Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible – An Introduction (TCHB 1)

I fancy myself a wee bit of a textual critic, though through my studies with the likes of Bruce Waltke, E.J. Revel, Stan Walters, Al Pietersma, among others, I perhaps more than anything else recognize the hard work and commitment necessary to do textual criticism properly. Knowing something about how to do textual criticism is one thing, having the mastery in the requisite languages as well as a thorough understanding of the textual witnesses, including their predilections and tendencies, is a daunting task. That being said, I figured I would do a few posts on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, including some discussion of method and manuscripts, some examples, and available resources to aid the student in doing some text criticism. These posts will be based on my research, some of my class lectures as well as an article I wrote with Bruce Waltke a number of years back.

Defining Textual Criticism

This first post will highlight the need for textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. But before I get to that, I should perhaps define “textual criticism.” Textual criticism is the name given to the critical study of ancient manuscripts and versions of texts, usually for the purpose of restoring the original text (or the best/most reliable reading of a text), or as we will discuss later on, restoring the original edition of the ancient text. (I should note that some critics are not very optimistic about being able to restore the “original” texts or editions and are happy to just study the different manuscripts to see how texts changed over time and reflect their socio-linguistic contexts). Its technique involves an investigation of the textual witnesses to the Hebrew Bible, their histories, and evaluating variants in light of known scribal practices.

The Need for Textual Criticism

First and foremost, textual criticism is necessary because there are no error-free manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. All the textual witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are the results of a long process of transmission. The text has been copied and re-copied by scribes of varying capabilities and ideologies through many centuries. No matter how good a scribe may have been, errors inevitably crept into his or her work. Even critical editions of the Hebrew Bible such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), contain printing errors. While some of these errors reflect errors in the medieval manuscripts on which they are based, others were introduced with printing.

A second reason why textual criticism is necessary is the realization that the further back we go the greater the textual differences we will find between manuscripts. Variants in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts (dated ca. 1000 to 1500 CE) as collated by the likes of Kennicott and de Rossi are small in comparison to those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which are more than a millennium older. In fact, the further back we go in the textual lineage the greater the textual differences we find between manuscripts.

Finally, in addition to these inevitable accidental errors there are intentional “errors” found in the texts. Scribes occasionally changed the text for linguistic and exegetical reasons, and, rarely, for theological reasons. I will talk about these sorts of “errors” or intentional changes in a future post.

All this means that if we are at all concerned about establishing an “original text” or an “original edition” of a textual tradition or at least concerned about weeding through and identifying some of the more obvious errors in whatever text we want to use (e.g., the Leningrad Codex), then we will need to do some textual criticism (or rely on the textual criticism of others). We will need to identify and sort through the variants and make some decisions on which reading is better. Even if you have no theological or ideological reasons for wanting to identify the “original text,” it is pretty much a practical necessity if you are going to do any translation or exposition as you will have to decide what text you are translating or expounding.

Implications and Conclusions

The simple fact that there are no error-free manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible troubles some people — typically those from more conservative backgrounds who hold a very high view of Scripture. But there is no getting around this reality. We have no pristine, error-free, originals of the Hebrew Bible (or the NT for that matter). That being said, one should not over-emphasize the significance of the differences between the manuscripts we do have.

First, a quick count of the textual variants in BHS shows that on average for every ten words there is a textual note — and many of these can be discounted. That leaves about 90% of the text with no variants. Because of the nature of textual criticism, however, the focus is on the relatively few variants, not on the many uncontested readings, and so it is easy to lose our sense of proportion.

Second, most of the textual variants are relatively insignificant. Most text critical work is boring because the differences are inconsequential (Al Pietersma has a saying about text critical work that reflects the tedious nature of the enterprise: bean by bean). Many variants are easily identified and corrected. A slip in the transcriptional process is normally subject to human correction. In the same way we correct errors in reading any book or manuscript, we can correct biblical texts. Even the great variety of text types attested in the DSS underscore their genetic relationships. Shemaryahu Talmon notes:

The scope of variation within all these textual traditions is relatively restricted. Major divergences which intrinsically affect the sense are extremely rare. A collation of variants extant, based on the synoptic study of the material available, either by a comparison of parallel passages within one Version, or of the major Versions with each other, results in the conclusion that the ancient authors, compilers, tradents and scribes enjoyed what may be termed a controlled freedom of textual variation (“Textual Study of the Bible — A New Outlook,” Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [Harvard University Press, 1975] 326).

For those Christians who may be troubled by the textual variety surrounding the Hebrew Bible, all I will say is don’t worry! The same kind of variants and plurality we find in the DSS today, were around during the time of Jesus and the apostles — and they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. Their citations agree with the varying text types found we find in the DSS. The record of Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7 employs a pre-Samaritan text, while the NT often quotes from the Septuagint textual tradition.

While the textual reality of the Hebrew Bible is not a hindrance to maintaining a high view of Scripture, it may have some implications to how we understand and formulate our view of Scripture, but I will leave those discussions for a later time. (In this regard you may want to check out Chris Heard’s post “What’s Wrong with Inerrancy.“)

This entry was posted in Old Testament, Series, Text Criticism, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible – An Introduction (TCHB 1)

  1. Pingback: DailyHebrew.com » Biblical Studies Carnival VII

  2. Pingback: Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » Hebrew Witnesses to the Text of the Old Testament (TCHB 3)

  3. Pingback: Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » The History of the Biblical Text (TCHB 6)

  4. Pingback: Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Resources for Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

  5. Gaspar de Souza says:

    link sobre crítica textual do tanakh

  6. Dear Tyler,

    Please comment on my DEFINITION of OT TC Methodology. Is it sound?, comprehensive?

    I defined six steps in OT TC methodology in my MPhil thesis as follows:

    1.7 Methodology
    I used Old Testament textual critical methodology. This methodology consisted of six steps as follows:
    1. Firstly, I compared the MT and LXX OT quotations.
    2. Secondly, I noted the differences between the LXX and MT OT quotations.
    3. Thirdly, I examined additional witnesses to the OT texts such as the relevant DSS texts and the GNT quotations to find out whether these other witnesses to the OT supported the LXX quotations or the MT quotations.[1]
    4. Fourthly, I reviewed literature specific to the LXX/MT verse differences in question to find out what other writers had said concerning specific verse differences between the LXX and MT reading of the same text.
    5. Fifthly, I recorded my conclusions, i.e., specific conclusions for each verse where the LXX text differed from the MT text.[2]
    6. Finally, I recorded my recommendations; i.e., specific recommendations for each verse where the LXX text differed from the MT text.


    [1] One criticism of the thesis reads as follows,

    “There is a lot of material in the thesis, but it has not been arranged properly so as to respond adequately to the topic. I get the impression that the topic is too wide and so there is imbalance in the presentations, particularly between the LXX and MT on the one hand, and the Hebrews Texts and the NT on the other hand. Looking at the parts on the Hebrews and NT, it seems inadequate and has not been well-integrated into the latter (i.e. the LXX and MT) part of the thesis.�

    My response to this criticism is that this thesis is actually a thesis based on Old Testament (OT) textual criticism (TC); and so it is focussed very clearly in the Old Testament, specifically on the differences between the LXX and MT. However, the third step in my OT TC methodology demanded that I examine other witnesses to the variant Old Testament texts. These other witness to the OT were not limited only to OT witnesses such as the dead sea scrolls, but also included New Testament (NT) witnesses, and specifically for this thesis, the Old Testament quotations found in the Greek New Testament (GNT) book of Hebrews; and so the role of the New Testament witnesses, particularly the OT quotations in the NT book of Hebrews is simply as a witness to find out whether the quotations in the GNT book of Hebrews matched the LXX or the MT quotations.

    I recorded my findings in Chapter 4.

    [2] Conclusions included an explanation of the differences between the LXX and MT texts for the same OT verse and a hypothesis of what the original autograph text might have read.


    Is it a sound methodology?

    Is it comprehensive?

    Many thanks.

    Philip Engmann.

  7. Pingback: biblicalia » Blog Archive » Biblical Studies Carnival VIII

  8. Pingback: Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » Codex Sinaiticus: A Profile (TCHB 5)

Comments are closed.