Appreciating the Diverse Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls Taking the evidence of the Dead Sea Scroll seriously means putting the differences—and the similarities—in proper context. Anthony FergusonThe Dead Sea Scrolls have fascinated a broad audience of Bible scholars, lay Christians, and the general public for nearly a century. This discovery’s timing adds a level of intrigue since they were discovered in the tremulous days immediately after World War II in a place undergoing great transition. The recent announcement of Greek fragments of the Minor Prophets from Naḥal Ḥever and the thought that technology such as drones may yet yield more manuscripts further stokes our imagination and excitement about these caves in the Judean Desert. Few discoveries from the ancient world have captivated our imagination like the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is hard to overestimate the importance of these manuscripts, especially for those interested in the history of Old Testament text, not simply because of the timing and place of the discovery or because the future may still unlock more manuscripts for us, but because of four important characteristics of these manuscripts: 1) These manuscripts are the oldest biblical manuscripts we possess; 2) many of the biblical manuscripts were written in the Old Testament’s original languages; 3) many of these manuscripts align closely with the canonical Jewish text known as the Masoretic Text or MT, and 4) many others do not. Focusing on these four characteristics helps us better appreciate how important they are for the history of the Old Testament text. The Age of the Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest biblical manuscripts that we possess, dating from 250 BC to 115 AD.1See TCHB3, 99. Before this discovery, we possessed some Hebrew texts from this era and some from even earlier, but these were not biblical scrolls. We did possess numerous biblical manuscripts, but these dated to a much later time. The biblical manuscripts from Qumran have changed this reality. We now possess over two hundred biblical manuscripts from the Second Temple period (c. 500 BC–70 AD). The age of these manuscripts makes them especially important. The Language of the Scrolls Although some of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls are translations, the vast majority are written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the Old Testament’s original languages. When scholars approach the ancient translations like the Greek translation, popularly referred to as the Septuagint, the Targumim, the Old Latin and Vulgate, and Peshitta, scholars have to judge carefully about whether a difference between these texts is a genuine variant. That is, scholars first have to decide if this difference arose from the translator (i.e., translation technique or scribal error) or the difference was in the text he was translating. What makes the Dead Sea Scrolls so important is that translation technique is not an issue for most of them because they are not translations. The value of this fact, however, can be overstated. These manuscripts have not passed into a new language, but many were still copied according to updated standards of spelling and grammar. Thus, some of the tendencies involved in translation technique must be accounted for when analyzing these manuscripts. Of course, the fact that these were mainly written in the original languages means fewer such factors need to be considered. What the Scrolls tell us about the history of the Old Testament text Many scholars and apologists have highlighted those Scrolls that preserve a high level of unity with the Masoretic Text which is largely behind our English bibles. The codex known as Codex Leningrad is the best-preserved manuscript preserving this textual tradition. This fact comes into focus, especially when one analyzes the manuscripts discovered in sites other than Qumran. Qumran is only one site in the Judean Desert where Bedouin and scholars discovered manuscripts. Other locations include Masada, Wadi Murabba’at, Wadi Sdeir, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal Arugot, and Naḥal Ṣe’elim (wadi and naḥal both refer to streams). The manuscripts from these sites date from 50 BC to 115 AD and preserve the same tradition as preserved in codex Leningrad which was copied in 1008 AD. Unity among these manuscripts is, at times, remarkable, as illustrated by a Leviticus manuscript discovered at Masada dating from 30 BC to 30 AD. This Leviticus manuscript agrees with codex Leningrad even regarding peculiar spelling. This unity illustrates that this tradition was copied with precision since at least the turn of the era.2See TCHB3, 29–31. Nearly half of the manuscripts discovered at Qumran also demonstrate this unity, although not to the degree as the manuscripts from the other sites. For example, 1QIsaa has traditionally been cited as clear evidence of proof of the antiquity and high-quality of the Masoretic tradition, and this notion is correct. Yet, this manuscript preserves thousands of differences when compared to Leningrad, and these differences led Emanuel Tov, the world’s preeminent Scrolls scholar, to label it as “non-aligned,” meaning it does not agree closely with the text of the MT. A portion of the Great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa). Image credit. We should note that the majority of these differences are minor; they often concern a different spelling practice.3Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 303). Of course, that is not to say there are not important variants preserved in this manuscript; instead, my point is that, overall, it preserves a text close to the one preserved in Leningrad. Another Isaiah scroll discovered at Qumran, known as 1QIsab, preserves an even higher degree of unity with Leningrad than 1QIsaa. This manuscript, however, is less popular because it preserves less content. To give us a bird’s eye view of the evidence from Qumran, we can observe how Emanuel Tov classifies these texts: he classifies 56 as MT-like, 57 as non-aligned, five as close to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and seven as close to the Septuagint.4N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50). Overall, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Masoretic Text has been copied with precision for over a millennium and that a sizable amount of manuscripts reflect this text. Overall, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Masoretic Text has been copied with precision for over a millennium. The Scrolls that don’t agree with the Masoretic Text Tov, and many other scholars, have pointed out that half of the Hebrew manuscripts discovered at Qumran preserve textual diversity never before seen in Hebrew biblical manuscripts. This is true, strictly speaking. However, when one analyzes the nature of the variants preserved in these manuscripts, one can see that most of these differences result from common scribal tendencies such as interpretation, harmonization, updating, and normalizing a text’s grammar. Moreover, many of these manuscripts can be adequately described as scribal innovations. For example, 4QGenk, in my opinion, tends to normalize the grammar found in the Masoretic Text, and thus, can be understood as a normalized manuscript; 4QPsx is likely a writing exercise; 4QDeutn is an excerpted text; and 4QQoha is an updated text. Therefore, although half of the manuscripts preserve a level of textual diversity, this diversity is often minor. Some manuscripts that Tov and others label as non-aligned are more challenging to explain. Tov identifies seven of these manuscripts with an exclamation mark in appendix 8 of his book Scribal Practices. Remember that Tov classifies 56 Scrolls as MT-like, 57 as non-aligned, five as close to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and seven as close to the Septuagint.5N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50). However, only seven of these 57 manuscripts are identified with an exclamation mark. This confirms, in my mind, that the other 50 non-aligned texts are non-aligned only in minor details.6For more on this topic, you can see my doctoral dissertation. Space prohibits a description of these manuscripts, but suffice it to say that the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls do contain a level of textual diversity. Most of this diversity, though, is relatively minor, and, although some of it is more extensive, none of it calls into question the trustworthiness of the Old Testament as God’s word. Related Illustration by Peter Gurry. Image from 123rf.com Two Reasons There Are Variants in Our Copies of the BibleFor historical and theological reasons, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Bible’s manuscripts have differences. Peter J. Gurry Making sense of all the evidence Scholars have long understood scribes as approaching their task of copying the Old Testament from two general perspectives: some scribes came to their text with a desire to reproduce it precisely, while others approached their task with the desire to resignify it. Moreover, some scribes took their biblical text and used it to make a new document that was not understood as biblical. An example of this would be a liturgical text. This new document was not understood as “biblical” but contained only an excerpt of the Bible. We make these types of changes today. For example, some translations are incredibly literal, while others tend to be more dynamic. Both approaches seek to communicate the word of God to a people far removed from the original audience. Similarly, when the Bible is used in liturgical contexts, we make all types of changes to it. I am the pastor of a local church. When I stand before God’s people with God’s word, it is not uncommon for me to change it. For example, I might stop mid-verse and explain something briefly to the church; I might repeat a word for emphasis; I might even substitute a word for clarity. An example of this last category may be me replacing a pronoun, like “he,” with the proper noun, “Moses.” In my mind, the textual diversity preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls parallels the practices of many pastors. We should certainly take the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls seriously while being confident that the word of the Lord is trustworthy and true.Notes1See TCHB3, 99.2See TCHB3, 29–31.3Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 303).4N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50).5N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50).6For more on this topic, you can see my doctoral dissertation.
The Pseudepigrapha of Second Temple Judaism A consideration of Jewish Pseudepigrapha raises the question whether the New Testament contains books written under a false name. Daniel M. GurtnerAt the time the New Testament was written, there were quite a few writings from ancient Judaism in circulation. The most obscure of these is the so-called “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” The designation “pseudepigrapha” is unfortunate, since it misrepresents what many of these texts are about in several ways. The English word “pseudepigrapha” (sing. pseudepigraphon) is the transliteration of a Greek term that refers to “falsely attributed writing,” from pseudēs (“false”) and epigraphē (“inscription, superscription”). It is often used to designate works falsely related to or even attributed to prominent individuals in the Old Testament. But these points require some clarification. First, the idea of falsehood suggests some level of deceit and thus falsely attributes negative connotations to the very nature of the writing. Second, some works within this category are not identified with a particular individual at all, including with respect to authorship. Third, putting all these writings into a single category may suggest some kind of uniformity between them. Yet unlike other writings, the texts typically identified as pseudepigrapha, even those originating from the Second Temple Period, are not attested as collections in single manuscripts. Also, nearly all the documents in question are preserved exclusively in Christian traditions. In reality, the expression “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” then, is a “bucket” category into which documents are often lumped when they do not clearly fit into any others. To begin to understand these documents, then, we must give careful attention to the practice of pseudepigraphy in antiquity in order to gain an appreciation for the cultural phenomena at play. Understanding the Nature of Pseudepigraphy Dr. Gurtner’s recent book introduces the Jewish Pseudepigrapha Why would someone write in the name of someone else? This seems strange to us, since we are used to journalistic-type writing on the one hand, or Stephen King novels where the author has become a cultural celebrity on the other. Yet recall that Mary Ann Evans wrote as George Eliot, and even Benjamin Franklin in his youth wrote as “Silence Dogood,” among several other pen names he used throughout his career. Authors ancient and modern may have a variety of reasons for using such pen names. In antiquity, some libraries, such as the famous Alexandrian library, collected works of well-known writers. Therefore one may write in another’s name to gain a place among well-known writers. This could be done to get a hearing for one’s own views or draw the circumstances of the ancient figure into the context of the real author’s setting. So, for example, the author of 4 Ezra draws from the biblical Ezra. The book of Ezra is set in a context of the return from exile and reconstitution of the temple. Fourth Ezra, drawing from Ezra’s narrative setting, is set after the destruction of the Herodian temple in AD 70, and the similarities between the biblical setting and that of the later author caused the latter to utilize the former in his message. In some instances, the genre of a work may influence the figure to whom it is attributed. Wisdom material would be attributed to Solomon, hymnic writings to David, and legal matters to Moses, etc. In the ancient world, pseudonymity received a mixed reception. In some circles writing in one’s own name may have been perceived as unethical, whereas writing in the name of another is a more modest way of expressing one’s indebtedness to a tradition. The ancient figure serves to lend credence to the views espoused in his name. Among Jews, works written in the name of an esteemed figure are intended to elaborate upon him in some sense—his life, his significance, or some particular about his Jewish piety—and thus attributed to him. In this rubric, texts expand upon traditions associated with their seminal figure. Thus the ancient figure serves to lend credence to the views espoused in his name. The Major Types of Pseudepigraphy There is little agreement about which books are included among the so-called Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, even among published collections. Almost all of them were preserved and hand-copied by Christians, while others are written by Christians in the first place. Here we can limit our overview to a selection of documents that are (1) widely agreed to be Jewish in origin and are still Jewish in their present form, and (2) date from around the time of the New Testament, or at least prior to the end of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (AD 135). Apocalypse The most widely attested genre among the Pseudepigrapha is the apocalypse, which typically depicts the reception of some divine disclosure to a person—typically a famous figure from the Hebrew Bible—alongside its interpretation by a heavenly figure such as an angel. First Enoch is a collection of five originally independent writings dating from the fourth century BC to the first century AD As a whole, 1 Enoch represents the oldest of three works associated with the biblical Enoch, the seventh from Adam (Gen. 5:21–24). Second Baruch is an ancient apocalypse featuring Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, who is called from his role as companion and secretary to the prophet (Jer. 36:4–10, 26, 32) and placed as a nobleman (Jer. 21:12; 43:2–3; 51:59). In 2 Baruch he becomes recipient of a prophetic revelation, perhaps even successor to Jeremiah, who is an apocalyptic visionary and crucial leader of God’s people in a time of crisis. Like 4 Ezra, this work is written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and trying to process this inexplicable tragedy that befell the people of God. Testaments Testaments are drawn from accounts in which a revered figure, typically a father or leader, delivers a discourse in anticipation of his imminent death to his sons, his people, or his successor, similar to what one encounters in the Old Testament with Jacob (Gen. 49) and Moses (Deut. 33–34). The Testament of Moses is a farewell exhortation given to Joshua by Moses before the transfer of leadership of the people of Israel. The ending of the book has been lost, and it is generally assumed that Moses’ death was narrated at some point in the earlier text. The narrative is almost entirely attributed to Moses in the form of a prediction about Israel from their entrance into Canaan until the end of days. The Testament of Job is an embellishment of the biblical book of Job in which Job imparts wisdom to his progeny prior to his impending death with particular emphasis on the virtue of patient endurance. The Aramaic Levi Document is a testament-like text recounting the life story of the patriarch Levi. But the work gives particular attention to Levi’s establishment of the Levitical priesthood, long before the time of Aaron, and sacred laws for sacrifices that he received from his grandfather, Isaac. Related A 17th century icon of Enoch with Elijah in the Historic Museum in Sanok, Poland. Wikipedia The New Testament Use of Jewish PseudepigraphaWhy the New Testament authors sometimes drew on ancient literary works written under false names Daniel M. Gurtner Narratives A variety of narrative texts relating in various ways to the Hebrew Bible were written and preserved among Jews of the Second Temple period. For example, the Book of Jubilees is largely a retelling of the biblical books of Genesis and early parts of Exodus (chs. 1–24). It claims to have been dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai by the “angel of the Presence” (Jub. 1:29; 2:1) alongside the Law at his first ascent up the mountain (Exod. 24:12–18). The Letter of Aristeas is widely regarded as a fictitious accounting for the origins of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Joseph and Aseneth is a fanciful tale of the patriarch Joseph and his Egyptian wife Aseneth, daughter of Potiphera, Priest of On (Gen. 41:45). It describes the repentance and conversion of the gentile Aseneth and her marriage to the pious Jew Joseph. Psalms The various expressions of religious piety among Second Temple Jews occasioned a large assortment of psalms, hymns, and prayers. Among the psalms preserved partially in Hebrew in in the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPsa; 11Q5), there are six Psalms from the Second Temple period beyond the 150 collected in the Hebrew Bible (Psalms 151–155). A collection of eighteen pseudonymous hymns or poems, attributed to Solomon, are known as the Psalms of Solomon. In general, these convey a Jewish community’s response to persecution and a foreign invasion, likely in reference to the Romans in the first century BC. Pseudepigraphy and the New Testament When considering the pseudepigrapha and the question of canon many scholars think that early Christians adopted the mode of pseudepigraphy from Judaism. And so it is sometimes rather easily claimed, for example, that Paul did not really write the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus), but rather it was written by someone else who attributed it to Paul. In other words, they are pseudepigraphical. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Yet a closer look raises serious objections: most importantly, one can readily recognize that in the pseudepigrapha described above there is little interest in the identity of the “real” author. The importance lies in the idea of the persona utilized by the author in the figure evoked from the Old Testament, and it seems that the identity of the actual authors and/or communities responsible for these documents are almost entirely lost to history. Yet with early Christians, authorship was exceedingly important; the authority of teachings and instructions given to Christian communities rested within the apostolic office. Already during the time of Paul there were those claiming to represent Paul in some sense (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:2). But Paul roundly rejects this (2 Thess. 2:3). Moreover, it is widely regarded that the early church beyond the New Testament likewise recognized the importance of actual authorship and its apostolic affinity, and so routinely rejected the authority of texts shown to be pseudonymous. If Christian communities rejected the practice of pseudepigraphy for its authoritative texts, it remains the case that the Jewish writings surveyed here are nevertheless helpful for understand the New Testament.
What Pastors Should Know about Developments in Textual Criticism An introduction to new editions, methods, and digital tools for studying the Greek New Testament Peter J. GurryPastors are busy. They are expected to maintain competence in a wide range of skills from preaching to counseling, balancing the budget to carefully parsing the doctrine of the Trinity. It can be a lot to keep up with. In this article, I want to help busy pastors with a short introduction to recent developments in New Testament textual criticism. We’ll tackle this in three headings, looking at new editions, new methods, and new digital tools. But first, a word about why textual criticism matters. Textual criticism is that discipline that tries to recover the original wording of a work whose original documents have now been lost. Since no original document survives for the New Testament and since the existing copies disagree with one another, textual criticism is needed for all twenty-seven books. Since we cannot study, teach, and apply the Bible if we don’t know what it says, textual criticism—whether we know it or not—plays a foundational role in pastoral ministry. So, what’s new in textual criticism? New Editions First, there are several new editions of the Greek New Testament that have come out in recent years. The most recent is known as the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT). The result of over a decade of work, it was produced by a group of scholars at Tyndale House library in Cambridge, England, a premier study center for Biblical studies. The main hallmark of this edition is the editors’ documentary or manuscript-first approach. In practice, this means they have tried to follow the earliest manuscripts not only for the text but also for deciding paragraphing, spelling, and even accenting. In presentation, they have taken a minimalist approach with no text-critical symbols, no headings, and even no hyphens! The result is a text that is ideal for immersive reading and for challenging commonly-held assumptions about where to break the text. Two other important recent editions are the Nestle-Aland Novum Testament Graece 28th edition and the UBS Greek New Testament 5th edition. These two editions have long established themselves as the scholarly standard and they remain so for serious exegetical work on the New Testament. They share the same text between them but differ mainly in how much information they provide in the apparatus. The most important difference between these newest editions of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS is in the method used to establish the main text. In the Catholic Letters (James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude), the editors used a new computer-assisted method to help understand how manuscript texts are related and to help make their decisions more consistent. That method is known as the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method or CBGM—a mouthful for sure, but an important development in New Testament textual criticism nonetheless. As a result of applying the CBGM, the NA28 and UBS5 text changed in thirty-three places in the Catholic Letters with more changes on the way for Acts in future editions. A pastor with an older edition of the NA or UBS who is preaching on one of these Catholic Letters may want to update to the new edition in order to be aware of where these changes are. Alternatively, buying the new Tyndale House Greek New Testament might be a great way to approach a familiar book in Greek in a new way. A New Method The CBGM has been in development since the early 1980s, but its results have been widely available only in the last five years. While not known for being simple, it essentially harnesses the power of the computer and the vast increase in our knowledge of New Testament manuscripts to help scholars make better, more consistent textual decisions. The method works by using the overall relationship between texts to resolve particular textual problems. For example, if the computer shows us that two distantly-related texts share the same variant reading, this might indicate that the reading was created independently by the scribes of those texts. This, in turn, could suggest that the reading is less likely to be original. Beyond that, the CBGM can even help us tell the larger story of how the New Testament text has been copied over centuries. And that too can help us determine or confirm the text. A diagram like this helps scholars use the overall relationship of texts to relate individual variants. The method has now been applied thoroughly to the Catholic Letters and most recently to Acts and Mark. The data are available online. This resulted in thirty-three changes in Mark, fifty-two in Acts, and thirty-three in the Catholic Letters. Most of these don’t affect English translation let alone theology. But a small handful are significant. The most important change, in my opinion, is found at 2 Peter 3:10 where the NA28 and UBS5 now read that in the day of the Lord, “the earth and all that is in it will not be found.” The inclusion of the word “not” where before there was none is obviously important. More significant still, this reading has no known Greek manuscript support, raising serious questions about its validity. Notably, this change has already affected the CSB translation and may well affect the recently announced revision of the NRSV. The advent of the CBGM allows us to quantify scribes’ fidelity like never before. Just as important for a pastor, however, is the evidence the CBGM provides for how well the New Testament text was copied overall. To be sure, there are many variants in our New Testament manuscripts—perhaps as many as half a million. Most of these are trivial or easily resolved and, when considered in light of how many times our New Testament books were copied, what stands out most is how faithfully scribes did their work. The advent of the CBGM allows us to quantify this fidelity like never before. In the Catholic Letters, for example, there are two manuscripts that agree at 99.1 percent of all places where there is variation in the 123 manuscripts used by the CBGM. They only differ in a total of twenty-seven out of 2,859 places where they were compared. That is quite remarkable. The average textual agreement between all pairs of witnesses reaches 87.6 percent. That too is impressive. Similar numbers occur in Acts. Dr. Gurry’s book provides a complete introduction to the CBGM These new data expose just how absurd some popular claims about the Bible really are. Take, for example, the Newsweek cover story from a few years ago that went so far as to say that you and I have never even read the Bible because “at best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.” The implication that the Bible can’t be trusted is hard to miss. In fact, most of us have been reading substantially the same Greek New Testament for two thousand years thanks to careful scribes. And rather than being an impediment to faith, modern textual criticism actually supports it. Even Marcus Borg, a New Testament scholar who is far from being an Evangelical Christian, has written that “with only a few minor exceptions, we can be confident that the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole reliably report what was originally written.” Yes, verbiage will change in certain places as a result of further research, and tricky textual problems do remain. But because of the overall fidelity of scribes over 1500 years combined with the herculean efforts of textual scholars, we can be confident that the text we have in our Greek editions and in our English translations is more than enough to ground our faith in the New Testament’s witness to Jesus Christ. The advent of cutting-edge methods like the CBGM have made that more apparent than ever before. New Digital Tools Having surveyed new editions of the Greek New Testament and a new method of practicing textual criticism, let’s consider a final area of development: new resources. Many of these new digital tools are due to the hard work of various organizations and the ability of the internet to connect and share information. Let me introduce three to you. Images The first resource is digital images. In the last decade, there has been an explosion of manuscript images made available, often for free, online. The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is one major organization that has been hard at work to digitize manuscripts all over the world. Whenever possible, they put these images online for free at csntm.org. The search feature is especially useful as it allows you to search by keyword or verse and to sort results by a range of manuscript feature. The manuscript viewer at CSNTM allows for incredible resolution, here showing the start of Hebrews in P46 If you were teaching on one of the Gospels, why not introduce your congregation to P45, one of the earliest copies of the four Gospels and Acts? Or maybe you are teaching on Ephesians and want to show a Sunday school class the missing words “in Ephesus” in P46, one of the earliest manuscripts of Paul’s letters (note that the book is still titled “To the Ephesians”). Or, share the beautiful artwork in GA 808, a rare complete copy of the New Testament from the 13th–14th century. Along with CSNTM, many of the world’s great libraries are busy digitizing their manuscripts and putting them online. Without leaving home, you can now explore Codex Vaticanus (03) held at the Vatican, or the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (04) at the French Bibliothèque nationale, Codex Bezae (05) of the British Library, or see the famous Codex Sinaiticus (01) all in one place, something physically impossible because the manuscript itself is split and housed at four separate institutions. All this is just the tip of the digital iceberg. Virtual Manuscript Room Although looking at incredible manuscripts online is thrilling, tracking them down can be tricky unless you know what to look for. That brings me to the second resource I want to mention called the New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room or NT.VMR. The NT.VMR keeps the official catalogue of NT manuscripts If I can brag for a minute, the NT.VMR was largely designed and is still developed by a Phoenix Seminary graduate named Troy Griffitts. Troy has been instrumental in developing this resource which has become indispensable to academic text-critical work. At the NT.VMR, you can see the official list of New Testament manuscripts, view images of many of them, consult scholarly transcripts of manuscripts, study the history of scholarly conjectures about the New Testament text, discuss these with other people, and so much more. It is a rich resource and it keeps getting more valuable. Free Online Editions The final resources I want to mention takes us back to the new editions of the Greek New Testament mentioned earlier. Ideally, you will want to have a print copy of one of those editions because each comes with valuable detail in the apparatus or in the margins. But if all you need is the text itself for reading or study, all of these are now freely available online. STEP Bible is online software that allows work in the original languages For the Tyndale House edition, one can find the text at esv.org/gnt or at stepbible.org, complete with additional vocabulary and parsing help. The NA28/UBS5 text is also online though without the extra helps. These free, digital editions can be helpful for when you’re away from your study or if you want to copy and paste the text into your study notes for things like diagramming, color-coding, etc. Conclusion In conclusion, we can say two things about advances in New Testament textual criticism. First, the Bibles that we have in our hands now—whether English or Greek—are founded on a solid double foundation of overall good transmission and excellent scholarly study of that history. Because of that, we should not hesitate to preach and teach from these editions even as they alert us to some places that remain difficult. Second, the study of our New Testament text and how it was transmitted to us is advancing in new and promising ways. The new editions, new method, and new resources mentioned in this series give us access to the history of God’s word in ways impossible to imagine even a generation ago. In the words of B. F. Westcott in the 19th century, “It cannot be a matter of indifference to know how the New Testament … has come down to us; to look at the Manuscripts from which our fathers drew words of life, to trace the stirring history of the version through which the teaching of Apostles has been made accessible to men of other tongues.” Let us be eager to study the remarkable history of God’s book and to share it with God’s people. This article was originally published at the Phoenix Seminary blog and is also available in Polish.
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. 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.