The Old Testament Story

The Reliability of the Old Testament Manuscripts

Introduction

At the beginning of the twentieth century, textual criticism of the OT was in its infancy, with few extant early Hebrew manuscripts. However, with the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls beginning in A.D. 1947, scholars found themselves in a better position than ever before to evaluate whether the OT texts are reliable.

At present there exist over 3,000 Hebrew manuscripts of the OT, 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, over 1,500 manuscripts of the Septuagint, and over 65 copies of the Syriac Peshitta.

This article examines the reliability of the OT manuscripts in respect to three main areas: (1) transmission of the OT; (2) OT textual criticism; and (3) primary OT sources.

Transmission of the OT

Jewish tradition maintains that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. If so, then portions of the OT were passed down through scribes for more than 3,000 years before becoming part of modern translations. This naturally gives rise to questions like: How did the OT text come about? How were the books copied and by whom? Are the texts available today an accurate reproduction of the originals?

How did the OT text come about? While some divine revelation may originally have been handed down from generation to generation orally, at some point it was committed to writing to ensure its accuracy. Several biblical passages indicate that from an early period parts of Scripture were held in honor and were considered authoritative (e.g.,  Ex. 17:14–16; 24:3–4, 7 ). The stone tablets of the Ten Commandments were to be stored in the ark of the covenant (e.g.,  Ex. 25:16, 21 ;  Heb. 9:4 ), and the Book of the Law was to be kept in the tabernacle next to the ark ( Deut. 31:24–26 ). Moses commanded the Israelites to teach God’s laws and statutes to their children and grandchildren ( Deut. 4:9 ). The Law of Moses was entrusted to the priests, who were to teach it to the people ( Deut. 33:10 ) and read it aloud publicly every seven years to ensure that the Israelites would remember it ( Deut. 31:9–11 ). They were also commanded not to add to or delete from it at all ( Deut. 4:2; 12:32 ). Both the OT ( Josh. 23:6 ;  1 Kings 2:3 ;  1 Chron. 22:13 ) and NT (e.g.,  Mark 10:5; 12:26 ;  Luke 2:22; 16:29, 31 ) refer to the Law of Moses as a distinct, authoritative source.

OT passages also refer to written forms of prophetic oracles ( Isa. 30:8 ;  Jer. 25:13; 29:1 ;  Ezek. 43:11 ;  Dan. 7:1 ;  Hab. 2:2 ) and histories recorded by prophets ( 1 Chron. 29:29 ;  2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34 ). However, the first mention of a collection of biblical books is in  Daniel 9:2 , which suggests that by the time of Daniel, the book of Jeremiah was part of a larger collection of authoritative works that he calls “the books.”

Later biblical writers make reference to earlier biblical books ( 2 Kings 14:6 ;  2 Chron. 25:4; 35:12 ;  Ezra 3:2; 6:18 ;  Neh. 8:1 ), and the prophets commonly rebuke the people for not obeying the words of previous prophets ( Jer. 7:25; 25:4 ;  Ezek. 38:17 ;  Dan. 9:6, 10 ;  Hos. 6:5; 12:10 ).

There is good evidence from Jewish tradition and other sources that the Jewish people believed that the prophetic voice ceased following the deaths of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Tosefta, Sotah 13.2; Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 48b, Sanhedrin 11a, and Baba Bathra 12a; Seder Olam Rabbah 30; Jerusalem Talmud, Taanith 2.1; 1 Macc. 9:27; 2 Baruch 85.3). Therefore, it is likely that by about 300 B.C. the canon of the OT was set in all its essentials. (See  The Canon of the Old Testament .) While minor discussions about certain books continued well into the Christian era, they had little effect on the form of the Canon.

Jesus accepted the authority of the Hebrew canon and taught his disciples to reverence it ( Matt. 5:17–18 ). The Christian church, which had its roots in the Jewish nation, maintained the same Hebrew canon ( Matt. 23:34–35 ;  Luke 11:50–51 ) and added the NT works to it.

How were the books copied, and by whom? There are no remaining original manuscripts (commonly called “autographs”) of the OT, but there do exist an abundance of copies made by scribes whose only job was to preserve God’s revelation. The autographs were probably written on scrolls made from papyrus or leather (see  Jeremiah 36 ) that deteriorated from everyday use. When scrolls showed signs of wear, they were copied and reverently buried (since they contained the sacred name of God). Sometimes worn copies were placed in a genizah (“hidden” place) until enough were gathered for a ritual burial ceremony. One of these genizahs was found in an old synagogue in Cairo around 1890.

Initially, priests (or a special group of priests) maintained the sacred traditions. Then, from about 500 B.C. to A.D. 100, an influential group of teachers and interpreters of the law arose, called the soperim (“scribes”), who meticulously copied and preserved the most accurate form of the Hebrew text that they could determine. The Babylonian Talmud states: “The older men were called soperim because they counted [Hb. soper may also mean “one who counts”] all the letters in the Torah” (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 30a). There has been significant discussion as to what their early text looked like and how closely it corresponded to the modern Masoretic text (MT), the common form of today’s Hebrew Bible, but it is not an easy question to answer.

Evidence from about the mid-third century B.C. and following indicates that a variety of OT texts coexisted for several centuries (e.g., proto-MT [an early form of the Hebrew Masoretic text]; Greek Septuagint, a sometimes loose translation; Samaritan Pentateuch). Manuscripts copied before the first century A.D. show two tendencies on the part of the scribes: they preserved the accuracy of the text and, at the same time, they were willing to revise or update the specific words of the text. These tendencies are not contradictory—scribes assigned to the Scriptures a high degree of authority and upheld them with great reverence, but their desire was that readers understand them. Sometimes scribes intentionally changed texts because of things they felt were inappropriate or objectionable. Still, they carefully noted changes out of reverence for the text (e.g., in  Judg. 18:30  scribes added the Hebrew letter nun above the line so that it read “Manasseh” instead of “Moses” because Jonathan was acting more like a son of wicked Manasseh than of Moses).

A group of scribes called the tannaim (repeaters) maintained the sacred traditions from about A.D. 100 to 300 and developed meticulous rules to follow when copying synagogue scrolls (e.g., no word or letter was to be written from memory; if more than three mistakes were made on any page, it was destroyed and redone). While the text was reverenced and carefully maintained, it could be updated within specific, limited parameters: (1) By about 350 B.C., texts had begun to be written in Assyrian (square) script instead of paleo-Hebrew. (2) Even before this, matres lectionis (Hebrew consonants added to a word to indicate how it should be pronounced—these were precursors to vowel points) were starting to be added and archaic spellings were modernized. (3) Some corrections were made (see 4QIsaa). It was common practice throughout the ancient Near East to update and revise texts.

Following the first century A.D., however, the priority of scribes narrowed to preserving the accuracy of Scripture, which they did with amazing precision. Manuscripts dated to the first and second centuries A.D. (e.g., from Masada, Nahal Hever, Wadi Murabba’at, and Nahal Se’elim) reflect the proto-MT in orthography and content with very little variation. Debate continues over how and why the text became so unified following the first century A.D. Some argue that the group who maintained the proto-MT was the only one to survive the destruction of the second temple. Others suggest there was a purposeful standardization of the text. The latter seems more likely for two reasons: (1) There was a desire to provide a consistent standard for debates between Christians and Jews in the first century A.D. (cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 68). (2) Hillel the Elder needed a standardized text on which to base his seven rules of biblical hermeneutics (Aboth of Rabbi Nathan 37A).

The sheer number of manuscripts, as well as quotations in rabbinic literature, suggest that the proto-MT was the primary text maintained by the authoritative center of Judaism. At the same time, other textual traditions were also circulated (e.g., Septuagint; Samaritan Pentateuch). However, sometime during the first century A.D. the proto-MT apparently became the dominant textual tradition.

Are the texts available today an accurate reflection of the originals? To adequately answer this question requires some understanding of OT textual criticism, which we will now briefly explore.

OT Textual Criticism

Scholars agree that no single witness perfectly reproduces the original Hebrew text (generally called “Urtext”) of the entire OT, and therefore textual criticism is necessary. Textual criticism is the science and art that seeks to determine the most reliable original wording of a text. It is a science because specific rules govern the evaluation of various types of copyist errors and readings, but it is also an art because these rules cannot be rigidly applied in every situation. The goal of OT textual criticism is to work back as closely as possible to the final form of the text as it was canonized and maintained by the scribes. Since the texts were transmitted over such a long period, one could expect that minor errors might have crept in. Comparison of various forms of the OT text helps determine the most plausible reading of the original texts. Intuition and common sense must guide this process. Informed judgments about a text depend upon one’s familiarity with copyist errors, manuscripts, versions, and their authors.

Types of errors. Even given a strong desire to maintain an authoritative, standardized text, common copyist errors can creep in, including: confusion of similar letters, homophony (substitution of similar sounding letters or words), haplography (omission of a letter or word), dittography (doubling a letter or word), metathesis (reversal in the order of two letters or words), fusion (two words being joined as one), and fission (one word separated into two).

The process. Modern critical editions of the MT include the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and the BHQ (Biblia Hebraica Quinta), which follow the Codex Leningradensis (A.D. 1008), and the Hebrew University Bible Project, which follows the Aleppo Codex (c. 930). They derive from the longest and, to date, most reliable textual tradition overall. This tradition was maintained by the Masoretes, and when compared to the Qumran manuscripts dated about 1,000 years earlier, was found to be very accurate. These critical editions also provide a summary of pertinent information from other sources in their textual apparatus. The process of OT textual criticism includes examining the external evidence from various Hebrew sources (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, medieval manuscripts) and versions (e.g., Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, etc.) to determine which is the most plausible original reading of the text.

When weighing evidence, scholars generally agree that the Hebrew sources take precedence over the versions, though versions sometimes contain what appears as a plausible original reading. Internal evidence is then examined to see if there are any hints to help determine the original reading (e.g., grammatical structures, common spelling). At times, discoveries from other ancient Semitic languages have shed light on previously unintelligible texts. Guidelines to use in determining the most plausible original readings include: (1) Which reading could most likely give rise to the others? (2) Which reading is most appropriate in its context? (3) The weight of the manuscript evidence is then evaluated to determine whether it may contain a secondary reading or gloss. Only a very small percentage of the Hebrew text has any questionable readings, and of these only a small portion make any significant difference in the meaning of the text.

Primary OT Sources

The following are the primary sources for present-day knowledge of the original OT text:

Codex Leningradensis: The oldest complete copy of the MT, dated to A.D. 1008. Both the BHS and the BHQ follow this text.

Aleppo Codex: The oldest, incomplete copy of the MT, dated to about A.D. 930. About one-quarter of this manuscript was burned by fire, but its text is very similar to the Codex Leningradensis. The Hebrew University Bible Project uses this text as a base.

Dead Sea Scrolls: More than 200 biblical manuscripts dated from about 250 B.C. to A.D. 135 from the area around the Dead Sea. The largest number of these texts agree closely with the readings of the proto-MT (35 percent of manuscripts) and help confirm the accuracy of the MT.

Conclusion

Although some textual puzzles remain, and though scholars still differ among themselves in how they weigh some of the evidence, careful application of these principles allows a high level of confidence that close access to the original texts does indeed exist. Moreover, ordinary English readers should not suppose that there are hundreds of significant textual variants whose existence is known only to specialized scholars, for all the variants that translation teams thought to be significant for interpreting the text have been indicated in the footnotes of the ESV and other modern English translations. Looking through those footnotes will show a reader that the significant variants affect far less than 1 percent of the words of the ESV text, and even among that 1 percent, there are no variants that would change any point of doctrine. Therefore, while some places remain where it is hard to be sure of the original reading (see ESV footnotes and the notes on specific verses in this Study Bible), as a general assessment it is safe to say that the OT text that is the basis of modern English translations is remarkably trustworthy.

Crossway Bibles. ESV: Study Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles, 2007.