Scholarly Myths Perpetuated On Rejecting the Masoretic
Text of the Old Testament
Dr. Thomas M. Strouse
Dean, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, Newington,
Connecticut
[Because of space limitations, Dr. Strouse’s work will
be presented in sections over the next several editions of the DBS News.
Footnotes will be placed at the end of each section. He discusses a total
of 5 myths.]
Paul warned Timothy about promoting fables (i.e., myths
[muthoi]) in the Ephesian church. He stated "Neither give heed to
fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly
edifying which is in faith: so do." (I Tim. 1:4). Biblical critics
have rejected the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT and perpetuated
historical myths about the language and text of the OT. Several fallacious
corollaries stem from these diabolical myths.
The popular expression of the
mythical views of the language and text of the OT follows these fallacious
assumptions: 1) The language God gave Adam in the garden is unknown. No
one knows what the divinely given "mother tongue" was. 2) The Hebrew
language, in consonantal form only, evolved from the Canaanite language
around 1200 BC.1 3) Through Alexander the Great Greek culture
and language permeated the Mediterranean Basin resulting in the wide
spread usage of the Greek OT (LXX). Christ and the early Christians used
the LXX for evangelistic purposes.2 4) The LXX flour- ished
between 200 BC and AD 100 in the Near East. After this period the Hebrew
language came back in vogue among the Jews.3 5) Somewhere
between AD 600-1000, the Masoretic scribes invented a vowel pointing
system for the consonantal Hebrew text,4 resulting in the
inaccurately transliter- ated name, Jehovah, among other infelicities.5
6) The Reformers used the inferior Masoretic text for their translations
of the OT. 7) Critical Biblical scholarship (19th century) realized the MT
was inferior and began to correct it with the Greek OT translation (LXX),
the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), and other ancient authorities. Critical
scholars are still tweaking the Hebrew text in order to give some
assurance to Christians of what God has said in the OT.6 8)
Christians should thank God for textual critics who have restored the OT
and NT texts to such an advanced degree of certainty and authority. 9)
Furthermore, since Christ and the Apostles used the loose and poor LXX as
their translation, Christians then have the precedence to use a similar
quality of translation today, especially as found in the modern
translations.
These historical myths and supporting corollaries
diametrically oppose the reception of the Masoretic text as the Hebrew
text behind the Authorized Version. The perpetuation of these deceptive
propositions seriously weakens confidence in the Authorized Version. Yet
if these are truly myths then why do Bible scholars of all stripes,
including fundamentalists, perpetuate them? The writer’s purpose for this
brief essay is to expose the non-biblical nature of these scholarly lies
and repudiate them with Scripture. Several of the aforementioned
fallacious and presumptuous corollaries will be scrutinized with Scripture
and Biblically repudiated: 1) The original language of Adam in the Garden
and the mother tongue until the Tower of Babel is unknown. 2) Biblical
Hebrew evolved out of the Canaanite language as a consonantal text only.
3) Christ and the Apostles used the LXX to evangelize the Gentiles. 4) The
Masoretic scribes invented vowel points for the inspired consonantal
Hebrew text. 5) Christians should thank textual critics for restoring the
original texts of Scripture that God chose not to preserve.
Myth Number 1:
The Original Language the Lord gave to Adam is unknown
The Lord God created Adam and gave him a working
vocabulary and capability for language. This divinely originated language
was perfectly suited for Adam to think concepts and enunciate words for
clear expression and communication. The first recorded human words were
Adam’s response to God’s creation of Eve. Adam said, "This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:23). Adam’s first recorded statement has
a significant element in it called the paronomasia or word pun. He
punned on the name "man" (‘ish) with the word, woman, (‘ishshah)
which means "from the man." Gill argues that this pun is not found in
other ancient versions:
"This paronomasia does not appear in the Syriac version, nor in the
Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan. The Syriac uses Gabra for a
man, but never Gabretha for a woman, not even in places where men and
women are spoken of together...The Syriac or Chaldee language will not
admit such an allusion as is in the text. Just a Gabra is used for a man,
and Gabretha for a woman, so Itta, and Ittetha, and Intetha or Antetha,
are used for a woman, but never Itt for a man...this seems to prove that
the language Adam spoke to his wife must have been the Hebrew language,
and consequently is the primitive one."7
Hebrew students recognize that there are numerous other puns in the
Hebrew language, many of which are not translatable in any language, even
the English of the KJV, in Gen. 1-11.8 Gen. 11:1 is pivotal
because Moses states "And the whole earth was of one language, and of
one speech." Prior to the tower of Babel there was one mother tongue
created by God.9 Jehovah divided this original language into
many to disunite man’s rebellion (Gen. 11:6-9). Zephaniah the prophet pre-
dicted for the Millennial reign of Christ there would be the restoration
of the original tongue, stating "For then will I turn to the people a
pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve
him with one consent. (Zeph. 3:9). What would this language be for the
people to call upon Jehovah, the God of Shem (Gen. 9:26)? Would it be
Akkadian, German, or English? It would be the language of the Shemites or
the Jews, who trace their lineage back to Shem (cf. Gen. 10:21-31;
11:10-32). In fact, the Scripture calls Abram "the Hebrew" (‘eber) because
he was a descendent of Eber, in whose generation the mother tongue
(Hebrew) was last universally spoken before the tower of Babel (cf. Gen.
14:13;10:21).10
Whatever the mother tongue of humanity was, it should have many
descendants in the present languages and therefore traceable for modern
linguists. Modern linguists, holding to the evolution of language, dismiss
the possibility that Hebrew could have been Adam’s language. They would
rather hold that language evolved from a series of grunts into highly
sophisticated languages, including the lately developed Hebrew. Not only
is this approach unbiblical but it is refuted by languages which trace
their roots back to Hebrew. In a significant and enlightening new work,
Isaac Mozeson demonstrates beyond any "coincidence" that over 22,000
English words trace their roots back to Hebrew. He states,
"Don’t worry if you’ve never read anything on language, or if you’ve
never heard a Hebrew word. You will soon know that you’ve never heard a
word that wasn’t Hebrew...Hebrew vocabulary has as much affinity with
English as it has with Arabic. More English words can be clearly linked to
Biblical Hebrew than to Latin, Greek, or French. Most known English words
or roots are treated in this book...The last group of Westerners to take
up the lost paradise of Hebrew included 17th century Englishmen
like John Milton and his Puritan counterparts in colonial America...The
curriculum of Harvard was full of Hebrew, and an early graduate theses at
Harvard concerned Hebrew as the Mother tongue. Noah Webster’s etymologies
(discredited for 200 years now) were full of English words traced to
"Shemitic" sources. Most significant of all, if a vote in the Continental
Congress had gone the other way, America, and much of today’s world, would
now be speaking Hebrew."11
Darwin’s book The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored
Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) dethroned from its rightful
reign the position that the Hebrew language was the original language God
gave Adam in the Garden of Eden. This very title bespeaks of the impact
evolution would have on all academic disciplines, including not only
sociology but also linguistics. Bible commen- tators prior to this
publication embraced the views of a recent creation of the universe and of
Hebrew as the original tongue. Davis affirms the history of this latter
point in the following:
"That all men were of one language and dialect should not be surprising
since they were fundamentally united in the sons of Noah. Research in the
area of comparative grammar has demonstrated that known languages are
related and could have descended from one language. Of course it is
unknown whether that language resembles any modern language, but until
nineteenth century the theory that the original language was Hebrew was
practically unquestioned."12
The Scripture demands that the original language of Adam was Hebrew.
That this is the case is based on the puns Moses used in Gen. 1-11 that
have not been duplicated in ancient versions. Furthermore, Zephaniah’s
prophecy concerning the restoration of the original language to praise
Jehovah, and the designation of Abram the Hebrew requires the
aforementioned premise that Hebrew was the mother tongue. Extra-biblical
arguments such as linguistic studies tying English with Hebrew and the
contrived schemes of evolutionists powerfully corroborate the truth that
Adam spoke Hebrew.
Footnotes For This Section
1 Christo H. J. Van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude and
Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Reference Grammar (Sheffield, England:Sheffield
Academic Press, 2002), pp. 15-17.
2 Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1979), pp. 38-39.
3 David Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern
Translations (Grand rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1983), pp 105-107
4 Kyle M. Yates, The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew
(NY: Harper and Row, Publ. 1938), p.1.
5 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A.
Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), p. 218.
6 Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of
Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 2001), p.
409.
7 John Gill, A Dissertation Concerning the
Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel Points, and Accents
(London: G. Keith, 1767), p.11.
8 John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1990), p.
106.
9 If this God-given mother tongue were Hebrew,
those who are anti-Semitic might oppose this interpretation and create
other linguistic alternatives. This anti-Semitism is pronounced in the
Hebrew lexicons edited by rationalistic German linquists, who promote the
evolution of the Hebrew language in the Akkadian–Canaanite–Hebrew lineage.
10 Asshur was the father of the Assyrians who
spoke Assyrian (Num. 24:23-24).
11 Isaac E. Mozeson, The Word: The Dictionary that
Reveals the Hebrew Source of English (NY: SPI Books, 2000), pp. 1-2
12 John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in
Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 144.
|