The Quest for the Original Bible

Is there an “original” Bible? Can we sort through copies of biblical manuscripts to reconstruct the first autographs penned by individual authors? Often Christians believe it’s essential to find the single, original meaning of the Bible, usually through a branch of biblical studies called textual criticism. Textual criticism is a form of scholarship that compares surviving manuscripts in order to correct scribal mistakes that may have occurred in the copying process and, thereby, arrive at the most probable original reading. R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy writes:

“Textual criticism is the science which seeks to reconstruct an original text by a careful analysis and evaluation of the manuscripts we presently possess. . . . It does make a difference. If the original text were errant, the church would have the option of rejecting the teachings of that errant text. If the original text is inerrant (and the science of textual criticism must be depended upon to reconstruct that inerrant text), we have no legitimate basis for disobeying a mandate of Scripture where the text is not in doubt.”

Sproul believes that reconstructing the original text of the Bible is imperative and dependent on textual criticism. Yet, even though some manuscript readings are certainly better than others, the quest to arrive at an original and singular text overlooks the very nature of how the Bible was created. 

The books of the Old Testament are all collections of smaller texts that have been pieced together like a quilt. Notably, this compilation process, at times, occurred simultaneously in different locations, resulting in variations of the same biblical book. Moreover, ancient text production was a communal process that involved multiple people in the writing, on-going editorial process, and reception by the community. Let’s look at the book of Jeremiah as an example.

Jeremiah dictated his prophecies to the scribe Baruch who wrote them down (Jer 36:4-6; 45:1). Thus, from the beginning at least two people were involved in the initial creation of texts included in the book of Jeremiah. Each of these oracles would have been recorded separately at the various times Jeremiah prophesied. In other words, Jeremiah did not sit down and write out the book that we hold in our hands today. The book of Jeremiah is a collection of shorter texts. Possibly, Israelite practice was similar to neo-Assyrian wherein oracles were first written individually on a single document before being collected together later on an additional document (for neo-Assyrians, cuneiform tablets; for Israelites, papyri or parchment).[1] Eventually various separate scrolls containing Jeremiah’s prophecies were collected together onto one scroll. Either Baruch or another scribe compiled the oracles and added narrative. If you read Jeremiah you can see the oracles are distinct from the narrative surrounding them.

Somewhere along the line, two different versions of the book of Jeremiah developed, apparently because different Jewish communities had copies of the oracles but shaped them differently. Thus, there is not one original book of Jeremiah, but at least two. Jeremiah began to prophesy around 626 B.C.E. Shortly thereafter the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587/86 B.C.E. Many Judahites were forced into exile in Babylon (modern day Iraq). Others, including Jeremiah, fled to Egypt (Jer 43). Still others remained in Judea. The question is: what happened to Jeremiah’s oracles at that time? Were some destroyed? Were some taken to Babylon or Egypt? Did others remain behind in Judea? Perhaps, all of the above? How many copies of Jeremiah’s oracles had been made during that time? [2]

Armin Lange proposes that the versions of Jeremiah in the Septuagint (Greek translation) and Masoretic Text (a Hebrew tradition) are both drawn from a shared earlier Hebrew edition of Jeremiah, called the Vorlage (predecessor).[3] The Septuagint remained closer to the Vorlage (and therefore shorter), while the Masoretic Text added more material. He believes the Masoretic Jeremiah finds its seeds in the Egyptian Jewish community. He concludes this based on the allusions to: 1) the sack of Gaza by Ptolemy I Soter; 2) the proto-Masoretic rebuke of the Judean Jewry; and 3) proto-Masoretic universalization of diaspora beyond Babylon. Other scholars believe there was more than one Hebrew Vorlage and the Masoretic and Septugint are drawn from different predecessors. In any case, there is no dispute that we have two different versions of Jeremiah and neither can be considered the one and only “original.” Notably, the ordering of the text for each book is different as they were compiled in distinct ways. There are also additions in the Masoretic text not found in the Septuagint version, including:

Jeremiah 10:6-11 with the Masoretic expansions in bold italics (NASB):

3 For the customs of the peoples are delusion; because it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. 4 They decorate it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers so that it will not totter. 5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, for they can do no harm, nor can they do any good.” 6 There is none like you, O LORD; you are great, and great is your name in might. 7 Who would not fear you, O King of the nations? Indeed it is your due! For among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is none like you. 8 But they are altogether stupid and foolish In their discipline of delusion -their idol is wood! 9 Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of a craftsman and of the hands of a goldsmith; Violet and purple are their clothing; they are all the work of skilled men. 10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure his indignation. 11 Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.”

The books of Jeremiah are the result of a communal process common to ancient text production. Jeremiah worked with Baruch, later scribes continued to edit and add to the book, and the Greek translators of an early draft also contributed to the process. I have only described key differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic versions of Jeremiah. But there are many other examples and various traditions related to Old Testament texts. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls significantly changed our understanding of the Bible’s origins. They provide remarkable insight into the copying, editing, and transmission history of the biblical texts.

So, how should we respond to these differences? A post-printing press and post-Enlightenment often finds such variations alarming. But the New Testament writers readily used different versions of Scriptural texts without qualm. Similarly, Augustine concluded that the Septuagint is just as inspired as the Hebrew versions. In other words, Augustine did not go on a quest to find the “original,” but rather accepted these known variations as equally scripture. Indeed, there is something wonderful about the reality that each book of the Bible is the result of multiple people working together in community over time and not a lone, single endeavor.

Want to read two different Jeremiahs? See the Masoretic version here and the Septuagint version here.

______________________________

[1] The Assyrian oracles were collated by date and included a mixture of prophets together. The biblical texts, on the other hand, collate oracles by prophet (Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007], 184).

[2] For more on theories of how the Biblical traditions relate to different locations or groups in diaspora (e.g. Egypt, Babylon, and Judea), see: F. Cross and S. Talmon, eds,, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1975); Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999); Arie Van der Kooij, “Preservation and Promulgation: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Ed. by Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer, and Shani Tzoref; Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012) 29-40.

[3] Armin Lange, “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. by Nóra Dávid and Armin Lange; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2010) 43-96.