God's Word
TEXTS
God's Word
TEXTS
The Bible is an old and venerable book. It is not only historical itself; it has influenced the course of history. It has been the guiding light for countless billions of people from its beginning about 3,500 years ago.
In addition to the accolades from the strictly theological field, many leaders in philosophical, literary, and political realms have also paid homage to the Bible and its influence on their lives and on the world. For examples: “The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced” (Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804). “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible” (George Washington, 1732- 1799). “I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man” (Abraham Lincoln, 1809- 1865). “The New Testament is the very best book that ever was or ever will be known in the world” (Charles Dickens, l812-1870).
Any serious student of such disciplines as history/tradition, psychology/sociology, geography/geology, religion/culture, government/politics, and literature/communications, soon realizes the enormous contributions the Bible made in these areas, as well as others. One would assume that the guiding principles of the Bible make for a stable civilization. However, there are obstacles. Some are real; some are imaginary.
One obstacle which prevents receiving benefits from the Bible is ignorance. This word sounds harsh. However, it simply means “uninstructed, unlearned.” The ancient Hebrews had words to describe those two kinds of ignorance. The petiy was simple, although he was not a simpleton. He was naïve because he was untutored. He could learn (Proverbs 21:11), and he was receptive to teaching (Proverbs 9:1-4).
The person who was unlearned but learning, seeking and receptive, knocking and asking, would indeed find and gain wisdom from God’s Word because, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple [petiy]” (Psalm 19:7; M.T. Psalm 19:8).
Another kind of ignorance of which the Hebrews were aware was that exhibited by the lets. He was a scoffer (Psalm 1:1). In fact, Proverbs 21:24 says “Proud,” “Haughty,” “Scoffer,” were his names. He was insolent, opinionated, and foolish. He would not take correction (Proverbs 9:7); he refused to be rebuked (Proverbs 13:1). His persistent scorn of discipline, rebuke, wisdom, and godliness led to the conclusion that “Judgments [rods] are prepared for scoffers…” (Proverbs 19:29a). One faces an insurmountable obstacle to receiving the many blessings the Bible has to offer as long as one remains willfully or rebelliously ignorant of its contents.
On the other hand, there are those serious students of the Bible who are open to its truths and are struggling to find faith that springs from its pages (Romans 10:17). Yet, often they have a healthy skepticism regarding the transmission of the Bible through the centuries. This concern is not necessarily a rejection of God’s revelation and inspiration of Scripture. Rather, it may be an honest apprehension concerning the extent of God’s providential oversight of His sacred Word. In other words, what assurance do we have that the Bible has not been compromised by centuries and centuries of copying, translating, and transmitting?
A quick answer would be that the providence of God has guarded these aspects of the Bible as strongly as it guarded the canonization of the Bible. Providence is not the “weak partner” in the divine trio of revelation, inspiration, and providence. God’s providence is as strong, durable, and pertinent to the Bible as His revelation and inspiration. This means we can trust the integrity of the Bible in its transmission as we do it original formation.
This is a faith statement. However, it is not an expression of blind faith. Believing the Bible to be the Word of God has not prevented us from giving careful attention to its origin, development, and completion. Neither should we be adverse to considering that which serves to verify the continuing accurate transmission of the Bible through time. This is a broad subject. In this lesson we will consider one of its aspects in order to make one point: The Bible has not lost its integrity in its transmission through the ages.
Most of the history of Bible transmission took place before the invention of printing. This meant that the Biblical text had to be laboriously copied by hand. This seems like an impossible task for those of us who live in the “age of printing.” Indeed, it was a daunting work fraught with the possibility of human error. Although the original Biblical texts were penned by inspired men, the copying and transmission of the texts have always been done without the aid of divine inspiration. Since the scribes had great reverence for the text and were dedicated to maintaining its accuracy, the herculean challenge of the work produced some extreme methods for maintaining the purity of the text.
However, when one speaks of maintaining the purity of a text, it is assumed there is an existing text to be kept accurate in the transmission process. Of necessity, therefore, we must speak briefly about some of the early Biblical texts which are foundational in this great enterprise. The purpose of this selective overview is to show that from the standpoint of text sources there is no doubt that our present Bible rests on a reliable original Biblical language textual base. We have already spoken of Bible languages, canon, content, and translations. We confine our inquiry here to some of the major manuscripts involved in the transmission of the Scriptures. Even this casual survey will show that there is no reason to question the reliability of our current original language Bible texts due to lack of manuscript sources. Quite the contrary!
The following is a time line of important manuscripts which have contributed greatly to the accuracy of the Biblical texts through the years. The texts are identified. The dates shown are usually in round numbers and often merely approximate. They show the date(s) the documents were written and/or the date(s) they became available to Biblical scholars for study and use. A cursory statement about each manuscript is offered to help the reader “contextualize” the text in the perspective of history. Before moving to the list, it must be emphasized that there has never been discovered an original autograph of any Bible text. In every case we are dealing with original language copies or early translations of Biblical texts. This should not cause alarm due to the many manuscripts which have continued to come to light. The following are some of those major texts.
The Samaritan Pentateuch contains the first five books of the Hebrew Bible in the Samaritan script. It dates somewhere around 400 B.C., or a little earlier. It was produced by the Samaritans who lived in Shechem and worshiped in the temple that was erected on mount Gerizim. Although containing only a relatively small portion of the Bible, its antiquity, and the fact that it was copied from the early Hebrew text, makes it a valuable document. The renowned Biblical scholar, Dr. James E. Priest, was permitted by the Samaritan priest to see a Samaritan Pentateuch scroll which showed evidences of being extremely old. He later remarked, “It is doubtful if this scroll is any older than many of the others which still exist, including those as old as the 10th century A.D.” The Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was done over a period of about one hundred years. (ca. 250 B.C.-150 B.C.) Not only is it a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible; it is a translation of the Hebrew text before that text assumed its definitive form which was to serve as the base for the great and enduring Masoretic text. This Greek manuscript is a very valuable one for many reasons. For example: This translation of the Old Testament was eventually in common use among Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. Although the quality of the translation varies over the century it was in progress, the work as a whole provides textual scholars an important cross-reference base from which to evaluate the on-going transmission of the Biblical text.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have become household words in this century. These scrolls were written by a separatist Jewish sect commonly identified as Essenes. They lived at Qumran which was located about a mile from the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea and approximately seven miles south of the ancient city of Jericho. This reclusive sect maintained an active scribal tradition. As a result, many documents were produced.
These manuscripts included many nonbiblical texts which do not concern us in our present study. However, the Biblical scrolls and fragments which were found have astonished, fascinated, delighted, and challenged the scholarly world of Biblical textual studies. They date from as early as the third century B.C. into the first century A.D. Apparently they were hidden in caves near the Qumran community as the Essenes prepared to flee before the onslaught of the invading Roman legions. This like occurred in 68 or 69 A.D.
The Dead Sea Scroll materials have yielded evidence on every book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther. Since our little survey is chronological, based on the dates of composition of the texts, we will reserve further comments about them until we come to the dates of their discovery. There we will note the unprecedented contribution the DSS have made in verifying the reliable transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible.
Now we come to manuscripts which were written during the first millennium A.D. The Syriac Peshitta is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Eastern Aramaic (Syriac). “Peshitta” means “simple,” probably indicating a translation using ordinary language of the people (One finds the same phenomenon in the Koine Greek of the New Testament). It is thought to have produced no later than the second or third centuries A.D. At least one copy of it exists from as early as the fifth century A.D. Its age enhances its value as a source for comparative textual study.
The language with its distinctive script was known as Syriac in Syria and Mesopotamia. However, with slightly different dialectical variations and with a “square” Aramaic script, it was the Aramaic of Palestine which most Jews, including Jesus, used in daily communication. The Peshitte was a direct translation of the Hebrew Bible but did not include the books of Chronicles. Neither did it originally include any of the Apocrypha which we have examined earlier. This implies that the translators did not accept the Apocrypha as sacred texts.
Next, we take note of a group of manuscripts written in Old Latin. The term “old” is very appropriate, since it is generally agreed that some of these date from the latter half of the second century A.D. This means that the Old Latin Bible (O.T. and N.T.) is the oldest translation extant of the whole Bible. However, it should be remembered that the Old Testament was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) discussed above; and, of course, the New Testament was in Greek.
This, plus the fact that the Old Testament surviving texts are quite fragmentary, means these Old Latin versions are, relatively speaking, more pertinent as evidence for the study of the New Testament text of the first century. These Old Latin versions were probably produced in North Africa to serve the needs of missionaries from Italy (Rome) who were engaged in strengthening and spreading Christianity in the North African domains of the Roman Empire.
The Vatican (B) text of the Bible is invaluable. It is a manuscript codex (a manuscript document written in book [leaf] form). It contains both the Old and New Testaments in Greek. Unfortunately, some passages are missing. These include most of Genesis, a few verses from 2 Kings, several Psalms, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and Hebrews 9:14-13:25. Also missing are the entire books of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.
In spite of this lack, (B) has the honor of being called the oldest and best manuscript of the Greek New Testament. It dates from the fourth century A.D. (ca. 225-350?). Although of great age, the codex did not become generally available to the libraries and scholars until 1889 or 1890. At that time Pope Leo XIII authorized the Vatican Press to publish the entire manuscript.
Standing in the Vatican Library in Romp and staring at the glass-enclosed codex, one is awed to realize that the text was written about 250 years after the original New Testament was completed! What a witness to the transmission of the Biblical text.
Another codex manuscript of great worth is the Sinitic (aleph). Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and is the code sign for this great manuscript. English has no equivalent letter. The transliteration symbol is simply (‘). The notable German Biblical scholar of the 19th century (1815-1874), Konstantin von Tischenuorf, discovered portions of this text in 1844 while visiting the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catharine located on Mount Sinai. Over the next fifteen years he was able to secure the manuscript. He presented it to the Russian Czar, Alexander II, under whose patronage he had been negotiating.
Eventually, Russia sold the codex to Britain for over $500,000. It has remained in the British Museum since 1933. Although parts of the Old Testament are missing, (aleph) has the distinction of being the only complete copy of the New Testament written in uncial style. Uncial describes a handwritten style found primarily in Greek and Latin manuscripts from about the 4th to the 8th centuries A.D. The word means “inch-high” and refers to the letters which are mostly non- cursive. Most biblical uncial manuscripts are highly treasured because they are very old. Like (B), (aleph) dates from about the fourth century (ca. 300 A.D.?).
It can safely be said that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanuc codices are the supreme witnesses to the ancient New Testament text. Both manuscripts have many Old Testament omissions. However, being in Greek, the surviving texts made appreciable contributions to Old Testament textual studies, especially for those working from the background of the Septuagint (LXX) Old Testament text discussed above.
The Latin Vulgate is one of the more familiar Biblical texts of antiquity. This is probably due to the competence of the translator, the timeliness of its appearance in history, the bold nature of the translation project, and the eventual prominence of the Vulgate Bible in church history. Previously, we mentioned Old Latin Biblical translations that were done very early. As time went on, these translations grew in number and diversity. This motivated Bishop Damasus of Rome to commission Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome), no doubt the greatest Biblical scholar of his day, to revise the variant Old Latin New Testament. He began the work in about 382 A.D. It soon became obvious to Jerome that the entire Bible needed revision. Although Damasus died in 384, Jerome continued his magnum opus until completed in 405. It was a timely work because it served as a “clearing house,” removing many of the Old Latin texts from the scene. By the 8th century, the Old Latin texts had been almost completely replaced by the Vulgate.
The Vulgate was a bold translation accomplishment because Jerome grounded his translation on the original Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek. Many churchmen opposed this because they had come to view the translation of the Septuagiant (LXX) Greek Old Testament as done by God’s inspiration. However, Jerome’s scholarship served him well. Eventually, the quality of his translation was recognized. Although revised and somewhat awkwardly handled at times, the Vulgate was viewed as the Bible of Christendom for at least 1000 years.
The Alexandrian Codex (A) is another treasured witness in the history of biblical text transmission. It dates slightly later than (B) and (aleph). (A) was written in the fifth century (ca. 450?). It contains the Old Testament in Greek but has several omissions: parts of Genesis 14-16 are missing, while 1 12:18-14:9 and Psalms 49:19-79:10 are lacking. The New Testament also has a few missing passages: Matthew 1:1-25:6; John 6:50-8:52; and 2 Corinthians 4:13-12:6. The manuscript varies in quality from book to book and, although very valuable, is not valued quite as highly as (B) and (aleph) [Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration].
The Alexandrian codex was probably written in Alexandria, Egypt. Centuries later it was taken to Constantinople by Cyril Lucar the Patriarch. In 1624 he gave the manuscript to King James I of England. However, James died before receiving it. Therefore, in 1627 it went to his successor, Charles I. In the following century (1757), King George II gave the codex to the nation of Britain.
The Alexandrian codex is now housed with the Sinaiticus codex (aleph) in the Department of Manuscripts of the British Museum. The entire extant text was published from 1979-1883. The pivotal role and great worth of the Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (aleph), and Alexandrinus (A), the “trio of uncials,” cannot be overstated. In spite of the great advances that have been made in the study of the condition and transmission of Biblical texts from those early times until the present, these three codices retain a primary place in that endeavor.
With the exceptions of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the foregoing texts we have mentioned have included texts from both Old and New Testaments. We now turn to four codices which have to do with the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) only. They reflect the Masoretic text in its various stages of transmission. They illustrate the great debt owed to generations of the ben Asher family, and, to a lesser extent, the ben Naphtali family, for their very careful preserving, copying, and transmitting the Hebrew manuscript text in its characteristic Masoretic form (S. K. Soderlund).
The Cairo Codex of the Prophets was written with Masoretic pointing by Moshe ben Asher in 895 A.D. According to the Jews' classification of the Hebrew Bible, the Cairo Codex of the Prophets contained the Former Prophets consisting of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings; also included were the Latter Prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. This codex is now kept in Cairo, Egypt.
The Pentateuch Codex is housed in the British Museum. It has been assigned various dates ranging from mid-9th to mid-10th centuries A.D. It contains only the Pentateuch from Genesis 39:20 to Deuteronomy 1:33. However, that which is extant serves as a significant witness to the state of the Hebrew Bible text. Notes in the margin speak of Aaron ben Asher as an authority in the work.
The Leningrad Codex of the Prophets was discovered in 1839 in a synagogue in the Crimea. It was placed in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg (Leningrad). It dates from 910 A.D. It contains Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of The Twelve (Minor Prophets). One of its great contributions to the history of text transmission is as an example of the Eastern system of vocalizing (pointing) the Hebrew consonantal text. Its discovery made it possible for scholars to compare the lesser known Babylonian (Eastern) pointing system with the Tiberian (Western) system. As it turned out, the Eastern system was closely akin to the Western system, although different signs were used. This similarity tended to vindicate the normative place of the Tiberian Masoretic textual tradition perpetuated by several generations of the Asher family scribes.
Finally, we take note of the Leningrad Codex which contains the complete Hebrew Bible (O.T.). It, like the Leningrad codex of the Prophets, is now in the Russian Public Library in Leningrad. It is a copy made in 1008 A.D. from manuscripts which had been corrected by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. It stands as a monument in the long saga of the manual copying of texts, their preservation, and their transmission. In fact, this text eventually became the foundation for the third edition of the Biblia Hebraica in 1937, a place of prominence it held for over fifty years.
Rudolf Wittel, editor, had said concerning this upcoming edition as early as 1929, “We can now go to the original form as ben Asher presented it. The large amount of material collected by Paul Kahle, together with numerous facsimiles of most ancient manuscripts which have been published in various scattered publications gave me confidence that the high antiquity – hitherto questioned – of the codices traced back to ben Asher can be defended with good reason. The loan of manuscript B 19 (A) (hereafter referred to as L) by the Leningrad Public Library to the Old Testament Seminar of the University of Leipzig … has made it possible to transfer this knowledge from theory into practice. So then in this edition, in place of the text of ben Chayyim or any other Masoretic text resting on manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth century A.D., there is offered for the first time the text of ben Asher, several hundred years older, in the form in which MS. L gives it.”
Kittel died in 1929, but the remarks above were repeated in the seventh edition of Biblia Hebraica. “We stress that the foregoing overview is offered with one major goal in mind; that is, to its integrity in its transmission through the ages. We also need to keep in mind that the manuscripts discussed are indeed major ones. However, they do not stand alone. In fact, there are hundreds, even thousands, of Biblical texts in fragmentary or complete form available to textual scholars engaged in the noble task of restoring, preserving, and transmitting the text of the Bible. In this study it is neither possible nor necessary to plunge into the complexities of Textual Criticism.”
“Textual criticism is the study of copies of any written work of which the autograph (the original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the original text … Textual criticism, which has sometimes been called ‘lower criticism,' must be distinguished from literary criticism, or ‘higher criticism’. While textual criticism seeks to determine the original wording of a document, literary criticism takes this original text and seeks to determine any sources which may underlie it. Textual criticism deals primarily with manuscripts; literary criticism deals largely with elements such as style, vocabulary, and historical background” (Harold Greenlee).
There are three more observations which need to he made. First, the examples given above in a general consecutive order show there was a distinct continuity of textual transmission from our very first example of the Samaritan Pentateuch (ca. 400 B.C,) through the complete Hebrew Bible of the Leningrad Codex (1008 A.D.).
The discerning reader may have noticed, however, that Hebrew language manuscripts in the list were not distributed in an even fashion through the centuries. This does not mean, of course, that there were no other textual witnesses in existence. For examples, other texts include the following: The Nash Papyrus (ca. 2nd century A.D.), the Cairo Genizah Fragments (6th-9th centuries), and the Aleppo Codex, (early 10th century). Also there are the Biblical quotations found in the Talmud (ca. 200-500 A.D.); the O.T. work of Origin in his Hexapla (ca. 3rd century A.D.); and the Aram aic Targums of Onkelos on the Pentateuch and Johathan on the Prophets (ca. 400 A.D.), to name a few.
This brings us to the second observation. The Dead Sea Scrolls have made, and are making, spectacular contributions in many ways to the science of Biblical studies. In this lesson we have stressed that there is every reason to affirm the veracity of the text that has come down to us. The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a quantum leap in establishing confidence in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament as we now have it.
That leap may be described as follows: The discovery of the Scrolls began in about 1947, as stated earlier. However, they were written over a period from the third century B.C. into the first century A.D. A glance at our sample list of witnesses to the Biblical texts shows there are over a thousand years between the writing of the DSS and the Leningrad Codex of the complete Bible (1008 A.D.), which is the oldest complete Hebrew Bible known. We must not discount the value of the supporting witnesses to the text and transmission of the Bible that we have discussed, and thousands of others to which we have not alluded. Lightfoot wrote: “The number of our New Testament manuscripts is vast, about 4,500 in all.” Metzger said there are “approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament” … Soulen wrote, “The sources of New Testament Textual Criticism present” … MSS number over 5,000.” As we have seen, ancient Old Testament manuscripts are not as numerous as New Testament manuscripts. Altogether, however, the supporting manuscript witnesses for the biblical text number into the thousands. Yet, it remains an astonishing fact that with the Dead Sea Scrolls we now have historically authenticated and verified biblical manuscripts, unknown before 1947, that reach back well over a millennium before 1008 A.D., the date of the oldest entire Hebrew Bible known to exist.
This means that the DSS reflect the form of the Hebrew text before the meticulous work of the Masoretic scholars had shaped it into its definitive state. How do the pre-Masoretic DSS manuscripts compare with the time-honored Masoretic texts seen in codices like the Cairo Codex of the Prophets, the Pentateuch Codex, and the Leningrad Codex of the Prophets? The following quotation describing the DSS of Isaiah gives us a clue. “The Isaiah scroll, with its fifty-four columns of beautifully preserved Hebrew writing, contains the complete text of the biblical book with the exception of a few small lacunae – The text of Isaiah in this manuscript, with significant differences in spelling and grammar and many variant readings of more or less interest and importance, is substantially that presented considerably later in the MT” (John C. Trever).
The third and final observation is that we now have excellent biblical Hebrew texts that date to within about three hundred years of the close of Old Testament history! We also need to emphasize again that in the great “trio of uncials,” comprised of “B,” “aleph,” and “A,” we have both the O.T. and the N.T. in Greek. These go back to within about three hundred years of the completion of the N.T.
All of this is bolstered by the supporting evidence of the Greek O.T. found in the LXX (ca. 250 B.C.-150 B.C.), and the Latin Vulgate of the early fifth century A.D. All of the texts we have examined, plus a virtual hoard of biblical manuscripts and fragments we could not present within the scope of this study, make it possible for us to say, “We can trust our Bible!”
(Unless noted, Bible translation used is the New American Standard Bible)
