Question 4

 Who are the 144,000 sealed in heaven (Revelation 7)?

The text says quite specifically that this is “the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.”

The real challenge in explaining this passage lies in the meaning of the tribes of Israel.

A common interpretation of Revelation says that this is the number of the Jewish martyrs from the Great Tribulation. The number in this case derives from the number of the tribes, twelve, multiplied by 12,000: 12 × 1,000 × 12 = 144,000.

In Bible times, 1,000 was the largest number for which there was a special word. They had no need for the word million because they knew of nothing that numerous, except perhaps grains of sand, and they were considered countless.

The Old Testament used the word thousand the way we might use million, or one of the larger words our national debt has forced on our collective consciousness.

When God told Israel that He would, “keep[ing] his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands” (Deuteronomy 7:9). He wanted them to know that His faithfulness was everlasting.

Think about it. We frequently use such words as trillions or billions as if they meant infinity or eternity. And that’s the use the Bible makes of its largest number word. When the Bible uses 1,000 in a symbolic sense, it means all there is or all there could be.

The first twelve in our equation is simple to understand. Twelve is used throughout Scripture as the number for Israel, and it comes from the twelve patriarchs. That gets us up to 12,000. We could stop there, since the text tells us there were 12,000 from each of the tribes. Many commentators do. They’re the ones who identify these as the Jewish martyrs. They do this because their larger interpretive framework views all of Revelation, after chapter 3, as relating to Israel.

I disagree. Revelation gives pretty clear indication as to its attitude toward ethnic Israel. Christ spoke to the church at Smyrna and encouraged them in the face of “the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9). This slander went beyond gossip and backbiting. It eventaully led to persecution and imprisonment. The church at Philadelphia received an even more direct statement about those who claimed to be Jews. Revelation 3:9 said they were liars.

In addition to the twelve tribes of Israel, another group of twelve figured prominently in the Bible, this time in the New Testament. That’s right. There were twelve disciples, later called apostles, who were known in the early church simply as “the Twelve.” Revelation includes the Apostles with the twelve tribes. The New Jerusalem bears the names of the tribes on its gates, and the twelve foundations bear the names of the apostles.

The New Testament doesn’t completely ignore Israel in a biological, ethnic sense. But often biological descent from the patriarchs was de-emphasized.

Paul talked about those who had Abraham for a forefather, “as pertaining to the flesh” (Romans 4:1, KJV). He talked about Israelites who were his kinsmen “according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3).

This qualifier is important in light of what Paul said in Romans 9:6–8. Paul’s intention here should be clear. Not all who are descended from Israel, that is, Israel after the flesh, are Israel. Not everyone who is Abraham’s descendant is his child. It is the children of promise, Paul said, who are Israel! He talked about the “Israel of God” at the end of Galatians (6:16), which is a particularly telling verse, because it comes at the conclusion of a book aimed at the heresy of Judaizing.

The Galatians had been told they must become observant Jews to be Christians. Paul attacked the idea in the most forceful way throughout the book. He ended by reminding them that the new creation which is in Christ was what really counted, not circumcision or uncircumcision (6:15). In other words circumcision, considered vital by Judaizers and the mark of the orthodox Jew, was irrelevant.

What mattered was that the Galatians had been made new creatures in Christ, the act that abolished the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14) and made the two one, so Paul could say that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28). After negating the importance of biological descent, Paul showed the positive side: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). He couldn’t have said it much more plainly. For many Christians the idea of the Church as spiritual Israel and heir to all the promises of God is anathema. But I am convinced that this is what the Bible teaches.

The problem with interpreting the 144,000 as Jewish martyrs lies in the assumption that Revelation uses Israel in a strictly literal sense. Those who take this literal view interpret other nations symbolically, but not Israel. Why insist that Israel must be ethnic Israel when Babylon has become Rome and then some ten-nation European super-state?

Why must Israel be ethnic Israel when so many places in the New Testament say that we are now under new terms of agreement between God and humanity. Under those terms, Israel is free to share with everyone else, but has no priority. If the Gentiles are now the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise, why must we see Israel in Revelation?

In fact, there’s no hint whatsoever that the church has been removed at the beginning of Revelation. Some will argue that the call of John to come through the door into heaven is the Rapture. It takes some very inventive interpretation to make a case for that idea.

The speaker clearly identifies this vision as “what must take place after this” (Revelation 4:1). John records his observations as his own first-person-singular experiences. There’s no hint anywhere in the text that he represents the church.

Where has the church disappeared to in this book?

I suggest they haven’t disappeared at all. They make their appearance in the 144,000 of chapters 7 and 14.

We’ve established that the number is 12 × 12 × 1,000. We’ve also established that twelve is the number of Israel. Twelve times twelve is a number that signifies the perfection of itself. It stands for the perfect, ideal Israel.

That number may come from the multiplication of twelve tribes times twelve apostles. We see that combination in 21:12–14. One thousand is the number of completion. In other words, it stands for the totality of God’s people, Jew and Gentile, brought together under the banner of the Lamb in that last terrible, climactic moment when the forces of evil rise up in the violence of their death throes.

In the 144,000 we find the fulfillment of God’s eternal plan of redemption, the calling out of a people for His name, the creation of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The number is the symbolic representation of what Paul described in Ephesians. It’s the body in which race, gender, and social status are all irrelevant (Galatians 3:28). It includes the full number of those who will be saved, set aside for protection by the seal of God. The Body of Christ, in that generation, will stand complete.

Although the nations continue to rage against Christ and His bride, they have the assurance that they have been marked with God’s seal of ownership, and that “neither death nor life, angels, nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38–39).

David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien, 1990), 102–105.

Question 3

Why does the King James Version mention the Trinity in 1 John 5:8 and the newer translations don’t?

Once the canon of Scripture had been set, the history of the text seemingly should have ended. But that’s not the case. The continuing history of the biblical text comes through the pens of generations of copyists, men who laboriously hand-copied the Scriptures.

The Chinese developed moveable type in the eleventh century, but it wasn’t until the fifteenth century that it was discovered in Europe. In 1454, or thereabouts, Johann Gutenberg used his “new” invention to print the first Bible that wasn’t handwritten. Before that time, making a book was a costly, time-consuming process with immeasurable opportunity for copyists to make mistakes.

Even the Bible, which was copied carefully and reverently over the centuries, had thousands of copyists’ errors that crept into the text. Not every copyist was as accurate as the next. Some were terrible spellers. Some were inclined to drop words. Others would repeat whole lines without realizing it.

These tiny variations have given rise to a class of scholarship called textual criticism. The work of the textual critic is to compare all the existing ancient copies of the Bible and attempt to eliminate the copyists’ errors. Most of this work has had little bearing on the meaning of the text, but occasionally they have to deal with the kind of thing that happened in 1 John 5.

Modern Christians are not the first people to write notes in the margins of their Bibles. Apparently copyists through the centuries made notes of a devotional or explanatory nature in the margins of texts they were copying. The evidence of the ancient manuscripts suggests strongly that this is what happened with 1 John 5:8. Of the approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, only eight contain the words “testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth.”

Of those eight manuscripts, only four contain the passage in the text itself. The other four show it as a note in the margin. What’s more, none of these can be dated earlier than A.D. 1500. Moving closer to the time the letter was written, we find that some Old Latin texts from as early as the 600s have the Trinitarian statement. Most of these texts came from North Africa, where the church was very large but was also torn by controversies over the Trinity! Perhaps the words were in the original but were deleted by someone who didn’t agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. We can never eliminate that possibility entirely, but the available evidence points in the other direction. This is the most convincing argument that this passage was a late addition to the text.

The absence of the passage from ancient Greek texts may not prove anything. But the absence of the passage from the writings of the ancient church fathers lends powerful evidence against the existence of this sentence in the original autograph. Even when the early church writers quoted 1 John 5:7–8, they quoted it without the addition. And the post-apostolic fathers who quote the verse could have used the addition to strengthen their Trinitarian position, had it existed.

The phrase does appear in several non-biblical Latin manuscripts, but even there it doesn’t make its appearance until after A.D. 600. Probably written originally as a meditation on the text of 1 John 5:7–8, it found its way into the margins of Old Latin manuscripts and eventually into the text itself.

The text used in the translation of the King James Version was one influenced by this line of Old Latin texts. More recent translations, aware of the history of the phrase, have either left it out altogether or made a note of it in the margin.

I think that’s appropriate. What began as a devotional commentary on the puzzling statement about the Spirit, the water, and the blood, has been returned to its rightful place in the margin.

David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien, 1990), 50–52.

Question 2

There are places in the Old Testament where numbers don’t agree from one book to another. Does this mean there are mistakes in Scripture?

It’s common for writers to point to these discrepancies as proof of the Bible’s fallibility. “Aha,” they cry, “we knew the Bible was full of mistakes and here’s the proof!” Sincere believers have been troubled by these inconsistencies because a comparison of the texts will demonstrate that numbers in parallel passages do sometimes disagree.

If the question is, do our present versions of the Bible contain mistakes, I’m afraid the answer is a qualified yes. When it comes to numbers, the ancient texts have suffered a great deal. And if the ancient texts have been damaged in transmission, the modern translations can’t help but reflect that damage. I could list numerous places where numbers have gotten changed, omitted, enlarged, or shrunk. But does that mean the Bible is in error? No. Most evangelicals say that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. For those who think of baseball players and pop singers when they hear the word autograph, in biblical studies it refers to the original text as it came from the hand of the first writer. In other words, the book as it was first written is without error.

I’ve tried to show how the modern text of the Bible is reliable, but no one I’m aware of would argue that the NIV is inerrant. The original autograph was inerrant. The text we have today is reliable because the comparison of ancient texts and versions has shown that no copyist’s error or scribal gloss has changed the meaning of any doctrine or teaching. There are numerous places, however, where the precise reading of a particular text is uncertain.

That’s particularly true when it comes to numbers. We can’t always prove that the numbers in the original autographs were different from the numbers we have in the available manuscripts. But there’s enough evidence that numbers fared very poorly over the centuries that it is a plausible explanation for most of the variant numbers we find in the text.

For example, 1 Samuel 13:1, in the Hebrew text, reads, “Saul was [_____] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel [_____] two years.”

You read it right. Saul’s age isn’t given in the Hebrew text. Bible translators have figured it out from the Septuagint. And the Hebrew gives the length of his reign as 2 years. We get the round number “40” from Acts 13:21. That’s a good example of numbers that have been so damaged in the transmission of the text that they have to be pieced together from other sources.

Later in the same chapter, the number of chariots used by the Philistines is given as “thirty thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sands on the seashore” (13:5). Anyone with a smattering of mathematical sense can figure out that there were five chariots for every charioteer. Even if the Philistines had abnormally long legs, one man would have had a terrible time straddling five chariots. Since we know that the Philistines used chariots that held two men, and since the Septuagint reads three thousand chariots, most recent translations read “three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers.”

What’s the point I’m trying to make here? Simply this. Anyone who has ever dialed a wrong number on the telephone, or has trouble remembering numbers larger than three digits, should be able to understand how easily copyists could garble numbers.

The fact that the Septuagint preserves the more plausible reading in these two cases probably points back to an earlier Hebrew text that hasn’t survived the centuries. This means that the Septuagint translator of 1 Samuel had access to a text older than the one containing the copyist’s error.

We find another example of conflicting numbers in Genesis 46:27, which says that Jacob’s household of seventy went down to Egypt. Acts 7:14 says seventy-five. The culprit here is probably the Septuagint.

By Christ’s time, this Greek translation of the Old Testament had become the accepted text of the Bible for most of the world’s Greek-speaking Jews. The problem arises out of a quotation in Acts 7:14, the part of Stephen’s sermon for which he was martyred.

To clear up this problem we need to know a little more about this powerful preacher. We first met him in Acts 6:5. A dispute had arisen in the Jerusalem church over a fund for the care for widows and orphans. The Greek-speaking believers complained that the Hebrew-speaking believers were unfairly overlooking their widows in the distribution of food. In an act of inspired wisdom, the church appointed seven men to oversee the distribution; all seven were from the Greek-speaking, or Hellenistic, community. Stephen is mentioned first in this group. Even his name, which is Greek, attests to the fact that he or his family had come from the Jewish world outside Palestine. This means that Stephen, when he preached in Acts 7, used the Greek Septuagint of the Diaspora, not the Hebrew Bible of Palestine.

The Septuagint, in its translation of Genesis 46:27, adds two sons of Manasseh, two sons of Ephraim, and one of Ephraim’s grandsons to the patriarchal census. With these five added to the list, the number in Stephen’s Bible totaled seventy-five. And so, in quoting from the Septuagint, Stephen gave the number of Jacob’s family as seventy-five.

Does that mean Acts is wrong?

Absolutely not. In fact, Acts 7:14 records Stephen’s statement with great accuracy.

I’ve grown accustomed to using the newer translations of the Bible. I preach from the NIV or NASB, I read the NIV or NEB, and I study from the NASB. But after years of that, when I quote Scripture in a sermon I almost invariably fall back into the wording of the King James. I can’t help it. That’s the version I memorized as a boy.

Knowing that Stephen was raised in the Diaspora and educated in Scriptures from the Septuagint, what version would we expect him to quote when surrounded by a potential lynch mob? If Acts 7:14 was a quotation from the Hebrew, I might be inclined to doubt its accuracy, even if it did agree with Genesis. A Greek-speaking Jew would be expected to quote from the Greek Old Testament!

Then is Genesis wrong?

Again, absolutely not. Genesis, using the list of people it does, accurately numbers seventy.

On Sunday mornings at the church I previously served, our head usher counted the congregation and entered the count in a record book. I never changed his number, but he took his count early in the service and our congregation tended to be very relaxed about the clock. Therefore, there were frequently more people when we dismissed than when he made his count.

Does that mean he had counted incorrectly? Of course it doesn’t. He counted everyone who was there when he counted. The fact that another six or seven people came after he finished counting doesn’t render his count inaccurate.

The list of family members Moses chose to count numbered seventy. The Septuagint, translated a thousand years later, took the liberty of adding members of the lines of Ephraim and Manasseh. For them, apparently it was important to extend the count to include two of the dominant tribes in later history.

While the numbers in the two books disagree, both are accurate in what they record. Moses provided us with he biological building blocks for the greatly multiplied people of Israel.

I don’t mean to imply that every number problem in the Old Testament can be dealt with simply by blaming a ham-handed stenographer. But the frequency of copyist’s error in the transmission of numbers makes it foolish to think that numerical problems in the text are proof that the Bible is riddled with errors.

David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien, 1990), 45–48.

Question 1

How do we know there aren’t places where the Bible has been changed over the years to promote some false doctrine?

It amazes me how people who have no use for the clear teaching of the Bible like to use it for their own purposes. They either appeal to some twisted “spiritual” reading of the text or they claim that Christians or Jews have changed the text to suit their purposes.

The first method is easy to beat if we stick to the clearest possible meaning of the text as the original readers would have understood it. The second method requires a bit more work.

A special breed of Bible student has made answering that accusation their life’s work. These are the people who figured out the answer to the question about 1 John 5:7–8. Their task is tedious, technical, and trying. I could never do it. But thanks to them we can have certainty that no doctrine of Scripture has been damaged by tampering.

Textual critics compare all the available copies and track the occurrence of variations all the way back to the very earliest manuscripts. By doing this, they discover both where and when variations began to appear.

They go about their work with a few rules of the road.

David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien, 1990), 42–43.

Erasmus may be regarded as the chief founder of modern textual and Biblical criticism

Erasmus may be regarded as the chief founder of modern textual and Biblical criticism. He must always hold an honoured place among the interpreters of Scripture. In his Paraphrases, which Luther bitterly called Paraphroneses, he endeavoured, he says, “to supply gaps, to soften the abrupt, to arrange the confused, to simplify the involved, to untie the knotty, to throw light on the obscure, to give the Roman franchise to Hebraisms … to say the same things though in another way.” It was his aim, above all, to brighten the meaning of words which had been partly deadened by familiarity, partly perverted by mistaken applications.(Dedicat. Paraphr. in Ep. ad Rom. Herder said that his Paraphrases were worth their weight in gold. Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Tregelles do justice to his merits.)

...He pointed out the strange textual phenomena of the passage about the woman taken in adultery. In his Annotations he described the general characteristics of Hellenistic Greek, and many of the peculiarities which mark the style of St. Paul. He did not deny the possibility of trivial errors and discrepancies in the sacred writers.(Annott. in Luke 22:36; John 2:19, 20, &c.) He usefully illustrates, the form into which our Lord sometimes threw His teaching. He did not confuse inspiration with supernatural infallibility in expressions and details.1 “Christ alone,” he said, “is called the Truth. He alone was free from all error.”

Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886), 320–321.

THE GOAL OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE

THE GOAL OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE

For Augustine, the goal of reading and interpreting Scripture is to love God and love our neighbor. In the following excerpt from his book On Christian Teaching, Augustine says that if someone errs in his or her interpretation, yet it leads to loving God and loving neighbor, this is not a harmful interpretation. However, Augustine does instruct us to teach such a person how to interpret the Bible rightly.

Whoever … thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception. For there is involved in deception the intention to say what is false; and we find plenty of people who intend to deceive, but nobody who wishes to be deceived. Since, then, the man who knows practices deceit, and the ignorant man is practiced upon, it is quite clear that in any particular case the man who is deceived is a better man than he who deceives, seeing that it is better to suffer than to commit injustice. Now every man who lies commits an injustice; and if any man thinks that a lie is ever useful, he must think that injustice is sometimes useful. For no liar keeps faith in the matter about which he lies. He wishes, of course, that the man to whom he lies should place confidence in him; and yet he betrays his confidence by lying to him. Now every man who breaks faith is unjust. Either, then, injustice is sometimes useful (which is impossible), or a lie is never useful.

¶ Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I was going to say, if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads. He is to be corrected, however, and to be shown how much better it is not to quit the straight road, lest, if he get into a habit of going astray, he may sometimes take cross roads, or even go in the wrong direction altogether.

¶ For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. And if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy him. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist. But if he both believes and loves, then through good works, and through diligent attention to the precepts of morality, he comes to hope also that he shall attain the object of his love. And so these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love.

copied from James Stuart Bell, ed., Ancient Faith Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman Bibles, 2019), 1210–1211.

Early Christian Awareness of Textual Corruption

 

Early Christian Awareness of Textual Corruption: Origen, Jerome, and Tertullian on the Reliability of Biblical Manuscripts

Introduction

Long before the modern discipline of textual criticism existed, Christian writers of the second through fifth centuries were already grappling with a problem that continues to occupy scholars today: the biblical text did not arrive at any single reader in a single, stable form. Copies diverged from one another, sometimes trivially and sometimes substantively, and educated Christians noticed. Three witnesses are especially instructive because they approach the problem from different angles and for different purposes: Origen, working as an exegete and textual scholar in third-century Alexandria and Caesarea; Jerome, a century and a half later, revising the Old Latin Gospels against Greek exemplars at the request of Pope Damasus; and Tertullian, a generation before Origen, using the fact of textual dispute rhetorically in his polemic against heretical groups. Read together, these three figures show that an awareness of manuscript divergence — and a vocabulary for describing it as error, corruption, or adulteration — was present in Christian thought from a very early period, well before any organized science of textual criticism.

Origen and the Proliferation of Variant Readings

Origen's most direct statement on the subject occurs in his Commentary on Matthew (15.14), written in the mid-third century. Commenting on discrepancies he had encountered among Gospel copies, Origen observed that manuscript differences had grown considerable, and he attributed this to two distinct causes: carelessness on the part of some copyists, and an excessive willingness on the part of others to alter what they were transcribing. In a widely cited rendering of the passage, Origen states that "the differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."

Several features of this passage are worth drawing out. First, Origen distinguishes two separate mechanisms of error — unintentional negligence and deliberate intervention — rather than treating all variation as a single undifferentiated phenomenon. This is a genuinely analytical move: he is not merely complaining that texts differ, but proposing an explanation for why they differ, which is the beginning of a diagnostic approach to variants. Second, the passage shows that Origen had actually compared manuscripts closely enough to notice patterns of addition and omission, which is corroborated elsewhere in his corpus, where he discusses specific variant readings (for instance, his preference for the place-name "Bethabara" over "Bethany" in John 1:28, argued on the grounds of manuscript and topographical evidence). Origen's complaint should therefore be read not as an isolated rhetorical flourish but as the byproduct of sustained, comparative work with Gospel exemplars — the same impulse that also produced his massive Hexapla, a six-column comparative edition of the Old Testament text.

Jerome and the Correction of the Latin Text

More than a century later, Jerome confronted a parallel but distinct problem: not merely those variations that had crept into the Greek transmission, but the far more chaotic state of the Old Latin versions circulating in the West. In his preface to the Vulgate Gospels, addressed to Pope Damasus around 383 CE, Jerome frames his task explicitly as one of adjudicating among competing copies. He tells Damasus that he has been urged to revise the old Latin version and, in his words, "to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world," given that they differ from one another and someone must decide which of them agree with the Greek original.

This framing is significant for several reasons. Jerome does not treat the existing Latin copies as a single, uniform textual tradition; he treats them as a scattered, internally inconsistent body of material requiring editorial judgment. His proposed method — checking Latin copies against early Greek manuscripts rather than simply picking the most popular or most recent Latin exemplar — anticipates a core principle of later textual criticism, namely that proximity to the source language and antiquity of witness matter more than majority usage. Later tradition summarized the disorder Jerome faced by saying that there were nearly as many different readings as there were manuscript copies, a state of affairs vivid enough that it became something of a byword for the disorganization of the pre-Vulgate Latin textual tradition. Jerome's own prefaces to other biblical books extend this same self-consciousness about corruption: in his preface to Job, for example, he complains that even his revised work had been subject to a great deal of criticism, and that many readers preferred old, familiar, but faulty copies to new, corrected ones — a complaint that reveals as much about the conservatism of ancient audiences as about the state of the text itself.

Tertullian and the Rhetoric of Adulteration

Tertullian, writing in North Africa around the turn of the third century — earlier than either Origen or Jerome — approaches textual corruption from a polemical rather than an editorial standpoint. In De Praescriptione Haereticorum ("The Prescription Against Heretics"), Tertullian argues that heretical groups have no legitimate claim to interpret Scripture because they do not possess Scripture in its authentic form. He charges that such groups reject the writings that refute them, rely instead on texts they have "falsely put together," and select passages for their ambiguity. He generalizes the point with a memorable formulation: that truth is opposed just as much by a distortion of meaning as it is by an actual corruption of the text itself.

Elsewhere in the same treatise Tertullian goes further, accusing heretical interpreters of tampering with, mutilating, and altering the scriptural text outright, in contrast to the catholic (universal) church, which he claims has preserved the text without such interference. Tertullian's argument is not primarily philological — he is not comparing manuscript readings the way Origen or Jerome does — but it depends on the same underlying premise that his contemporaries and successors made explicit: that a text can exist in an authentic, original form and also in corrupted or adulterated forms, and that the difference between the two is both real and consequential. His polemical use of "corruption" and "adulteration" language shows that by his time these were already available concepts in Christian discourse, ready to be deployed rhetorically even by a writer with no direct interest in manuscript comparison for its own sake.

Synthesis: A Common Awareness Across Three Contexts

Taken together, these three figures illustrate that concern over textual corruption in early Christianity was not confined to any one genre, region, or century. Origen's concern is scholarly and diagnostic, rooted in close manuscript comparison and aimed at explaining how errors arose. Jerome's concern is editorial and practical, aimed at producing a corrected, authoritative Latin text through comparison with Greek exemplars. Tertullian's concern is polemical, using the fact of textual corruption — real or alleged — as a weapon in doctrinal dispute. Despite these different aims, all three writers share a common conceptual apparatus: they assume that an authentic or original text exists in principle, that extant copies can and do depart from it, and that such departures arise from identifiable human causes — carelessness, willful alteration, or theological motive.

This convergence is itself historically significant. It suggests that an awareness of textual instability was not a marginal or eccentric position within early Christianity but a widely shared assumption, one confident enough to be invoked in a technical commentary, an editorial preface addressed to a pope, and a polemical treatise against rival sects, without any of the three authors feeling the need to justify the basic premise that manuscripts could become corrupted over time.

Conclusion

Origen, Jerome, and Tertullian approached the problem of manuscript divergence from three different vantage points — the exegete's workbench, the editor's desk, and the polemicist's pulpit — yet each testifies independently to the same underlying reality: that by the third and fourth centuries, educated Christians were well aware that the biblical text they possessed existed in multiple, imperfectly agreeing forms, and that this variation demanded explanation, correction, or rhetorical exploitation. Their combined testimony is among the earliest evidence for what would eventually become the discipline of New Testament textual criticism, and it demonstrates that the tension between an idealized "original" text and the messy, human history of its transmission was recognized from a very early stage in Christian intellectual history.

Sources

• Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14, as discussed in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg: Herder, 1968).
• Jerome, "Preface to the Four Gospels," in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 6, trans. W. H. Fremantle (public domain).
• Jerome, "Preface to Job," in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 6 (public domain).
• Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (The Prescription Against Heretics), chs. 17 and 38, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, trans. Peter Holmes (public domain).

The Church Fathers provide evidence

The Fathers provide evidence both that manuscripts differed and that copyists could introduce errors; however, they did not all describe these differences specifically as “many unintentional copying errors.”

Direct patristic evidence

• Origen complained that differences among Gospel manuscripts had become considerable, attributing them to scribal carelessness, excessive boldness in altering texts, or inadequate correction. He wrote that “the differences among the manuscripts have become great,” naming “the negligence of some copyists” among the causes.[biblequestions]
• Jerome likewise discussed divergent Latin biblical copies and undertook revision by comparison with Greek manuscripts, reflecting an awareness that transmission had produced conflicting readings.[biblequestions]
• Tertullian accused opponents of corrupting or adulterating biblical texts, showing that early Christians could distinguish a disputed textual form from what they considered the authentic one.[newadvent]

Important qualification

The Fathers’ comments establish that textual variation was already visible in antiquity, and that at least some writers blamed ordinary copying negligence. But they also attributed some variants to deliberate alteration, especially by theological opponents; Tertullian is a prominent example.[newadvent][biblequestions]

So a careful formulation would be:

Church Fathers such as Origen and Jerome recognized substantial variation among biblical manuscripts. Origen explicitly included copyists’ negligence among its causes, while other Fathers also alleged intentional textual alteration by opponents.[biblequestions][newadvent]

That is stronger historically than claiming the Fathers uniformly said that “many” variants were unintentional, since their surviving remarks address both accidental and intentional causes.

The law cannot justify anyone before God

Paul explicitly states that the law cannot justify anyone before God; instead, it functions to expose human sinfulness. (Rom 3:19–28) This distinction is fundamental to understanding his position. Jewish people pursued righteousness through the law as if it were the path to acceptance with God, but they pursued it through works rather than through faith. (Rom 9:30–32)

The law itself was never designed as a mechanism for salvation. If the law could impart life, then righteousness would come through observing it. (Gal 3:19–25) But the law served as a guardian until Christ arrived, at which point believers would be justified through faith rather than legal observance. (Gal 3:19–25) All people—both Jews and Gentiles—are justified freely by God’s grace through Christ’s redemption, received by faith. (Rom 3:19–28)

Works of the law refers to all that is commanded in the law, with the phrase naturally designating the entire law and all commands or deeds it requires.[1] While some scholars emphasize Gentile inclusion, Paul’s fundamental complaint against the Jewish people centers on their failure to keep the law they treasured and taught.[2]

What is the law? The law reveals what sin is—without it, people would lack awareness of transgression. (Rom 7:7–13) The law addresses those under it to silence every defense and hold all humanity accountable before God. (Rom 3:19–28) Though the law was powerless to accomplish righteousness due to human weakness, God fulfilled its righteous requirements through Christ’s sacrifice, so that believers might live according to the Spirit rather than the flesh. (Rom 8:3–4)

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Another Look At The New Perspective,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Volume 14, ed. Stephen J. Wellum (2010), 14:3:7.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Justification apart from and by Works: At the Final Judgment Works Will Confirmjustification,” in Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment, ed. Alan P. Stanley and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 75.

Textual variants emerged early in Christian manuscript transmission

Textual variants emerged early in Christian manuscript transmission, with evidence appearing both in the earliest period and throughout the patristic era.

Early Church Period

During the church’s earliest centuries, individual Christians produced biblical manuscripts for personal use or local congregations. As Christian numbers expanded rapidly, demand for copies increased, and production speed sometimes compromised accuracy.[1] This pattern of higher error rates in earlier manuscripts continued through the mid-fourth century.[1]

Beyond unintentional copying errors, second-century Church Fathers complained about deliberate textual alterations made by heretics, and evidence suggests such persons produced numerous copies incorporating their changes during the second century and possibly earlier.[2] In some instances, theological commitment apparently outweighed fidelity to the original text.[2]

Patristic Evidence

The Church Fathers themselves provide substantial witness to textual variation. Patristic quotations of the New Testament exceed one million instances—so extensive that they could reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament if all other sources vanished.[3] Some Fathers date to the late first century, with an expanding stream of writings through the thirteenth century, making them extraordinarily valuable for determining original wording.[3]

However, some Fathers quoted the same passage differently due to carelessness, memory lapses, use of different manuscripts, or paraphrasing rather than direct quotation.[3] Occasionally, patristic writers themselves discussed textual variants, noting which manuscripts contained particular readings.[3] For instance, Eusebius in the early fourth century observed that accurate Mark manuscripts concluded with “they were afraid,” noting this ending appeared in nearly all copies.[3]

Scope and Significance

Spelling differences account for roughly 75 percent of all variants—between 225,000 and 300,000 instances.[1] Only about 1 percent of variations involve textual meaning.[1] Despite meaningful variants existing, no crucial Christian doctrine remains in doubt after two centuries of textual criticism.[1]

[1] Josh McDowell and Jim Walker, Understanding Islam and Christianity: Beliefs That Separate Us and How to Talk About Them (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 217–218.
[2] Wilbur Pickering, Identity of the New Testament Text (Clube de Autores, 2024), 190.
[3] Daniel B. Wallace, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in The Concise Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021). [See here, here, here, here, here.]

Paul regularly employed assistants in composing his letters

Paul regularly employed assistants in composing his letters. Paul used secretaries or scribes (called amanuenses) when composing his epistles, following the standard procedure where the amanuensis would take down the speaker’s words and produce a transcript for the author to review and edit, then create a final draft that the author would sign in his own handwriting.[1]

The clearest evidence comes from Paul’s own letters. Tertius identifies himself as writing the letter to the Romans on behalf of Paul[2], making him the only amanuensis Paul explicitly names. Beyond this, several of Paul’s epistles indicate that he provided the concluding salutation in his own handwriting: 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians.[1] In 2 Thessalonians 3:17 Paul explicitly states it was his practice to add a personal subscription to his letters in his own handwriting, thereby attesting to what was written and assuring his converts that the letter was really from him.[3]

The extent of the amanuensis’s role, however, remains uncertain. The extent of freedom that amanuenses had in drafting letters is impossible to determine from the evidence presently at hand, and it undoubtedly varied from case to case—they may have written word-for-word, been given only the sense of the message to develop themselves, or even been asked to write on a subject without explicit directions.[3] The amanuensis likely took down the Apostle’s words in shorthand, which was extensively used at the time, and later wrote out the letter for transmission.[4] Paul then took up the pen and authenticated the letter, guarding against forged documents under his name.[4]

[1] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, in Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1313.
[2] Ed Hindson and Elmer L. Towns, Illustrated Bible Survey: An Introduction (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2013), 345.
[3] D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 107–108.
[4] T. B. Allworthy, “Tertius,” in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (2 Vols.), ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916–1918), 2:559.

Our findings so far

Biblical inspiration should not be confused with the perfection of every manuscript, printed edition, or translation.

Main points:

1. The original Scriptures were inspired by God.
   The Bible is authoritative because God inspired the biblical writers. But this does not mean that every later handwritten copy or translation was itself directly inspired.

2. The KJV 1611 translators did not claim their translation was perfect.
   Their preface, The Translators to the Reader, shows humility about translation and acknowledges difficulties and possible alternative renderings. The 1611 KJV also contains marginal notes giving alternative readings or meanings.

3. The KJV is a translation, not the original revelation.
   The Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek. The KJV is an English translation produced through scholarly work. Therefore, it should not be treated as verbally identical to the original manuscripts.

4. There is no single, absolutely identical Textus Receptus.
   The TR consists of several printed editions associated with Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. These editions are substantially similar but contain differences. Therefore, simply saying “the Textus Receptus is perfect” raises the question: Which TR edition?

5. The Textus Receptus is not the same as the Majority Text.
   These are related but distinct textual traditions. The TR contains some readings that are not the majority reading of the surviving Greek manuscripts.

6. The Majority Text is not identical to every Greek manuscript.
   The manuscript tradition contains variants because manuscripts were copied by human beings over many centuries. Some differences are extremely minor, while others are more significant.

7. Textual variants do not mean that we have lost the Bible.
   The enormous number of manuscripts actually provides abundant evidence for comparing readings and studying the history of the New Testament text. Most variants are relatively minor, and the central doctrines of Christianity do not depend upon one disputed textual reading.

8. The Bible does not promise preservation of one particular English translation.
   Scripture promises that God's Word will endure, but it does not identify the KJV, the TR, or any other later edition as the uniquely perfect form of Scripture.

9. KJV-onlyism can confuse the authority of Scripture with the authority of a translation.
   Saying “the Bible is God's Word” is not the same as saying “the 1611 KJV is God's Word in an absolutely perfect form.” The translation is a servant of the original languages, not a replacement for them.

10. A better doctrine distinguishes inspiration, preservation, and translation.
    The paper proposes:

    Inspiration: God inspired the biblical authors.
    Preservation: God providentially preserved His Word through history.
    Translation: Faithful scholars translate that Word into other languages.

The ultimate conclusion is therefore not that Christians have an unreliable Bible. Rather, the conclusion is:

God's Word is inspired and trustworthy, but no surviving manuscript, Textus Receptus edition, Majority Text, or English translation should be confused with the inspired autographs or regarded as verbally perfect in every detail.

That is, in my view, the strongest scholarly position because it allows us to defend the authority of Scripture without having to defend the historically indefensible claim that the KJV 1611 or one particular TR edition is itself a perfect, divinely preserved text.

The 1611 KJV translators did not claim perfection

The 1611 KJV Preface: https://blackletterkingjamesbible.com/Library/Preface

The 1611 KJV translators did not claim that their English translation was perfect or incapable of correction. The clearest statements are below, with the relevant sentences rendered in CAPITAL LETTERS. I have preserved the wording of the Preface as much as possible and capitalized only sentences that explicitly contradict the belief that the KJV translation itself is perfect.

Capitalized Statements

The Septuagint

It is certain, that that Translation was NOT SO SOUND AND SO PERFECT, BUT THAT IT NEEDED IN MANY PLACES CORRECTION; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolike men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient, rather than making a new.

Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit, so it is evident, and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much, that the Seventy were Interpreters, THEY WERE NOT PROPHETS; they did many things well, as learned men, but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it.

Earlier English Translations

And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land, or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s, if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time, or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser, so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us.

The Translators’ Own Purpose

Truly, good Christian Reader, WE NEVER THOUGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, THAT WE SHOULD NEED TO MAKE A NEW TRANSLATION, NOR YET TO MAKE OF A BAD ONE A GOOD ONE, BUT TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

This statement indicates that the translators viewed the work as an improvement and revision, not as the production of an absolutely perfect English Bible.

Imperfections in Translation

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, THOUGH IT BE NOT INTERPRETED BY EVERY TRANSLATOR WITH THE LIKE GRACE, NOR PERADVENTURE SO FITLY FOR PHRASE, NOR SO EXPRESSLY FOR SENSE, EVERYWHERE.

A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all; also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.

NO CAUSE THEREFORE WHY THE WORD TRANSLATED SHOULD BE DENIED TO BE THE WORD, OR FORBIDDEN TO BE CURRENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME IMPERFECTIONS AND BLEMISHES MAY BE NOTED IN THE SETTING FORTH OF IT.

This is one of the strongest passages. The translators explicitly acknowledged that a translation may contain “imperfections and blemishes” while still rightly being called the Word of God.

Only the Apostles Were Infallible

For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

The translators connect infallibility with the apostles or apostolic men who possessed an extraordinary measure of the Spirit. They do not apply that privilege to ordinary Bible translators.

The Apostles Used an Imperfect Translation

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess.

THE TRANSLATION OF THE SEVENTY DISSENTETH FROM THE ORIGINAL IN MANY PLACES, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet the Apostles used it.

This directly rejects the idea that a translation must be absolutely identical to the original manuscripts in every place before it can be recognized as Scripture.

Repeated Correction Is Legitimate

For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault by such as were wise to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

If we be sons of the Truth, WE MUST CONSIDER WHAT IT SPEAKETH, AND TRAMPLE UPON OUR OWN CREDIT, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hindrance to it.

For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar, the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished also; IF ANYTHING BE HALTING, OR SUPERFLUOUS, OR NOT SO AGREEABLE TO THE ORIGINAL, THE SAME MAY BE CORRECTED, AND THE TRUTH SET IN PLACE.

The translators defended revising earlier English Bibles and stated that anything not agreeing with the original could be corrected. This is incompatible with claiming that their own translation was beyond all correction.

Uncertain Readings

Concerning the Hebrews themselves, they are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as Saint Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?

For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left even in the judgment of the judicious questionable, can be no less than presumption.

Therefore as Saint Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures, so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

These remarks show that the translators accepted legitimate uncertainty in some textual and translational matters and believed that variant readings could assist the reader in determining the meaning.

No Uniformity of Wording

Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.

For there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere.

But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word—as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELLING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc.—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom.

The translators did not believe that one Hebrew or Greek word had to be represented by exactly one English word every time. Their method allowed variation according to context.

Scholarly Conclusion

The Preface strongly supports these conclusions:

• The translators regarded previous English Bibles as genuine works of God’s providence.
• They believed translations could contain errors, imperfections, and blemishes.
• They considered correction and revision necessary and beneficial.
• They distinguished ordinary translators from the inspired and infallible apostles.
• They acknowledged that the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew original in many places.
• They permitted uncertainty and alternative readings in the margins.
• They did not present the 1611 English translation as verbally perfect or immune from correction.

Thus, the Preface does not teach modern KJV-only perfectionism. It teaches a high view of Scripture while recognizing that translations are human works that may be improved. The translators themselves described their goal as making “a good one better,” not creating an English Bible incapable of error or revision.[bible-researcher][forwardtheword][founders]

Textus Receptus New Testament Variants

Click: https://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/TRNTV

Main page: https://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/

Textus Receptus is the name given to a series of important Byzantine Greek manuscripts and texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900.

The Textus Receptus is the text from from which the New Testment of the King James Bible was translated.

The name Textus Receptus was first used in 1633. However, the name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type since the early 16th century.

Textus Receptus was established on the Byzantine text-type, which represents over 90% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today.

Oldest Bible Manuscripts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvmAaXUKkco

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 View Codex Vaitcanus online:

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

https://dssenglishbible.com/

 

Providential preservation

Providential preservation refers to God’s acts in maintaining the written record of Scripture through human effort across centuries[1]. This doctrine distinguishes between two modes of divine action: God accomplishes His will either directly through miracles or indirectly through secondary causation[2].

When theologians speak of Scripture’s providential preservation, they typically mean it has been preserved through ordinary human means rather than miraculous intervention—the same way other ancient texts like Caesar’s Commentaries have been preserved[2]. God both inspired the original writers and has worked providentially through the centuries to preserve those writings[1]. This understanding emphasizes that God’s sovereignty stands above human actions, working out His will through human wills without violating their freedom[2].

The evidence supports this claim across both testaments. Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts predating A.D. 100 demonstrate that Jewish scribes carried out copying with remarkable fidelity, with only a few scribal errors accumulating across a thousand years[3]. The New Testament survives in over 5,300 partial and complete manuscripts—far exceeding the manuscript evidence for classical works like Homer’s Iliad (643 manuscripts) or Tacitus (2 manuscripts)—making it practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved somewhere in the ancient evidence[4].

However, this doctrine raises interpretive questions. Some argue that verbal inspiration necessarily includes providential preservation of a specific text form, though this position requires more than the doctrine of inspiration can provide and more than the manuscript evidence itself indicates, given the variants present even in traditional text-types[5]. The consensus view maintains that providential preservation operates through normal historical processes—careful scribal work, manuscript multiplication, and textual transmission—rather than through supernatural intervention.

[1] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 114.
[2] William W. Combs, “The Preservation of Scripture,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 5 (2000), 5:9–10.
[3] Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 4:247.
[4] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 355.
[5] Stanley E. Porter, How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and Craig A. Evans, Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 55.

The Preservation of The Old Testament (I)

 PRESERVATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

PART 1: OVERVIEW

The Central Question

How did the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) survive from its original composition (1400-165 BC) to the present day?

Key Facts:

- Original autographs (first writings) are LOST

- No original manuscripts survive

- Earliest surviving copies: Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC)

- Main text tradition: Masoretic Text (9th-10th century AD)

- Gap from original to earliest copies: 800-1,200 years

The Preservation Methods

Three Main Mechanisms:

1. Scribal Copying - Jewish scribes hand-copied texts generation after generation

2. Textual Traditions - Different manuscript families preserved in different regions

3. Intentional Storage - Sacred texts stored and protected (Qumran example)

PART 2: THE EVIDENCE FOR OT PRESERVATION

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (1947+)

The Discovery:

Location: Qumran caves in the Judean Desert (near Dead Sea)

When Discovered: 1947 (initially), with ongoing discoveries through 1950s

What Was Found:

- 900+ manuscripts and fragments

- Primarily OLD TESTAMENT texts

- Some apocryphal works

- Some sectarian writings

- Dating: 3rd century BC to 1st century AD

Biblical Manuscripts Found:

- Nearly complete books

- Hundreds of fragments

- Multiple copies of same books

- Different manuscript traditions

Specific Treasures:

- 1QIsaa - Complete scroll of Isaiah (2nd century BC)

- 1QIsab - Another Isaiah copy

- 4QSama - Samuel fragments

- 4QJerb - Jeremiah fragments

- Copies of virtually every OT book except Esther

Significance of Dead Sea Scrolls

Why These Discoveries Were Revolutionary:

Before 1947:

- Earliest Hebrew Bible manuscripts: Medieval (9th-11th century AD)

- Gap from original: 1,200+ years

- No way to verify medieval copies against earlier texts

After 1947:

- Earliest Hebrew Bible manuscripts: 2nd-3rd century BC

- Gap from original: Only 200-300 years

- Could VERIFY medieval texts against ancient texts

- Showed remarkable preservation and continuity

What Dead Sea Scrolls Proved

Discovery #1: Extraordinary Accuracy

When scholars compared:

- 1QIsaa (2nd century BC Isaiah scroll) 

- Masoretic Text (9th century AD Isaiah text)

Result: 95%+ identical

What This Means:

The text was preserved with remarkable accuracy across 1,000+ years and multiple copies.

Variations Found: Mostly minor differences:

- Spelling variations

- Minor word order changes

- Very few substantive differences

- NO major doctrinal changes

Discovery 2: Multiple Manuscript Traditions

Different Qumran caves contained different manuscript families:

Cave 1: One type of text tradition

Cave 4: Different variant readings in same books

Cave 5: Another tradition

Etc.

What This Shows:

- Different regions/communities had different copies

- Some variants existed from early times

- Transmission wasn't uniform, but consistent in essentials

Discovery 3: Pre-Masoretic Traditions

Qumran scrolls showed:

- Texts BEFORE the Masoretes standardized them (8th-10th century)

- Different manuscript families existed

- Masoretic Text wasn't the ONLY tradition

- But Masoretic tradition was already developing

PART 3: WHO PRESERVED THE OT

The Jewish Scribes

Their Role:

Jewish scribes (soferim) were the primary preservers of OT text.

Key Responsibilities:

1. Copying manuscripts - Hand-copying texts

2. Correcting errors - Comparing with previous copies

3. Maintaining standards - Ensuring accuracy

4. Preserving text - Protecting sacred writings

5. Transmitting tradition - Passing texts to next generation

The Masoretic Tradition

Who Were the Masoretes?

Jewish scholars (7th-10th centuries AD) who:

- Standardized Hebrew Bible text

- Added vowel marks (Hebrew originally written consonants-only)

- Added accent marks

- Created systematic notation system

- Produced standardized "Masoretic Text" (MT)

The Masoretic Text (MT):

- Became STANDARD for Jewish tradition

- Basis for most modern Hebrew Bibles

- Represented ONE manuscript family (not the only pre-medieval tradition)

- Created around 9th-10th century AD

Key Masoretes:

- Ben Asher family - Most influential Masoretic family

- Aaron Ben Moses Ben Asher - Created famous codex

- School of Tiberias - Developed Masoretic system

Temple & Synagogue Preservation

The Temple (Before Destruction 70 AD):

- Housed sacred texts

- Priests maintained copies

- Religious services required texts

- Texts were precious and protected

Synagogues (After Temple Destroyed):

- Became centers of text preservation

- Each synagogue maintained copies

- Community responsibility for texts

- Reading texts in worship preserved them through use

PART 4: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF PRESERVATION

PRIMARY LOCATION: JUDEA & PALESTINE

Why This Region?

- Birthplace of Judaism

- Jewish communities maintained texts

- Synagogues kept copies

- Religious centers preserved tradition

Specific Sites:

1. Qumran (Judean Desert)

- Community library (Essene sect)

- Intentionally preserved texts in caves

- Hidden, not lost - deliberate storage

- Preserved 2nd century BC to 1st century AD

2. Jerusalem & Temple Area

- Temple maintained authoritative copies

- Synagogues kept texts

- Religious scholars worked with texts

- Destroyed 70 AD but tradition continued

3. Masada

- Jewish fortress

- Some Biblical texts found

- Preserved before destruction 74 AD

4. Other Palestine Sites

- Various synagogue locations

- Jewish community centers

- Scattered preservation across region

SECONDARY LOCATIONS: DIASPORA COMMUNITIES

Jewish Communities Outside Judea:

A. Alexandria, Egypt

- Large Jewish community

- Maintained Hebrew texts

- Also developed Greek translation (Septuagint)

- Preserved tradition outside Judea

B. Babylonia

- Major Jewish community after exile (586 BC)

- Developed Talmud

- Maintained Hebrew texts

- Parallel preservation tradition

C. Mediterranean Diaspora

- Jewish communities in Rome, Greece, Asia Minor

- Maintained texts

- Distributed preservation

PART 5: HOW THE OT WAS PRESERVED

METHOD 1: SCRIBAL COPYING

The Process:

Training:

- Scribes underwent rigorous training

- Learned specific rules for copying

- Memorized texts

- Practiced accuracy for years

Copying Technique:

- Line-by-line comparison with master copy

- Checking work frequently

- Making corrections

- Verifying accuracy

Quality Control:

- Compared with other copies

- Checked against earlier traditions

- Corrected obvious errors

- Maintained consistency

METHOD 2: STANDARDIZATION

Before Masoretes (Pre-8th century):

- Different manuscript families existed

- Some variants in different regions

- General consistency but variations

- No single "standard" text

Masoretic Standardization (8th-10th century):

- Chose one manuscript family as standard (Ben Asher line)

- Systematized text

- Added vowel marks (made pronunciation clear)

- Created consistent system

- Produced "definitive" version

Result:

- All subsequent Hebrew Bibles based on Masoretic standard

- Eliminated regional variants

- Created uniform text for Jewish tradition

- Became authoritative for 1,000+ years

METHOD 3: RITUAL PRESERVATION

Religious Use:

Constant use of texts in worship and study preserved them:

Synagogue Reading:

- Torah portions read weekly

- Texts needed constant maintenance

- Worn copies had to be replaced

- Created demand for accurate copies

Scholarly Study:

- Rabbis studied texts constantly

- Compared manuscripts

- Transmitted knowledge

- Maintained accuracy through discussion

Festival Use:

- Sacred texts read at holidays

- Required careful handling

- Preservation was religious duty

- Reverent treatment protected texts

METHOD 4: INTENTIONAL CAVE STORAGE (Qumran)

Why Hide Texts?

Qumran community (Essenes) intentionally preserved texts:

Reasons:

- Roman persecution threatened Jewish texts

- Political instability in Judea

- Religious preservation strategy

- Protecting sacred writings

How They Did It:

- Placed texts in clay jars

- Sealed in caves

- Multiple locations (11 caves)

- Hidden away from Roman forces

The Result:

- Texts preserved for 2,000 years

- Discovered accidentally in 1947

- Most complete ancient Hebrew manuscripts

- Perfect preservation conditions (dry caves)

PART 6: THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

TIMELINE OF OT MANUSCRIPTS

```

1400-165 BC: Original compositions written

    ↓

165 BC - 70 AD: Pre-Masoretic manuscripts

    (Dead Sea Scrolls, early copies)

    ↓

70-586 AD: Post-destruction period

    (Synagogue copies, scholarly work)

    ↓

600-900 AD: Pre-Masoretic standardization

    (Various families still exist)

    ↓

800-1000 AD: MASORETIC STANDARDIZATION

    (Masoretes create standard text)

    ↓

1000-1400 AD: Medieval copies

    (Masoretic tradition solidified)

    ↓

1400-1800 AD: Printing era begins

    (Hebrew Bible printed)

    ↓

1947: DEAD SEA SCROLLS DISCOVERED

    (Verification of earlier texts)

    ↓

Present: Modern scholarship confirms

    (99% accuracy verified)

```

MAJOR MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

1. Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd-1st century BC)

- Oldest Hebrew Bible manuscripts

- Nearly complete books

- Multiple copies of same books

- Evidence of text stability

2. Pre-Masoretic Manuscripts (Medieval)

- Hebrew manuscripts before Masoretes

- Show some variants from MT

- Represent different families

- Relatively few survive

3. Masoretic Manuscripts (9th-15th century)

- All bear Masoretic vowel marks

- All follow Ben Asher tradition (mostly)

- Very consistent with each other

- Number in hundreds

4. Later Medieval Copies (15th-17th century)

- Printed Hebrew Bible begins (1488)

- Copies of Masoretic text

- Used for translation work

- Foundation for modern Hebrew Bibles

5. Ancient Versions

- Septuagint (Greek, 3rd century BC)

- Aramaic Targums (1st century AD+)

- Old Latin (2nd century AD)

- Vulgate (4th century AD)

- Syrian Peshitta (2nd century AD)

- These provide INDEPENDENT witness to text

QUANTITATIVE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

Surviving OT Manuscripts:

- Dead Sea Scrolls: 900+ manuscripts/fragments

- Medieval Hebrew manuscripts: 1,000+

- Ancient versions: 10,000+ witnesses

- Total: 11,000+ manuscript witnesses

Surviving NT Manuscripts:

- Early papyri: 50+

- Later manuscripts: 5,800+

- Ancient versions: 10,000+

- Total: 16,000+ witnesses

Comparison:** OT and NT have ABUNDANT manuscript evidence

PART 7: TEXTUAL VARIANTS IN OT MANUSCRIPTS

WHAT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS REVEALED

Variants Found:

When comparing 1QIsaa (2nd century BC) with Masoretic Isaiah:

Type of Variants:

1. Spelling differences - Different spelling of same word

2. Word order - Same words, different sequence

3. Minor additions - Extra word in one MS

4. Minor omissions - Word absent in one MS

5. Textual corruption - Scribe error

Frequency:

- About 10% of text shows SOME variant

- BUT 95% of text is IDENTICAL

- Most variants are minor (spelling, word order)

- Few substantive differences

Significance:

- Proves transmission was NOT error-free

- Shows variants existed from early times

- Demonstrates consistency despite variations

- No major doctrinal changes occur

EXAMPLES OF VARIANTS

Example 1: Isaiah 53:11

Dead Sea Scroll (1QIsaa):

> "...my righteous servant shall justify many..."

Masoretic Text:

> "...my righteous one shall justify many..."

Difference: One word variant ("servant" vs. one with different consonants)

Impact: NO doctrinal difference, same meaning

Example 2: 1 Samuel 13:1

Masoretic Text:

> "Saul was [blank] years old..."

Note: The number is MISSING in MT!

Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama:

> "Saul was [number] years old..."

What This Shows:

- Different manuscripts had different readings

- Some numbers were lost in transmission

- Scribal errors did occur

- This is a KNOWN problem (noted in MT itself)

Example 3: Jeremiah Differences

Septuagint (Greek translation from Hebrew):

- Jeremiah is SHORTER than Masoretic Hebrew

- About 13% shorter

- Suggests different Hebrew tradition used

What This Means:

- Different manuscript families existed

- Septuagint translated from one tradition

- Masoretic represents another tradition

- Both could be "legitimate" at the time

PART 8: QUALITY OF PRESERVATION**

What the Evidence Shows

The Verdict: REMARKABLY WELL PRESERVED

Proof:

When scholars compared:

- 1QIsaa (2nd century BC)

- Masoretic Isaiah (9th-10th century AD)

- 1,200+ year gap

- 95%+ identical

This Means:

Over 1,200 years and countless copying, text stayed essentially the same.

What Variants Tell Us

The Variants Found Are:

✅ Mostly minor (spelling, word order)

✅ Rarely affecting meaning

✅ Never affecting major doctrine

✅ Identifiable and explainable

✅ Consistent with scribal error patterns

They Are NOT:

❌ Massive corruptions

❌ Doctrinal changes

❌ Evidence of careless copying

❌ Proof of unreliability

Comparison: OT vs. Other Ancient Texts

OT Manuscript Attestation:

- 900+ manuscripts (OT)

- Earliest copy: 200 years from original

- Result: Highest confidence in ancient text

Homer's Iliad:

- 600+ manuscripts

- Earliest copy: 500 years from original

- Yet accepted as reliable

Caesar's Gallic Wars:

- 10 manuscripts

- Earliest copy: 900 years from original

- Yet accepted as reliable

Verdict: OT has BETTER manuscript support than most ancient texts

PART 9: WHY VARIANTS EXIST

THE CAUSES OF VARIANTS

1. Unintentional Scribal Errors

Common Mistakes:

- Homoioteleuton - Similar endings, scribe skips text

- Dittography - Repeats word or line

- Haplography - Writes once instead of twice

- Misreading - Confuses similar letters

- Fatigue - Errors from tiredness in copying

Example:

Two lines ending with same word:

```

Line 1: "...the man saw the LORD..."

Line 2: "...the boy saw the LORD..."

```

Scribe's eye jumps from first to second, skipping the intervening text.

2. Intentional Corrections

When Scribes Made Changes:

- Correcting what they thought was error

- Harmonizing with parallel passages

- Clarifying difficult text

- Theological "improvement"

Example:

If scribe noticed numbers didn't add up, might "correct" them

3. Regional Variations

Different Areas Had:

- Different text families

- Different scribal traditions

- Different manuscript lineages

- Some preferred certain readings

4. Textual Development Over Time

As Texts Copied:

- Explanations added in margins

- Margins copied as text

- Clarifying phrases inserted

- Harmonizing changes made

Example:

- Early text: "He said, Come"

- Later text: "He said to them, Come"

- Added clarity through small additions

PART 10: THE MASORETIC TEXT ISSUE

WAS THE MASORETIC TEXT PERFECT?

The Answer: NO

Evidence:

1. Dead Sea Scrolls Show Differences

   - Older manuscripts differ from MT

   - Proves MT is not the original

   - Represents ONE tradition among several

2. Masoretes Added Vowels

   - Original had no vowels (consonants only)

   - Masoretes ADDED vowel marks

   - This was INTERPRETATION

   - Different vowels can change meaning

3. Missing Numbers

   - 1 Samuel 13:1 - number blank in MT

   - Masoretes noted uncertainties

   - Admitted gaps in transmission

4. Different Versions

   - Septuagint differs from MT

   - Targums differ from MT

   - Shows MT was ONE choice among traditions

Was MT Wrong?

Answer: Not fundamentally, but not perfectly original

What MT Represents:

- One authoritative manuscript family

- Jewish scribal standard (9th-10th century)

- Excellent representation of ancient text

- But not identical to pre-Masoretic originals

- Shows development and standardization

Is This a Problem?

❌ No - transmission was remarkably faithful

✅ Yes - it wasn't absolutely "perfect" or "original"

✅ Good - having alternatives lets us verify it

PART 11: HOW WE KNOW OT WAS PRESERVED

The Scientific Method

How Scholars Verified Preservation:

Step 1: Collect All Manuscripts

- Gather all OT manuscripts

- All manuscript fragments

- All ancient versions

- All quotations in other sources

Step 2: Compare Systematically

- Look for variants

- Note differences

- Analyze patterns

- Identify families

Step 3: Determine Likely Original

- Use manuscript principles:

  - Earlier = more reliable

  - Multiple independent = more reliable

  - Harder reading = more likely original

  - Shorter reading = more likely original

Step 4: Assess Agreement

- How much do manuscripts agree?

- How consistent is the tradition?

- Are variants minor or major?

- What does this tell us about transmission?

The Results

Findings:

- ✅ Remarkable agreement across 2,000+ years

- ✅ Variants are mostly minor

- ✅ No major doctrinal changes

- ✅ Text is essentially stable

- ✅ Transmission was faithful

- ✅ Original can be reconstructed with confidence

PART 12: THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

What OT Preservation Proves

About God's Faithfulness:

1. God Preserved His Word

   ✅ Despite persecution

   ✅ Despite political upheaval

   ✅ Despite dispersal

   ✅ Through 2,000+ years

2. Through Human Means

   ✅ Jewish scribes faithfully copied

   ✅ Communities valued texts

   ✅ Multiple traditions preserved

   ✅ Normal copying processes

3. Without Mechanical Perfection

   ✅ Variants existed

   ✅ Errors occurred

   ✅ Different families emerged

   ✅ But message remained intact

4. With Remarkable Accuracy

   ✅ 95%+ textual agreement across centuries

   ✅ No major doctrinal loss

   ✅ Original meaning preserved

   ✅ Trust in Scripture justified

The Balanced Truth

NOT: "Perfect letter-by-letter preservation in every copy"

BUT: "Faithful providential preservation of essential message through multiple witnesses and traditions"

WHICH MEANS: We CAN trust the OT as God's authoritative word, while ACKNOWLEDGING that transmission involved human scribes who sometimes made minor errors.

Theological Confidence

We Can Affirm:

✅ The OT is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16)

✅ The OT is authoritative (Jesus affirmed it)

✅ The OT is reliable (verified by manuscript evidence)

✅ The OT is preserved (95%+ agreement across 2,000 years)

✅ We can know what it says (with 99%+ confidence)

We Should NOT Claim:

❌ Every copy was perfectly identical

❌ No scribal errors ever occurred

❌ One manuscript family was "perfectly preserved"

❌ No interpretive choices affected transmission

❌ Variants disprove God's faithfulness

CONCLUSION: OT PRESERVATION SUMMARY

How Was the OT Preserved?

1. WHO Preserved It:

- Jewish scribes (professional copyists)

- Masoretes (standardizers)

- Synagogue communities

- Religious scholars

2. WHERE It Was Preserved:

- Judea (primary location)

- Diaspora communities (secondary)

- Qumran caves (intentional storage)

- Synagogue libraries

- Scholarly centers

3. HOW It Was Preserved:

- Hand copying by trained scribes

- Multiple manuscript traditions

- Ritual use in worship

- Scholarly study and verification

- Intentional storage (Qumran)

- Standardization (Masoretes)

4. QUALITY OF PRESERVATION:

- 95%+ textual agreement across 1,200+ years

- Variants are minor (mostly spelling/word order)

- No major doctrinal changes

- Message preserved faithfully

- Original can be reconstructed with confidence

5. EVIDENCE FOR PRESERVATION:

- Dead Sea Scrolls (900+ manuscripts)

- Medieval Hebrew texts (1,000+ manuscripts)

- Ancient versions (10,000+ witnesses)

- Patristic quotations (from church fathers)

- Archaeological discoveries

- Manuscript analysis

The Ultimate Verdict

The OT was preserved:

✅ Faithfully - by dedicated Jewish scholars and communities

✅ Deliberately - through intentional copying and storage

✅ Distributively - through multiple locations and traditions

✅ Carefully - with rigorous scribal standards

✅ Successfully - with 95%+ accuracy across millennia

This demonstrates:

- God's sovereignty in preservation

- Human faithfulness in transmission

- The reliability of Scripture

- The trustworthiness of the biblical text

For Modern Readers:

We can read the OT with confidence that we possess God's Word, recognizing both the fidelity of its transmission and the humanity of its copying process.