QUESTION 12: Is the present Hebrew text authentic and inspired both as to content and as to words, so that all versions are to be tested by its norm, and corrected if they differ? Or can the text which it offers, if judged to be less desirable, be rejected, and corrected, and brought into agreement with a more acceptable one, either by comparison with the old translations, or by one's own judgment and critical ability?
I. Since the authenticity of the sacred text is the primary foundation of the faith, nothing should take precedence among all believers over its preservation inviolate against all attacks, whether they reject it altogether or weaken it in any way. For this purpose the preceding controversy with the Catholics was undertaken, and the present question, in which we turn to an examination of the opinions of the reverend and learned Louis Cappel, deals with the same issue. Just as he began strongly arguing the newness of the vowel points, as a recent innovation of the Masoretes and hence the result of human effort and study, in his work Arcanum punctationis revelatum, so in his Critica sacra he tries earnestly to show that we are not so bound to the present reading of the Hebrew text as to make it improper often to depart from it whenever we can find a better and more appropriate reading either by comparison with the old translations, or by the power of right reason, or by one's own judgment and critical ability. We do not undertake this controversy in any unfriendly spirit, as if we sought to detract from the reputation of a man who in other ways deserves esteem from the church of God. We only wish to uphold the conviction always up to now maintained in our churches concerning the inviolate authenticity of the sacred text, against those who are trying to adopt these "significant opinions" and new hypotheses, or who speak of them as inconsequential matters that are of no concern to the faith, or at least of very little. II. His teaching amounts to this: (1) because the points are a human addition, they may, when the need is postulated, be changed and others substituted, whenever the meaning which they yield is false or absurd. (2) Not only may the pointing be changed, but also the substantial text, but there is more freedom with regard to the points, because the Masoretes often decided on them in accordance with their own private judgment, to which we ought not to be bound. (3) If, by use of ancient translations, whether Greek, Aramaic, or Latin, a meaning of the versions can be established that is equally good and appropriate, or superior to our Hebrew manuscripts, it is permissible to I change the reading, and follow the other. (4) Not only by comparison with the old translations can this be done, but also, if we are able to show a weakness in the present reading, and that it is either meaningless, or absurd or false, and are able to find a clearer or more suitable meaning through another more appropriate reading, whether by the power of sound reason, or the natural faculty of thinking and discussing, or by conjecture, then it is per-missible to strike out the present Hebrew text, and substitute the other. That this is his teaching can be known from various passages, and especially from this one: "It is therefore permissible, if any reading different from the present Hebrew text, either with regard to consonants or letters, or to words and whole sentences, has any equally appropriate meaning, for it to be held more genuine, sound, and complete, wherever it was found, whether in the Septuagint, or the Aramaic Targums, or Aquila, or Symmachus, Theodotion, or Jerome the translator of the Vulgate, and therefore it is to be followed and accepted rather than the existing Masoretic text," a statement which he often expresses in other places. III. To support this opinion, he makes another hypothesis, namely, that the Hebrew manuscripts which the seventy and other translators used were different from the present ones, which he disparagingly calls Masoretic and Jewish, and that the differences between the old translations and the present Hebrew text are variant readings of the Hebrew text, except perhaps some which arose from the mistakes of translators who either did not know the meaning of the Hebrew word or did not pay enough attention. So he denies that our present Hebrew Bible can be regarded as the source, but accepts it only as one form of the text, and holds that the true and genuine authentic original text must be established at length by comparison of the old versions. So he distinguishes between the Hebrew text in itself and the present Masoretic text. The latter is to be found in all copies which exist today, both among Jews and among Christians; the former can be put together by comparing the present text and the old translations, which in some cases he not only regards as of equal value to the present \[Hebrew\], but he also clearly regards them as superior, since he often holds that the reading they give, as more appropriate and true, is to be followed in preference to that of the present \[Hebrew\]. "Not only if the reading of the Septuagint is better than the present \[Hebrew\] but if equally good and appropriate, then, because older and of equal goodness in language and meaning, it should be preferred, because of the version's age" (Apologia contra Bootium, p.54). And again, "The authority of Septuagint manuscripts is greater than that of the present \[Hebrew\] not only in those places where it gives a more appropriate meaning, but also where it provides one equally good and appropriate, and this because of its greater age. The can and should be said concerning all codices of old translators." IV. But the accepted and usual opinion of our churches is very different, namely, not recognizing \[as authoritative\] any text except the present Hebrew, to which, as a touchstone, all versions ancient and modern must be subjected, and corrected if they differ, while it cannot be emended from them. Although they hold that individual manuscripts can and should be compared to one another, in order that variant readings, originating in the carelessness of copyists or librarians, can be discovered and the errors in these and other manuscripts corrected, and do deny that comparison with the old translations is useful for the understanding of the true meaning, yet they deny that the old translations are even of equal, much less superior, value to the original text, to the extent that the meaning which they offer, and which seems more appropriate to us, can be accepted, and another, which comes from existing \[Hebrew\] text, be rejected. V. That always, from the beginning, this was the conviction (mens) of all Protestants is clearer than the light of noon, and the controversy over the authentic text against the Roman Catholics shows this adequately. Nor can the learned man against whom we argue deny it. In his Critica sacra, book 1, chapter I, he says, "The first and old Protestants said that everything must be examined and corrected on the basis of the Hebrew text, which they called the purest source." Sixtinus Amama confirms this in his much-praised book (1:3) after giving his own opinion on this question; he says, "We conclude that all translations, whether ancient or modem, with no exception, are to be tested by it (namely, the Hebrew text)"; "it is the norm, rule, and canon of all translations." And in chapter 4: "Therefore no translation, of whatever kind it may be, can be on a par with the Hebrew text, much less superior to it. This Protestants hold concerning all versions ancient or modem." VI. From the above the status of this question can easily be seen. It is not a question whether versions may be compared with one another, and with the original, to discover the true meaning. But \[the question is\] whether it is permissible to give equal or greater weight to a reading taken from them, which seems more appropriate for substitution in place of the present reading, when, in our opinion, that gives either no meaning, or a false and absurd one. It is not a question whether there are differences between the present text and the old translations, but whether these differences are to be understood as variant readings of the Hebrew, so that no authentic text can be recognized except that which results from the comparison of the existing text with the old translations. Finally, it is not a question whether in the study and comparison of one codex with another, whether manuscripts or printed editions, we can use our judgment, and our ratiocinative faculty, to discover probabilities, and decide which reading is better or more appropriate, but whether it is permissible to make critical conjectures about the sacred text no less than about secular writers, to change letters and points and even words, when the meaning of the existing \[Hebrew\] text does not seem appropriate to us, which the learned man maintains; we deny it. VII. The reasons are (1) from this hypothesis it follows that there is no authentic text in which faith can totally put its trust, for this would either be the existing Hebrew text or other codices which the old translators used. But on this hypothesis the existing text is merely one of several forms, and its reading can be regarded as the authentic Hebrew source only where there is no difference between it and the old translations, as the learned man says in his apologia against Booth, page 17. As for the other codices used by the ancient translators–besides the fact that it is arbitrarily assumed that they were different from the present text, which is his first fallacy, as will be shown later–if we grant that there were such, they cannot now be the basis of faith, for they cannot be found, and no longer exist except in that translation, which, because it is human and fallible, cannot yield an authentic text. Finally, who could make anyone believe that the seventy followed their Hebrew text with absolute exactness, and that the present Greek text is exactly the one they produced? VIII. (2) \[a\] If all the discrepancies between the old versions and the present Hebrew text were variant readings of Hebrew manuscripts different from ours, which the translators used, why was there no mention of such manuscripts among the patristic writers, and no trace among the Hebrews, who for many centuries have been so zealous in finding and correcting the smallest variant, as the collections of variants by Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, Eastern and Western, give evidence? Who could believe that the variants of the least significance would have been recorded, and that those now found on the basis of the old translations had so fully disappeared that no memory of them survived? Since there were so many copies, it is indeed a marvel that none have survived. \[b\] It is arbitrary to assume that there is no cause for these discrepancies, except differences in the codices, when others are far more certain \[to have been present\]. On that assumption one would conclude, wrongly, that for the contemporary versions the translators used different texts, although none except the present one exists, for there are innumerable differences among the translations. Who does not realize that often they could have rendered the meaning rather than the words, as Jerome often notes concerning the seventy? Finally, some discrepancies could have arisen from \[the translators'\] ignorance or carelessness, because they did not pay enough attention to the words, and often, therefore, could have confused similar letters and words, even without a variant text, as Jerome often accuses them. \[c\] They would have assumed presumptuous liberties if they read one thing in their manuscripts, and boldly wrote something else, which did not agree with the meaning and context of the Hebrew, and preferred, with a capricious change, to follow the meaning that they thought better. \[d\] The various old versions are no longer in their original state, but are corrupted and changed remarkably, as is especially true of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. \[e\] The negligence or ignorance of the copyists could have introduced into the versions many corruptions, which therefore did not originate in variant readings. IX. (3) \[On this hypothesis\] the various versions are of the same significance as the original text, for if, in all cases of divergence, the old translations are no more to be subjected to the text than it to them, but both are subjected to a common canon of more appropriate meaning, so that the reading with the greater appropriateness of meaning will survive, whether it be found in the Hebrew text or in one or another of those translations, then the Hebrew text will hold no authority over the old translation except when it is found to have greater appropriateness of meaning, and indeed it will often be subordinated to the translations, when its reading is less esteemed than another. X. (4) If we are not bound to the present Hebrew text, but the true authentic reading must be sought partly by comparison with the old translations, and partly by our own judgment and critical ability, so that there is no canon of authentic reading other than what seems to us more appropriate, then the determination of the authentic reading will be the work of reason and of human judgment (arbitrium), not of the Holy Spirit. Human reason will be enthroned, and, in the Socinian manner, regarded as norm and principle of faith. XI. (5) If conjectures can be made about the sacred text, even when the Hebrew agrees with the versions, as the learned man argues (Critica sacra 6.8 par. 17), there can no longer be any assurance concerning the authenticity of the sacred text, but everything will be made doubtful and uncertain, and the sacred text subjected to the judgment of every individual interpreter. Any prudent person will easily determine whether or not this will deprive it of all authority. It is useless to reply that conjectures are not to be accepted unless they depend on, and are demonstrated by, assured reasons and arguments, when the received reading yields either a false and absurd meaning, or a doubtful and confused one. For there will be no one who does not think that he can give reasons for his conjecture, and who cannot make a case for the falsity and absurdity of the reading which he wants to reject. Who can be a judge of these conjectures, whether they are rightly and truly made? And without a judge there will be continual struggles and disputes among the commentators, since each one will contend for his opinion, and will not permit others to be preferred to it. If a place is allowed for conjectures in the study of the various codices, to find out which reading is better and more appropriate, new readings must continually be admitted, which depend on the authority of no accepted manuscript, but on private judgment, and which can be of no value, but will be of the greatest danger and the certain discredit of the Scriptures because of the enormous and rash presumption of mankind. Nor can the example of secular writers, who can be subjected to criticism without danger, be relevant here, as if sacred and secular criticism were the same, and there was not the greatest difference between a writing that is human and subject to error, and one that is divine and inspired, whose majesty should be sacrosanct, because it has been received with the veneration, preserved with the care, and approved with the widespread agreement, that the origins of its truth, and the certification of its source, deserve. What indeed will happen to this sacred volume if everyone is permitted to modify its style like a censor, and to offer criticism, just as with secular books? XII. (6) If the existing Hebrew text is given no primacy over the old translations, so that it has no more authority than they, and indeed their readings are often to be preferred, when they seem to yield a more appropriate sense, then Protestants up to now have struggled in vain against the Roman Catholics when they affirmed the sole authority of the existing Hebrew text, above all versions ancient or modem; nor can they any longer insist against them that all versions and especially the Vulgate must be subjected to it and corrected by it, since the versions often are not only of equal value, but superior. XIII. A variant reading is one thing; varying interpretation is another. Commentators may give various interpretations, but it does not follow that these are drawn from variant readings in the codices, rather than the other causes which we noted. XIV. It is not necessary for the scribes to have been infallible for there to have been no variants in the Hebrew codices; it was sufficient for providence so to guard the integrity of the authentic codices, that, although they could introduce various errors through ignorance or negligence, they either did not introduce them, or did not introduce them into all copies, or did not introduce them in such a way that they cannot be restored and corrected by comparison of the various codices with the Scripture itself. XV. Although we say rightly (bene) that Scripture is made uncertain by diverse variant readings from different interpreters, based only on conjectures, it is not made uncertain simply by various interpretations, because the interpreters have interpreted one and the same text in different ways. Thus the meaning is made doubtful and uncertain, but not the reading of the words and phrases; but if various and uncertain readings and conjectures are assumed, it becomes more difficult to sustain assurance, because a double uncertainty-the text and meaning has been introduced. In the first instance a sure foundation is postulated, on which the differing interpretations are based, but in the second case no sure foundation is postulated, but everything depends on human judgment and decision. XVI. It is not necessary to show us the actual writing of Moses and the prophets, without any even minor discrepancy, in order that we may be bound to the existing text. For to uphold the exact conformity of our copies with the archetype, it is sufficient that both the words, without which there is no meaning, and letters, without which there are no words, be the same, nor could the scribes have written without these \[words and letters\], although some discrepancies in details and punctuation would be possible. XVII. Although the learned man often declares that all versions must be examined and corrected on the basis of the authentic Hebrew text, which is to be given precedence over all translations, he cannot be freed from the charge that has been made against him-that he regards the old versions as of equal authority with the text, and sometimes as superior, because he does not mean the existing original text, which is in the hands of all, both Jews and Christians, but the Hebrew text in general, which he desires to put together from the existing text and from the text which he supposes that the old translators used, which, as said above, is affirmed without solid evidence. Up to now all the theologians who have discussed the Hebrew text and its authenticity have understood nothing else by it than the text now accepted. XVIII. From the above, to add nothing more, it is clear enough how dangerous the learned man's hypotheses are, and with what reason our \[theologians\] everywhere have resisted the publication of his work, lest a future which they have foreseen-something harmful to the cause of God-come from it, and our adversaries be furnished with weapons against the authenticity of the sacred text, which, beyond all doubt, is not his intention. XIX. If anyone wants more on this, let him consult the Anticritica of the famous Buxton who opposes the Critica of this learned man, in which this whole discussion is fully and soundly set forth. Other great men also offer witness by which it can be known how much their opinions differ from the writings of this learned man. For instance, James Ussher, the archbishop of Armagh, says, in his letter to Booth, that they contain a "very dangerous error." . . . . And Arnold Booth is of the same mind, in a letter to that venerable leader \[Ussher\], and in his Vindicium, in which he refers to \[Cappel's\] work as "a very evil writing…." But for us the witness of the great Andrew Rivet, a man of high repute throughout France and Holland, is enough. Although when he first read the learned man's Arcanum he was drawn to his opinion, later, having read Buxtorf's reply, he speaks very differently in a letter to him from the Hague dated 1645. . . . Many who, although at first favorable to the learned man's hypotheses, afterward studied the question more carefully and read the arguments against his speculations by the famed Buxtorf and others, were not ashamed of abandoning their former opinion, and took a sounder position.