Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
To continue a little about the Hebrew text of the Bible, as it’s the NT that usually gets the attention.
The Masoretes were the last of Jewish scholars who devoted themselves to preserving the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text was the first printed Hebrew text, printed in its entirety in 1488, with two more editions following in 1491 and 1494.
One of the most famous masorete scholars was Ben Asher of Tiberius, who labored to produce a correct copy of the Scriptures. From the 12th century forward the Ben Asher text was the received Hebrew text.
In 1516-17 the Daniel Bomburg edition of the Masoretic text was printed, and called the First Rabbinic Bible. Bomberg was a Jewish rabbinical scholar. In 1524-25 the Ben Chayyim edition of Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible was printed. Ben Chayyim was also a Jewish rabbinical scholar. This edition was called the Second Great Rabbinic Bible. These Masoretic Hebrew Bibles became the basis for all the Reformation translations. For 400 years this Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament was the sole basis for Bible translation around the world. This was also the edition used by Rudolf Kittel for the first two editions of his Biblia Hebraica in 1906 and 1912. [Quoted or paraphrased from David Cloud’s, Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Way of Life Literature; ISBN: 1583180877), pp. 165-170.]
I will now look at Dr. E.F. Hills’ The King James Version Defended as he also contributes greatly to our understanding of the Hebrew texts. In his Chapter Four he gives an overview of the textual situation of the Hebrew Scriptures (pages 100-102 in the book):
-----------
Dr. Hills puts in perspective the differences in the various Hebrew Texts, the “marginal” mss that vary from the accepted (or once accepted) Hebrew Bible.
I haven’t noted here (though it has been discussed elsewhere on this board) the battle the post-Reformation defenders fought concerning the Masoretic text. Rome was determined to overthrow the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura with regard to the Hebrew perhaps even more than the Greek of the reformers’ Textus Receptus. There is a wealth of literature (unfortunately some choice pieces in the Latin which remain untranslated, such as J. Buxtorf’s work!) on this topic, notably by John Owen and John Gill (of those readily available).
Some will allege that holding to the view of the Reformers is obscurantist, in light of the “new” discoveries made in recent years. To the end of countering such allegations I have brought Dr. Hills’ view to the fore. Were the architects of the Westminster Confession (and the 1689 Baptist Confession) in error when they said the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, “being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical”? They were referring to the texts they had in hand which were “kept pure”, which they were using against Rome – and not some theoretical versions which they didn’t have, or hoped they might some day have. They were referring to the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Ben Chayyim and the Textus Receptus Greek texts under the KJV.
If genuine and authentic discoveries are set aside, one could use the term “obscurantist,” but if the so-called “progress” of new discoveries is in fact a descent into error and inferior materials, then the epithet becomes a slander, a lie, at best a mistake.
God was working mightily in the Reformation period, not only to recover sound doctrine for His people, but to give them His word in a providentially preserved form. In the little things He worked, overruling the designs of men, to produce wonders, foremost of which was His Bible.
The Masoretes were the last of Jewish scholars who devoted themselves to preserving the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text was the first printed Hebrew text, printed in its entirety in 1488, with two more editions following in 1491 and 1494.
One of the most famous masorete scholars was Ben Asher of Tiberius, who labored to produce a correct copy of the Scriptures. From the 12th century forward the Ben Asher text was the received Hebrew text.
In 1516-17 the Daniel Bomburg edition of the Masoretic text was printed, and called the First Rabbinic Bible. Bomberg was a Jewish rabbinical scholar. In 1524-25 the Ben Chayyim edition of Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible was printed. Ben Chayyim was also a Jewish rabbinical scholar. This edition was called the Second Great Rabbinic Bible. These Masoretic Hebrew Bibles became the basis for all the Reformation translations. For 400 years this Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament was the sole basis for Bible translation around the world. This was also the edition used by Rudolf Kittel for the first two editions of his Biblia Hebraica in 1906 and 1912. [Quoted or paraphrased from David Cloud’s, Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Way of Life Literature; ISBN: 1583180877), pp. 165-170.]
I will now look at Dr. E.F. Hills’ The King James Version Defended as he also contributes greatly to our understanding of the Hebrew texts. In his Chapter Four he gives an overview of the textual situation of the Hebrew Scriptures (pages 100-102 in the book):
(f) Manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament — The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Jewish rabbis venerated their copies of the Old Testament so much that they did not allow them to be read to pieces. As soon as their Old Testament manuscripts became too old and worn for ordinary use, they stored them in their synagogues and later buried them. Hence, until rather recently no ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts were available to scholars, the oldest known manuscript dating from no earlier than the 9th century A.D. All the available manuscripts, however, were found to contain the Masoretic (Traditional) text and to agree with one another very closely. The first critic to demonstrate this was Bishop Kennicott, who published at Oxford in 1776-80 the readings of 634 Hebrew manuscripts. He was followed in 1784-88 by De Rossi, who published collations of 825 more manuscripts. No substantial variation among the manuscripts was detected by either of these two scholars. (28)
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has altered this situation. These scrolls had been placed in earthen jars and deposited in caves near Wadi Qumran by the Dead Sea. They were first brought to light in 1947 by an Arab who was looking for a goat which had wandered away. After a few months some of the scrolls from this first cave were sold by the Arabs to the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark and others to the Hebrew University. In 1955 the Monastery of St. Mark sold its share of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the State of Israel. Thus these two lots of ancient writings were finally reunited under the same owners. (29)
This collection includes the following documents: (1) Isaiah A, an almost complete copy of Isaiah in Hebrew; (2) Isaiah B, another copy of Isaiah in Hebrew, reasonably complete from chapter 41 onwards but containing only fragments of earlier chapters; (3) a copy in Hebrew of the first two chapters of Habakkuk with a verse-by-verse commentary also in Hebrew; (4) the Rule of the Community, a code of rules of a community written in Hebrew; (5) a collection of hymns in Hebrew; (6) the Rule of War, a description in Hebrew of ancient warfare; (7) an Aramaic paraphrase of chapter 5 to 15 of Genesis. (30) Of these seven manuscripts Isaiah A is regarded as the oldest. One expert sets its date at 175-150 B.C.; another expert makes it 50 years younger. The other manuscripts are thought to have been written from 50 to 150 years later than Isaiah A. (31)
After these manuscripts had been discovered in the first cave, ten other caves in the same vicinity were found to contain similar treasures. Of these Cave 4 has proved the most productive. Thousands of fragments, once constituting about 330 separate books, have been taken from this location. These fragments include portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. (32) Rather recently (1972) O'Callaghan has claimed that certain fragments found in Cave 7 are from New Testament manuscripts. This discovery, however, has been rejected by most other scholars. (33)
The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scroll, Isaiah A, was generally regarded by scholars as a victory for the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text of the Old Testament. According to Burrows (1948), this manuscript agreed with the Masoretic text to a remarkable degree in wording. (34) And according to Albright (1955), the second Isaiah scroll (Isaiah B) agreed even more closely with the Masoretic text. (35) But the discovery in 1952 of Cave 4 with its vast store of manuscripts altered the picture considerably. It became apparent that the Proto-Masoretic text of the Isaiah scrolls was not the only type of Old Testament text that had been preserved at Qumran. In the manuscripts from Cave 4 many other text-types have been distinguished. Accordingly, in 1964 F. M. Cross presented some of the conclusions which he had drawn from his Qumran studies. He believed that three distinct ancient texts of Samuel can be identified, namely, ( 1 ) an Egyptian text represented by the Septuagint, (2) a Palestinian text represented by manuscript 4Q from Cave 4, and (3) a Proto-Masoretic text represented by a Greek text of Samuel also from Cave 4. And in the Pentateuch also Cross divides the text into the Egyptian, Palestinian, and Proto-Masoretic varieties. (36) G. R. Driver (1965), however, disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross. According to him, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first and early second centuries A.D. (37)
Thus we see that, despite the new discoveries, our confidence in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text must rest on some more solid foundation than the opinions of naturalistic scholars. For as the Qumran studies demonstrate, these scholars disagree with one another. What one scholar grants another takes away. Instead of depending on such inconstant allies, Bible-believing Christians should develop their own type of Old Testament textual criticism, a textual criticism which takes its stand on the teachings of the Old Testament itself and views the evidence in the light of these teachings. Such a believing textual criticism leads us to full confidence in the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text which was preserved by the divinely appointed Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars grouped around it.
--------
Note 28 Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts, by F. G. Kenyon, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898, p. 41.
Note 29 Second Thoughts On The Dead Sea Scrolls, by F. F. Bruce, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1956, p. 21.
Note 30 Idem, pp 22-25.
Note 31 Idem, pp. 38-42.
Note 32 Idem, pp. 28-33.
Note 33 Newsletter No. 11, American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Mass., June, 1972.
Note 34 "Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscripts," by Millar Burrows, BASOR, October, 1948, p. 16.
Note 35 "New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible," by W. F. Albright, BASOR, December, 1955, p. 30.
Note 36 "The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert'" by F. M. Cross, HTR, vol. 57 (1964) pp. 296-297.
Note 37 The Judean Scrolls, The Problem And A Solution, by G. R. Driver, Oxford: Blackwell, 1965, pp. 3-6, 239-241, 371.
The Jewish rabbis venerated their copies of the Old Testament so much that they did not allow them to be read to pieces. As soon as their Old Testament manuscripts became too old and worn for ordinary use, they stored them in their synagogues and later buried them. Hence, until rather recently no ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts were available to scholars, the oldest known manuscript dating from no earlier than the 9th century A.D. All the available manuscripts, however, were found to contain the Masoretic (Traditional) text and to agree with one another very closely. The first critic to demonstrate this was Bishop Kennicott, who published at Oxford in 1776-80 the readings of 634 Hebrew manuscripts. He was followed in 1784-88 by De Rossi, who published collations of 825 more manuscripts. No substantial variation among the manuscripts was detected by either of these two scholars. (28)
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has altered this situation. These scrolls had been placed in earthen jars and deposited in caves near Wadi Qumran by the Dead Sea. They were first brought to light in 1947 by an Arab who was looking for a goat which had wandered away. After a few months some of the scrolls from this first cave were sold by the Arabs to the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark and others to the Hebrew University. In 1955 the Monastery of St. Mark sold its share of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the State of Israel. Thus these two lots of ancient writings were finally reunited under the same owners. (29)
This collection includes the following documents: (1) Isaiah A, an almost complete copy of Isaiah in Hebrew; (2) Isaiah B, another copy of Isaiah in Hebrew, reasonably complete from chapter 41 onwards but containing only fragments of earlier chapters; (3) a copy in Hebrew of the first two chapters of Habakkuk with a verse-by-verse commentary also in Hebrew; (4) the Rule of the Community, a code of rules of a community written in Hebrew; (5) a collection of hymns in Hebrew; (6) the Rule of War, a description in Hebrew of ancient warfare; (7) an Aramaic paraphrase of chapter 5 to 15 of Genesis. (30) Of these seven manuscripts Isaiah A is regarded as the oldest. One expert sets its date at 175-150 B.C.; another expert makes it 50 years younger. The other manuscripts are thought to have been written from 50 to 150 years later than Isaiah A. (31)
After these manuscripts had been discovered in the first cave, ten other caves in the same vicinity were found to contain similar treasures. Of these Cave 4 has proved the most productive. Thousands of fragments, once constituting about 330 separate books, have been taken from this location. These fragments include portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. (32) Rather recently (1972) O'Callaghan has claimed that certain fragments found in Cave 7 are from New Testament manuscripts. This discovery, however, has been rejected by most other scholars. (33)
The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scroll, Isaiah A, was generally regarded by scholars as a victory for the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text of the Old Testament. According to Burrows (1948), this manuscript agreed with the Masoretic text to a remarkable degree in wording. (34) And according to Albright (1955), the second Isaiah scroll (Isaiah B) agreed even more closely with the Masoretic text. (35) But the discovery in 1952 of Cave 4 with its vast store of manuscripts altered the picture considerably. It became apparent that the Proto-Masoretic text of the Isaiah scrolls was not the only type of Old Testament text that had been preserved at Qumran. In the manuscripts from Cave 4 many other text-types have been distinguished. Accordingly, in 1964 F. M. Cross presented some of the conclusions which he had drawn from his Qumran studies. He believed that three distinct ancient texts of Samuel can be identified, namely, ( 1 ) an Egyptian text represented by the Septuagint, (2) a Palestinian text represented by manuscript 4Q from Cave 4, and (3) a Proto-Masoretic text represented by a Greek text of Samuel also from Cave 4. And in the Pentateuch also Cross divides the text into the Egyptian, Palestinian, and Proto-Masoretic varieties. (36) G. R. Driver (1965), however, disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross. According to him, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first and early second centuries A.D. (37)
Thus we see that, despite the new discoveries, our confidence in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text must rest on some more solid foundation than the opinions of naturalistic scholars. For as the Qumran studies demonstrate, these scholars disagree with one another. What one scholar grants another takes away. Instead of depending on such inconstant allies, Bible-believing Christians should develop their own type of Old Testament textual criticism, a textual criticism which takes its stand on the teachings of the Old Testament itself and views the evidence in the light of these teachings. Such a believing textual criticism leads us to full confidence in the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text which was preserved by the divinely appointed Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars grouped around it.
--------
Note 28 Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts, by F. G. Kenyon, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898, p. 41.
Note 29 Second Thoughts On The Dead Sea Scrolls, by F. F. Bruce, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1956, p. 21.
Note 30 Idem, pp 22-25.
Note 31 Idem, pp. 38-42.
Note 32 Idem, pp. 28-33.
Note 33 Newsletter No. 11, American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Mass., June, 1972.
Note 34 "Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscripts," by Millar Burrows, BASOR, October, 1948, p. 16.
Note 35 "New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible," by W. F. Albright, BASOR, December, 1955, p. 30.
Note 36 "The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert'" by F. M. Cross, HTR, vol. 57 (1964) pp. 296-297.
Note 37 The Judean Scrolls, The Problem And A Solution, by G. R. Driver, Oxford: Blackwell, 1965, pp. 3-6, 239-241, 371.
-----------
Dr. Hills puts in perspective the differences in the various Hebrew Texts, the “marginal” mss that vary from the accepted (or once accepted) Hebrew Bible.
I haven’t noted here (though it has been discussed elsewhere on this board) the battle the post-Reformation defenders fought concerning the Masoretic text. Rome was determined to overthrow the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura with regard to the Hebrew perhaps even more than the Greek of the reformers’ Textus Receptus. There is a wealth of literature (unfortunately some choice pieces in the Latin which remain untranslated, such as J. Buxtorf’s work!) on this topic, notably by John Owen and John Gill (of those readily available).
Some will allege that holding to the view of the Reformers is obscurantist, in light of the “new” discoveries made in recent years. To the end of countering such allegations I have brought Dr. Hills’ view to the fore. Were the architects of the Westminster Confession (and the 1689 Baptist Confession) in error when they said the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, “being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical”? They were referring to the texts they had in hand which were “kept pure”, which they were using against Rome – and not some theoretical versions which they didn’t have, or hoped they might some day have. They were referring to the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Ben Chayyim and the Textus Receptus Greek texts under the KJV.
If genuine and authentic discoveries are set aside, one could use the term “obscurantist,” but if the so-called “progress” of new discoveries is in fact a descent into error and inferior materials, then the epithet becomes a slander, a lie, at best a mistake.
God was working mightily in the Reformation period, not only to recover sound doctrine for His people, but to give them His word in a providentially preserved form. In the little things He worked, overruling the designs of men, to produce wonders, foremost of which was His Bible.
Last edited:
. Surely White and Carson could not be wrong? It was good in it's day, let's move on. I only use it to read the Scriptures to old people in nursing homes and hospitals.
What a testimony! God is good!
