* The authors have updated and expanded the chart originally prepared for the first edition by John

John Rea.
a. Deut. 31:9, 24–26; cf. Josh. 1:8; 8:31–35.
b. 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron. 17:9.
c. Hos. 4:6; 8:1, 12.
d. These may have been carried by Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 43-44).
e. This occured in the deportations of 597 and 586 B.C. (cf Dan. 9:2.
f. Perhaps Zerubabbel brought hebrew manuscripts with him in 535 B.C. when he and others returned to Palestine from
Babylon (cf Ezra 2:1-70.
g. Ezra 7:6, 10; Neh. 8:1-8.
h. Oral Aramaic Targums were used in Palestine (cf. Ezra 8:7-8) and in Babylon by Daniel (cf. Dan. 9:2) and possibly
by Ezekiel as they explained their prophecies (and Scripture?).
i. Some argue that this recension was used by the chronicler when citing the Pentateuch and the books of Samuel. See
Frank Moore Cross, “New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research I: the Test Behind the Text of the Hebrew
Bible,” Bible Review, 1:2 (Summer 1985) 12-25, and “New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research II: Original
biblical Research Reconstructed from Newly found Fragments,” Bible Review, 1:3 (Fall 1985): 26-35.
j. According to The Letter of Aristeas, which purpots to tell how the Septuagint (LXX) originated.
k. Existing manuscript copy.
l. See 1 Macc. 1:56f, 2 Macc. 2:13.
m. Hillel’s work (c. 100 B.C. produced a Proto-Rabbinic text type of standardized hebrew text by comparing all
existing manuscript copies.
n. This recension (c. 100 B.C. utilized a particular form of old Hebrew script that was current during the Hasmonean
revival.
o. This authoritative Pharisaic text was completed before A.D. 70 and reflects Hebrew manuscripts from Masada as
well as the great manuscripts from the caves of the Wadi Murabba’at (Hebrew Minor Prophets) and the Nahal Hever
(Minor Prophets Scroll in Greek). See Cross, Bible Review, 1:2, p. 19.
p. The Proto-Masoretic standardization of the consonantal Hebrew text as a result of the studies at the synod and
Jabneh (Jamnia) and the exegesis of Rabbi Akiba.
q. See the Latin Vulgate version edited by H.F.D. Sparks and W. Thiele, with a brief critical apparatus by Robert
Weber, Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem editio minor (Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1984), follows
Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Version 3d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1983). the small edition also
contains manuscript evidence from major codices and editions of the Vulgate text.
THE QUALITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS
Several reasons have been suggested for the scarcity of early Hebrew manuscripts. The
first and most obvious reason is a combination of antiquity and destructibility. Two or three
thousand years is a long time to expect the elements and the destructiveness of man to leave
these ancient documents unmolested. With this in mind, the next logical question to be
asked is, How good are the Hebrew manuscripts that remain? Several lines of evidence
suggest that their quality is very good.
RELATIVELY FEW VARIANTS
There are very few variants in the texts available because the Masoretes systematically
destroyed old manuscripts once they were carefully copied. Kenyon illustrates the paucity
of variations in the Masoretic Text by contrasting the Leningrad Codex of the Prophets,
which is Babylonian (Eastern), with the standard Palestinian text (Western) of Ezekiel,
where the Masoretic Text is sometimes corrupt. A critical comparison reveals that there are
only sixteen real conflicts between the two texts.54 The fidelity of the New Testament text
depends upon the multiplicity of manuscripts, whereas in the Old Testament the accuracy
of the text results from the ability and reliability of the scribes who transmitted it.

54
54. Kenyon, pp. 45, 70-72.

17
REVERENCE FOR THE BIBLE
With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, however, it was not scribal accuracy alone that
guaranteed their product. Rather, it was their almost superstitious reverence for the Bible.
According to the Talmud, there were specifications not only for the kind of skins to be used
and the size of the columns, but there was even a religious ritual necessary for the scribe to
perform before writing the name of God. Rules governed the kind of ink used, dictated the
spacing of words, and prohibited writing anything from memory. The lines, and even the
letters, were counted methodically. If a manuscript was found to contain even one mistake,
it was discarded and destroyed (cf. chap. 20). This scribal formalism was responsible, at
least in part, for the extreme care exercised in copying the Scriptures. It was also the reason
there were only a few manuscripts (as the rules demanded the destruction of defective
items), as well as why those which are extant are of good quality.
COMPARISON OF DUPLICATE PASSAGES
Another line of evidence for the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is found in
the comparison of the duplicate passages of the Masoretic Text itself. Several psalms occur
twice (e.g., Pss. 14 and 53); much of Isaiah 36-39 is also found in 2 Kings 18-20; Isaiah
2:2-4 is almost exactly parallel to Micah 4:1-3; Jeremiah 52 is a repeat of 2 Kings 25; and
large portions of Chronicles are found in Samuel and Kings. An examination of those
passages shows not only a substantial textual agreement but, in some cases, almost a word-
for-word identity. Therefore it may be concluded that the Old Testament texts have not
undergone radical revisions, even if it were assumed that these parallel passages had
identical sources.
SUPPORT FROM ARCHAEOLOGY
A substantial proof for the accuracy of the Old Testament text has come from
archaeology. Numerous discoveries have confirmed the historical accuracy of the biblical
documents, even down to the occasional use of obsolete names of foreign kings.55 These
archaeological confirmations of the accuracy of Scripture have been recorded in numerous
books.56 Archaeologist Nelson Glueck asserts, “As a matter of fact, however, it may be
stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical
reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline
or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”57
Furthermore, the Septuagint was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles. Most New
Testament quotations are taken from it directly, even when it differs from the Masoretic
Text. These differences will be discussed subsequently, but on the whole the Septuagint

55
55. The reference to “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4) has often been used to illustrate the total ignorance
of the writer of the book. No such king of Egypt was known to history. Now it is known, from the Egyptian
spelling of the city of Saisthe capital of an Egyptian province in the western delta of that time (c. 725
B.C.)that the text should read “To So [Sais], to the king of Egypt.” Hans Goedicke, “The End of ’So,’ King of
Egypt,” pp. 64-66, and William F. Albright, “The Elimination of King ’So,’” p. 66.
56
56. William F. Albright, Archaeology of Palestine; E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, eds., The New
International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology; Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties;
and a good popular summary by Clifford Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability.
57
57. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev, p. 31.

18