Dr. Jack L.

Arnold Bibliology Lesson 4

THE RELIABILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT

I. INTRODUCTION A. Since we do not have the original an!scri"ts o# the $i%le& how do we know that the $i%le we have toda' is not "erverted and #illed with corr!"tions( Can we %e s!re that& thro!gh the an' translations and versions over the cent!ries& the $i%le we have toda' is not )!st a "ale re#lection o# the original( *as trans ission o# the te+t o%sc!red the original essage o# the $i%le( Can we %e s!re we have the words o# the original so we can tr!st o!r $i%les( NOT,O#ten rank in#idels and "re)!diced li%erals will ake state ents to ake the co on an %elieve that there are tho!sands o# errors in the $i%le& and it is a totall' !nrelia%le %ook. *owever all gen!ine scholars agree& whether li%eral or conservative& that the $i%le is a well. "reserved %ook. The $i%le is the %est doc! ented ancient %ook in histor'. $. The science o# deter ining the original te+t o# the $i%le is called lower criticis & and it sho!ld not %e con#!sed with the science o# higher criticis . *igher criticis is the $i%lical science that concerns itsel# with the "ro%le o# the age o# $i%lical %ooks& the so!rces !sed in the writing o# the $i%le& the historicit' o# the $i%le& etc. This is a legiti ate #ield o# st!d' %!t the li%erals have taken it to great e+cesses. Lower criticis deals onl' with the te+t o# scri"t!re& seeking to #ind the original words o# the original an!scri"ts. NOT,- I# we %elieve the $i%le to %e the /ord o# 0od& ver%all' ins"ired& the )o% o# esta%lishing the te+t acc!ratel' is an e+tre el' i "ortant one. T*, 1RO$L,2S O3 CO14ISTS A. Co"'ists- Those who were co"'ists in the Jewish religion were called scri%es. The scri%es were learned and religio!s en who gave etic!lo!s attention in their co"'ing o# the Old Testa ent. The' were "ro#essionals and were convinced that the' were co"'ing ins"ired scri"t!re. There#ore& the' were ver' acc!rate in the trans ission o# the *e%rew te+t. NOT,/e have no original an!scri"ts o# the Old Testa ent. In #act& there are no co "lete co"ies o# the *e%rew Old Testa ent earlier than AD 566& %!t it see s evident that the te+t was "reserved ver' care#!ll' and #aith#!ll' since AD 766 or 866. The "reservation o# the *e%rew te+t is a "heno enon in itsel# and !st #all !nder the heading o# the "rovidence o# 0od. $. Co"'ist ,rror- In the trans ission o# the sacred te+t o# the Old Testa ent& we #ind that the sa e t'"es o# scri%al sli" have cre"t into the co"ies o# $i%le %ooks as a""ear in sec!lar works. ,vangelicals do acknowledge there are errors in trans ission o# the te+t %!t not in the original writings the selves. It wo!ld take nothing short o# a iracle to ake "ossi%le an in#alli%le co"' o# an in#alli%le original. 0od has not seen #it to "er#or s!ch iracles as the scri"t!res have %een handed down #ro co"' to co"' %etween the ti e o# the original co "osition and the invention o# the "rinting "ress. NOT,- 2ost o# these errors in trans ission can %e eli inated %' acc!rate lower criticis & and the co"'ist errors that re ain in no wa' a##ect an' doctrine o# the Old Testa ent. C. T'"es o# Co"'ist ,rror 7. S!%stit!tion o# a word o# si ilar so!nd #or the one !sed in the original 9e.g.& :whole; #or :hole; or :there; #or :their.;<. 8. /riting the sa e letter twice 9e.g.& :and and;<. =. Switch the order o# letters 9e.g.& :seige; instead o# :siege;<. 4. /riting o# a letter& s'lla%le or word onl' once& when it sho!ld have %een written ore than once 9e.g.& :caling; instead o# :calling.;<. >. Co %ining two se"arate words into one. ?. Dividing !" o# a single word into two words.

II.

@.

NOT,- The t'"es o# error which co!ld %e listed in this connection are ver' n! ero!s. The' are !s!all' detected %' the conte+t itsel#& and the intelligent reader can easil' tell what the co"'ist reall' eant to write.

III.

T*, 2ASSOR,TIC T,AT A. Introd!ction- The "resent *e%rew $i%les that we now "ossess are #ro the 2assoretic Te+t. This te+t dates %ack as #ar as AD 566 and is called the 2assoratic Te+t %eca!se it was a "rod!ct o# the Jewish scri%es known as the :2assoretes.; All the "resent co"ies o# the *e%rew te+t which co e #ro this "eriod are in re arka%le agree ent& attesting to the skill o# the scri%es in "roo#reading. $. The So"heri - The So"heri re"resented an order o# scri%es which #irst had their rise !nder ,Bra& the great scri%e o# the all. These scri%es #or ed a recogniBed g!ild o# $i%le.te+t c!stodians in Jes!sC da'. The So"heri Cs activit' e+tended #ro 466 $C to AD 866 and their great achieve ent was to standardiBe a "!re te+t o# the *e%rew scri"t!res. NOT,- The So"heri worked onl' with the consonantal te+t& the' had nothing to do with the vowel "oints. Dowel "oints were not even invented !ntil a#ter AD >66. NOT,- Acc!rac' was essential to the So"heri so the' devised a s'ste o# co!nting all the verses& words and letters o# each %ook o# the Old Testa ent. a""ending these #ig!res at the end o# the %ook concerned. This wo!ld ena%le an' checker to tell whether he had a "er#ect co"' %e#ore hi & #or he had onl' to co!nt the verses& words and letters& and i# the' did not n! %er to the right total& he wo!ld know there was an error. C. The 2assoretes- The 2assorets were *e%rew scholars who %etween AD >66 and 5>6 gave the #inal #or to the te+t o# the Old Testa ent. The assorets received the !n"ainted& consonantal te+t o# the So"hori and inserted vowel "oints& which gave to each word its e+act "ron!nciation and gra atical #or . The' even engaged in a li ited a o!nt o# te+t!al criticis . The 2assoretic Te+t is the odern da' *e%rew $i%le. T*, TRANS2ISSION O3 T*, *,$R,/ T,AT IN 1R,.2ASSOR,TIC TI2,S A. 2an!scri"ts- /hile the 2assoretic Te+t can show the acc!rac' o# the Old Testa ent as #ar %ack as AD 566& what a%o!t the trans ission o# the te+t %e#ore this ti e( To deter ine the answer to this E!estion& the "re.2assoretic *e%rew an!scri"ts and the earl' versions o# the Old Testa ent !st %e st!died. 7. Dead Sea Scrolls- U" !ntil the discover' o# the Dead Sea Scrolls in 754@& there were "racticall' no ancient *e%rew doc! ents to ake co "arisons with the 2assoretic Te+t. NOT,- The Dead Sea Scrolls as a whole have "roven the a aBing acc!rac' o# the 2assoretic Te+t. 8. Sa aritan 1entate!ch- This version is in an' wa's a "erversion& #or it is ver' %iased towards the Sa aritans as %eing the tr!e "eo"le o# 0od rather than the Jews. This is onl' nat!ral #or Sa aritanis was set !" as a rival religion to J!dais . The Sa aritan 1entate!ch tries to show that Jehovah chose 0eriBin rather that Fion. and Sheche rather than Jer!sale . The oldest e+isting an!scri"t is aro!nd AD 7666 and there are a%o!t ?666 variants with the 2assoretic Te+t. $. Dersions 7. 0reek- The ost "ro inent 0reek version o# the *e%rew te+t is the Se"t!agint 9LAA< and received this na e %eca!se it was done %' @6 Jewish scholars in Ale+andria. The LAA was co "leted aro!nd 866 $C and was translated #or 0reek.s"eaking Jews who knew no *e%rew& NOT,- In "laces the LAA see s to %e ver' acc!rate and in other "laces it is al ost a "ara"hrase. The 0reek scri%es did not %ind the selves to the sa e stringent r!les o# literal and etic!lo!s acc!rac'& as did the So"heri . 8. Ara aic- D!ring the $a%'lonian ,+ile the Jewish "eo"le %egan to #orsake their ancestral *e%rew #or the Ara aic tong!e o# the 1ersian "eo"le. /hile the *e%rew never sto""ed %eing s"oken %' the learned in 1alestine& the co on Jews %eca e less and less certain o# the *e%rew. *e%rew sa'ings and scri"t!re were re"eated in Ara aic d!ring religio!s services #or those who were not skilled in the *e%rew lang!age. Aro!nd AD 866& these oral teachings in Ara aic were "!t into writing in what is called the Ara aic Targ! s. 2!ch in these targ! s are "ara"hrases and are di##ic!lt to !se #or te+t!al

ID.

criticis . Latin- There was the Itala Dersion which was a translation #ro the LAA and not the *e%rew. *owever& aro!nd AD 466 Jero e translated the Latin D!lgate #ro the original *e%rew. These versions are not too !ch hel" in te+t!al criticis . 4. Other Dersions- There is the S'riac& Co"tic& ,thio"ic& Ara%ic and Ar enian versions %!t these were translated #ro the LAA rather than the *e%rew. The' are o# little val!e in te+t!al criticis . C. The Dead Sea Scrolls 7. $ackgro!nd- 1ro%a%l' the greatest archeological discover' o# the 86th cent!r' was the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 754@& a $edo!in goat herds an ade the accidental discover' o# so e scrolls in caves in the valle' o# the Dead Sea. This #ind o# ancient *e%rew an!scri"ts was #ollowed %' care#!l e+"loration and several other caves containing scrolls have %een located. These scrolls were st!##ed in )ars and the dr' cli ate "reserved the . NOT,- It was 0od who act!all' "reserved these scrolls #or !s. Archeological discoveries are "roving the validit' o# the $i%le as a relia%le historical and doctrinal so!rce. The scrolls were "!t in these caves %' a gro!" o# Jews who lived at a "lace called G! ran #ro a%o!t 7>6 $C to AD @6. The' had a co !nal societ' o"erated ver' !ch like a onaster'. In addition to tilling the #ields& the' s"ent !ch ti e st!d'ing and co"'ing the Old Testa ent. The' were "ers!aded that the Ro an ar ies were going to invade the land. To "reserve the Old Testa ent #or #!t!re generations& the' "!t the leather scrolls in )ars and hid the in the caves. 8. 2an!scri"ts- The #ind incl!ded a co "lete co"' o# the $ook o# Isaiah and another al ost co "lete co"' o# Isaiah =?.??. There are tho!sands o# #rag ents #ro al ost ever' %ook in the Old Testa ent. The %ooks o# Sa !el and two co "lete cha"ters o# *a%akk!k were discovered. This is an historic #ind& #or now we have an!scri"ts o# the *e%rew $i%le that are al ost 7666 'ears earlier then an' "revio!s *e%rew an!scri"ts. NOT,- $' co "aring the Dead Sea Scrolls with the 2assoretic Te+t& we wo!ld get a clear indication o# the acc!rac'& or lack o# it& o# trans ission over this one tho!sand 'ears. Laird *arris sa's& =. The te+t 9o# Isaiah =H.??< is e+tre el' close to o!r 2assoretic te+t. A co "arison o# Isaiah >= shows that onl' 7@ letters di##er #ro the 2assoretic te+t. Ten o# these are ere di##erences o# s"elling& like o!r :honor; or :hono!r&; and "rod!ce no change in the eaning at all. 3o!r ore are ver' inor di##erences& s!ch as the "resence o# the con)!nction& which is o#ten a atter o# st'le. The rather three letters are the *e%rew word #or :light; which is added a#ter :the' shall see; in verse 77. O!t o# 7?? words in this cha"ter& onl' this one word is reall' in E!estion& and it does not at all change the sense o# the "assage. This is t'"ical o# the whole an!scri"t. (How Reliable is the Old Testament Text(< 0leason Archer also akes an interesting o%servation and sa's&

,ven tho!gh the two co"ies o# Isaiah discovered in G! ran Cave 7 near the Dead Sea in 754@ were a tho!sand 'ears earlier then the oldest dated an!scri"t "revio!sl' known 9AD 5H6<& the' "roved to %e word #or word identical with o!r standard *e%rew $i%le in ore than 5> "ercent o# the te+t. The > "ercent o# variation consisted chie#l' o# o%vio!s sli"s o# the "en and variations in s"elling. ,ven those Dead Sea #rag ents o# De!terono ' and Sa !el which "oint to a di##erent an!scri"t #a il' #ro that which !nderlies o!r received *e%rew te+t do not indicate an' di##erences in doctrine or teaching. The' do not a##ect the essage o# revelation in the slightest. (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction<

=.

G!otes #ro said&

Re"!ta%le Scholars- /.3. Al%right& who is an'thing %!t an evangelical&

/e a' rest ass!red that the consonantal te+t o# the *e%rew $i%le& tho!gh not in#alli%le& has %een "reserved with an acc!rac' "erha"s !n"aralleled in an' other Near ,astern literat!re. Laird *arris& an evangelical& sa's& /e can now %e s!re that co"'ists worked with great care and acc!rac' on the Old Testa ent& even %ack to 88> $C At that ti e& there were two or three t'"es o# te+t availa%le #or co"'ing. These t'"es di##ered a ong the selves so little& however& that we can in#er that still earlier co"'ists had also #aith#!ll' and care#!ll' trans itted the Old Testa ent te+t. Indeed& it wo!ld %e rash ske"ticis that wo!ld now den' that we have o!r Old Testa ent in a #or ver' close to that !sed %' ,Bra when he ta!ght the Law to those who had ret!rned #ro the $a%'lonian ca"tivit'. D. CONCLUSIONS A. There are still an' things we do not know a%o!t the trans ission o# the Old Testa ent %!t we can now see that it is reasona%le to %elieve that o!r "resent an!scri"ts are ver' close to the originals. $' #aith& we acce"t so e things that we do not 'et !nderstand. *owever& o!r #aith is "laced in the relia%ilit' o# the Old Testa ent which in s!%stantiated %' solid #acts.

The "ro%le is not with the te+t %!t with in the ins"ired Old Testa ent.

anCs willingness to %elieve what 0od has said