CAN I TRUST M Y O L D T E S T AM EN T ? < 2 , 7 , ' I ( l ) <> ^-~Wo
By Bernard Ramm, M. A. Professor of Apologetics, Bible Institute of Los Angeles
from Philo, the citations from Josephus and the Zadokite frag ments are all Massoretic.8 The Hebrew text was not substan tially altered by the Massoretes; we may trace our Hebrew text right back to the close of New Testament days. We now plunge back deep into the centuries before Christ and find that the text in those days is Massoretic; it is prac tically the same text as that of our printed Hebrew Bibles. The citations from Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Jubilees 7 date before Christ and present a Massoretic text. The Septuagint presupposes a Massoretic text. The Septu- agint is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek commenced in the third century B.C. As the LXX now stands it appears to come from a different text than that of our Hebrew Bible, but that may be readily explained by (1) the fact that sometimes the translators misunderstood the Hebrew, (2) that, due to the fact that Hebrew has no vowels, a word or phrase could have two or more meanings; so, from the same Hebrew words two differently meaning Greek sentences could be written,8 and (3) the translators often paraphrased and elucidated in order to make the translation more intel ligible to Greek-speaking Jews.9 It has been believed for decades that there are two basic Hebrew texts: (1) the Massoretic, and (2) the one underlying the LXX. Harry M. Orlinski, in a revolutionary article, states that in view of the most recent studies in the Old Testament we must conclude that the so-called “ Alexandrian text” is a mistake, and that there is only one real Hebrew text, the Massoretic, which is the text of our present day Hebrew Bible.19 This is a wonderful confirmation of the integrity of our Hebrew text! Archaeology has also given us evidence as to the substantial accuracy of our Massoretic text. The Jeremiah Seal, a seal used.to stamp the bitumen seals of wine jars, and dated from the first or second century A.D., has Jeremiah 48:11 stamped on it and, in general, conforms to the Massoretic text. This seal “ . . . attests the accuracy with which the text was trans mitted between the time when the seal was made and the time when the manuscripts were written.” 11 Furthermore, the Roberts Papyrus, which dates to the second century B.C., and the Nash Papyrus, dated by Albright before 100 B.C., con firm our Massoretic text.12 The Samaritans, who split off from the Hebrews, have their own Pentateuch. The latest date for the split is 400 B.C. and the earliest is the 8th century. Whatever be the date, the value of this Pentateuch is that it gives us a text independent of the traditional text, and it existed without any inter-play for almost 2400 years. Generally speaking, it is a Massoretic text. At first, this document was heralded as a great find. Then it was debunked by the work of Gesenius, and some- 8. Cf. Green, op. cit. p. 76. 4. Kenyon, op cit. p. US Atkinson. “ The Transmission of the Old Testament The Sunday School Times. 89:611. 5. Kenyon, op. cit. p. 42, 47.^ 6. Wilson. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, pp. 70-1. Kenyon . op. cit. pp. 42, 47, 166, 170-1. Raven. Old Testament Introduction, pp. 166, 78-9. 7. Atkinson, op. cit. p. 612. 8. Ibid. p. 612 . Wilson, p 71. 9. Wilson, p. 72. Green, p. 88. 10. “ The LXX—Its XJse in Textual C r itic ism The Biblical Archaeologist. 9:22-84 . May 1984. ’ll. Burrows. What Mean These Stones? p. 38. 12. Ibid. p. 85. The first is in Greek and agrees with the Massoretic text, the second is Hebrew and agrees with the LXX text. Burrows says that this strange co-incidence of the oldest fragment of LXX agreeing with Masso retic text, and the oldest Hebrew fragment agreeing with the LXX “ . . . strengthens our confidence in the text we are able to reconstruct by using all the ev id e n c e p . 86. T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
T HERE is the idea abroad that because the documents of the New Testament were written during the Roman period of world history, and because the documents of the Old Testament were written during a very archaic and superstitious period, that we have more reason to trust the records of the New Testament than the Old. Yet, the actual truth is that the documents of the Old Testament contain a text more reliably transmitted down through the centuries of time. We are not speaking of the theological, doctrinal, or literary content of the Old Testament, but of the Old Testa ment as a manuscript. “It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted .” 1 In substantiation of the words of Professor Green quoted above, all extant Hebrew manuscripts are in fundamental agreement. Manuscripts of the Jews have been collected and compared from all over the world and they are essentially the same. The extant manuscripts are traceable to the tenth century A.D.2 The Massoretes were the group of Jewish scribes who labored over Hebrew text from the sixth century A.D.- on, and fixed the Hebrew text into what is known as the Massoretic text. We can be sure of this: the text that the Massoretes fixed and sanctioned is our text in our printed Hebrew Bibles. That .is to say, we can be sure that there is little change in the Hebrew text from the time of the Massoretes to the time of the earliest extant Hebrew manuscript, generally given as Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, and dated 916 A.D. The reason for this assurance is the fanatical way in which the texts of the Hebrew Bible were copied. Without going into the details, it may be said that no other people have ever taken such minute, detailed care for the preservation of their literature as the Jews.3 Another amazing thing is that the very newness of a Hebrew manuscript indicates its trustworthiness. Old worn-out copies were retired to the Gheniza, then later buried. No new copy could replace an old copy until it was deemed perfect.4 Did the Massoretes alter the text? The next time block is from the great Jewish council at Jamnia (110 A.D.) to the Massoretes. All the evidence shows that the text extant at the time of the council of Jamnia is Massoretic, or, in other words, the Messoretes did not substantially alter the text of the Old Testament.5 Consider the evidence: The Mishna (200 A.D.) is Masso retic. The Talmud, the Targums, Origen’s Hexa/pla, the Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate, the Greek translation of the Hebrew by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, the citations of the New Testament direct from the Hebrew, the citations
1. Green. General Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 181. g. Kenyon. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p. 88. Page Eight
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs