8/13/2019 Bibliology 04

1/4

Dr. Jack L. ArnoldBibliology

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 thean' translations and versions over the cent!ries& the $i%le we have toda' is not )!st a "ale

re#lection o# the original( *as transission 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 stateents to ake the coon 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# deterining 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 inthe writing o# the $i%le& the historicit' o# the $i%le& etc. This is a legitiate #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+treel' i"ortant one.

II. T*, 1RO$L,2S O3 CO1ISTS

A. Co"'ists - Those who were co"'ists in the Jewish religion were called scri%es. The scri%eswere learned and religio!s en who gave etic!lo!s attention in their co"'ing o# the Old

Testaent. 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 transission o# the *e%rew te+t. NOT,-

/e have no original an!scri"ts o# the Old Testaent. In #act& there are no co"lete co"ieso# the *e%rew Old Testaent earlier than AD 566& %!t it sees 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 "henoenon in itsel# and !st #all !nder the heading o# the "rovidence o# 0od.

$. Co"'ist ,rror - In the transission o# the sacred te+t o# the Old Testaent& we #ind that thesae 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 transission o# the te+t %!t not in the original

writings theselves. 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 tie o# the original co"osition and

the invention o# the "rinting "ress. NOT,- 2ost o# these errors in transission can %e

eliinated %' acc!rate lower criticis& and the co"'ist errors that reain in no wa' a##ect an'

doctrine o# the Old Testaent.

C. T'"es o# Co"'ist ,rror7. S!%stit!tion o# a word o# siilar so!nd #or the one !sed in the original 9e.g.& :whole; #or

:hole; or :there; #or :their.;

8/13/2019 Bibliology 04

2/4

@. 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,TA. 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 coe #ro this "eriod are in rearka%le agreeent& 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 #ored a recogniBed g!ild o# $i%lete+t

c!stodians in Jes!s da'. The So"heris activit' e+tended #ro 466 $C to AD 866 and theirgreat achieveent 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. owel "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 Testaent. 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 Testaent. 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 graatical #or. The' even engaged in a liited ao!nt o# te+t!al

criticis. The 2assoretic Te+t is the odern da' *e%rew $i%le.

I. T*, TRANS2ISSION O3 T*, *,$R,/ T,T IN 1R,2ASSOR,TIC TI2,S

A. 2an!scri"ts - /hile the 2assoretic Te+t can show the acc!rac' o# the Old Testaent as #ar

%ack as AD 566& what a%o!t the transission o# the te+t %e#ore this tie( To deterine the

answer to this E!estion& the "re2assoretic *e%rew an!scri"ts and the earl' versions o# theOld Testaent !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 aaBing acc!rac' o# the

2assoretic Te+t.

8. Saaritan 1entate!ch - This version is in an' wa's a "erversion& #or it is ver' %iased

towards the Saaritans as %eing the tr!e "eo"le o# 0od rather than the Jews. This is onl'

nat!ral #or Saaritanis was set !" as a rival religion to J!dais. The Saaritan1entate!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.

$. ersions

7. 0reek - The ost "roinent 0reek version o# the *e%rew te+t is the Se"t!agint 9L6 $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 tie

st!d'ing and co"'ing the Old Testaent. The' were "ers!aded that the Roan aries

were going to invade the land. To "reserve the Old Testaent #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 anotheralost co"lete co"' o# Isaiah =???. There are tho!sands o# #ragents #ro alost

ever' %ook in the Old Testaent. 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 alost 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# transission over this one tho!sand

'ears. Laird *arris sa's&

The te+t 9o# Isaiah =H??< is e+treel' 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( $C At that tie& there were two or three

t'"es o# te+t availa%le #or co"'ing. These t'"es di##ered aong theselves solittle& however& that we can in#er that still earlier co"'ists had also #aith#!ll' and

care#!ll' transitted the Old Testaent te+t. Indeed& it wo!ld %e rash ske"ticis

that wo!ld now den' that we have o!r Old Testaent 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'.

. CONCLUSIONSA. There are still an' things we do not know a%o!t the transission o# the Old Testaent %!t

we can now see that it is reasona%le to %elieve that o!r "resent an!scri"ts are ver' close tothe originals. $' #aith& we acce"t soe things that we do not 'et !nderstand. *owever& o!r

#aith is "laced in the relia%ilit' o# the Old Testaent which in s!%stantiated %' solid #acts.

The "ro%le is not with the te+t %!t with ans willingness to %elieve what 0od has said

in the ins"ired Old Testaent.