOS also appears in some Manuscripts and Editions of the Septuagint, but which is not found in the Hebrew Codex, saying:  “But he begat another:  whom he called Eliezer, saying:  For the God of my Father is my help, and He has rescued me from the hand of Pharaoh.”  Bellarmine, in book II de Verbo Dei, chapter II, page 87, sets forth this passage as an objection.  But concerning this BUXTORF the Younger responds in his Anticriticis adversus Cappellum, part II, chapter XI, page 801:  “This little verse was copied out of the Septuagint by the Vulgate and inserted here.  Now, the Septuagint transferred this here from Exodus 18:4.  But, since it appears here in no reliable Hebrew Codices, it is to be pricked with a critical mark.”

2.  From Romans 3:10-18 it is not able to be proven that Psalm 14 today is mutilated and deprived of several verses.  For what things Paul cites in this place, were not only sought out of Psalm 14, but out of several texts of the Old Testament contracted into one, as they stand according to the order of the words that occur in Paul, Psalm 14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isaiah 59:7, 8; Psalm 36:1, which is the observation of JEROME, præfatione in libro XVI, Commentario in Jes., opera, tome 5, page 210.  And so, what things are found in Psalm 14 after verse 3 in the Septuagint and Vulgate Versions do not argue a defect in the Hebrew text, but rather the imprudence of those that cram these things from the words of the Apostle in Romans 3, which were drawn from diverse other passages of the Sacred Codex, into the Greek Version.

β.  They object the Changes of certain words.  Thus they maintain:

              1.  That in Psalm 19:4 קַוָּם, their line, was written in the place of קוֹלָם, their sound, for Paul in Romans 10:18 translates it, εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν, their sound went into all the earth:  thus Bellarmine, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter II, column 87.  But, a.  Paul does not allege this passage in a strict manner:  but what things the Psalmist speaks concerning natural Theology, acquired from the daily Providence of God, the Apostle adapts to the proclamation of a supernatural Gospel, and has regard to the sense rather than to the words.  b.  The word קוֹלָם, their voice, had just now preceded at the end of verse 3; perhaps it would have been more injurious to euphony immediately to repeat the same word in verse 4, whence for the sake of variety the Psalmist was able rather to use here the word קַוָּם, their line:  at the same time, Paul was able in turn to take words partly from verse 3 and partly from verse 4, and in the language of φθόγγος/voice/sound to have regard to the word קוֹלָם, their voice, which concludes verse 3, while the rest were taken out of verse 4.  c.  Nevertheless, perhaps the words φθόγγος/voice/sound and קַוָּם, their line, are able to be reconciled to each other also in signification:  since φθόγγος denotes, not only a Sound, but also a Letter in the work of Plutarch[1] on Fabius,[2] with a Diacritical mark; specifically upon a Vowel, as the signification of the composite word διφθόγγου/diphthong is known from the double Vowel.  Now, a Letter is not only what is pronounced with the voice, but also what is written.  Similarly it is able to be observed that קַו/line does not only denote an extended line or plummet, but also a written line, or letter, in which elementary boys are instructed; in which sense perhaps it is able to be taken, which is said relatively to the infantile rudeness of the people of God, Isaiah 28:10, 13, concerning precept after precept, and line after line,צַו לָצָו קַו לָקָו .  And thus both in Psalm 19 and in Romans 10 mention shall be made of Letters instructing, and of Words that are composed of letters.  Whence the Septuagint was also able to translate קַו by φθόγγον/voice/sound, and the Apostle to follow these.

              2.  That in Psalm 22:16 כָּאֲרִי, like a Lion, is written in the place of כָּרוּ, they pierced, my hands and my feet.  This is also an Objection of Bellarmine in the place cited.  In which place Genebrard[3] and Bellarmine, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter II, column 88, think that the Corruption happened accidentally because of the great affinity of י and ו; but Scaliger, de Muis, Hugh Broughton,[4] Junius, Forster,[5] and Hunnius maintain that this passage was intentionally interpolated by the Jews.

Responses:  α.  If the passage be Corrupt, the Corruption is not entire, but כָּאֲרִי, like a lion, and כָּארוּ, they pierced, are able to be held as various Readings; since the marginal Masorah on Numbers 24:9 observes that in certain ancient Codices was read כָּארוּ, they pierced, in the text, כארו כתיב.[6]  Thus Jacob ben Hayyim[7] in the Masorah Magna testifies that in certain accurate or correct exemplars he found כארו, they pierced, written, but in the margin כארי, like a lion, read.  Johannes Isaac, a convert to Christianity from Judaism,[8] testifies against Lindanus, that he found the same in his grandfather’s Psalter:  see OTHO VERBRUGGE’S Observationes philologicas de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, Observation I, § 37-39, pages 40-44; SPANHEIM’S Elenchum Controversiarum cum Judæis, § 33, opera, tome 3, columns 982-984, where he at length commends the reading, כָּארוּ, they pierced, with an epenthetic א[9] from the Matres Lectionis,[10] or כָּרוּ.  Therefore, a slight change in other Codices will be made of the ו into a י.

β.  But neither shall it be so senseless and Judaic, as indeed Junius, Scaliger, and Cappel think, to retain the received Reading even today; which we do so much the more willingly, since almost no Codex today is able to be produced that reads כארו, they pierced, and that word does not come into the record of the קרין וכתיבן, Qere and Kethib, indeed the Masorah observed that at this place כָּאֲרִי, like a lion, is to be read:  see the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE’S Observationes philologicas de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, Observation I, § 39, pages 43, 44, § 58, pages 62, 63.  Now, thus:

              a.  With learned men, among whom are the Most Illustrious JACOB ALTING,[11] in his Fundamentis Punctationis Linguæ Sanctæ, canons LXXI, CLXXVII, pages 99, 383, and in Heptadibus VII, Dissertation V, which is de Integritate vocis כָּאֲרִי, opera, tome 5, pages 214-220; and JOHANN GOTTLOB CARPZOV, in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part III, pages 838, 839:  כארי is able to be thought to be the present participle, plural and masculine, in the Qal, not from the root כָּרָה, to dig through or bore, but from the unusual root כּוּר, of the same signification; whence כּוּר is a smelting-pot, a furnace, or a vessel for melting metals, and כֺּר is a cor, a measure of dry goods; both words mean digging out or hollowing out:  in the same way that דום, to whisper, and דמה, to mumble or be silent, are of similar signification.  Now, in this participle, כארי, a twofold anomaly ought to be noted, but, as those learned Men believe, it is not unusual:  1.  for א, according to the interchangeability of the letters א, ה, ו, and י, here supplies the place of ו, as among the Arameans in the present participle, with a quiescent ו in the midst, ו is wont to be shifted into א; which they also in the Hebrew text wish to obtain, when you read, for example, רָאֲמָה in the place of רָמָה, from רוּם, to be high, Zechariah 14:10.[12]  2.  An Apocope of the final ם in the masculine plural shall obtain here, according to the rule of Rabbi David Kimchi,[13] There are plurals that are used with the hirek (ִי) alone; which they strive to confirm by various examples.  If these things be admitted, their truth, with the learned men instructing, will be consistent with this place of the Masorah, namely, that כארי occurs twice with the same spelling, but with diverse signification, namely, here and in Isaiah 38:13:[14]  here it shall be a participle, in Isaiah a noun with a prefix; here it shall denote those piercing, in Isaiah as a Lion.  And thus, with every difficulty removed, the Versions shall best answer to the text, both the Septuagint, which has ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας, they bored my hands and feet, and the Syriac and Arabic, which similarly judged that the כארי is to be translated by they dug.  Indeed,

              b.  It is not fitting to have recourse without necessity to an uncommon root, and a manifest double anomaly in the same word.  The Most Illustrious SCHULTENS, in his Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ ad regulam CLXXVII, consequently observes:  “Learned Men maintain that כָּאֲרִי in Psalm 22:16 was formed from כּוּר, to dig, so that it might be those digging, with the ם/Mem of the plural omitted.  To me the analysis always seemed safer in deriving the word from אֲרִי, so that it might be as a Lion.”  Who in the same place on regulam LXXI advises:  “It is not to be admitted, what the great Grammarians relate concerning the absolute, plural ending, upon the long hirek (ִי) without the ם/Mem.  The examples which are wont to be adduced convey something else; and the form of the same is undoubtedly singular.”  The same opinion the Most Illustrious OTHO VERBRUGGE tries, with great pains, to establish, Observationibus philologicis de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, pages 1-102, where in his first observation he asserts, pages 1, 2, “Common indeed, but erroneous, is the opinion that states that the letter ם/Mem in nouns of the plural number, absolute, is cut off by the Hebrews by apocope.”  And he adds, “As I think, all these are actually nouns of the singular number, which either end in י/Yod, or have י/Yod as an inseparable pronoun affixed to the end.  Nevertheless, if anyone should think that in one and another example a paragogic י/Yod is given, I would not will to disagree vehemently with him.”  Thus, in § 40-60, pages 44-65, in particular he contends that כארי in Psalm 22:16 is conflated from the prefix כ/Caph/as, which thrusts out the emphatic ה/He, and the substantive noun ארי/Lion, so that it might be written in full, כהארי, and might signify after the likeness of that Lion,[15] that is, after the likeness of a great or excellent Lion.  With which Most Illustrious Men, after VOETIUS in his Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, pages 52-59, MARCKIUS in his Analysi Exegetica of Isaiah 53, § 56-59, and others, I believe that the common exposition of the Jews is not wrongly retained, JUST AS A LION my hands and my feet:  whether they handled, bruised, pierced, bit, be understood from elsewhere besides; ellipses of words of this sort, especially in complaints, through aposiopesis,[16] are very common:  or from the preceding part of the verse, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ,[17] the word הִקִּיפוּנִי, they have inclosed me, be understood, either in the sense of enclosing, surrounding, which sense, from יקף, in the prior member of the verse this word appears to have from a comparison with the conjoined verb סְבָבוּנִי, they have compassed me; when in this compassing the comparison of the wicked men with a Lion nevertheless implies the goal of piercing, which follows of its own accord from the compassing ascribed to a rending Lion:  or the same word here, repeated here, is able to be reckoned unto another signification than a little previously admitted, from נקף, denoting shattering, excision, piercing, concussing with a blow so powerful that marrow is spattered all around:  unless this latter signification be now admitted in the former member of the verse also, and we translate this phrase:  Dogs compassed me about; the assembly of the wicked pierced me after the likeness of that Lion in my hands and my feet; with the use of the Verb נקף in the Piel in Job 19:26[18] compared, and, as some maintain, in the Hiphil also in Leviticus 19:27,[19] which opinion the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE prefers to the others, Observationibus philologicis de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, Observation I, § 40, pages 44, 45, while concerning the sense of the verb נקף are worthy to be consulted the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS in his Originibus Hebræis, book I, chapter XII, and Vindiciis, Section XIII; likewise also the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET in his Adnotationibus ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, tome 3, chapter XVII, pages 343, 344.  Certainly this interpretation of the word כארי, as a Lion, with one supplement added or another only named, 1.  will be the simplest.  2.  Thus our passage will agree so much better in sense with Isaiah 38:13, with which, with respect to the phrases, it has great agreement, כָּֽאֲרִ֔י כֵּ֥ן יְשַׁבֵּ֖ר כָּל־עַצְמוֹתָ֑י, as a lion, so will he break all my bones.  3.  Comparison with a Lion is not unusual in this Psalm, comparing verses 13 and 21.  4.  Thus an elegant gradation obtains here, from the similitude of encircling Dogs to Lions more powerful and fierce.  5.  And, with mention made of a Lion in addition, the ferocity of the enemies and the savageness of the piercing beyond the piercing itself is powerfully signified.  Unless in this Lion there be thought concerning Messiah himself, as it seems right to the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE, Observationibus philologicis de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, Observation I, § 60, pages 64, 65, “What? that the similitude of a Lion beautifully agrees with this passage, whether you think that that cruelty is indicated, with which enemies were someday going to destroy the Messiah, and were going to pierce His hands and feet, as in a similar manner Messiah speaks in verse 13, their mouth against me they gaped, after the likeness of a tearing and roaring lion:  or, which I greatly prefer, you think that in verse 16 regard is had to a Lion captured and slaughtered by hunters, the cadaver of which, with spikes driven through the anterior and posterior feet, would be suspended in this manner, as it was customary for hunters to suspend wild animals from walls or trees.  Certainly, if you so take it, the punishment of the Cross, which was not in use among the ancient Hebrews, is so artfully depicted in this prophecy, that, if you diligently peruse the Gospels, which narrate the death of Jesus, that Lion of Judah, the most elegant answering of the event to this prophecy is as clear as clear can be.”

Neither are the scruples, moved against this exegesis, of any moment; for example, a.  that כ/like/as in כָּאֲרִי, like a lion, is not a servile letter, because it is pointed with a Qametz (ָ).  Response:  The same obtains in Isaiah 38:13, and it is the indication of the emphatic ה having been thrust out:  compare VERBRUGGE, Observationibus philologicis de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, Observation I, § 41-43, pages 45-48.

b.  That the preceding הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי, they have inclosed me, is not able to be drawn to this, on account of the intervening Athnah accent (֑),[20] and the difference of number between that verb and the noun Lion.  But, a.  the disjunction introduced by the Athnah, which often is not so great, does not hinder the relation of the Verb, הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי, to the following words, or the repetition ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ[21] of the same verb, or the ellipsis of another:  compare the use of the Athnah in verse 13[22] and Genesis 1:1;[23] and see VOETIUS in his Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, page 53.  b.  Lion is set down in the singular to signify only this genus of animal, and הִקִּיפוּנִי, they have inclosed me, does not necessarily have to answer to אֲרִי/ lion, but either to the plural מְרֵעִים, the wicked, or to the word עֵדָה/ assembly taken collectively; compare the construction in verse 13:  see again VERBRUGGE, in the place cited, § 44-47, pages 48-52.

c.  They appeal to the Masorah, which says that this word, כארי, is to be explained in this place differently than in Isaiah 38:13:  but, a.  its Authority is human, and, especially when it treats of the interpretation of words, fallible.  b.  As the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE observes, the Masorah nowhere teaches that כארי in Psalm 22:16 is to be explained by כָּרוּ, they pierced, or to be explicated of piercing; neither is it duly proven from the Masorah that כארי is to be taken differently in Psalm 22:16 and Isaiah 38:13, but the Masorah, everywhere כארי occurs, wants it to be taken as a composite word, from the כ of similitude and אֲרִי/ Lion, so that א and ר might be the first two radical letters of this composite word.  Now, as far as the dual notion of the word כארי observed by the Masoretes is concerned, they understood this, according to the judgment of the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE, only of a simple or emphatic notion:  since כארי occurs twice with the Patach (ַ) under the כ, namely, in Numbers 24:9[24] and Ezekiel 22:25;[25] and twice emphatically with the Qametz (ָ) under the כ, as an indication of the ה having been thrust out, namely, in Isaiah 38:13 and Psalm 22:16:  see VERBRUGGE, in the place cited, § 48-58, pages 52-63, where he explains various places in the Masorah, and from the Final Masorah Magna he tries to remove the error of Isaiah 38:13 substituted in the place of Numbers 24:9.

d.  They urge the Version of the Septuagint.[26]  Response:  They perhaps read it differently, or had regard unto the sense, not unto the word.

The opinion, in which we thus acquiesce, is also embraced by the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET, Thesibus scripturarum, DVI, DVII, which reads thus:  “The exceedingly vexed word, כארי, in Psalm 22:16, has nothing that might argue any corruption of the sacred Text.  For, what some codices read as כארו by ו, it is evident from the Masorah itself and from elsewhere that it is not so ancient; neither is it able to be elicited out of the Viralis Septuagint Version…or others, nor out of the testimonies of the Fathers, who attribute to this word the signification of piercing.  But optimally and most simply, and with both verse 14 and the related expression in Isaiah 38:13 supporting, כארי is able to be rendered after the likeness of a Lion; only interpret the preceding הִקִּיפוּנִי, they have inclosed me, not from קוף, to go round, as elsewhere, but from the verb נָקַף, to surround, or to strike off or wound, with the first נ/Nun missing.”

Reverend OUTHOF, Bibliotheca Bremensi, classis V, fascicle III, chapter II, pages 407-417, set forth and busied himself to commend a new exposition of the word, כארי, in which he holds כָּרִי with an epenthetic א[27] in this place for a verbal adjective from the verb כָּרָה, which denotes to bore, to transfix; so that the sense might be, they encircled me (now affixed to the cross), having been pierced in my hands and feet, or with respect to my hands and feet.  But this opinion the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE, in the place previously cited, § 20-36, pages 23-40, refutes chiefly from this, that, as the Most Illustrious JACOB ALTING has already previously observed also, in his Heptadibus VII, Dissertation V, § 42, no term is given in the Hebrew tongue, in which, if one derives the origin from a Verb with a quiescent ה in the third radical, the second letter of which is not an א, an א is placed by epenthesis after the first letter of the root, and a Qametz (ָ) and a Hateph-Pathah (ֲ) are added, of which sort none is produced by Outhof:  Indeed, in all the examples alleged by him, Verbrugge shows no term to be given, in which properly speaking an epenthetic א/Aleph occurs; but that always it is either a radical א, or an א that has been exchanged with a radical letter, or an א that pertains to the very form of the word.  Hence too rashly does the Most Illustrious T. DE HAZE, in notis ad Outhovii Observationes, in the place cited of Bibliothecæ Brememsis, pages 412, 413, confess that he had all but been drawn unto assent by Outhof, unless the unique authority of John had hindered, following in the citation of Psalm 22:16 the Septuagint Version, which rendered כארי as ὤρυξαν, they pierced:  while nevertheless the Apostle John in his writings nowhere appeals to Psalm 22:16, neither does he relate the words of this verse; see VERBRUGGE, in the place cited, § 21, pages 24, 25.

              3.  What corruption is able to be inferred fromוַיִּקְרָ֙א שְׁמ֜וֹ, and he shall call His name, Isaiah 9:6, in the place of, and it shall be called, as it is in the Vulgate, I for my part do not see:  since it is a well-known observation on the Syntax of the Hebrew tongue that verbs of the third person are frequently used indefinitely, and, as it were, impersonally, with no nominative expressed; which, by multiple examples, among which also is this text, the elder BUXTORF illustrates, Thesauro Grammatico, pages 417, 418.  And he shall call signifies each one shall call, which is equivalent to the impersonal, and He shall be called.

And so Bellarmine holds himself up to ridicule, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter 2, column 86, when, so that he might prove that the opinion of the fundamental purity of the Hebrew text is most manifestly false, argues in this manner:  “For in the first place Calvin contends that Isaiah 9 is to be read, and it shall be called wonderful, etc.:  but the Hebrew text simply does not have it shall be called, that is, יִקָּרֵא,[28] but he shall call, יִקְרָא;[29] and Calvin was not ignorant that in this place the Vulgate edition is better than the Hebrew.”

γ.  They object the great number of Variant Readings in the Sacred Text.

Response:  These are not hurtful to the unspoiled integrity of the Sacred Text, since we assert the purity of the Founts, not in all and every copy, but in the more approved and exact; and those, not individually, but taken conjointly.

א.  The Variant Readings of this sort in the Hebrew Text are, 1.  Either חִלּוּפִין שֶׁבֵּין מֲעַרְבָּאֵי וּמַדִּנְחָאֵי, Variations that come between Western and Eastern Codices.  The Western take their origin from the Palestinian Codices; the Eastern, from the Babylonian Codices.  Now, of what age and of what authority the index of these variant Readings may be, is unknown.  Two hundred and sixteen Various Readings are enumerated, all which, with two exceptions, have to do with letters and words:  but they are quite trivial, neither do they at all damage the sense.  The Masoretes followed the Reading of the Western Codices, and the Palestinian and European Jews all prefer this to the other.  Or, 2.  חלופין שבין בני אשר ובין בני נפתלי, Dissensions that arose between the sons of Asher and the sons of Naphtali concerning the reading of the Sacred Codex.  Rabbi Aaron ben Moses of the tribe of Asher and Rabbi Moses ben David of the tribe of Naphtali are said to be the Collector of these; the former of whom is set forth as having taught in the Tiberian Academy of Palestine,[30] whence the other, ben Naphtali, is believed to have flourished in Babylon.[31]  [Indeed, GIULIO BARTOLOCCI,[32] in his Bibliotheca Rabbinica Magna, tome I, page 93, maintains that both Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali lived in Babylonia, with BUDDEUS likewise informing, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1468b; but, as CARPZOV has it, where he discusses these Variant Readings, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter VII, § 7, number 2, pages 359, 360, thus BARTOLOCCI judges, supported by no adequate testimonies:  while also another error of BARTOLOCCI concerning these same Variant Readings, after WOLF, CARPZOV notes in the same place.]  These Various Readings have to do, not with letters and words, but only with the Vowels, long or short, and the Accents minor, etc., so that neither the form nor the signification of a word is changed one whit by the same.  They are numbered at eight hundred and sixty-four.  All the European copies both of the Jews and of the Christians follow the reading of Ben Asher.  To which two, 3.  the Indices of the various Readings, which are from time to time made by Christians from the observed diversity in the published Bibles, agree.  But especially, 4.  in the Hebrew Bible are to be noted the differences between the Qere and Kethibh, or what is Read and what is Written, or קַרְיָן וְכַתְבָּן, of which sort of Readings Elias Levita enumerates eight hundred and forty-eight.  Concerning which, so that I might study brevity, I will only mention the hypothesis of CARPZOV, painstakingly discussing these many in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter VII, pages 328-364; which hypothesis, according to the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS, in his Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ, Section II, § 25, page 98, is conceived and deduced with great judgment.  CARPZOV reckons, a.  that a comparison of the Best Codices, reading in a disparate manner in this places, furnished the first origin and occasion of the קַרְיָן וְכַתְבָּן, Qere and Kethibh, to which, a little afterwards, or even at the same time, which is left an open question, a reading of honest words in the place of obscene, and one or another interpretation of the Rabbis, is added, even critically, but with the utmost brevity.  But this work, b.  if any time is to be assigned to it, he thinks to have been undertaken and completed thence from 164 BC and onward, since, after worship and the ancestral religion were restored from the profanation of Antiochus Epiphanes, pious and holy men of the Jews under the auspices of Judas Maccabæus would have expended serious care of the sacred Volumes, and the Churches, having been liberated from the tyranny of enemies, would have made provision for new copies of the Books:  unto which end he maintains that they sent for the most excellent Babylonian exemplar and compared it with the Jerusalem, noted the Various Readings observed from the comparison, so that it might exhibit the reading of the Palestinians as כתיב/Kethibh/ written, but the Babylonian as קרי/Qere/read.  Within the Text they were preserving the written כתיב, which they discovered in the most approved, ancestral Codices; but the Babylonian reading was placed in the margin, so that the Palestinians might be taught how the word was to be pronounced within the reading.  At the same time, they also exchanged the points, and referred the superscripted marks of the textual reading to the margin, with the points from the marginal reading admitted under the כתיב/Kethibh, removing neither completely nor causing them to be passed over in silence:  whence it appears why strange points were subjoined to the כתיב/Kethibh.  c.  With respect to the nature and character of the קַרְיָן וְכַתְבָּן, Qere and Kethibh, CARPZOV observes that those are able to be referred to three sorts, so that, α.  some relate the Various Readings of the Codices, as there are many of these, which have to do with the letters אהוי[33] either abounding, or wanting, or transposed:  β.  Others are indices of the genuine Reading, in places that argue a manifest lapse on the parts of the scribes, as they are read and not written, written and not read; likewise places in which a metathesis[34] of letters produces a fault, as when לֹא/lo/not erroneously crept in for לוֹ/lo, for him, and vice versa:  γ.  Others relate the Rabbis’  εὐλάβειαν/discretion and modesty before the public assembly, where they substituted things more chaste in the place of things obscene, not because they thus read it in the other Codex of the Text, but so that they might look to the modesty of the delicate, and more oppose the shamelessness of the impudent.

From the things said, it is evident that the Qere and Kethibh, no more than the other Collections of Variant Readings, make to prove the Corruption of the Hebrew Text; but that a careful observation of the Variant Readings of this sort makes to protect the integrity of the Text from corruption.

It is only left to ask, whether the genuine and authentic Reading is to be sought in the כתיב/Kethibh, what is written, or in the קרי/Qere, what is read?  α.  The Jews, and with them Avenarius,[35] Hackspan,[36] Schickard,[37] Hottinger, and Amama,[38] judge that it is to be fixed soley to the קרי/Qere.  β.  There are those who, with the קרי/Qere rejected, defend the one and only כתיב/Kethibh, like Danzius[39] after Voetius:  from whom SCHULTENS, does not much recede, writing in his Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ, page 98:  “In general I am able to say that the כתיב/Kethibh, as it is more ancient, so it is generally more genuine than the קרי/Qere, which I previously suggested to have emanated from most diverse founts.”  γ.  CARPZOV rightly admonishes that no Codex is to be deprived of the קרי/Qere; but that, with both Readings of קרי/Qere and כתיב/Kethibh duly recorded, the weights, which militate for each, are to be rightly weighed out to the Interpreter, and finally that which overcomes the other by analogy of sense, of parallel places, and of the language, is to be held as authentic; with these Canons employed:  1.  In Passages, which put more honest vocabulary in the place of the obscene, the כתיב/Kethibh is to be insisted on expressly.  2.  In those, where there is a manifest distraction of the copyist, the קרי/Qere is to be preferred.  3.  In those, where the sense of each Reading is indeed disparate, yet reconciliable and suitable; let that Reading be chosen and held as divine, which agrees more exactly with the context, the analogy of the Language, the accentuation, and the parallel places.  4.  In those, where a contrary sense emerges, affirmative and negative at the same time, that one Reading is only to be held that outweighs the other in all matters rightly considered:  compare VOETIUS’ Disputationum Theologicarum, volume I, pages 35-37.  One may read the opinions of several others concerning the קַרְיָן וְכַתְבָּן, Qere and Kethibh, reviewed in CARPZOV’S Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter VII, with commentary.  Also the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE briefly set forth his opinion concerning this matter in Observationibus philologicis de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, observation I, in which place see § 74, 75, pages 79-81.

ב.  Similarly, against the Authenticity of the Greek Text of the New Testament a difficulty is moved both by Naturalists and by the Jews, from the immense number of Variant Readings found there:  but which one may see entirely removed by STAPFER, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 136-139, pages 974-976, 980, 981, and tome 3, chapter XI, section I, § 336, 273-275; BUDDEUS, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, pages 1499b-1502a; PETRUS DINANT, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 120-129, pages 975-994.

δ.  That I might add this one, They object against us the authorities of the Fathers also, who do not conceal that the Codices in their time were corrupted to a remarkable degree:  how they appeal to Epiphanius, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Suidas[40] on Lucian the Martyr,[41] compare with Johann von Wowern’s[42] de Polymathia, chapter XVIII, § 7; consult CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter III, § 6, number 12, page 123, while Bellarmine, de Verbo Dei, book II, chapter II, column 89, Controversiis, tome I, cites other testimonies of the Fathers concerning the Corruption of Scripture, namely, Justin, Eusebius, Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome.

Responses:  1.  The Fathers everywhere complained of the Corruption, not of the Hebrew Text, but of the Septuagint Greek Version…viralis; and Jerome sometimes also concerning the Corrupted Latin Versions, which were circulating among the common people at that time, and which he was recalling to the Hebrew founts.  Thus Bellarmine himself, in the very same column, answers, “Justin and Eusebius nowhere wrote that the Hebrew text was corrupted by the Hebrews, but rather the Greek text of the Seventy Interpreters….  Origen also clearly speaks of the corruption of the Septuagint Version….  Moreover, Chrysostom speaks of the Jewish Translators, namely, Aquila,[43] Symmachus,[44] Theodotion,[45] etc….  Concerning which Jerome also speaks in an Epistle to Augustine….  But Jerome in the commentaries cited doubts, does not assert, the same.  But in his Commentariis Jesaiæ, which he wrote afterwards…he openly ridicules those that think that the Hebrew Codices were falsified.”

2.  But if some in the Ancient Church detracted somewhat from the Hebrew Codex, the error arose from the ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue, and the fabulous prejudice concerning the Septuagint Version, miraculously produced and ἀναμαρτήτῳ, without error.

Concerning the Ancient Heretics as Corruptors of Sacred Scripture, consult WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book III, exercitation VIII, § 7, pages 739, 740.

To the whole of § 9 compare also CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter III, which is de Puritate et Integritate Codicis Hebræi, pages 90-132; and also GERHARD’S[46] Confessionem catholicam, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter II, where in thesis II he proves against the Papists that the Hebrew Edition of the Books of the Old Testament have not been corrupted, pages 77-104, in thesis III that the Greek Edition of the Books of the New Testament have not been corrupted, pages 104-123; PETRUS DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 87-119, pages 904-974, where he especially disputes against Meiboom and Simon.  In particular, against MARCUS MEIBOOM’S Specimen Emendationum et Interpretationum Biblicarum, see JACOBUS TRIGLAND the Younger’s[47] Dissertationem, quæ continet Integritatis Codicis Sacræ adversus Nuperas in eum censuras Defensionem, in Sylloge Dissertationum, pages 293-408.  Against rashly attempted emendation of the Sacred Text, and against some specimens of the criticism of this sort of Tan. Fabri and Bentley concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament, see MOSHEIM’S[48] Observationes sacras, book I, chapter I, § 20-22, pages 78-102.  Read similarly JAKOB HASE’S[49] dissertationem de Glossematibus quorundam locorum Novi Testamenti, written with the same intention, Bibliotheca Bremensi, volume I, fascicule V, chapter III, pages 687-738.

[1] Mestrius Plutarchus (c. 46-127) was a Greek historian.

[2] “Fabius Maximus” in Roman Lives.

[3] Gilbert Genebrard (1535-1597) was a French Benedictine scholar, specializing in Oriental studies.  He served the Roman Church as a professor of Hebrew at the Collège Royal, and later as Archbishop of Aix.  He is especially noteworthy for his commentary on the Psalms and his translation of rabbinic works into Latin.

[4] Hugh Broughton (1549-1612) was an English divine, sympathetic to the Puritans.  He developed an international reputation for his Hebrew scholarship.

[5] Johannes Forster (1495-1556) was a German Lutheran Theologian and Hebraist, author of Dictionarii Hebraici.

[6] Numbers 24:9a:  “He couched, he lay down as a lion (כַּאֲרִי), and as a great lion:  who shall stir him up?...”

[7] Jacob ben Hayyim (c. 1470-c. 1538) converted to Christianity from Judaism.  He worked as a printer, and was engaged as a corrector of Bomberg’s edition of the Hebrew Old Testament.  An expert in the Masoretic notes, he produced a Rabbinical Bible, which supplied the Masorah.

[8] Johannes Isaac (1515-1577) was Professor of Hebrew at Cologne (1551-1577).

[9] That is, the addition of a sound to the interior of the word.

[10] That is, mothers of reading, certain Hebrew consonants (א, ה, ו, י) used to indicate vowel sounds.

[11] Jacob Alting (1618-1679) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Hebraist.  At Groningen he served as Professor of Hebrew (1643-1667), and then as Professor of Theology (1667-1677).

[12] Zechariah 14:10:  “All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up (וְרָאֲמָה), and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin’s gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king’s winepresses.”

[13] David Kimchi (c. 1160-1235) was a famous Spanish Rabbi.  He wrote a commentary on the entire Old Testament and a Hebrew grammar, as a result of which he has long been respected for his profound scholarship.

[14] Isaiah 38:13:  “I reckoned till morning, that, as a lion (כָּאֲרִי), so will he break all my bones:  from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me.”

[15] When an inseparable preposition, like כ, is prefixed to a word with the definite article ה, the ה disappears, but there is a compensatory lengthening of the vowel to a Qametz (ָ).

[16] The rhetorical breaking off of a sentence, as if through an inability or unwillingness to proceed.

[17] That is, two clauses having a word in common.

[18] Job 19:26:  “And though after my skin worms struck off (נִקְּפוּ) this, yet in my flesh shall I see God”

[19] Leviticus 19:27:  “Ye shall not round (תַקִּפוּ) the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.”

[20] Psalm 22:16:  “For dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me (הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי):  they pierced my hands and my feet.”  The Athnah is the strongest disjunctive accent within a verse.

[21] That is, two clauses having a word in common.

[22] Psalm 22:13:  “They opened upon me their mouth (פִּיהֶ֑ם), a ravening and a roaring lion.”

[23] Genesis 1:1:  “In the beginning God created (בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים) the heaven and the earth.”

[24] Numbers 24:9a:  “He couched, he lay down as a lion (כַּאֲרִי), and as a great lion:  who shall stir him up?”

[25] Ezekiel 22:25a:  “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion (כַּאֲרִי) ravening the prey; they have devoured souls…”

[26] Psalm 22:16:  “For dogs have compassed me:  the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:  they pierced my hands and my feet (ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας, they pierced my hands and feet).”

[27] That is, the addition of a sound to the interior of the word.

[28] In the Niphal conjugation.

[29] In the Qal conjugation.

[30] Rabbi Aaron ben Moses ben Asher (died c. 960) was a Jewish scribe, expert in the Tiberian system of Hebrew vocalization.  His edition of the Masoretic Text is generally recognized as the most accurate.

[31] Rabbi Ben Naphtali (flourished c. 890-940) was a Jewish scribe; his edition of the Hebrew Text differed from that of Ben Asher in some things, mostly in accentuation.

[32] Giulio Bartolocci (1613-1687) was an Italian Cistercian and Hebraist.  He published a four-volume Bibliothecam Magnam Rabbinicam, the first, grand attempt to provide an accounting of Jewish literature.

[33] The Matres Lectionis, certain Hebrew consonants (א, ה, ו, י) used to indicate vowel sounds.

[34] That is, a transposition.

[35] Johann Habermann (1516-1590) was a Lutheran pastor and theologian.  He served as Professor of Hebrew at Jena (1573-1574), and Professor of Theology at Wittenberg (1574-1576).

[36] Theodoricus Hackspan (1607-1659) was a Lutheran divine and eminent Oriental scholar.  He served at Altdorf as Professor of Hebrew (1636-1654), and Professor of Theology (1654-1659).

[37] Wilhelm Schickard (1592-1635) was a Lutheran pastor, Hebraist, and theologian.  He served at Tubingen as Professor of Hebrew (1619-1631), and Professor of Astronomy (1632-1635).

[38] Sixtinus Amama (1593-1629) was Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1613) and at Franeker (1618), succeeding John Drusius.  He is remembered for his skill in Oriental languages and his defense of the ultimate authority of the original texts of Scripture.

[39] Johann Andreas Danz (1654-1727) was a Lutheran Orientalist and theologian.  He served at Jena as Professor of Oriental Languages (1685-1710), and Professor of Theology (1710-1727).

[40] Suidas was the compiler of the Suda, an encyclopedia containing more than thirty thousand entries concerning the ancient Mediterranean world.  It was probably composed in tenth-century Byzantium.

[41] Lucian of Antioch (c. 240-312) was an elder, theologian, educator (founding a school at Antioch), and martyr.  He is credited with a critical recension of the Septuagint and Greek New Testament, used by later Greek Fathers.

[42] Johann von Wowern (1574-1612) was a German philologist and churchman.

[43] Aquila of Sinope produced his Greek version of the Old Testament in the second century of the Christian era.  Aquila’s translation champions the cause of Judaism against Christianity in matters of translation and interpretation.  The product is woodenly literalistic.

[44] Symmachus (second century) produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which survives only in fragments.  Symmachus’ work is characterized by an apparent concern to render faithfully the Hebrew original, to provide a rendering consistent with the rabbinic exegesis of his time, and to set forth the translation in simple, pure, and elegant Septuagint-style Greek.

[45] Theodotion was a linguist and convert to Judaism, who translated the Hebrew Scripture into Greek in the middle of the second century AD.  His translation appears to be an attempt to bring the Septuagint into conformity with the Hebrew text.

[46] John Gerhard (1582-1637) was an eminent Lutheran divine.  He held the position of Professor of Divinity at Jena (1616), and he was four times the Rector of the same.  He wrote copiously in exegetical, polemical, and dogmatic theology.  His Loci communes theologici (1610-1622) was the largest Lutheran dogmatic text that had been produced to date.

[47] Jacobus Trigland the Younger (1652-1705) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian.  Beginning in 1686, he served as Professor of Theology at Leiden.

[48] Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) was a German Lutheran church historian.  He is especially remembered for his Institutionum historiæ ecclesiasticæ.

[49] Jakob Hase (1691-1723) was Professor of Philosophy at the Bremen gymnasium.