Old Testament Intro. (OTI) - part 4: Are OT Manuscripts Reliable?

If you've been reading along, you know that I've been posting articles about the Old Testament Intro class I took at Westminster. In previous posts, I've tried to answer the questions: “Why study the Old Testament?” and “Why study the geography and history of the OT?”

This post will be about manuscript reliability. The Bible translations we have today- be it NIV, ESV, NLT, etc... are based on manuscripts that were edited 1000s of years ago and then transmitted over time. None of us have the original copies written down by Moses, David, or Jeremiah. And there are known differences and changes that have crept up over time. For example, the Greek translation of the book of Jeremiah is about 15% shorter and has a different chapter sequence. So, it seems like the Greek version was originally based on a different Hebrew text and not the Hebrew text we have today.

Even though the scribes were very careful, they could not avoid making the occasional mistake. Often they were unintentional and due to human error. Physical damage by accident and decay would leave holes in the text or a scribe might leave something out or hear something incorrectly while the text was being dictated.

And yet, our faith hinges on what the Bible says. Without the Bible, we would have no knowledge of God, creation, or His redemptive work that reaches its climax in Christ.

This begs the question: Can we trust the Bible? Or, is the Bible a corrupted version of God's word- maybe only a faint witness to the original, which is now lost? A lot is at stake here. If the Bible is only partially trustworthy, then the foundation of our faith isn't completely reliable. If that's the case, we have no basis for claiming that Yahweh is the only true God and that Christ is the only way to Him. Thus, who can say that Christ is the only path to God when many other faiths proclaim many other ways?

Before we can answer this question, we need to set the boundaries of our discussion. As we examine the history and manuscripts to see if the Bible is trustworthy, we must remember our position of faith: God is active and in control of all things. Roman Catholic teaching says we should look for someone or something (church authority) to tell us the final answer. Skeptics say that we should look to human reason and our own understanding as the final standard. But, the final standard of truth is found in God Himself, and not some standard that is outside of Him. There are difficulties, and we may never find an intellectually satisfying answer to all of them. So, is our trust in our ability to reconstruct the text perfectly or in God?

CAUTIOUS CONSERVATISM

As Christians, we can take a path of cautious conservatism- God's word in its original form exists in the various manuscripts, but we may have to do some work to find it.

As mentioned earlier, a manuscript may have errors, but it is very unlikely for all manuscripts to have the same error. Bible scholars see how the different manuscripts compare/contrast. They decide which is the most reliable one as many of them usually agree while a few have differences. If most manuscripts say one thing, and only a few have a difference, scholars often go with the one with more copies. In other words, majority wins!

The work of researching the different manuscripts to get the original is called “Textual Criticism.” Scholars have been working on Textual Criticism for centuries, so its nothing new. Think of it as a kind of Bible CSI- investigative teams have to sift through the evidence to construct the original story.

The different options for the original text are placed in the footnotes or margins of the Bible if enough manuscripts have that difference. For example, in 2 Samuel 12:21, the ESV says this: "When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry." The context is that David's firstborn son Amnon had just raped his half-sister Tamar. David is upset, but that's about all that David does. There's no mention of any punishment for Amnon. The footnote for this verse says, "Dead Sea Scroll, Septuigent add "But he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, since he was his firstborn." Interesting. Two other manuscript families give us a little more insight into why David seemed unwilling to do anything after this incident.

So, should we be concerned that there are multiple options? Before we start to panic, realize that the Bible is the most well attested ancient document that exists. Thousands of manuscripts are available to piece together the original text. Only a very small part of the text is in question. And the vast majority of those variations make no difference in how we understand and apply scripture. This means that no major theological point depends on whether or not scholars "got it right." Therefore, passages like Jeremiah 31 that describe and foretell the coming of Christ and the New Covenant are rock-solid:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers.....For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

The prophecies about Christ, the new covenant, and the forgiveness of sins are unmistakably clear and reliable. Here are two quotes from scholars who have spent decades going through the OT in the ancient text:

“Textual criticism has established beyond reasonable doubt that no significant teaching of scripture is called into question” (Silva)

“Even if we adopted every single alternative reading, we'd largely have the same Bible” (Walke)

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Textual criticism was given a huge boost in the 1940s with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls). The scrolls are dated to around 400 BC and include references to every single book of the OT except for one (Esther). Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known copies of the OT were from the 10th century A.D. Before this find, it would be impossible to demonstrate that the OT prophecies about Christ as a suffering servant (e.g. Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22) were true, or if they were made up after the fact.

The Dead Sea Scrolls is a huge piece of evidence testifying to the trustworthiness of the OT. If we compare the Dead Sea scrolls with versions from the 10th century AD, they are virtually the same. This means that for over 1000 years, the OT was faithfully transmitted.

WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD

As mentioned earlier, we don't ultimately base our confidence on man's carefulness. Our confidence rests in God, who has spoken and graciously preserved His word for us today. This means that pastors, scholars, and all Christians can trust in God and His Word. Having some awareness of our manuscripts and their reliability helps us appreciate the roots of our faith. We don't need to fear when skeptics question the reliability of the Bible. Rather, we can be prepared to give an answer for the hope that we have.