OT Reliable: Dead Sea Scrolls
1947 found date first 2 centuries BC and first AD, Edwin Yamauchi called “copied with remarkable accuracy.”
The Old Testament (OT) has been handed down with incredible accuracy. However, the manuscript scenario is a bit different from that of the NT.
The OT was written over a period extending from about 1446-1406 BC to the fifth century BC, and was predominantly written in Hebrew, with some Aramaic. However, some scholars claim the book of Job is the oldest book of the OT, perhaps originating during the patriarchal period. The Greek translation of the OT (called “The Septuagint”) was completed in the third to second centuries BC.
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the earliest Hebrew manuscript evidence dated to the tenth century (900s AD). When the DSS were discovered, over 300 Hebrew copies of OT books were included, dating from the third to the first centuries BC. All copies (parts, whole) of the OT books were included in the DSS, except for the book of Esther.
History shows that the Jewish transmission of the OT books was done by highly-qualified, specially-trained scribes to ensure accuracy.
When the DSS were discovered, the world then could compare the Hebrew documents from the third to first century BC to the later Hebrew manuscripts of the tenth century AD, a period of transmission of about 1100 years. The comparison showed that after 1100 years of transmission, the two sets of manuscripts were, for all intents and purposes, the same. For example, in the manuscript of Isaiah (second century BC, not the original writing of the eighth century BC), chapter 53, there are 153 words: of the 153 words, 152 are identical when compared to the tenth century AD manuscript of Isaiah. The one different word is a three-letter word for “light,” and its presence or deletion does not significantly affect the meaning of the passage. In total, the two DSS Isaiah manuscripts were more than 95% the same as current Hebrew texts. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.
Although the number of OT manuscripts are not as numerous as the NT’s, the transmission methodologies utilized ensured accuracy, which in some ways explains the fewer number of manuscripts.
For example, in commenting on the Masoretic method (c. 500 – 950 AD) of copying manuscripts (the Masoretes were Jewish scholars responsible for the standard Hebrew text today), Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon states:
The Masoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text, and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Masoretes were indeed anxious not one jot nor tittle, not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter, of the Law should pass away or be lost (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, London, p. 38).
Scholar F.F. Bruce further states:
They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book (The Books and Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible, p. 117).
Using the English language for comparison, the number of times the letter “a” appeared in the book of Isaiah would have been counted, the same for “b” and so on through “z.” The middle word and the middle letter of each manuscript would have been identified; also the verses, words, and letters of every book would have been counted. If the resulting new copy differed from the prior copy (from which it was copied) by more than 3 differences (based on the above methodology), the new copy was destroyed. When a successful new copy was accomplished, the old copy was either thrown out or delegated for use in schooling, etc.
Prior to the Masoretic scribes, the Jewish Talmudists (c. 100 AD to 500 AD) had a very rigid process for copying OT books. Samuel Davidson describes the process (numbers added by Bible Scholar Norman Geisler; below quote from Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1999, p. 74):
[1] A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, [2] prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. [3] These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. [4] Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. [5] The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines, and the breadth must consist of thirty letters. [6] The whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words be written without a line, it is worthless. [7] The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other colour, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. [8] An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. [9] No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him. [10] Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene. [11] between every new parashah or section, the breadth of nine consonants; [12] between every book, three lines. [13] The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line but the rest need not do so. [14] Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, [15] wash his whole body, [16] not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, [17] and should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him (Samuel Davidson, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. London: 1856. Quoted in Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, p. 89).
Copies not adhering to the above principles were buried or burned or banished to the schools to be used as reading books. Once certified, the new manuscript was considered just as valid as the prior copy, which was destroyed when any age-related issues occurred to the manuscript itself.
The Zugoth were assigned to the OT transmission from the second to first centuries BC. The Tannaim (“repeaters” or “teachers”) were active until 200 AD. The Sopherim were Jewish scholars and custodians of the OT text between the fifth and third centuries BC.
The above does not present all the relevant information on the transmission of the OT, but presents enough information to prove the incredibly accurate transmission of the OT through the centuries.
While brief, the above information confirms that the Bible’s NT has astounding manuscript evidence authenticating what was originally written. Renowned biblical scholar Norman Geisler states the following concerning NT variant readings:
For the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries have shrunk the gap for the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) at a stroke by a thousand years, though a gap of 1300 years or more remains. These discoveries still demonstrate faith in its accurate transmission is rational, since few mistakes crept in between about 100 b.c. and c. 900 A.D. for the book of Isaiah. For example, as Geisler and Nix explain, for the 166 words found in Isaiah 53, only 17 letters are in question when comparing the Masoretic (standard Hebrew) text of 916 A.D. and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ main copy of Isaiah, copied about 125 b.c. Ten of these letters concern different spellings, so they don’t affect meaning. Four more concern small stylistic changes like conjunctions. The last three letters add the word “light” to verse 11, which doesn’t affect the verse’s meaning much. The Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) also has this word. Thus, only one word in a chapter of 166 words can be questioned after a thousand years of transmission, of generations of scribes copying the work of previous scribes. Gleason Archer said the Dead Sea Scrolls’ copies of Isaiah agree with the standard printed Masoretic Hebrew text “in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” Their discovery further justifies William Green’s conclusion written nearly 50 years earlier: “It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.: If it was so well preserved for this period of time (c. 100 b.c. to 900 A.D.) that previously wasn’t checkable, it’s hardly foolhardy to have faith that it was for an earlier period that still can’t be checked.
he Old Testament (OT) was originally written in Hebrew (with a few chapters in Aramaic), and it contains thirty nine books written from about 1400 – 400 B.C. Here are some good reasons to believe we possess an accurate OT text.
First the scribes who copied and preserved the text were careful[i] and meticulous. They developed numerical systems to ensure an accurate copy. They counted the number of lines, letters, and words per page of the new copy and then checked them with count of the original. If they didn’t match up, then the copy was destroyed and they started over.[ii]
Next, archeological discoveries shed light on many of the people, places, and events recorded in the Bible. While archeology doesn’t prove that the Bible is true, it certainly does confirm the historical reliability of the text.[iii]
Perhaps the strongest evidence for the reliability of the OT is the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 at Qumran. In the summer of 2006 I had the privilege of visiting the site where they were discovered and saw a copy of the famous Isaiah scroll at the Shrine of the Book in Israel. The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. Up until that time we had known how carefully scribes had passed down the text. But critics of the Bible always claimed that if we ever found earlier documents, then they would show how much the text had been changed and corrupted. So when a shepherd boy stumbled upon pottery containing ancient texts in a cave while tending his goats; it sent shockwaves through the biblical world. 800 scrolls, containing fragments from every book of the OT except Esther, were discovered dating from 250 B.C. – A.D. 50. But most significant was that an entire manuscript of Isaiah was found dating to circa 75 B.C. Old Testament scholars were then able to compare this text of Isaiah with the earliest existing copy of Isaiah in the Masoretic text dating to 1008-9 A.D. Their conclusion? 95% word for word copying accuracy over almost 1100 years! And the 5 % of variations consisted of nothing more significant than omitted letters or misspelled words—slips of the pen[iv]. In light of the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran, it is fair to say that the burden of proof is on the critic who claims that the OT has not been reliably preserved.
The oldest OT manuscript discovered so far is a fragment of the priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-27 found in a silver amulet near Jerusalem dating to the 7th century B.C. (2600 years old!). Now you might be wondering why we don’t have more OT documents. Here are several reasons: 1) Old manuscripts written on papyrus or leather would age and deteriorate over time. 2) Much of Israel’s history is marked by war; Jerusalem was destroyed and burned at least twice during the time the OT was written. 3) “When manuscripts began to show signs of wear, the Jewish scribes reverently disposed of them because they bore the sacred name of God. Disposing of the manuscripts avoided defilement from pagans. Since scribes were meticulous in copying biblical manuscripts, there was little reason to keep old manuscripts. When scrolls became worn, they were placed in a storage room called a genizah…until there were enough to perform a ritual burial ceremony.”[v] Once all of these factors are considered, we shouldn’t be surprised that we have not found more.
After a lifetime of studying the text of the Old Testament, Bruce Waltke concludes that “95 percent of the OT is…textually sound.”[vii] The remaining 5 % does not affect any key Christian doctrine and as more texts are discovered and existing ones translated, that percentage should continue to decrease. As strong as the case is for the reliability of the OT, the NT is even stronger! And as Darrell Bock notes “the case is strongest where it matters most—in its portrayal of Jesus.”[viii]
[i] Every now and again a well meaning scribe would add words of clarification to the text, but these difficulties are resolved due to the large number of texts we have to compare with one another through a process called textual criticism.
[ii] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 171-75.
[iii] “Thus we have a consistent level of good, fact-based correlations right through from circa. 2000 B.C. (with earlier roots) down to 400 B.C. In terms of general reliability…the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and even handedly, in line with independent data, open to all.” From K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), 500. This book contains a lot of great information and analysis, but it is challenging to read.
[iv] Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 29.
[v] Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible, 165.
[vi] Ibid., 101.
[vii] Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157-58.
[viii] Bock, Can I Trust the Bible: Defending the Bible’s Reliability, 52.
If you read and look into the Bible a little bit, then I can understand how you could reject that the Bible is the Word of God and is trustworthy and reliable. However, such insignificant study provides you with only understanding. If you read and look into the Bible on an appropriate level – considering its credentials and potential impact on you – you will be amazed how clear it becomes God is behind the Bible and there is no other source in all human history able to compare with the credentials or the ability to add wonders to your life.