Is the Earliest, Most Complete Hebrew Bible Going on Auction? The sale of Codex Sassoon raises questions about what’s real and what’s hype about this important manuscript. Kim PhillipsUsually, those of us who work on mediaeval Hebrew Bible manuscripts sit quietly in our libraries and try not to get under anyone’s feet. However, once in a blue moon we get our moment in the sun (if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor), and one of our treasured manuscripts captures the public’s attention. Usually that’s because it is being sold. Such is the case with the recent flurry of interest in the Sassoon Codex, due to be auctioned by Sotheby’s in May of this year. According to the estimates, it is possible that the codex will sell for $50 million, and thereby become the most valuable historical document ever auctioned. Sadly, looking at anything through the lens of a dollar sign can distort one’s vision of reality. Perhaps that is happening here. At any rate, what is certain is that a veritable dust cloud of exaggerations and half-truths are flying around in the press coverage of the imminent sale of Codex Sa$$oon. I would like to try and clear the air a little. What is the Sassoon Codex? The Sassoon Codex is a Hebrew Bible. Christians refer to the same text as the Old Testament. Many early mediaeval Hebrew Bible manuscripts only contain part of the scriptures: perhaps the Pentateuch only, or the prophetic books, or the Psalms. Relatively few early Hebrew Bible manuscripts contain the entire Hebrew Bible. Codex Sassoon is one of them. That turns out to be rather important later on. Codex Sassoon or Sassoon 1053 The word “codex” basically means: book, that is, something with pages connected to a spine that you can turn to quickly find your place. This is different to a scroll. If you want to read the last chapter of a story written in a scroll, you have no option but to laboriously unroll the entire thing until you get to the final part. So, codices have some significant advantages over scrolls, particularly if you want a quick peek at the end to see if he marries the girl, or if it really was the butler, in the drawing room, with the candlestick. Nonetheless, the scroll (rather than the codex) occupies a very special role in Jewish liturgy, and Jewish communities were rather slow to adopt the codex alongside the scroll, for writing the biblical text. In fact, it wasn’t until towards the end of the first millennium AD that Hebrew Bibles began to appear in codex form. So, this manuscript is part of the early shift to codex form. We’ll come back to that point in a bit. For a long time, this particular Hebrew Bible Codex was part of the massive Judaica collection belonging to David Sassoon, whence the name “Sassoon codex” (or Sassoon 1053, for those who like an extra slice of nerd with their nomenclature). Finally, it is important to explain that the Sassoon Codex—together with every other Hebrew Bible Codex from about AD 800 onwards—is a Masoretic Bible Codex. This simply means that it contains the Masoretic Text. Related The opening of Numbers in the Yonah Pentateuch (14th c.), showing its ornate micrography. BL Add MS 21160. Public domain The Extraordinary Hebrew Text behind Your English BibleThe Masoretic Text is the fruit of the genius of Jewish textual scholars who codified the pronunciation of the Hebrew text. Kim Phillips Now we are in a better position to address some of the exaggerations and half-truths in the media coverage of the Sassoon Codex. Half-truth 1 “It wasn’t until the early Middle Ages that scholars known as Masoretes … standardized the text of the Hebrew Bible, which had remained in flux since antiquity.” Sotheby’s To be frank, this is nonsense. Pure mashed potato. The consonantal text of what we now call the Hebrew Bible was fixed well before the birth of Christ, and there is a great deal of evidence that a firm tradition regarding the correct reading of that consonantal text was also fixed by that time. The genius of the Masoretes (Jewish scholars, roughly AD 600–900, particularly interested in the text of the Hebrew Bible) was not that they “standardized” the text of the Hebrew Bible, but that they (1) found ways to accurately represent in writing what had previously been preserved orally regarding the correct reading of the consonantal Hebrew text; (2) consolidated and developed a massive, intricate network of textual notes designed to prevent inadvertent changes to the text of the Hebrew Bible in the future. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Half-truth 2 Between AD 100 and AD 800 the Hebrew Bible was only transmitted orally, rather than in writing. NY Times It is true that, today, very few traces survive of Hebrew Bible manuscripts written between about AD 100 to AD 800. Exceptions include the extraordinary Ein Gedi Leviticus Scroll, and—possibly—some of the scroll fragments currently housed in Cambridge University Library. However, this so-called “silent period” does not imply that the Hebrew Bible was transmitted only orally between those dates. On the contrary: stringent Jewish regulations stipulate that the biblical text must be read from a scroll in synagogue services—not recited from memory. These regulations were codified in around AD 600—right in the middle of the “silent period”! So where did all these Bible manuscripts go? Put simply: some went up in smoke, and some went down into the ground. The burning of synagogues in key Jewish centres (such as Jerusalem and Old Cairo) in the high Middle Ages is to be blamed for the loss of many Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Other Bible manuscripts, having been used to the point of being worn out beyond repair, were buried—according to Jewish custom. Half-truth 3 “In Codex Sassoon, a monumental transformation in the history of the Hebrew Bible is revealed, bringing to light the full story of the Hebrew Bible that had previously never been presented in book form.” Jewish Chronicle This is hype. Let’s take things more slowly. It is true, as explained above, that Judaism was relatively slow to adopt the codex format. Hebrew Bible codices—rather than scrolls—only start appearing towards the end of the first millennium AD. But let’s be clear: before that point the Hebrew Bible was written in scroll format! RelatedThe Extraordinary Hebrew Text behind Your English BibleKim PhillipsThe Changing Fortunes of Codex VaticanusAn-Ting YiAppreciating the Diverse Evidence from the Dead Sea ScrollsAnthony Ferguson It is also true that the Jewish scribal experts—the “Masoretes”—found ways of writing down the traditional way to read the consonantal biblical text. Before the Masoretes, this aspect of the biblical tradition had indeed been transmitted orally. So, the appearance of the Masoretic Text towards the end of the first millennium is a really, really significant stage in the history of the Hebrew Bible. If, in this third half-truth, we were to replace the words “Codex Sassoon” with the words “The Masoretic Text,” I would be the first to sign up in agreement. The Masoretic Text is a monumental transformation in the history of the Hebrew Bible. Above all, though, this particular half-truth gives the strong impression that Codex Sassoon is the first ever Hebrew Bible in codex form. This is overwhelmingly unlikely! Let’s unpack this further. As was mentioned earlier, Masoretic Hebrew Bible codices frequently contained only part of the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Pentateuch codices were most common. Codices containing the book of Psalms were very common, and so forth. Although dating these partial codices is frequently very difficult indeed, it is highly probable that many of them predate the Sassoon Codex. In fact, it is likely that whichever part of the biblical text you were to choose, I would be able to find you a codex-format manuscript containing the Masoretic Text of that section that predates Codex Sassoon. So, if Codex Sassoon has any particular claim to glory, it must be related to the fact that in this particular codex the entire Hebrew Bible is preserved in a single volume. So let’s try this for size: Possible truth “Codex Sassoon is the earliest Masoretic Hebrew Bible containing the entire text of the Hebrew Bible in a single volume!” Maybe. However, there are various difficulties in proving this claim. First, the claim that Codex Sassoon is from the late 9th or early 10th centuries is based on the results of carbon-dating. However, carbon-dating yields a range of possible dates for whatever is being dated, not a precise point in time. And there is at least one other codex vying for the privilege of being “The Earliest Masoretic Hebrew Bible Containing the Entire Text of the Hebrew Bible in a Single Volume.” That manuscript is the famous Aleppo Codex. The Aleppo Codex is thought to date from around 930 (though this date is itself contestable), and so it may well pip the Sassoon Codex to the post. In addition, there are various aspects of the Sassoon Codex that may point to a slightly later date rather than a slightly earlier one. These all get rather technical, but one illustration may be the use of the colon sign (called sof-pasuq) to mark the end of each biblical verse. It is thought that in the earliest Masoretic codices these dots were used less frequently (technically, they are redundant, as the end-of-verse is already indicated by the silluq accent on the last word of the verse). For example, in Codex Or. 4445, a Torah manuscript currently housed in the British Library and thought to date from the 9th–10th centuries, the sof-pasuq sign only occurs irregularly. However, in Codex Sassoon it appears more regularly, just like the codices from the later 10th century onwards. A snippet from Codex Sassoon (left), showing three sof-pasuq signs, and from Or. 4445 (right) showing the absence of three sof-pasuq signs. Another problem with this claim is that even if Codex Sassoon is indeed the earliest surviving “Masoretic Hebrew Bible Containing the Entire Text of the Hebrew Bible in a Single Volume,” this in no way implies that it was the first ever “Masoretic Hebrew Bible Containing the Entire Text of the Hebrew Bible in a Single Volume.” It is entirely possible that earlier such manuscripts existed, but have not survived. In fact, given our current limited state of knowledge, it is entirely possible that earlier such manuscripts existed, and have survived, but have not yet been recognized as such. One further point that is cropping up a lot in the media coverage is that, even if the Aleppo Codex does turn out to be earlier than Codex Sassoon, the Aleppo Codex is substantially damaged: most of the Torah is no longer available, and some of the later biblical books are very damaged, too. Of course, some of Codex Sassoon is also missing or damaged beyond repair, so even this claim to superiority is relative rather than absolute. The earliest complete Masoretic Hebrew Bible manuscript that survives in its entirety is still the Leningrad Codex, from around the year 1008. The earliest complete Masoretic Hebrew Bible manuscript that survives in its entirety is still the Leningrad Codex, from around the year 1008. Conclusion Codex Sassoon is a really important manuscript. It would definitely be one of my three desert-island Hebrew Bibles. But great importance must not be confused with superlative importance. Claims like “Codex Sassoon: The Earliest Most Complete Hebrew Bible” are nonsensical (a text can be complete, or incomplete, but how on earth can it be “most complete”?!) and grossly misleading. Happily, we can be thankful for this valuable witness to the text of the Old Testament even once the exaggeration is cleared away.
Erasmus and the Search for the Original Text of the New Testament Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was a monumental achievement, but left room for later scholars to improve it. Martin HeideThe Greek New Testament published in Basel (Switzerland) in 1516 was the greatest achievement of the magnificent Dutch philosopher, philologist, and Catholic theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam (ca. 1466–1536). At that time in Western Europe, the Latin Bible was the “Gold standard” of Holy Writ; it was often seen as the inspired text. Philologists and theologians such as Erasmus, however, knew that the Latin Bible of his time, also known as the “Vulgate,” was actually a translation, and that it had been translated by Jerome from the Greek in the 4th century AD. While revising Jerome’s Latin translation and preparing to publish a new Latin edition, Erasmus often consulted Greek manuscripts to ensure his decisions. During that process, he felt encouraged to print the (revised) Latin and the Greek New Testament on facing pages and publish it under the title Novum Instrumentum omne (Complete New Testament), thus allowing qualified readers to verify his revision. Erasmus used the only Greek New Testament manuscripts available in Basel at his time. The publication of the Novum Instrumentum omne was a great success. However, because the printing process was done in a hurry, the first edition had many editing errors and typos, which were partly dealt with in the ensuing edition(s). For printing the Greek part of his Novum Instrumentum, Erasmus used the only Greek New Testament manuscripts available in Basel at his time. These eight manuscripts were written between the 10th and 15th centuries. They once belonged to Cardinal John of Ragusa (ca. 1393–1443), who, before the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, had brought about 60 Greek manuscripts, covering all fields of learning, from Constantinople to Basel. John of Ragusa bequeathed these manuscripts to the convent of the Dominicans in Basel. Except for two manuscripts that were already in the hands of Johann Reuchlin (ca. 1455–1522) at Erasmus’s time and that he had to borrow from this great scholar, the Dominican library loaned six manuscripts directly to Erasmus. Today, six of the eight are housed in the University library of Basel, while manuscript 2814, the only manuscript with the book of Revelation, is owned by the University Library of Augsburg. Manuscript 2105, which Erasmus used mainly for his separately published textual commentary, the Annotationes (Annotations), was discovered in the Bodleian Library of Oxford in 1966. The eight manuscripts are listed in the table below, with the respective Gregory-Aland (GA) numbers that are in use today: GAContentsDateShelf Number1Acts, epistles, four gospels12th c.Basel A.N. IV. 22Four Gospels12thBasel A.N. IV. 12815Acts, epistles12thBasel A.N. IV. 42816Acts, epistles15thBasel A.N. IV. 52817Pauline Epistles10–11thBasel A.N. III.11817Four Gospels with Theophylact’s commentary15thBasel A.N. III. 152814Apocalypse with Andrew’s commentary12thAugsburg I.1.4° 12105Pauline Epistles with Theophylact’s commentary12thOxford E. 1. 6Manuscripts used by Erasmus Understandably, Erasmus was used to the text of the Latin Bible from his childhood and indebted to the general scholarly opinion of his time that favored this text. Thus, from the first edition in 1516 onward, Erasmus introduced, knowingly or unknowingly, some Latin readings into the Greek text. For example, in Acts 9:5–6, he added the following phrase: “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him” (KJV). In his Annotationes, Erasmus admitted that, “in most Greek manuscripts this addition is not found.” RelatedThe Day the Bible Became a BestsellerJeffrey KlohaThe Changing Fortunes of Codex VaticanusAn-Ting Yi However, this phrase, being not known from any of the Greek manuscripts at Erasmus’s disposal, is actually found in some later Latin manuscripts and in the printed Latin editions of Erasmus’s time (such as the Gutenberg Bible, and many more). Since the same text is known from Acts 22:10, it might be argued that Erasmus thought the introduction of the Latin phrase would neither change the meaning nor the inspiration of the text. Moreover, high opinions of the Latin Vulgate and negative views of the Greek text moved Erasmus to write extended apologies for readings which departed from the Latin in his Annotationes. In addition, unfavorable reviews of his first edition forced him to include a late reading based on the Latin in his third edition, the so-called Comma Johanneum, which is added here in brackets: “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], Spirit, and water, and blood, and the three agree in one” (1 John 5:7–8 according to Erasmus’ third edition). As Greek manuscript support was lacking for this reading, it was not included in the first (1516) and second (1519) editions. Erasmus seems to have yielded to pressure to include the passage when he learned that a Greek manuscript in England, the so-called Codex Britannicus, known today as Codex Montfortianus (GA 61), contained the text (fig. 1). Fig. 1. Codex Britannicus or Montfortianus (GA 61), fol. 439r, with the text of 1 John 5:7–9 including the Comma Johanneum. Source This codex was actually written around 1520 by a monk named Roy, most likely to provide Erasmus with the missing “evidence.” Erasmus claimed in his Annotationes that he did not believe the reading to be genuine and that it looked very similar to the Vulgate reading. Erasmus wondered why this codex lacked the phrase “and these three agree in one” in verse 8, in accordance with the Latin Vulgate, while it is found in nearly all Greek copies. Moreover, Erasmus saw evidence for a Latin origin of the Greek text in the missing articles before important nouns such as “father” (πατὴρ), “word” (λόγος), and “spirit” (πνεῦμα). Ultimately, however, Erasmus chose to include the Comma Johanneum from his third edition onward, gaining wider acceptance of his Latin and Greek texts, so that, in his own words, no one would have a basis to criticize him. A comparison of the Codex Montfortianus and Erasmus’ third edition reveals that he added “and” (καί) between “spirit” and “water,” and supplemented the phrase “and these three agree in one.” In the 4th and 5th editions, he polished the Greek, inserting the missing articles. After Erasmus’ death, the text received further improvement, so that the Comma Johanneum reads today: “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 John 5:7–8 according to the KJV). Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: The Comma Johanneum is not found in Luther’s German New Testament of 1522, which was translated from a reprint of Erasmus’ first edition. Martin Luther stated in his “Lecture on the First Epistle of John” that the Comma Johanneum had been “clumsily inserted by the zeal of the old theologians against the Arians … I could easily make fun of the fact that there is no more unsuitable place of proof for the Trinity.” In a similar way as Erasmus, Luther did not really buy the text. In the margin of 1 John 5 in his own Bible, he added the remark that, “there is no testimony in heaven” (in coelo non est testimonium). The German Bible did not include the Comma Johanneum before 1581. The Text of Revelation For the text of Revelation, Erasmus had but one Greek manuscript, no. 2814, which actually was a commentary of archbishop Andrew of Caesarea (ca. 563–614). There are many places where Erasmus (or his associate, or his printer) had problems to read the text or to distinguish between the commentary and the biblical text, so that Erasmus’s Greek text of Revelation has not a few unique readings. Most of these faulty readings have never been corrected by Erasmus or those responsible for reprinting the Received Text. For instance, fig. 2 shows leaf no. 64 (folio 64r) of manuscript 2814. Most of the text consists of Andrew’s commentary, but the red marks in the left margin indicate the next Bible verse (Rev. 17:8b) to be commented upon: “they shall wonder … when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and is” (θαυμασθήσονται … βλεπόντων τὸ θηρίον ὅτι ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ παρέσται). However, the last two words cited here appear, due to misreading, in Erasmus’s text not as “and is” (καὶ παρέσται), but as “and yet is” (καὶπερ ἔστιν). Fig. 2. The last two words of the biblical text (in orange) were misread in Manuscript 2814, University Library of Augsburg (12th c.), f. 64r. Source In Revelation 21:23–24, Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum introduced a unique reading due to a confusion of Bible text and commentary. As can be seen in fig. 3, the first visible line begins with Revelation 21:23c: “for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof” (γὰρ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν αὐτήν καὶ ὁ λύχνος αὐτῆς τὸ ἀρνίον). Immediately after that, Andrew’s commentary resumes, before line four is again marked as biblical text in the margin. However, the scribe of the manuscript mispositioned the marginal signs! The text of line four simply continues Andrew’s commentary with the words translated in the KJV as “and the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it” (καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τῶν σωζομένων τῷ φωτί αὐτῆς περιπατήσουσιν). This commentary text naturally deviates from the usual Bible text attested in Revelation 21:23–24 which should read “by its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it” (καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς). Thus, a few words of Andrew’s commentary crept into the Received Text as Holy Writ and, from there, into the early translations such as Luther’s German Bible and the KJV. Fig. 3. Because of a miswritten marginal sign, the commentary text (in orange) was read as the biblical text in Manuscript 2814, University Library of Augsburg (12th c.), f. 88v. Source Moreover, as is well-known, a leaf is missing toward the end of manuscript 2814, so that the biblical text quoted ends abruptly with Revelation 22:16 (fol. 92v), while the next leaf (fol. 93r) continues with Andrew’s commentary until its last page (fol. 94r). To fill the gap in his Greek text, Erasmus had to retranslate it from the Latin, which he freely admits in the defense of his text against the critique of Edward Lee: “At the end of my copy of Revelation, a few lines were missing. I added them in accordance with Latin copies,” which means that he retranslated them from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Similarly, he writes in his Annotationes to the Apocalypse: “Although at the end of this book I have found some words in our text [i.e., the Latin] that were missing in the Greek copies, we have nevertheless added them from the Latin.” Fig. 4. Rev. 22:19 in a 1512 Latin Bible with the word “book” (libro) in the text and the usual reading “tree” (ligno) in the margin. Source Up to today, the textus receptus or “Received Text,” as Erasmus’s Greek text was called from the 17th century onwards, has some Greek readings that hail from Erasmus’s retranslation procedure and that have no manuscript support whatsoever. Although most of these readings are trivial, some are visible in the translations, such as the “book of life” (KJV) instead of “the tree of life” (NASB) (Rev. 22:19). This reading is based on late Latin manuscripts, which confused ligno “tree” with libro “book,” as can be seen in fig. 4. Further Research after the Reformation Period After the Reformation, scholars such as the Lutheran pietist clergyman J. A. Bengel (1687–1752) realized that the textus receptus or Received Text was largely based on late medieval Greek manuscripts and that its revision was overdue, in face of many more and much older Greek manuscripts that had become known in Europe. Back in 1516, Erasmus had no choice; he had to use what was available at his time. Bengel, on the other hand, in the spirit and zeal of Erasmus, seized the opportunity and compared the manuscripts newly known in his time to the Received Text. For instance, with the help of the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and medieval manuscripts, Bengel was able to correct the most obvious faults of the Book of Revelation (fig. 5) and made text-critical observations that are still valid today. Fig. 5. Bengel’s Testamentum Novum (1734) has the reading τοῦ ξύλου (tou xylou) “of the tree” in the text of Rev. 22:19, while Erasmus’s reading βίβλου (biblou) “of [the] book” is merely cited as a variant. It is marked by the Greek letter ε to signal a reading “to be rejected, though approved by some.” Source Erasmus’s Legacy The Novum Instrumentum was the only printed and published Greek text available at the onset of the Reformation and it has done the church a great service. The success and deep impact of the Reformation and its aftermath would be unthinkable without this new spiritual and intellectual basis of the New Testament text. Moreover, no cardinal doctrine is jeopardized by its obvious shortcomings. However, the Greek of the Novum Instrumentum, or the “Received Text,” as it was later called, “soon became, as it were, stereotyped in men’s minds; so that the readings originally edited on most insufficient manuscript authority, were supposed to possess some prescriptive right, just as if … an apostle had been the compositor.”1Samuel. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Bagster, 1854), 29. The work of the ingenious and industrious Erasmus marks the beginning of modern New Testament textual criticism, of the science that compares Greek New Testament manuscripts to reconstruct and print the earliest and original text. As it would be foolish today to think that the knowledge, of, e.g., Roman history during the 16th century was superior to our knowledge of the past and to ignore all the progress that has been made in reconstructing ancient history, so it would be foolish to claim that we should see the Novum Instrumentum as the only valid Bible text, arguing that God in some mysterious way restored the original text through the error-prone work of Erasmus. We do not need to bend our brains to explain away the errors of the Received Text. Thanks to Erasmus, we do not believe anymore that the Vulgate is the only truly inspired text of the church. And thanks to such men as John Mill (1645–1707), Johann A. Bengel (1687–1752), Samuel P. Tregelles (1813–1875), Constantin v. Tischendorf (1815–1874) and many others who followed in their footsteps and worked hard to restore as close as possible the original Greek text of the New Testament, we do not need to bend our brains to explain away the errors of the Received Text, seeing the text and its ramifications today as it is.Notes1Samuel. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Bagster, 1854), 29.
The Legacy of the First Revised Bible Translations The modern impulse to get the Bible right in translation has its roots in the Jews who revised the Septuagint. John D. MeadeMany Christians today read the Bible through revisions of original translations. We read the Revised Standard Version (RSV), a revision of another revision of the King James Version; English Standard Version, a revision of the RSV; the New King James Version, another revision of the King James and on and on. Translation committees simply find it easier to revise already existing translations by conforming them to a more contemporary understanding of the Hebrew and Greek texts and updating English diction as needed. Instead of de novo translations, they produce thorough revisions of older translations and in many cases improve the accuracy and readability of the older translation. Nothing is new under the sun. Ancient Jewish communities who read the Scriptures in Greek translation were the first to revise older Greek translations. These older Greek translations are popularly known as the Septuagint (an abbreviated Latin term meaning “Seventy”) and probably are to be dated between 280–100 BC. But even before the Jews finished translating each Hebrew book into Greek, some Jewish communities had already begun to revise the older ones. What are these Jewish Greek revisions? Why were they undertaken? Where do we find them? What do they tell us about the Bible’s history and our own translation proclivities? Learning more about the ancient Jewish revisions and why they were undertaken not only tells us more about the Bible’s history, but it also explains our modern-day practice too. The impulse to revise Bible translation Ancient translators and revisers do not tell us explicitly why they did what they did. But the historical background and the texts themselves suggest why Jews revised their texts. In the third to second century BC, in the library at Alexandria, Egypt, grammarians like Aristarchus of Samothrace were carefully correcting the copies and texts of Homer’s Iliad.1Francesca Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018). Perhaps, the Jewish revisers simply followed their lead in wanting more accurate texts of their scriptures in Greek. To do that, they revised or corrected the earlier translations by conforming them more closely to the standard Hebrew text. An illustration of the Septuagint translators from the Nuremberg Chronicle. Wikimedia The translations themselves suggest two other motives for revisions: (1) bringing the older translation into greater alignment with the standard Hebrew text and (2) ensuring their Greek translations reflected current interpretation of the text. Regarding the first reason, the old Greek translator of Job worked as a paraphrast or epitomizer, abbreviating the original, longer Hebrew text by about one-sixth in length. But the Jewish revisers wanted to restore or correct the older translation by supplying an equivalent Greek line for every Hebrew line of the poetic speeches. Regarding the second reason, the most famous example of interpretive revision probably comes from Isaiah 7:14. The Septuagint contains “Behold the virgin (parthenos) will conceive…,” while the revisers have “Behold the young woman (neanis)….” Hebrew ‘almah could mean “virgin” or “young woman,” and Jewish interpretation of this passage could have shifted between the older and newer translations. Though debate persists over whether the Jewish interpretation of this passage evolved from “virgin” to “young woman,” what is clear is that, as parthenos came to mean only “chaste woman” in Greek, the revisers adjusted their translations to neanis “young woman” to reflect the current Jewish interpretation of this word to mean “maiden of marriageable age.” What’s significant is that both of these reasons—textual accuracy and correct meaning—are still major reasons we revise Bible translations today. Both these reasons—textual accuracy and correct meaning—are still major reasons we revise Bible translations today. Understanding the ancient Jewish revisions Several ancient Jewish revisions of the Septuagint have names associated with them. Most famous among them are “the Three”: Theodotion (post 30 AD), Aquila (ca. 130 AD), and Symmachus (ca. 200 AD). We will return to them. Most other revisions were anonymous. The church father Origen of Alexandria discovered two other versions which he called “the Fifth” and “the Sixth,” since the texts did not have names attached to them. But before these famous revisions existed, we now know that Jewish communities had long been revising their older Greek translations. The dividing line between an original translation and its revision is not easy to establish. Thus, for the earliest manuscripts of the Greek translations, some debate exists among scholars for what constitutes an early witness to the original translation and what is evidence for its earliest revision. That said, scholars do agree that some Jewish communities were revising older Greek translations since we have manuscript evidence from as early as 2nd–1st centuries BC showing revisions of Numbers (4QLXXNum) and Deuteronomy (Papyrus Fouad Inv. 266b-c). That is, these texts show a revision of the older Greek translation towards the standard Hebrew text. A brief example comes from Numbers 4:7 where the old Greek translation has, “And over the presentation table they shall throw over it a wholly purple cloth, and the bowls…” But 4QLXXNum has “And over the presentation table they shall throw over it a wholly purple cloth, and they shall set on it the bowls…,” which agrees with the standard Hebrew text. If the original translation of Numbers occurred around 280 BC, this revision could have been carried out about hundred years later. RelatedFive Decisions Every Bible Translator Must MakePeter J. GurrySeven Common Misconceptions about the King James BibleTimothy BergBorrowing from the KJV Bank and TrustMark Ward Probably in the first century BC, a Jewish community engaged in a major project of revising older translations and producing new translations for books like Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. We call this tradition the “kaige tradition,” since it employed a distinctive Greek translation kaige (καίγε) “and even” for Hebrew gam/wegam (גם/וגם) “and even.” This tradition produced a literal or formal equivalence translation of the standard Hebrew text, not unlike our own English translations that follow in the tradition of the NASB. Here we can locate the famous Three revisers within the overall tendency to revise the older Greek translations. Although the kaige tradition included mostly anonymous revisions and translations, the kaige did include the more well-known reviser, Theodotion, and probably peaked and was perfected in the work of Aquila. Both of these revisions represent very literal translations and even stereotypical equivalents (each Hebrew word rendered by the same Greek word) in the case of Aquila. Later, Symmachus rendered the Hebrew more functionally (think closer to the NIV) and generally avoided the approaches introduced by kaige. For example, Theodotion would usually render Hebrew ’el “God” with Greek ho ischyros “the powerful one” and Aquila would render the same word with ischyros “Powerful One” (as a proper noun). Symmachus came later and used the more typical Greek rendering theos “God” instead of continuing the idiosyncratic rendering of the kaige tradition. When later Jewish and Christian debates over the interpretation of the Scriptures arose, usually the debates centered on the texts of the Three and the Septuagint. But scholars now see that early Christian exegetes sometimes used the revisions of the Three for their interpretations more than has been recognized in the past. When the Apostle Paul quoted Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Corinthians 15:54 he quoted the text of Theodotion (“Death is swallowed up in victory”) and not the text of the Septuagint (“Death, having prevailed, swallowed them [nations] up”) or the later reading of the Masoretic Text (“He will swallow up death forever”). A variant Hebrew text does not explain the differences. Rather, the translators and revisers read the same Hebrew consonants differently, and in this case, Paul must have agreed with how Theodotion’s version conveyed the Hebrew with its emphasis on God’s “victory” over death. Where we find the revisions We observe the earliest revisions from the manuscripts themselves. For example, we can observe the kaige tradition directly in the fragments of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever. This scroll was discovered in 1952 and 1961, and, amazingly, another part of this same scroll was found as recently as 2021. A very interesting feature of this Greek scroll is its exhibition of the divine Name or the Tetragrammaton in proto-Hebrew letters. The Nahal Hever scroll with the Tetragramaton in proto-Hebrew script (lines 3, 5). Wikipedia How about the remains of the Three? Unfortunately, the Three only survive fragmentarily. Some of Aquila’s translation for 1 Kings 21:7–17 and 2 Kings 23:12–27 survives, but most of the remains of the Three come from Origen of Alexandria’s Hexapla, where these revisions were included. But the Hexapla does not survive in full. Rather, we find most remains of the Hexapla in the margins of Greek manuscripts, citations in patristic commentaries, and ancient translations like Syriac. The last edition of the hexaplaric fragments was published in 1875 by Frederick Field. The Hexapla Institute, which is now hosted by the Text & Canon Institute, seeks to publish new critical editions because more evidence of the Three has since come to light. Newer editions will further our knowledge of the Three’s language and approach to the revisionary task. What these revisions tell us Although most of us don’t read the remains of the Jewish revisers directly, we do encounter Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in the footnotes of our English Bibles (see, e.g., Job 5:5). Interestingly, the early English Bible prefaces appeal to the Three by name, ensuring they play a part in the English Bible’s history. Describing the benefit of various Bible translations throughout history, Myles Coverdale (1535) says, Whereas some men think now that many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, that is not so: for it was never better with the congregation of God, than when every church almost had the Bible of a sundry translation … Beside the seventy interpreters, is there not the translation of Aquila, of Theodotion, of Symmachus, and of sundry other?2Spelling updated. Even the venerable Preface to the KJV 1611 mentions Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the anonymous Fifth and Sixth translations as responses to the perceived problems in the Septuagint translations. In this way, the work of the ancient Jewish revisers was seen as a powerful precedent for revisions made more than 1,000 years later. Overall, the Jewish revisions attest the conservatively copied Hebrew text.3But even here these fascinating revisions tell different tales. For example, the ending of Job in the older Greek translation came to have a longer ending beyond the Hebrew text which ended with “And Job died an old man and full of days.” The earlier reviser, Theodotion, continued to revise the longer ending of Job, while the slightly later revisers of Aquila and Symmachus ended their revisions precisely where the Hebrew ended. Their literal translation approach reveals the antiquity of the standard Hebrew text. Thus, where we can consult these readings, we can usually see that Hebrew text as the base text. Sometimes, these translations show a different Hebrew reading than the Masoretic Text and as such become very valuable witnesses to the textual history of the Hebrew Bible. Conclusion The Bible’s history has many chapters. The Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint constitute major developments in the plot. As such, the revisions and later corrected texts like those produced by Origen often are overlooked. But these textual endeavors show a great interest in possessing the correct text and as such tell us much about the texts’ creators, curators, and users. Today, when we read or attempt revisions of our older translations, we can rest assured that we’re participating in a long-standing tradition, one that has roots in the impulse to get the text right. That tradition and its history are worth exploring more deeply so that we can also understand our own impulses and desires.Notes1Francesca Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018).2Spelling updated.3But even here these fascinating revisions tell different tales. For example, the ending of Job in the older Greek translation came to have a longer ending beyond the Hebrew text which ended with “And Job died an old man and full of days.” The earlier reviser, Theodotion, continued to revise the longer ending of Job, while the slightly later revisers of Aquila and Symmachus ended their revisions precisely where the Hebrew ended.
Scribal Blunders in Biblical Numbers Different ways of writing numbers in Greek can be difficult both for ancient scribes and modern scholars. Zachary J. ColeAncient scribes faced many challenges when they copied books, but they seem to have had an especially difficult time with numerals. A survey of the numbers in the Bible shows that copyists often misread and miscopied them, leading to a variety of textual variants among existing manuscripts. This is more significant than we might think at first. Remember that numbers play a significant role throughout the New Testament. For example, think of the three sets of fourteen generations in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:17), the precise hours given for the chronology of Jesus’ passion (Mark 15:25, 33, 42), the number of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6), the number of the Beast (Rev. 13:18), and the ubiquitous numbers three, seven, and twelve. In this article, we consider why many numerals were prone to corruption during the copying process and what this tells us about the New Testament text. Writing numbers To understand why some ancient copyists botched biblical numbers, we need to recognize that there were two different systems of number-writing in use at the time of the New Testament. Perhaps surprisingly, biblical manuscripts often contain both systems standing side-by-side. Actually, modern English does the same thing; we can spell numbers fully or use shorthand symbols (two and 2). Koine Greek likewise used both number-words and number-symbols. A Greek writer, for instance, could spell the number “two” fully, δύο (duo), or use the shorthand equivalent letter beta (β̅). New Testament manuscripts, especially the early ones, often use both systems, sometimes even within the same verse. Numbers written as both letters (yellow) and words (red) in Luke 12:52 in P75 (3rd c.). Pap.Hanna.1 1B.6v The numerical shorthand we find in New Testament manuscripts is an alphabetic system. This means the regular letters of the Greek alphabet were used to express numerical values. For example, the number 153 could be expressed in shorthand form as ρ̅ν̅γ̅—where ρ̅ stands for one hundred, ν̅ for fifty, and γ̅ for three. Notice how it is potentially confusing to use the very same characters for both letters and numbers. How should a scribe know if the letter alpha (α) was meant to stand for a number (“one”) or was simply a part of the next word? To help prevent misunderstanding, scribes used a horizontal stroke above the letters to mark them out as shorthand numbers (ρ̅). Confusing numbers Even still, confusion occurred. Consider four notable examples of numerals with textual variation in the New Testament. Number of shipwrecked passengers First, in Acts 27, Luke narrates the account of Paul’s shipwreck on the way to Rome, and he happens to mention that there were 276 persons aboard the ship (Acts 27:37). Or was it only 76 persons? While the vast majority of Greek manuscripts have the number 276, there is one early manuscript that instead reads: “about 76”. That manuscript is an important one, Codex Vaticanus (B 03). It is hard to see how such an alternative reading would arise when the numerals are written as words. Observe: Most Greek manuscripts: “276 in the ship” (ἐν τῷ πλοιῷ διακόσιαι ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ) Codex Vaticanus: “about 76 in the ship” (ἐν τῷ πλοιῷ ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ) However, if we remember that scribes often used numerical shorthand, the reason for the error becomes clear. With the number written as a symbol (and without spaces between words), the phrase would have appeared like so: entōploiōsos (εντωπλοιωϲ̅ο̅ϲ̅). Now we can see how the scribe of Vaticanus could misread this as en tō ploiō ōs os (εν τω πλοιω ωϲ ο̅ϲ̅). These numerals in the exemplar of Vaticanus were almost certainly written in shorthand. RelatedThe Bible Jesus ReadJohn D. MeadeThe Bible in the Language of JesusPhilip M. FornessHow the Two Testaments Became One BibleMichael Dormandy Number of years by the pool A second example appears in Codex Ws (032), which wrongly states that the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda had been lying there for forty-eight years rather than thirty-eight (John 5:5). Here, it is easy to see the similarity between the longhand forms of the numbers: tesserakonta kai oktō (τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ὀκτῳ) versus triakonta kai oktō (τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτῳ). Such visual and aural similarity by itself might explain the error. However, this appears to be another case in which numerical shorthand caused the problem. The difference between the shorthand versions is very slight, a one-letter difference: mē (μη) versus lē (λη). Furthermore, if we take into account the appearance of ancient majuscule (capital) script, the difference is even harder to detect at first glance: ΜΗ and ΛΗ. Number of Jesus’ followers Third, a well-known case of numerical variation appears in Luke 10:1 and 17. Luke tells us that in addition to the core group of twelve disciples, Jesus also had a larger group of seventy followers—or was it seventy-two? Manuscripts are split here. The majority of Greek manuscripts contain “seventy-two,” but several manuscripts—some very early and some later—simply have “seventy.” The difference in Greek would appear like so: seventy-two: ο̅β̅ = ἑβδομήκοντα δύο seventy: ο̅ = ἑβδομήκοντα Making a decision here is extremely difficult, and commentators are not in agreement about the original wording. From a transcriptional point of view, it’s more likely that a scribe would inadvertently omit duo (δύο) or β̅ rather than add it. A survey of numerical errors in New Testament manuscripts shows that, in general, scribes tended to omit the second of two digits rather than add them. This trend suggests that “seventy-two” is the preferable reading. In this case, knowledge of numerical shorthand does not immediately decide the issue but a knowledge of scribal tendencies can help.1For more on this argument, see Zachary J. Cole, “P45 and the Problem of the ‘Seventy(-two)’: A Case for the Longer Reading in Luke 10.1 and 17,” NTS 63.2 (2017): 203–221. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Number of the Beast A fourth and final example is the famous “number of the beast” in Revelation 13:18. The standard reading here is, of course, 666. Written fully, it is hexakosioi hexēkonta hex (ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ). In shorthand, it would be χ̅ξ̅ϲ̅. However, two notable Greek manuscripts (P115 and C 04) attest an alternative number, 616. Written longhand, it would be hexakosioi deka hex (ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ; as in C 04), and shorthand it would be χ̅ι̅ϲ̅ (as in P115). Unfortunately, knowing the appearance of the shorthand version does not seem to help us resolve this textual problem. There is no obvious transcriptional reason why a scribe might mistake one of these for the other. A portion of P115 (3rd c.) showing 616 as the number of the Beast in Rev. 13:18. P.Oxy.LXVI 4499 It is worth recognizing the potential symbolic value of the number of the beast, and thus the likelihood that a scribe could intentionally change it. It is possible, for example, that early Christians saw the numerical value 666 as a code for a name. Using the practice of gematria (called isopsephy in Greek), the letters of a name or word could be totaled up (since, as we have seen, letters were also numbers) and connected with other things. For example, many early Christian documents have the number 99 written at the top, which most likely means “amen,” since the total of the values in the word amēn (ἀμήν) amount to exactly 99: α (1) + μ (40) + η (8) + ν (50) = 99. If early readers of Revelation were seeking to identify a known individual as the Beast, this may have led to intentional changes so that the numbers “added up,” so to speak. In short, recognizing the dynamics of Greek number-writing can often, though not always, explain the cause of errors in the copying of numerals. Preserving numbers The examples that we have considered here are instructive for an additional reason. One of the striking things about these points of variation is how relatively minor they are. This point can be seen more clearly when we consider how some skeptical scholars claim that scribes intentionally corrupted the text of the New Testament by doctoring its presentation of Jesus. It is often claimed that scribes deleted uncomfortable wording and added things to make Jesus appear more impressive and godlike than he really was. With that idea in mind, the remarkable thing about New Testament numbers is how stable most of them they are. Take, for example, the account of the feeding of the five thousand in John’s Gospel. Here would have been an opportunity for a scribe to fudge the numbers and exaggerate the extent of Jesus’ miracle. It would have been easy to change five thousand into six thousand, or ten thousand, and so on. And yet the Nestle-Aland critical apparatus notes only one textual variant affecting the value of this number (John 6:10). It is in Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ 01), which wrongly has three thousand (which was subsequently corrected). In other words, scribes here had the opportunity to exaggerate the extent of Jesus’ miracle and thereby inflate the depiction of Jesus. But there is only one known manuscript that miscopied the number, and the value actually decreased. We would expect the opposite if scribes were rewriting the narrative. The remarkable thing about New Testament numbers is how stable most of them they are. We can also consider the narrative of the feeding of the four thousand. One might imagine that this account would have been another tempting occasion for a scribe to exaggerate numerical values and thereby increase the miraculous nature of the feeding. Instead, this is exactly what we do not find. The account appears in both Matthew and Mark. According to the Nestle-Aland apparatus, there are no textual variants with respect to the number of loaves Jesus multiplied (seven in Matt. 15:34/Mark 8:5), the size of the crowd (four thousand in Matt. 15:38/Mark 8:9), nor the amount of leftover baskets (seven in Matt. 15:37/Mark 8:8).2The only apparent numerical variant is that a handful of manuscripts add “about” (ὡς/ὡσει) before four thousand in Matthew 15:38 in parallel to Mark 8:9. In other words, there is remarkable stability across all Greek manuscripts in these seemingly minor numerical details. In conclusion, appreciating the dynamics of ancient Greek number-writing can help us understand the causes of some errors that occurred while copying. Yet, the overall picture gives us confidence in the stability and reliability of the New Testament.Notes1For more on this argument, see Zachary J. Cole, “P45 and the Problem of the ‘Seventy(-two)’: A Case for the Longer Reading in Luke 10.1 and 17,” NTS 63.2 (2017): 203–221.2The only apparent numerical variant is that a handful of manuscripts add “about” (ὡς/ὡσει) before four thousand in Matthew 15:38 in parallel to Mark 8:9.
Four Ways Scholars Date Early Hebrew Bible Manuscripts Scholars use multiple methods to date the earliest copies of the Old Testament. At their best, they yield a range of fifty years. Drew LongacreIn recent years, some scholars have argued that the Psalms were still being collected into the Psalter late into the 1st century AD, well after Jesus’ death. But what if there was a copy of the book of Psalms written much earlier than that? In fact, that seems to be the case with 4QPsa, a Psalms manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to the late 3rd or early 2nd century BC that must surely play an important role in determining when the book of Psalms was compiled. The dates when manuscripts were written are thus very important for understanding their significance and for understanding the history of the Bible. But the process of how scholars determine those dates is complex and involves several sources of information. The earliest period from which we have copies of the books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament starts from the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls include nearly 1000 early manuscripts—mostly in Hebrew and Aramaic (which use the same alphabet), but also some other languages—discovered in the Judean Desert, most of which date between 350 BC to AD 135. Far fewer early Hebrew manuscripts have survived from other places like Egypt and from the so-called “silent period” from the 3rd to the 8th centuries AD. That means that the Dead Sea Scrolls are our earliest direct sources for the Hebrew scriptures and Jewish literature and are of immense historical and religious significance. But how do scholars go about dating them? There are four main ways. 1. Internal Dates and Contents Sometimes scribes wrote the date explicitly on their manuscripts. In such cases, it is easy to know when it was written—as long as the type of calendar the scribe used is clear and well-understood. For instance, the manuscript known as 5/6Ḥev papLease of Land is dated to the third year of the revolt against the Romans by Bar Kokhba (AD 132–135), which corresponds to AD 134. Such dates are common in legal documents and letters, though precious few survive from some periods. Unfortunately, the ancient scribes who copied works of Hebrew literature like the scriptures did not write the date on their manuscripts. When an explicit date is lacking, the contents of a manuscript may also imply something about its date. If it is possible to determine when a book was originally composed, the copy obviously cannot be dated earlier. In most cases, the books of the Old Testament were written significantly earlier than their earliest surviving copies, so this criterion is generally of limited value. 2. Archeological Context One of the best indicators for dating early Hebrew manuscripts is where they were discovered, otherwise known as their provenance. Many ancient manuscripts were found in archeological contexts that are datable. For instance, a Leviticus scroll called EGLev was found charred inside a synagogue in En Gedi in Israel that was burned in the 6th or 7th century AD, which means that the scroll cannot be dated later than this destruction. The site of Qumran in the Judean Desert (east of Jerusalem) was destroyed by the Romans in AD 68, so all of the scrolls found in the surrounding caves associated with the site (labelled 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q, etc.) must have been written earlier than this date. It is unusual (though not impossible) for manuscripts to be many centuries older than the archeological context in which they were discovered. Thus, dating is one reason why it is so important to know as much as we can about where ancient manuscripts came from. The site of the En Gedi synagogue allows a more precise dating of a Leviticus scroll found at the site. David Jones 3. Radiocarbon Dating Another important tool that is used to date early Hebrew manuscripts is radiocarbon dating. Carbon-14 (aka 14C or “radiocarbon”) is a radioactive isotope of carbon that is found throughout the atmosphere and is absorbed into plants and the animals that eat them. 14C decays at a known rate to become the more common 12C. When plants or animals die, they stop taking in new 14C, so the amount of 14C gradually diminishes at a constant rate. By comparing the amount of 14C left in the organic material with the amount of 12C and known historical atmospheric conditions, scientists are able to determine approximately how long ago the plant (e.g., papyrus) or animal (e.g., parchment) that was used to make a manuscript died. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: With few exceptions, writers usually used these writing materials soon after they were prepared, so scholars generally suppose that the date when a manuscript was written was very close to when the plant or animal died. In most cases, these tests can tell researchers approximately in which century the manuscript was written. However, fluctuations in the original atmospheric conditions make it difficult to distinguish certain periods, yielding less precise or more ambiguous dates for these stretches of time. Radiocarbon dating also requires destroying a small part of the manuscript, which makes many institutions hesitant to use the technique. Despite this, the method has been frequently applied to early Hebrew manuscripts, providing a wealth of information that is not available to scholars working on most other types of ancient manuscripts. So far, more than 60 early Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts have been subjected to radiocarbon dating, yielding dates ranging from the 4th century BC up through the 8th century AD. So far, more than 60 early Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts have been subjected to radiocarbon dating. 4. Ancient Handwriting Another way of dating early Hebrew manuscripts—in fact, often the most important—is by studying their handwritten scripts, which is a discipline called paleography. When attempting to date early Hebrew manuscripts, the other means of dating mentioned above are frequently unavailable or not sufficiently precise. In such cases, paleographers study the development of different styles of writing over time and try to figure out where an undated manuscript fits into that history on the basis of its handwriting. RelatedIs the Earliest, Most Complete Hebrew Bible Going on Auction?Kim PhillipsHow the Two Testaments Became One BibleMichael DormandyThe Extraordinary Hebrew Text behind Your English BibleKim Phillips One of the best ways of paleographically dating an early Hebrew manuscript is by finding dated or datable manuscripts written in very similar writing styles. The more similar the scripts are, the more likely they are to be from the same period. For instance, one Psalms scroll called 5/6Ḥev Ps was deposited in a cave in Naḥal Ḥever by refugees during the Bar Kokhba revolt (AD 132–135). The script style looks very similar to 5/6Ḥev papLease of Land, a contract from the same cave which we noted earlier was dated to AD 134. This suggests that 5/6Ḥev Ps must have been written some time close to AD 134, and its archeological context means that it could not have been written later. Thus, 5/6Ḥev Ps can be dated approximately to AD 50–135. Whenever it is impossible to find close analogies with manuscripts of known date, paleographers try to analyze scripts in light of the general development of writing styles. Since handwriting styles change over time, paleographers can create typologies or timelines for these developments, noting both changes in the general appearance of the scripts and changes in individual letter shapes. They start by placing datable manuscripts on the timeline and observing what has changed between the earlier and the later manuscripts. When paleographers try to date an early Hebrew manuscript that has some features of the earlier manuscripts and some of the later ones, they normally presume that that manuscript was written sometime between the manuscripts dated on either side of it. For example, when paleographers date 4QSamb (an old copy of 1 Samuel), they might compare it to early dated manuscripts like WD papDeed of Slave Sale (335 BC) and later ones like 5/6Ḥev papLease of Land mentioned above. The handwriting of 4QSamb has many features of the earlier manuscripts, but also some later features, so we can place it on the timeline between WD papDeed of Slave Sale (335 BC) and 5/6Ḥev papLease of Land (AD 134) like so: WD papDeed of Slave Sale → 4QSamb → 5/6Ḥev papLease of Land. Since 4QSamb is much closer to WD papDeed of Slave Sale than 5/6Ḥev papLease of Land, it must also be dated very early on the timeline. Thus, most paleographers conclude that 4QSamb must have been written in the 3rd century BC, possibly making it the oldest copy of any part of the Hebrew scriptures in existence. The more the timeline is filled in with datable manuscripts, the more precisely paleographers can date other manuscripts based on where they fit in the timeline. For this reason, paleographers are constantly looking for new evidence for dating ancient manuscripts and revising the timeline where evidence requires it. And recent developments have seen the use of computer tools to help study and compare ancient handwriting, which has great promise for future gains in the field. The Foundation for Further Study By combining the information from the contents of the manuscripts, their archeological contexts, radiocarbon dates, and their handwriting, scholars are able to propose dates for early Hebrew manuscripts. Based on these sources of information, scholars often suggest dates that are quite precise, even within 50-year ranges of possible dates, not much longer than the working lifespan of a scribe. Not everyone agrees that these narrow date ranges are reliable, however, and a growing number of paleographers prefer to leave open wider ranges of possible dates, such as a century or more. This is especially the case for the 3rd to 8th centuries AD, where hardly any Hebrew manuscripts have survived and the timeline has many long gaps and uncertainties. But despite the limitations, these tools are essential for dating early Hebrew manuscripts and are foundational for any study of the manuscripts and texts of the Hebrew scriptures and thus to the history of the Bible.
Four Lessons from Medieval Illustrated Bibles Illuminated Bibles are a living testament to human history in addition to being the divine record of history. David S. HoggAmong the treasures housed in the British Library is the Luttrell Psalter. It is a lavishly illustrated early 14th century manuscript commissioned by Sir Geoffrey Luttrell. Inside the front cover someone has written the name of Sir Geoffrey followed by the Latin words me fieri fecit. Loosely translated this means, “Sir Geoffrey Luttrell brought me into existence.” This is interesting for at least two reasons. First, by writing it in the first person, the author is personifying the book itself—treating it as though it were speaking to us. On one level, we might consider this a bit childish since we know books are inanimate. But on another level, precisely because this is written in a book containing a portion of the Bible, itself the only book in all creation that can be described as living and active (Heb. 4:12; 1 Thess. 2:13), it does not seem entirely out of place. Whatever else might be said of their piety, citizens of medieval Europe well understood that the Bible and the church claimed that this is a book that has the power to transform hearts and minds because it is a living word that has the power to impart eternal life (1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Tim. 3:14–17). It is, in short, a book that speaks to us like no other. Thus, to add an element of personification on the inside cover is not entirely out of place. The second reason this little notation is interesting is that it invites the reader to consider the intentionality behind creating this specific volume. Besides Sir Luttrell, who might have been involved in producing this lavish copy of God’s Word? Printers? Artists? Scribes? Leather workers? Purveyors of fine parchment? Which members of the Luttrell family, young or old, had input into what illuminations they wanted to include? By way of contrast, in our age where Bibles are everywhere, from homes to hotel rooms, and available in multiple formats, from print to audio recordings to software programs to hypertext online versions, considerations about how the Bible is produced have faded into the background. And, it may be argued, rightly so since the process of mass producing print, audio or electronic Bibles is not especially engrossing. Why Illuminate the Bible? Be that as it may, the somewhat eccentric Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin in the early fifth century (the text we now call the Vulgate) would be elated at the modern proliferation of simple, straightforward, text-only Bibles published around the globe. Throughout his life, Jerome remained staunchly opposed to the ornamentation of God’s Word—evidence that illustrating the Bible in some way was practiced before the Middle Ages in the earliest centuries of the church. To the list of those who prefer the Bible to remain a simple, text-only book, I suspect we could add some of the leaders of the Reformation, to say nothing of the Puritans, whose opinions on the subject are a foregone conclusion. The collective motto of Jerome & Co. might be, “Just print the Bible. It’s not a coloring book.” RelatedAppreciating the Diverse Evidence from the Dead Sea ScrollsAnthony FergusonRevelation’s Place in the Greek BibleClark R. BatesDid Nicaea Really Create the Bible?John D. Meade This is, however, not the position taken by many Christians throughout the ancient and medieval church. Exhibit A: the Luttrell Psalter. Here is a portion of the Bible with elaborate ornamentation throughout, to say nothing of the full color illustrations of people and daily life that fill the spaces amidst the sacred leaves. What’s more, this practice was followed well into the sixteenth century. If we fast forward about a century beyond the creation of the Luttrell Psalter to the time when Gutenberg revolutionized book production with his moveable type printing press, we discover that he printed the Bible with large blank spaces at the beginning of books and chapters as well as leaving considerable real estate blank at the margins. This was done on purpose and for decades following Gutenberg’s life. The point was that everyone who could afford a Gutenberg Bible could take their copy to a book illuminator and make it their own by having it decorated however they wished. Lest you think this an antiquated practice, consider the recent publication of the ESV Bible in formats that either already have ornamentation in them or leave large blank spaces as an intentional invitation for people to add their own illustrations and adornments. It seems illuminated manuscripts are back in style. At this point, it is worth noting that many Bibles, parts of Bibles, and other manuscripts created in the Middle Ages included no adornment. Illustration was an expensive undertaking. Even so, if the cache of illuminated texts that have survived into our own day is any indication, a lot of Bibles included some form of adornment. But why, we might ask, was adorning the margins and first letters of books and chapters in the Bible done in the first place? Why was it so popular for over 1,500 years? In what follows, I offer four reasons why manuscripts of the Bible were illuminated. One of several curious creatures (or “grotesques”) in the Luttrell Psalter. BL Add MS 42130 1. Illustration communicates the value of the text What do you do with the things you value greatly? If it’s a picture, you might have it professionally framed. If it’s an object associated with a strong memory, you may keep it in a special box. If it’s beautiful or costly, you might display it in a glass case. We often convey value through context. In the Middle Ages, all books were relatively expensive, but illuminating a manuscript with colors created from costly dyes and overlaying letters and borders with gold leaf communicated a level of importance that went above and beyond. Depending on the level of craftsmanship required, portions of the Bible or even the whole Bible created in this way could take anywhere from two to four years. Even in a slower age bereft of automation and computers, anything that took multiple years and several people to make signaled significance to the observer. While communicating the value of the Bible through its physical production could matter in a number of situations, one context in which a visual reminder of the value of the text of Scripture was especially helpful was in missionary work. In her very illuminating book, Hidden Hands, Mary Wellesley cites a letter written by an eighth century missionary named Boniface in which he is requesting an illuminated manuscript of the Pauline epistles, “to impress honour and reverence for the Sacred Scriptures visibly upon the carnally minded to whom I preach.” Wellesley herself comments on the rationale for Boniface’s request writing that a “manuscript was not simply a repository of text but an embodiment, in visual and physical form, of the sacral power of Scripture.”1Mary Wellesley, Hidden Hands: The Lives of Manuscripts and Their Makers (London: Quercus, 2022), 164 2. Illustration prompts thinking about the text On the page where Psalm 36 begins (in our English Bibles that would be Psalm 37) in the Luttrell Psalter, there is an illustration at the bottom of the page of a naked blue man. Yes, you read correctly. Furthermore, this little blue man (slightly turned to preserve at least a modicum of modesty) has been hoisted upon a pole held horizontally to the ground and is carried by two people as he waves a leaf of some kind and looks like he is having a grand time (despite what one imagines must be a terribly uncomfortable way to travel!). Why, it seems reasonable to ask, is there a little naked blue man on the page below Psalm 37? Although we can’t be sure since no interpretive notes are included with the illustration, it is likely the case that this illustration is depicting the wicked, the enemy, described in the Psalm. In medieval England, blue was the color associated with the enemy and thus the wicked because their archrivals, the Scottish, would sometimes paint their bodies with a blue dye before going into battle. Knowing this, and reading Psalm 37:35, for instance, we discover that the Psalmist tells us that he has seen the wicked spreading himself out (naked) like a tree. The fact that we have an identifiable enemy (blue guy), being exalted on a pole and paraded about by two people, and revealed as naked as a tree before the world (holding a leaf in his hand to help us make the connection in case we missed it), it seems an apt, if mildly amusing pictorial representation of the verse. The “blue man” at the bottom of Psalm 37 on the left page in the Luttrell Psalter. BL Add MS 42130 Again, we must be careful not to read too much into these illustrations, but it appears that the Luttrell family are using a popular cultural trope to heighten and focus the attention of the reader on the contents of the Psalm. As Israel had enemies in their time who would one day pass away under God’s judgment while the righteous alone remained, so the English have their enemies who will not abide despite appearances to the contrary. Instead of passing over a text quickly, the illustration invites the reader to consider who the little blue men are in their life who will not stand in future judgment despite their present prosperity. In fact, whether the reader lives in the 14th or the 21st century, it also prompts a smile—not that someone would fall under judgment, but that, in the end, the righteous will overcome. 3. Illustration is an expression of God-given gifts to create beauty God did not condemn the Israelites for living in great cities with homes filled with good things (Deut. 6:10–11), nor did he frown upon using wealth to create beautiful things (Solomon’s palace). Historically, in the western classical tradition, the good, the true and the beautiful were held in high regard. Today, one might be forgiven for thinking each of these in their turn has been rejected or ignored. With respect to the Bible, in a culture that prizes functionality and efficiency, sometimes even to the detriment of the good, true, and beautiful, we should take care not to assume our priorities are superior or the standard by which all others should be measured. Take, for example, a mass-produced digital alarm clock. It is entirely functional with nothing but numbers because it is assumed that all that is needed is accuracy, not beauty (and preferably cheap!). Surely, every clock should be just like this because a clock has only one purpose: to tell the time. But do we not stand amazed at clocks or watches that have been crafted with beauty? I own what is called a skeleton watch. It is called this because while there are hands to tell the time, there is nothing hiding the inner workings so you can see all the wheels, cogs, springs, and coils in their tiny, exquisite detail turning, twisting, untwisting, rotating, flying, and rocking. When I first bought the watch when my children were younger, they used to ask to look at it while we ate dinner and they sat mesmerized by it. I have never once seen them stare in awe at the cheap, but accurate digital alarm clocks they had by their bedside! From the beginning of creation, God has called humanity to the work of creativity and beauty. From the beginning of creation in the garden of Eden, God has called humanity to the work of creativity and beauty. Throughout its history, the church has believed that applying artistic or creative gifts to this world and what we make is part of what it means to be made in the image of God. We must never change the text of Scripture, but surely the margins are free for applying God-given talent in a thoughtful way. 4. Illustration connects us with others, past, present, and future Most of us like new books. There something about the pristine quality, the new book smell, and the wonder of being the first to turn the pages. Recently, however, I heard an author talk about her love of books, and she clearly favored what she called good, clean used copies of classic works. She likes used books that are still in good condition because they include the occasional marginal notation and, more often than not, they fall open to a place the previous owner looked over for some time. Her point was that she loved knowing that she was one in a line of connected readers who all read the book before her. In an unusual way, it reminded her that books and reading are fundamentally communal. What a wonderfully positive way to think in the midst of a world that can often seem bent on using the practice reading and writing as a way to drive a wedge between people. There is something about a book, especially the Bible which is the very Word of God to humanity, which, when ornamented and illustrated and colored bids us slow down and appreciate the whole, to pause over the wonder not only of revealed truth, but of the generations before us who have done the same and left their mark, their clues to how they understood and applied the same texts we are now perusing. Reading a Bible that includes the artistic fingerprints, marginal notes and interlinear underlinings bids us to forego our modern penchant to read as though we are alone and confronts us as individuals who are part of a body of readers, a genealogy of the faithful, the church throughout the ages. A Bible that is illuminated is a Bible that has a human history in addition to being the divine record of history. A Bible that is illuminated is a Bible that has a human history in addition to being the divine record of history. Mary Wellesley is surely right when she wrote that, “manuscripts, by their very nature, resist neat chronologies, because they often tell simultaneous histories. They might have been written in one age, but contain texts dated much earlier, and they also incorporate the histories of their later owners and readers.”2Hidden Hands, 9. In this sense, medieval illuminated Bibles are first and foremost the living Word of God, but they are also a kind of living testament to generations of faithfulness that draws the reader into conversations about perennial nature truth, goodness, and beauty.Notes1Mary Wellesley, Hidden Hands: The Lives of Manuscripts and Their Makers (London: Quercus, 2022), 1642Hidden Hands, 9.