Determine the Original Reading

The autograph (self-written) was the text actually written by an Old Testament author, or the author and scribe as the author dictated to him. If the scribe was taking it down in dictation, he might have done so in shorthand. Whether by shorthand or longhand, we can assume that both the scribe and the author would check the scribe’s work. The author would have authority over all corrections since the Holy Spirit did not move the scribe. If the inspired author wrote everything down himself as the Spirit moved him, the finished product would be the autograph. This text is also often referred to as the original. Hence, the terms autograph and original are often used interchangeably. Sometimes textual critics prefer to make a distinction, using “original” as a reference to the text that is correctly attributed to a biblical author. This is a looser distinction, one that does not focus on the process of how a book or letter was written.

The following are critical texts or manuscripts

AC: Aleppo Codex
AT: Aramaic Targum(s), paraphrases
AT^J Jerusalem Targum I (Pseudo-Jonathan) and Jerusalem Targum II (Fragmentary Targum).
AT^O Targum of Onkelos (Babylonian Targum), Pentateuch.
AT^P Palestinian Targum, Vatican City, Rome, Pentateuch.
B.C.E.: Before Common Era
BHS: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1984.
BHQ: Biblia Hebraica Quinta with Apparatus. Edited by David Marcus; Jan de Waard; P. B. Dirksen; Natalio Fernández Marcos, Anthony Gelston, Yohanan A.P Goldman, Carmel McCarthy, Rolf Schäfer, Magne Sæbø, Adrian Schenker, Abraham Tal. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft , 2004–2015
B 19A: Codex Leningrad
CC: Cairo Codex, Heb., 895 C.E., Cairo, Egypt,
c.: Circa, about, approximately
DSS: The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible; The Lexham Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible
DSS^B: Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (New York: HarperOne, 1999)
Gins^Int: Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1966 reprint.
IT: Old Latin Versions, Itala, second to the fourth century C.E.
LXX: The Greek Septuagint (Greek Jewish OT Scriptures in general and specifically used during of Jesus and the apostles)
LXX^Aq Aquila: Gr. translation of H.S., second cent. C.E.
LXX^Sym Symmachus: Greek translation of H.S., by Symmachus, c. 200 C.E.
LXX^Th Theodotion: Greek translation of H.S., by Theodotion, second cent. C.E.
LXX^א Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., c. 330–360 C.E.,
LXX^A Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., c. 400-440 C.E.
LXX^B Codex Vaticanus 1209, Gr., c. 300–325 C.E.
LXX^Br Septuagint (with an English translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton, 1851)
OG: Original Greek (Oldest recoverable form of the Greek OT (280-150 B.C.E.)
LXX^GS Septuagint (Paul de Lagarde, Göttingen, Germany, 1883), 24 volumes.
LXX^L The Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition
LXX^N A New English Translation of the Septuagint, NETS
LXX^{P Fouad Inv. 266}This papyrus fragment was discovered in Egypt, dating to the first-century B.C.E.
SOPHERIM: Copyists of the Hebrew OT text from the time of Era to the time of Jesus.
CT: Consonantal Text is the OT Hebrew manuscripts that became fixed in form between the first and second centuries C.E., even though manuscripts with variant readings continued to circulate for some time. Alterations of the previous period by the Sopherim were no longer made. Very similar to the MT.
MT: The Masoretic Text encompasses the Hebrew OT manuscripts from the second half of the first millennium C.E. (500-1000 C.E.)
MT^correction by a correction of the Masoretic Text
MT^emendation by a small alteration of the Masoretic Text
MT^margin The Masoretic Text marginal notes
SP: Samaritan Pentateuch
SYM: Greek translation of H.S., by Symmachus, c. 200 C.E.
SYR^Hexapla is the Syrian Aramaic (Syriac) translation of the Greek Septuagint as found in the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla.
SYR: Syriac Peshitta
TH: Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures by Theodotion, second cent. C.E.
VG: Latin Vulgate by Jerome, c. 400 C.E.
VG^c Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension (S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1977).
VG^s Latin Vulgate, Sixtine recension, 1590.

Collecting the manuscript evidence is a laborious process, but it is a little more straightforward than the evaluation process. In the collection process, the goal is to gather as much evidence as possible concerning various readings of a specific text. In the evaluation process, the aim is to determine which reading has the best evidence for being the original reading. The evaluation process is complicated by the fact that not all scholars agree on which evaluation principles are to be used or the relative importance of each of them.

As Moses, David, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Malachi handed their authorized text off to be copied by others, i.e., published, what would it have looked like? What is the process that the Old Testament writers would have followed to get their book ready to be published, that is, copied by others? Once they were prepared for publication, how would they be copied throughout the centuries, up until the time of the printing press of 1455 C.E.? As we open our Bible to the book of Genesis, or the Prophet Isaiah, or any of the 39 books of the Old Testament, how can we have confidence that what we are reading is a reflection of the original in our language? If we were to bring home from a bookstore a copy of the CSB, ESV, GNB, NLT, MSG, NASB, UASV or any of the other one hundred and fifty plus English translations, could we have confidence that what we are reading is, in fact, the Word of God? Some translations have footnotes throughout that say, “Sam, LXX, Syr, Vg; MT omits” or “Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate add” …. What exactly does that mean, and which is the Word of God: the words in the main text of our Bible, or the others below in the footnote?

The science and art of textual criticism has answered these questions, and more. It is a science because there are rules and principles, as well as a method or process that is to be followed if the textual scholar is to get back to the original reading. It is an art because the human agent needs to be balanced with his use of those rules and principles. It is like driving a car. The driver needs to follow all driving rules as he stays between the lines of his side of the road to reach his destination. So too, the textual scholar needs to stay within the rules to reach his destination. However, the designers of the roads were not rigid to the point of making those two lines so narrow that there was no room for the driver to miss obstructions, which might be in his path. This extra room would help the driver to avoid objects that could result in a crash. The same holds true for the textual scholar having room within the lines of his field, to prevent a wreck, causing him not to be able to reach his desired destination, i.e., the original reading.

The Goal of Hebrew Old Testament Textual Criticism is to ascertain the original wording of the original text. While we do not have the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament, the process of publishing a few of the books in the Old Testament was a bit different than the New Testament. Where all of the New Testament authors simply penned or dictated their books to a scribe as they were moved along by the Holy Spirit in short order, this was not the case for all of the Hebrew Old Testament authors and their books. Yes, many of the Old Testament authors merely sat down and authored their book as they were moved along by the Holy Spirit. Other authors used many sources to research what would go into their books, still, they too were inspired, but their work took longer before they arrived at the final form, e.g., First and Second Kings.

Then, we have the Book of Psalms, which is a collection of 150 sacred songs, or psalms, which it was written piecemeal over centuries, at least from the time Moses wrote (c. 1470 B.C.E.) until after the Israelites returned from Babylon and probably it was Ezra himself, who compiled them in their final form (537–c. 460 B.C.E.). These were penned by Moses, King David and his son Solomon, the house of Asap, the sons of Korah, Heman, and Ethan, as well as forty Psalms that are unnamed. The writing of the Psalms spanned approximately a thousand years. These authors were also inspired and moved along by the Holy Spirit. In the end, they were all compiled in the final form as many believe by Ezra. As has been discussed elsewhere, copyists were not inspired and the individual Psalms would have to have been copied for a thousand years before the last one was completed and they were compiled.

The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll gives us evidence of just how accurately the Hebrew texts were preserved. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (41 canonical psalms, whole or in part) is about 900 years older than the Masoretic text. Both essentially correspond to each other. An American scholar of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and one of the Dead Sea Scrolls editors James A. Sanders: “But most of them [variants] are orthographic and important only to those scholars who are interested in clues to the pronunciation of Hebrew in antiquity, and such matters. The idea of ‘variants’ can arise only when there is a generally accepted text, differences from which are then called variants. Some variants commend themselves immediately as improvements of the text, especially those that offer a clearer Hebrew text but make little or no difference in translation or interpretation.” (The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 1967, p. 15.) That the book of Psalms is inspired by God and there can be no question that it is the Word of God. It is completely in harmony with the other 65 books of the Bible.

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Initially, the Septuagint (LXX) was viewed by the Jews as inspired by God, equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, in the first century C.E., the Christians adopted the Septuagint in their churches. It was used by the Christians in their evangelism to make disciples and to debate the Jews on Jesus being the long-awaited Messiah. Soon, the Jews began to look at the Septuagint with suspicion. This resulted in the Jews of the second century C.E. abandoning the Septuagint and returning to the Hebrew Scriptures. This has proved to be beneficial for the textual scholar and translator. In the second century C.E., other Greek translations of the Septuagint were produced. We have, for example, LXX^Aq Aquila, LXX^Sym Symmachus, and LXX^Th Theodotion. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures became the standard text between the first and second centuries C.E. However, textual variants still continued until the Masoretes and the Masoretic text. However, scribes taking liberties by altering the text was no longer the case, as was true of the previous period of the Sopherim. The scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Ezra down to the time of Jesus were called Sopherim, i.e., scribes.

From the 6th century C.E. to the 10th century C.E., we have the Masoretes, groups of extraordinary Jewish scribe-scholars. The Masoretes were very much concerned with the accurate transmission of each word, even each letter, of the text they were copying. Accuracy was of supreme importance; therefore, the Masoretes used the side margins of each page to inform others of deliberate or inadvertent changes in the text by past copyists. The Masoretes also use these marginal notes for other reasons as well, such as unusual word forms and combinations. They even marked how frequently they occurred within a book or even the whole Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, marginal spaces were very limited, so they used abbreviated code. They also formed a cross-checking tool where they would mark the middle word and letter of certain books. Their push for accuracy moved them to go so far as to count every letter of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the Masoretic text, we find notes in the side margins, which are known as the Small Masora. There are also notes in the top margin, which are referred to as the Large Masora. Any other notes placed elsewhere within the text are called the Final Masora. The Masoretes used the notes in the top and bottom margins to record more extensive notes, comments concerning the abbreviated notes in the side margins. This enabled them to be able to cross-check their work. We must remember that there were no numbered verses at this time, and they had no Bible concordances. One might wonder how the Masoretes could refer to different parts of the Hebrew text to have an effective cross-checking system. They would list part of a parallel verse in the top and bottom margins to remind them of where the word(s) indicated were found. Because they were dealing with limited space, they often could only list one word to remind them where each parallel verse could be found. To have an effective cross-reference system by way of these marginal notes, the Masoretes would literally have to have memorized the entire Hebrew Bible.

The Method of Textual Criticism

[1] When we use the term “original” reading or “original” text in this blog, it is a reference to the exemplar manuscript by the New Testament author (e.g. Paul) and his secretary, if he used one (e.g. Tertius), from which other copies were made for publication and distribution to the Christian communities. The autograph (self-written) was the text actually written by a New Testament author, or the author and scribe as the author dictated to him. If the scribe was taking it down in dictation (Rom: 16:22; 1 Pet: 5:12), he might have done so in shorthand. Whether by shorthand or longhand, we can assume that both the scribe and the author would check the scribe’s work. The author would have authority over all corrections since the Holy Spirit did not move the scribe. If the inspired author wrote everything down himself as the Spirit moved him, the finished product would be the autograph. This text is also often referred to as the original. Hence, the terms autograph and original are often used interchangeably. Sometimes textual critics prefer to make a distinction, using “original” as a reference to the text that is correctly attributed to a biblical author. This is a looser distinction, one that does not focus on the process of how a book or letter was written.

Some Initial Evaluation Principles to Consider

There can only be one reading, which is the original reading.
Manuscripts are to be weighed not counted. Certain manuscripts are more trustworthy (e.g. Masoretic text over Septuagint but then Septuagint over the Samaritan Pentateuch). In addition, certain manuscripts more faithful than others.
Generally, the reading that is weighty from both internal and external evidence is preferred.
The external evidence of the manuscript witnesses are to be evaluated first; thereafter, will the internal evidence be considered.
The primary weight of external evidence goes to the original language manuscripts. If the weight is so evenly distributed, it is difficult to make a decision; the versions and Church Fathers may serve to tip the scales.
Of the potential readings, which one is like to have led to the other readings.
Always begin with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), as its textual notes (Hebrew, Greek, Latin or even Syriac translations, dictionaries) can aid our efforts to get back to the original reading.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).