The Bible Jesus Read The Bible of Jesus’ day was not too different from the list of English translations available on your phone’s Bible app. John D. MeadeHave you ever wondered if the Bible you take down from your shelf, or pull up on BibleGateway.com, is the same as the Scriptures Jesus would have read? We tend to think of what Christians term the Old Testament as the Bible of the Jewish people, but are the 39 books of today’s Protestant Old Testament synonymous with what Jesus would have considered Scripture? And what would Jesus’ Bible-reading experience have been like? We’re used to having a wide choice of English Bible translations, so if we want to explore multiple interpretations of a given passage there are plenty of different editions to compare. What different versions of Scripture would have been available for Jesus to read? Looking at the first-century evidence, a mixed picture emerges. Jesus’ “Bible” (if we can call it that) may not have had an absolutely fixed list of books in the way that a modern English Bible does. However, the concept of multiple translations was already in evidence by the time of Jesus. He would have been familiar with a popular Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture commonly known as the Septuagint, which had already been around for a long time, as well as other Greek and even some Aramaic translations. We could say that Jesus’ Scriptures were like a modern Christian bookshop with its plethora of English translations, each for different purposes. While it is difficult to compare Jesus’ Bible with any one English version of our own day, we could say that Jesus’ Scriptures in their different Hebrew forms and Greek translations were perhaps like a modern Christian bookshop with its plethora of English translations, each for different purposes. What Books Were in Jesus’ Bible? The ancient Near East had many writings and scriptures, but we don’t have a surviving list of Bible books, or a table of contents naming the works of the Hebrew Scriptures from before the time of Jesus. We can look at this period only as through a glass dimly, with few clues. However, a good place to look for what clues there are is at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. All the books that the Essenes—the Jewish sect which probably produced the scrolls—wrote commentaries on and cited as Scripture (with the words “it is written”) eventually became part of the Jewish canon. (There is one exception to this rule, a citation of a work known as Jubilees, which was very popular at Qumran if the many manuscript remains are any indication.) RelatedHow the Two Testaments Became One BibleMichael DormandyThe Jefferson Bible and the Faith of an American FounderThomas S. KiddThe Bible in the Language of JesusPhilip M. Forness Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who died in about AD 40, cited as Scripture the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy (the Pentateuch) as well as other texts that we would recognize from our modern Old Testaments, but he did not provide us with anything like a list of books. The closest statement to this effect from around the time of Jesus comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, who died in around AD 100. Although he doesn’t name the books, he tells us that Jews have only 22 books that are rightly trusted: five books of Moses, 13 books of prophets, and four remaining books of hymns and instructions for life. Although researchers debate the identity of some of these books, Josephus describes a closed canon and claims it had been so for some time (you can read this in his book Against Apion 1.37–42). His 22 books reflect early numbering where several individual books now in the English Old Testament are counted as one. For example, at the time of Jesus, the twelve Minor Prophets were thought of as one book or scroll. However, perhaps the best witness to the books that Jesus would have considered Scripture is the New Testament, which cites and quotes the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), many books of the former and latter Prophets, Job, Psalms and Proverbs. The New Testament authors do not cite as Scripture books outside of the Jewish canon but neither do they cite every book of the Jewish canon. By the second century, when early Christians began to list their books, they included only the books of the Jewish Scriptures. Along with the great majority of Jews, Jesus would have had a more or less closed set of Scriptures that mirrors our own. So we can see from this that Josephus was probably right in saying that by the time of his writing every Jew had long considered the 22 books to be divinely inspired. The evidence indicates that some Jews held as Scripture the texts eventually named and listed in the second century, but not all Jews agreed on the status of every book. Along with the great majority of Jews, Jesus would have had a more or less closed set of Scriptures that mirrors our own. It would have included the core books—the Torah, the prophets, the Psalter—but it’s difficult to say what he would have thought about the books at the edges of the canon (such as Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes). What Versions Did Jesus Read? By Jesus’ day, the Hebrew Scriptures would have long been completed, and ancient scribes would have already copied them seemingly countless times. In the first century they would have been translated into Greek, and those early Greek translations would have been in the process of revision. We know for certain that the Scriptures were in at least three languages in the Judaea of Jesus’ day. The Dead Sea Scrolls reflect this reality with their Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscript remains. Jesus and his Apostles, therefore, lived in a time when the textual situation was quite complex. Hebrew Manuscripts The textual history of the Hebrew Bible on the whole shows remarkable care and preservation—but not uniformity. The Hebrew text that became the source for the Medieval manuscripts on which our modern Old Testaments are based—known as the Masoretic Text—was the dominant but not the exclusive form before and after the time of Jesus. Other textual forms existed at the time of Jesus, since some scribes copied that dominant text in freer and more creative ways for different purposes. For example, by the time of Jesus, there was a revision of the Hebrew Torah now known as the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). In John 4:20, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well and they discuss the difference between Jewish religion and Samaritan religion. She tells Jesus, “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain [Mount. Gerizim]” indicating that she must have been familiar with Samaritan scriptures that located the altar for worship on Mount Gerizim (SP Exod. 20:17). Likewise, she knew that the Jewish Scriptures located the place of worship on Mount Zion in Jerusalem (for example Ps. 132:13). Greek Translations In about 280 BC, around the time that the Samaritan Pentateuch was being produced, Jews in Alexandria were engaged in an innovative Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, commonly called the Septuagint. After the translation of the Torah the Jews had rendered the rest of their Scriptures into Greek by around 100 BC, with some books such as Esther and Ecclesiastes being translated slightly later. Copies of these translations probably made their way to Qumran in the first century BC as we have evidence of Greek manuscript remains of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy there. Related Illustration by Jordan Daniel Singer The Legacy of the First Revised Bible TranslationsThe modern impulse to get the Bible right in translation has its roots in the Jews who revised the Septuagint. John D. Meade Then the picture becomes more complex, because also in the first century BC some Jews began a tradition of revising older Greek translations to reflect better their interpretation of the Hebrew and to ensure their translations better accorded with the carefully copied Masoretic Text, which was by then the dominant version. A significant scroll of the Minor Prophets was found at Naḥal Ḥever, a cave in the Judaean desert, which exhibits characteristics of revision. Members of this movement for revision, called the kaige tradition, revisited previously existing translations and also produced some new ones, such as Ecclesiastes. What this shows us is that Jews before and around the time of Jesus and the Apostles were revising the older Greek translations and thus creating a complex of Greek versions that are quoted in the books of the New Testament. In this context, some quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament reflect both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (for example Ps. 32:1–2 in Rom. 4:7–8). In other places, the New Testament reflects the Septuagint and not the Hebrew (for example Isa. 1:9 in Rom. 9:29). However the New Testament authors clearly did not consider themselves bound to follow any specific translation, and at times either offer their own translation of the Hebrew (for example Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15) or quote a revision of the Septuagint (Isa. 25:8 in 1 Cor. 15:54). What Did Jesus’ Bible Look Like? Jesus’ “Bible” probably mirrored the Jewish Scriptures, with some dispute over books such as Esther. The question of whether he and his followers read the text in Hebrew or Greek (Luke 4:17–19) is not straightforward. What does seem clear from the evidence is that, alongside the Septuagint, various translations of the dominant Hebrew text as well as revisions of older Greek translations would have been available. Jesus’ Scriptures probably resembled a Christian bookshop or the list of English translations available on a Bible app. Jesus’ Scriptures in their various texts and translations probably resembled a Christian bookshop or the list of English translations available on a Bible app. The Jews had a central, carefully copied Hebrew text that had been adapted in Hebrew manuscripts for different audiences and purposes, and they also had Greek translators conveying its meaning. Jesus’ experience of reading the Scriptures, while perhaps very different from our own in terms of the technology and language, would have had much in common. Opening up a scroll, he would see a text faithfully passed through careful traditions and scribes, not so different from the Bibles in our hands today. This article was originally published in Ink magazine.
Recovering the Resurrection in Isaiah 53: Textual Criticism and Easter The Bible’s textual integrity is better appreciated by patient study than by sensational discoveries John D. MeadeIn the past few weeks and months, ancient biblical texts have made their way into major news outlets. Recently, National Geographic revealed that all of the newly discovered “Dead Sea Scrolls” in the Museum of the Bible’s collection are forgeries. On the New Testament side, there was much made of a sensational “First-Century Mark Fragment” which was sold to Hobby Lobby that was later shown not to be from the first century, although it will remain an important fragment and witness of Mark. The Museum of the Bible has acknowledged the forgeries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, these events of recent months have provided fodder for some to question who owns the Bible. In all of the sensationalism about the “finding” of new Dead Sea Scrolls and first-century gospel fragments and the subsequent overturning of these “discoveries,” some may wonder whether we have the enduring Word and the truth of the Gospel contained therein. In fact, we do, but not because of sensational discoveries. The Bible’s authentic textual history won’t be confirmed by sensational discoveries. It will be confirmed by patient study and analysis of the evidence we possess and by responsible discoveries of provenanced artifacts, like the well-known Dead Sea Scrolls. Around Christmas and Easter, it seems almost commonplace to read or hear something that casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible. For Easter, therefore, I want to focus on three textual problems in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 or what is called Isaiah’s “Fourth Servant Song” (the other three are 42:1–4, 49:1–6, and 50:4–9) to show that this text teaches and predicts the vicarious death, burial, and resurrection of the Servant, three key pillars to the gospel of Christ and the Christian’s own justification (Rom. 4:24–25). In three places, textual critics, commentators, and some translations chose different readings than the ones in our received text, i.e. the Masoretic Text, which is the base text of our Old Testament English translations. Let’s look at each in turn for edification from a very significant and familiar passage, even if at times we have to dig deeper to recover its original readings. Does the Servant Die? Or How to Read Isaiah 53:8? At end of Isaiah 53:8, our major English translations have: “for the transgression of my people he was punished” (NIV) or “stricken for the transgression of my people” (ESV). In each case, the translation has not actually rendered the base text (“a strike was to them” נֶגַע לָמוֹ nega’ lamô) but has actually rendered a noun as a verb and omitted an equivalent for the prepositional phrase with a plural pronoun “to them.” Many commentators find this reading too difficult and our translations have glossed over the difficulties in the actual text. But one need not despair. Many textual critics and commentators have discerned that the original text has been preserved in the Septuagint or the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, since that version has “to death” (εἰς θάνατον), which probably translated a Hebrew text having “to death” (לַמָּוֶת lammaweth). There is only one letter (ת) difference between this reading and the received text, and it is probable that the Greek translation suggests a different and more original Hebrew text yielding the meaning: “He was cut off from the land of the living, because of the transgression of my people he was stricken to death.” Thus, the prophecy of Isaiah 53:8 originally predicted that the Servant would be stricken to death. He would die vicariously for his people’s transgressions, and the New Testament authors appear to have read accordingly the Song in relation to Jesus Christ’s work on the cross. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul notes that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. There is no Old Testament passage that details this substitutionary death more than Isaiah 53. Where was the Servant Buried? Or How to Read Isaiah 53:9? In Isaiah 53:9, several of our English translations have: “And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death” (ESV; cf. NIV). But the NRSV along with several others has: “They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich.” The received text has “in his deaths” (בְּמֹתָיו bəmōthayw), which the later Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions all simplified to “in his death,” and some of our modern English translations followed suit. But the text is better preserved in 1QIsaa (the Great Isaiah Scroll) which has the reading “his hill” or “his tomb” (בומתו bômtô from בֹּ֫מֶת bōmeth). A portion of the Great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa). Wikipedia Therefore, with most commentators and translations, Isaiah 53:9 predicted that the Servant’s body would be laid in a tomb. It was no minor detail to the gospel writers to record that Jesus’ body be buried in a tomb, and Matthew even highlights that Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man (cf. Matt 27:57ff). Does the Servant Rise? Or How to Read Isaiah 53:11? In Isaiah 53:11, a few of our English translations have the following text with a footnote: “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied.” The footnote to the reading in the ESV says, “Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scroll he shall see light.” The ESV translates the received text “he will see” (יִרְאֶה yir’eh). But most English translations read against the received text and with three Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsaa 1QIsab 4QIsad) and the Hebrew text of the Greek translator, all of which preserve the word “light” for what the Servant sees (“he will see light” יראה אור yir’eh ’ôr). Most textual critics and English translators have adopted the reading found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, and therefore, have something like: “After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied” (CSB). The received text probably omitted accidentally the word “light” because the word “will see” in Hebrew is similar to it and the omission can be explained as accidental. RelatedTaking Stock of the “First-Century Mark” SagaElijah HixsonHow the Two Testaments Became One BibleMichael DormandyThe Extraordinary Hebrew Text behind Your English BibleKim Phillips The metaphor “to see light” refers to having life. In Job 3:16, Job asks why he was not hidden like a miscarried child or like infants who did not see light. In Job 33:28, 30, Elihu envisions God as the one who redeems one’s soul from the pit and one’s life then can see light. In Isaiah 53, the servant died vicariously and was buried in a tomb. In Isaiah 53:11, “seeing light” refers to the resurrection of the Servant from the dead because of his work. He will see light and be satisfied in his knowledge, that is, his obedience in covenant relationship with the Lord. As a result, the Lord’s righteous Servant will now justify the many. The resurrection shows the vindication of the servant and becomes the ground for the justification of the many. This logic appears to be Paul’s own in Romans 4:24–25 where he interprets Christ’s death for our transgressions and his resurrection for our justification. Conclusions The gospel of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection was clearly predicted and anticipated in Isaiah 53. But the received text has obscured these details with copyist errors and theological changes. In 53:8, the received text’s “to them” resulted accidentally from a lost letter which the Greek translator suggests should be restored as “to death”; in 53:9, the received text appears to have pluralized the servant’s “deaths” for some theological reason; and in 53:11, the received text has dropped “light” thus obscuring the servant’s seeing “light” or his resurrection. In each case, the original wording has been preserved clearly in other textual witnesses and these readings appears to be confirmed by the apostles’ reading of the Scriptures. For Easter, here are three applications from textual criticism: 1. Let’s commit to patient study and research of the Bible’s text and wording. In and around Easter, let’s not be swept away by sensational news stories and documentaries confirming and denying the Bible’s reliability and trustworthiness. 2. Let’s commit to reading and learning more about the different readings of our favorite passages. For many, this means reading your translation’s footnotes in the margins of your version. Let’s not fear variant readings, even when they occur in significant passages like Isaiah 53. In some cases, like the ones above, the “variant readings” are actually the original ones. And furthermore, delving into these readings often causes us to think about the interpretation of a given passage in a different but helpful light. 3. Lastly, it’s Easter and a time to remember that Christ died, was buried, and was raised according to the Scriptures. Isaiah 53 remains the chief Old Testament passage that predicts these events of the Servant of the Lord. In this season, may we continue to reflect on the suffering of the Servant for us and our sins even as we look to his resurrection as his vindication for suffering righteously and our justification. This article was originally published at Southern Equip.