Ezra changed the Torah text

                                                

                                                                             Tikkunie Soferim

Tikkunei Soferim, which can be translated as “corrections by the scribes,” refers to at least eighteen changes that were made in the original wording of the Hebrew Bible wording during the second temple period, perhaps sometime between 450 and 350 BCE.[1]

Most of these changes were made to enhance the honor due to God, to avoid a problem, or to use less harsh words. Some sources suppose the changes were made by Ezra the Scribe and/or the Men of the Great Assembly.[2] We do not know exactly when Ezra lived, but he probably lived around 450 BCE.[3] We also do not know with any degree of certainty why he was called a scribe or what the function of a scribe is.

What alterations were made?

The eighteen alterations of Scripture are listed in Ochlah v-Ochlah.[4] (1) Genesis 18:22, (2) Numbers 11:15, (3 and 4) Numbers 12:12, (5) I Samuel 3:13, (6) II Samuel 16:12, (7) I Kings 12:16, (8) II Chronicles 10:16, (9) Jeremiah 2:11, (10) Ezekiel 8:17, (11) Hosea 4:7, (12) Habakkuk 1:11, (13) Zachariah 2:12, (14) Malachi 1:13, (15) Psalm 106:20, (16) Job 7:20, (17) Job 32:3, and (18) Lamentations 3:19.

The following are several examples:

1. In Genesis 18:22, the original text stated “God was still standing before Abraham” was changed to “Abraham was still standing before God.” The former is debasingly anthropomorphic; it depicts God in a somewhat servile manner, waiting upon Abraham.
2. The original wording in Zechariah 2:12 has God saying “whoever touches you (Israel) touches the apple of my eye,” meaning pocking a finger in God’s eye, which suggests that God has an eye and can be harmed. It was replaced to “his eye,” saying whoever touches Israel has done such a grievous harm as if he hit the nation in its eye.
3. The context of I Kings 21:13 indicates that Naboth is being accused of cursing God, but the act is so despicable that “cursed” was replaced by “blessed.”[5]

Everyone did not agree that words were substitutes in the Torah

The idea that anyone, even a biblical figure such as Ezra would tamper with the divine Torah is so startling that not everyone agreed that it was done. Many traditional commentators such as Rashi and the Midrashim Tanchuma, Exodus Rabba, Genesis Rabba, and Minchat Shai[6] unabashedly and explicitly accepted that the divine text was changed because those who made the change felt that their respect for God required that they hide the true text and portray God in a better light than what was in the original wording of the Bible.

However, other traditional scholars such as Elijah Mizrachi, Rashba, Joseph Albo, Ibn Ezra, and Josephus in his Contra Apion 1:8 could not abide by the notion that anyone would tamper with the holy text.[7] They felt that statements saying the wording was changed should be understood to mean that the Torah wording is “as if” there was an original wording that needed to be changed to honor God. The modern ultra-Orthodox ArtScroll Chumash commentary which deletes commentaries that are contrary to the editor’s theology deleted Rashi’s statement that there are Tikkunei Soferim.[8]

More changes were made

There are also scholars who claim that the number 18 does not count all of the alterations made to the Hebrew text. There are many more than the rabbis identified and the true number may be closer to thirty.[9]

How should we understand Maimonides?

How can we understand the concept that changes were made in the Torah with the eighth principle of the fundamentals of Judaism in Maimonides list of thirteen principles that the Torah in our hands today is identical to the Torah given by Moses?[10] Didn’t Maimonides know that changes were made? Didn’t he know that not all of the texts of the Torah that we have today are identical? Didn’t he have to decide which Torah text was the most precise and selected the Aleppo Codex as the best version?

One answer was offered by my late teacher Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, Rosh Ha-Yeshiva of Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore Maryland: “Rambam knew very well that those variations existed when he defined his Principles. The words of Ani Ma’amin and the words of Rambam, ‘the entire Torah in our possession today’ must not be taken literally, implying that all the letters of our present Torah are the exact letters given to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather it should be understood in a general sense that the Torah we learn and live by is for all intent and purposes the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu.”[11]

Another answer is that Maimonides wrote the thirteen principles for the general population, what he called “essential truths,” not real truths, but ideas that the general population need to know. But the truth is that Maimonides himself did not believe all of the thirteen principles, only the first few dealing with God. For example, the thirteen principles appear at the end of his work called Chelek. At the start of this essay, he states that he does not believe in resurrection. Yet at the end of Chelek, he includes resurrection as one of the principles of Judaism.

[1] Tikkunei is spelled by some as Tiqqunie. The Midrashim Sifrei Numbers 10:35 and Mikhilta Shemot 15:7 call the replaced wording kina hakhatub, “the verse was substituted.”

[2] The subject of the “Men of the Great Assembly” and the “Sanhedrin” is generally misunderstood and there are many misconceptions about the two of them, and the two are often confused. It is an important subject for both Jews and Christians to know to remove the misconceptions.

Unsubstantiated Jewish tradition supposes that the Men of the Great Assembly a group of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets composed or edited some of the books of the Hebrew Bible, but many scholars are convinced that the institution never existed. If the Men of the Great Assembly existed it was probably a kind of kitchen cabinet for Ezra or a kind of congress that Ezra formed and which ceased to exist around 300 BCE when the institution of the Sanhedrin began. Jewish tradition supposes that the institution of the Sanhedrin began during the days of Moses and famed Bible commentators such as Rashi ascribe some activities to this group during the biblical period. However, the name Sanhedrin is Greek, which together with the fact that no reliable evidence exists for the existence of the Sanhedrin before the Greek period in Israel, prompted scholars to date its origin to around 300 BCE. The Sanhedrin was a court of law, a kind of Supreme Court composed of 71 members. Scholars insist that writers of the New Testament did not know how the Sanhedrin functioned and depict it improperly in the New Testament.

Sidney B. Hoenig addresses all of these problems and more in his superb scholarly study in The Great Sanhedrin, Dropsie College, 1953. Louis Finkelstein does so as well in Ha-Perushim ve-Anshe Kenesset Ha-Gedolah, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950. The English translation of Professor Finkelstein’s excellent book is “The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Assembly.” The Pharisees were a group that developed interpretations of the Torah that generally liberalized Torah mandates. The Hebrew name Perushim could mean “separatist.” They separated from the Tzedukim, in English Sadducees, which could mean the righteous ones, those who adhered to the ancient traditions. Many Sadducees functioned in the temple, while the Pharisees were associated with the common folk.

While the present day consensus is that the changes in the Torah were made by Ezra, some sources insist that they were done by either Nehemiah, Zechariah, Hagai, or Baruch. See the sources in Saul Lieberman’s Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994, pages 28-37, and Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Parashat Mishpatim, Jerusalem, 1992, volume 5, book 19, pages 374-375.

[3] Ezra’s activities are described in the biblical book with his name and in the biblical book Nehemiah. He was a priest. Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 state that he reintroduced the Torah to Jews in Jerusalem, enforced the observance of the Torah, and exhorted Jews about intermarriage with pagans.

[4] Ktav Publishing House, NY, 1972, page 113, first published in Hanover in 1864.

[5] Apparently thinking that readers would be confused to read that Naboth is being accused of blessing God, the Jewish Publication Society translation changed to wording back to “cursed.”

[6] Minchat Shai comments and explains most of the 18 Tikkunei Soferim in its commentary to Zechariah 2:12.

[7] See Kasher’s Torah Shelemah and ibn Ezra’s commentaries to Numbers 11:15, 12:12, and Job 32:3.

[8] Another example of ArtScroll censorship is the deletion of the Rashi’s grandson Rashbam’s view in the first chapter of Genesis that according to the Torah the day begins in the morning, not at sunset, for the Torah states that God performed certain acts of creation and then “there was evening and morning” and a new creation was made after the morning on the new day.

[9] See Tikkunei Soferim, An Analysis of a Masoretic Phenomenon, by Avrohom Lieberman, Hakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought, pages 227-236.

[10] Found in his introduction to the tenth chapter of Mishnah Sanhedrin called Chelek.

[11] Quoted by Marc Shapiro in Fundamentals and Faith, Southfield, Michigan, 1991, p. 116, from Rabbi Weinberg’s lectures.

--------------------------------

Note: This is the second article in a series on Old Testament textual criticism.

Occasionally the reader of BHS will come across a note which reads “Tiq soph, lect orig . . . .” These abbreviations mean “Tiqqunê sopherim, original reading. . . .” The equivalent note in BHQ simply shows a variant reading followed by the symbol ✣, which directs the reader to the textual commentary. Tiqqunê sopherim is a Hebrew term which means “emendations of the scribes.” According to rabbinic sources and the Masoretes, these are places where scribes of an earlier Jewish tradition had altered the original text of the OT out of theological sensitivities. Normally this involved a statement that was disrespectful to God and therefore, in their judgment, could not be said aloud when reading. The disrespectful term was replaced with a term that could be acceptably read. The Masoretes noted what they believed was the original reading, but their extremely conservative copying practices forbade them from altering the main text of their manuscripts. Many of the tiqqunê sopherim seem strange to Christian students of the Bible, since the things in the text which were theologically troublesome for Jews are very different from those things which might seem problematic to Christian scribes. The tiqqunê sopherim have more to do with matters of reverence than with matters of systematic theology.

Although rabbinic lists vary, the main lists have eighteen verses with alleged emendations, as shown below, with McCarthy’s evaluation of the authenticity of each tradition (in Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Emendations in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981], 61-129).

1.    Genesis 18:22—”Yahweh was still standing before Abraham” (וְיהוה עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי אַבְרָהָם) was changed to “Abraham was still standing before Yahweh” (‎וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי יהוה), because to “stand before” someone usually means to minister to an authority who is sitting. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

2.    Numbers 11:15—”Your wretchedness” (בְּרָעָתְךָ) was changed to “my wretchedness” (בְּרָעָתִי), so as to avoid a disrespectful expression toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

3.    Numbers 12:12—”our mother’s womb” (אִמֵּנוּ) and “our flesh” (בְשָׂרֵנוּ) were changed to “its mother’s womb” (מֵרֶחֶם אִמּוֹ) and “its flesh” (בְשָׂרוֹ), in order to avoid an expression of disrespect regarding the origins of Moses. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

4.    1 Samuel 3:13—”his sons were cursing God” (‎כִּי־מְקַלְלִים אֱלֹהִים בָּנָיו) was changed to “his sons were cursing themselves” (‎כִּי־מְקַלְלִים לָהֶם בָּנָיו), so that the reader of the Scriptures would not have to speak aloud of cursing God. McCarthy: authentic emendation

5.    2 Samuel 16:12—”Yahweh will look with His eye” (יִרְאֶה יְהוָה בְּעֵינוֹ) was changed to “Yahweh will look on my eye” (Qere: יִרְאֶה יְהוָה בְּעֵינִי), in order to avoid an anthropomorphism. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

6.    2 Samuel 20:1—”to his gods” (‎לֵאלֹהָיו) was changed to “to his tents” (‎לְאֹהָלָיו), in order to avoid reading aloud a call to apostasy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

7.    1 Kings 12:16—”to your gods” (‎לֵאלֹהֵיךָ) was changed to “to your tents” (‎לְאֹהָלֶיךָ), in order to avoid reading aloud a call to apostasy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

8.    Jeremiah 2:11—”My glory” (‎כְּבוֹדִי) was changed to “their glory” (‎כְּבֹדוֹ), so as to soften the force of an expression of disrespect toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

9.    Ezekiel 8:17—”My nose” (‎אַפִּי) was changed to “their nose” (‎אַפָּם), to avoid expressing the blasphemous idea of putting a branch to Yahweh’s nose. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

10. Hosea 4:7—”My glory” (‎כְּבוֹדִי) was changed to “their glory” (‎כְּבוֹדָם), so as to soften the force of an expression of disrespect toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

11. Habakkuk 1:12—”You will not die” (‎לֹא תָּמוּת) was changed to “we will not die” (‎לֹא נָמוּת), to avoid the unseemly concept of God’s death. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

12. Zechariah 2:12 (2:8 Eng.)—”My eye” (‎עֵינִי) was changed to “His eye” (‎עֵינוֹ), so as to refer to the divine eye euphemistically (in the third person). McCarthy: authentic emendation

13. Malachi 1:13—”you have snuffed at Me” (‎וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתִי) was changed to “you have snuffed at it” (‎וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ), in order to avoid an expression of offense toward Yahweh. Some lists include Malachi 1:12 instead of or in addition to Malachi 1:13, claiming that “you profane Me” (‎וְאַתֶּם מְחַלְּלִים אוֹתִי) was changed to “you profane it” (‎וְאַתֶּם מְחַלְּלִים אוֹתוֹ). McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

14. Psalm 106:20—”My glory” (‎כְּבוֹדִי) was changed to “their glory” (‎כְּבוֹדָם), so as to soften the force of an expression of disrespect toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

15. Job 7:20—”I am a burden to You” (‎וָאֶהְיֶה עָלֶיךָ לְמַשָּׂא) was changed to “I am a burden to myself” (‎וָאֶהְיֶה עָלַי לְמַשָּׂא), because of the unseemliness of speaking of becoming a burden to God. McCarthy: authentic emendation

16. Job 32:3—”yet they had condemned God” (וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־אֱלֹהִים or ‎וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־יהוה) was changed to “yet they had condemned Job” (וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־אִיּוֹב), in order to avoid reading an expression of blasphemy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

17. Lamentations 3:20—”Your soul is bent down within You” (וְתָשִׁיחַ עָלֶיךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ with some variations in the tradition) was changed to “my soul is bent down within me” (וְתָשִׁיחַ עָלַי נַפְשִׁי), in order to avoid a strong anthropopathism. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

18. 2 Chronicles 10:16—”to your gods” (‎לֵאלֹהֵיךָ) was changed to “to your tents” (‎לְאֹהָלֶיךָ), in order to avoid reading aloud a call to apostasy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

McCarthy’s thorough evaluation of the tiqqunê sopherim shows that they were mostly traditions which developed from midrashic exegesis; he finds only three of the eighteen in the main list to be genuine scribal emendations.

There are a number of other places in the OT, outside of this list, in which it is suggested (either by ancient rabbinic sources or by modern scholars) that words were substituted for theological reasons. However, in many cases it is debated whether the substitutions are true tiqqunê sopherim (i.e., emendations by copyists), or whether they were a euphemism supplied by the original writers. Some of these include the following, with McCarthy’s evaluation:

1.    The substitution of “bless” for “curse” in 1 Kings 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9. McCarthy: original euphemism

2.    The substitution of “these men” for “our” in Numbers 16:14 and 1 Samuel 29:4. McCarthy: original euphemism (or not a substitution at all)

3.    Insertion of “the enemies of” before a name in 1 Samuel 20:16; 25:22; 2 Samuel 12:14. McCarthy: emendation

4.    Changing “Yahweh” to “the word of Yahweh” in 2 Samuel 12:9. McCarthy: emendation

5.    Addition of “the men” in 1 Samuel 2:17. McCarthy: probable emendation

6.    Names in which “Bosheth” (shame) or the name of the true God is substituted for “Baal” or the name of a false god: Jerubbaal/Jerubbesheth, Ishbaal/Eshbaal/Ishbosheth, Mephibaal/Mephibosheth, Eliada/Beeliada/Baaliada, Joram/Hadoram. These substitutions are complex to judge; in each case, there are three possibilities: (a) Some individuals were known by two or more names. (b) The original writers of Scripture altered these names for theological reasons. (c) A scribe or copyist emended these names. McCarthy’s evaluation is different in the case of different names and verses.

7.    The substitution of “Manasseh” for “Moses” in Judges 18:30. McCarthy: emendation

8.    Changing “who hate David’s soul” to “who are hated by David’s soul” in 2 Samuel 5:8. McCarthy: emendation

9.    Changing “your wives” to “your men” in 1 Kings 10:8 and 2 Chronicles 9:7. McCarthy: 1 Kgs 10:8 is an emendation; 2 Chr 9:7 is an original euphemism. (Note: McCarthy’s split evaluation is based on liberal theological presuppositions.)

10. Changing “he was afraid” to “he saw” in 1 Kings 19:3. McCarthy: emendation(Note: This is not a true emendation, since it is only a difference in vocalization.)

11. Changing “he prospered” or “he was victorious” (יוֹשִׁיעַ) to “he acted wickedly” or “he put them to the worse” (יַרְשִׁיעַ) in 1 Samuel 14:47. McCarthy: emendation

12. Changing “this house will become lofty” (עֶלְיוֹן) to “this house will become a ruin” (לְעִיִּין) in 1 Kings 9:8 and 2 Chr 7:21. McCarthy: 1 Kgs 9:8 is an emendation; 2 Chr 7:21 is an original euphemism. (Note: McCarthy’s split evaluation is based on liberal theological presuppositions.)

13. Changing “The City of the Sun” (עִיר הַחֶרֶס) to “the City of Destruction” (עִיר הַהֶרֶס) in Isaiah 19:18. McCarthy: emendation

It is noteworthy that in every instance in the above two lists where, in McCarthy’s judgment, an emendation was made, there is textual evidence for the original reading. In other words, we do not need to speculate about places where the Hebrew text might have been emended, because some manuscripts or ancient versions always preserve the original reading.

There was a time when many OT scholars assumed that the traditional list of eighteen tiqqunê sopherim was merely a representative sample out of a huge number of theological emendations that Jewish scribes systematically conducted throughout the OT. More recently, scholars such as McCarthy, Ellis Brotzman, and Emanuel Tov have called into question this assumption. In fact, most of the traditions about the tiqqunê sopherim were developed after the text form had already been fixed by means of strict copying practices which forbade any alteration of the sacred consonantal text. The tradition about emendations is mainly a record of midrashic interpretation, rather than text criticism. Tov writes the following in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 66:

Another common characteristic of the corrections of the scribes is that most of them correct merely one or two letters, principally the pronomial suffix. If the corrections had represented changes in the text, it is hard to believe that the correctors would have limited themselves to such small details. Moreover, for some corrections it is improbable that the original text would indeed have read as the Masorah claims.

This agrees with McCarthy’s conclusion (The Tiqqune Sopherim, p. 250):

The actual extent of emendatory initiative undertaken by the ‘scribes’ was considerably restrained, and one must continually marvel at the overall fidelity and care taken by those to whom we are indebted for the transmission of the biblical text.

The reality is that the MT is an extremely conservative text. It is in the LXX (and, to a much lesser extent, the SamP) where we see evidence of frequent and large-scale emendations for theological reasons. Further, many of these emendations are directly concerned with systematic theology, rather than merely the formal expression of reverence. An example in the SamP is changing “Mount Ebal” to “Mount Gerizim” in Deuteronomy 27:4. Examples in the LXX include: (a) Changing “a little lower than God” to “a little lower than the angels” in Psalm 8:5. (b) Changing “seventh” to “sixth” in Genesis 2:2a. (c) Changing “pillars” to “stones” in Exodus 24:4. (d) Moving the oracles against the nations from Jeremiah 46–51 to Jeremiah 25 in order to match the statement about “this book” in Jeremiah 25:13. (e) Editing the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 in order to change the referents of the prophecy to events in the time of Antiochus IV and the Maccabees.

To summarize, the following principles should be applied to an analysis of the tiqqunê sopherim when doing textual criticism:

1.    It is very likely that some of the tiqqunê sopherim are genuine scribal emendations, but not all are. It should not be assumed that every such tradition represents a place where the text was emended.

2.    Some, probably most, of the tiqqunê sopherim are false traditions developed by midrashic exegesis.

3.    Tiqqunê sopherim that are not supported by manuscript evidence or readings of the ancient versions are far less likely to represent authentic emendations.

4.    The rabbinic tradition about tiqqunê sopherim is simply another witness to the text that should be considered alongside other textual witnesses; it is not authoritative.

5.    There are a few unrecorded places where the Proto-Masoretic Text was altered for theological reasons, but not many. Widespread emendatory activity should not be postulated.