The inconsistency of
the Hebrew text can be illustrated by looking at the combination of the verb הלךְ (Qal) (“to go”) with
the preposition אֶת (“with”). When
searching for that verbal pattern with the help of SHEBANQ, it becomes clear that the
combination occurs 33 times in the Old Testament. One of the texts in which
this verbal pattern is found is Gen. 12:4. The NIV reads: “So Abram left, as
the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him (אִתּוֹ)” (The other
occurrences are in Gen. 13:5; 14:24; Num. 10:29; 22:20; 23:13; Josh. 10:24;
19:27; 1 Kgs. 13:15; 22:4; 2 Kgs 3:7; 6:3, 4; 8:28; 10:16; Ezek. 31:4; Mal. 2:6;
Prov. 1:11; 15; 13:20; Ruth 1:18; 2 Chron. 22:5).
The above query can
easily be modified and used for making another query that searches for all the
occurrences of the verb הלךְ (Qal) (“to go”) with the object marker אִת. That verbal pattern occurs less often in
the Old Testament. This query has only four results. Particularly interesting
is the combination of the verb הלךְ (Qal) (“to go”) with the object marker אֶת in Jer. 19:10. In the NIV, this verse is
rendered as follows: “Then break the jar while those who go with you (אוֹתָךְ) are watching.”
The pronominal suffix
“you” in the Masoretic text is preceded by the object marker אֶת which indicates that
this pronoun functions as a direct object. The rendering of the NIV, however, suggests
that its translators have read the preposition אֶת for the object marker אֶת here. It is
certainly possible that the original text of Jer. 19:10 has the preposition אֶת, but that it was confused
with the object marker אֶת in the course of time.
The confusion between
the object marker and the preposition אֶת in Jer 19:10 is not exceptional. The Hebrew grammar
of Joüon and Muraoka mentions that the object marker for the preposition אֶת occurs 61 times in
the Masoretic text, especially in the late biblical books (cf. Paul Joüon and
T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica, 14/1-11
[Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 19962], § 103). Here again, it
is clear that the inconsistencies in the Hebrew text are not just incidents,
but rather are part of the process of textual transmission. For that reason, it
is appropriate to create permanent room for the development of the biblical
text in the course of time. That means that we should not take textual criticism
as ‘a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the
course of its transmission,’ as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
suggests. (Reinoud Oosting, “Sola Scriptura and the Imperfection of the Hebrew
Text,” in Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and Eric Peels, eds., Sola Scriptura:
Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics
[Studies in Reformed Theology 32; Leiden: Brill, 2018], 216-29, here, pp.
223-24)
