Abbreviations were usuallj^ made bj' writing the first letter of a word and appending a small stroke or two to indicate the omission of some letters. Hence the omis- sion was sometimes erroneously supplied, or the abbre- viated word was considered complete in itself. Thus, mni was shortened into 1 or 1. In Isa. xlii, 19, the Sept. has translated ilini I^JfD by 6 Soi\6q /xov, showing that they mistook ^ 13S>D for 113S3. So also in Jer. vi, 11, iTini P^PI, the fury of Jehovah, is translated by the Sept. Bvfuiv ^lov, showing that they mistook 1 PTOn for T72n; Psa. xxxi, 7, inX3'iJ, / hate, all ancient translators understood for mST' PX3UJ, thou. Lord, hatest ; and this reading is found in Cod. 170. It is well known that the Jews did not divide a word between two lines. When there was a vacant space at the end of a line too small to contain the next word, they added letters to fill it up and preserve the uniform appearance of the copy. These supernumerary letters were generally the initials of the following word, though it was written entire in the next line. Ignorant tran- scribers may have taken these superfluous letters, called custodes linearum, " keepers of the lines," into the text. Thus it is thought by some that in Isa. xxxv, 1, the com- mon reading 131^ DVi'D"' arose from -i31'C D liriyi, by joining the superfluous fZ to the end of the verb. On the other hand, transcribers suspected the existence of these custodes lineai-um in places where they did not occur, and omitted part of the text. So in Exod. xxxi, 8 the word bs, " all," appears to have been omitted be-
VARIOUS READINGS
726
VAROTARI
cause of the following I^SD. The omitted word is found in the oldest versions. Errors also arose from taking marginal annotations into the text. Probably Isa. vii, 17 furnishes an example, for the clause "iViyX ~5T3 rS is unsuitable. To such marginal annotations must be ascribed those passages in which to one word a second or even a third translation is added. Thus in 1 Sam. xii, 14 the Sept. reads, for 13ni:j"i 501, Kai ov KaTt^vci- (TTlvaag ///(af (icai ov tS^Xarrag (//(Of)-
In some cases the IMS. itself may have been the cause of errors, be it that it was illegible or that some letters ■were obliterated. After all, it must be obvious that no intentional errors were made, and the existence of vari- ous readings is i)urely accidental.
II. Intentionul Errors. — After what has been said, it would be useless to speak of in/en/ionnl errors were it not for the very fact that Church fathers, Jlohammed, and scholars of renown have brought such a charge against the Jews. But the charge has not been substan- tiated. Their veneration for the sacred books was too great to allow them to make alterations, knowing them to be wrong. Josephus {Cont. Apkm. i, 8) says, ToirojV Tov yap (ila)i'oc i'lSrj Trap<i)\i](c6T0(;, ovTt Trpoff^tli'ai TIC ovCiv, ovTt a((>tXi!v ai'ruiv, ovri f^itra^tlvai rt- roX//(/fOf )'; and Eusebius {Prtep. Eraiiff. y'm, 6) cites from Piiilo: M») piJiJ-ct yt avTovg iiovov tiLv inr airov (IVIoses) yiypaj-if^iiViov Kwijnai, aWu Kai> fivpiriKiQ av- Toi'Q dTTiiiavriv v7roi.ith>ai ^cittov, tj roic tKEivov v6- (loig Kcit tSreaiv ivavria TreKrSriji'ai. Like the Samari- tans, the early Christians brought the accusation of cor- rupting the text against the Jews. But these were not competent witnesses or righteous accusers. For when the Jews quoted from the Hebrew Bible passages differ- ing from the Sept., which some of the fathers regarded as inspired, it was verj' easy to say that the Jews had corrupted Scripture in such places. This was all the reply tiiey could make, being themselves ignorant of the Hebrew original. It was different with Moham- med (see the Koran, sura ii, 73, 176-178; iii.lS8; v, 17). His charge is equally directed against Christians as against .Jews, because of his inability to find any sup- port in the Scriptures for his prophetical pretensions.
The earliest among Christians wlio made the charge against the Jews of corrupting the text was Justin IVIar- tjT (comp. Tri/pho, c. 71, 72, 73), who was followed by Irenjeus, Tertullian, and others. All these fathers knew nothing of Hebrew; they had to avail themselves of the Sept. Of more importance is the testimony of Ori- gan and Jerome, because they knew Hebrew. It is true that Jerome, in his Commentary on Galaiians Hi, appears, indeed, to charge the Jews with erasing the word 5D in Dent, xxvii, 2() ; for he says, " Incertum habemus utrum LXX iuterpretes addiderint Deut. xxvii, 26 omnis homo et in omnibus, an in veteri Hebrteo ita fuerit et postea a Judicis deletum sit. . . . Quam ob causam Samaritano- rum Hebnca volumina relegens inveni ?D scriptum esse et cum LXX interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulennit Judffii, ut videreiitur esse sub maledicto, si non possent omnia complere qii* scrt]ita sunt: cum antiquiores alterius quoque gentis literaj id positum fu- isse testentur." But this charge does not appear to have been his deliberate opinion, as can be seen from his CommenUirti on Isaiah,' ch. vi, where he says, "Quodsi a)i()uts dixerit, Hebraaos libros postea a JudiBis esse falsatos, audiat Origenera, ()uid in octavo volumine explanationuin Esaiie huic respondeat cpia^stiuncuhe: quod nun(piam Dominus et A|iostoli, qui cwtcra crimina argiunit in scribis et Pharis.ws, de hoc crimine, (piod erat maximum, rcticuissent, sin autem dixerint post ad- ventum Domini Salvatoris et prredicationem Apostolo- rum libros Hebrseos fuisse falsatos, cachinnnm tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangelists et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judaji postea falsaturi erant." In spite of this important testimony, there were not wanting some who renewed the old charge. Foremost