Old Testament Textual Criticism

An Orientation and Demonstration

(avg. read time: 12–24 mins.)

Last time I provided an introduction for textual criticism of the NT. Some of what I said there will also apply to OT textual criticism, particularly in terms of the applicability of the canons (including harmonization of parallel texts). But there are enough differences in practice between textual criticism in the NT and OT that the latter requires its own exposition. Compared to the NT, there is a larger gap between when the OT texts are thought to be written and the oldest manuscripts we find of them. Our most complete Greek NT codex dates from the fourth century, while our most complete Hebrew OT codex, the Leningrad Codex—containing what we call the Masoretic Text (MT)—dates from the eleventh century. There are of course much older manuscripts and fragments in Hebrew, including from among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which often (but not entirely) comport with the MT. Additionally, there are manuscripts of versions in other languages that are older than this. Due to this factor and the scarcity of early and fuller manuscripts relative to the NT, the importance of the versions for OT textual criticism is generally given more weight than the versions for NT textual criticism.

The standard resource for OT textual criticism remains Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, which I recommend for those who wish to study this subject in much greater detail. For this introduction, I will only be addressing what I consider the highlights he draws attention to, particularly where the practice of OT textual criticism differs from NT textual criticism. I will also include here a text-critical analysis I have done before of Zech 14:3–5 as a demonstration of that practice.

Brief Remarks on History

As noted in my previous post, OT textual criticism was already practiced among the early Christians. Most extensively, Origen engaged in it in the construction of his Hexapla, a six-column edition that featured parallel texts of the consonantal Hebrew text, its Greek transliteration, and four Greek translations: Aquila, Symmachus, a recension of the Septuagint/LXX with marks indicating additions or omissions compared to the Hebrew, and Theodotion. Jerome also consulted both Hebrew and Greek texts for his Latin Vulgate translation of the OT, as well as his commentaries, where he sometimes diverged from his work in the Vulgate. OT textual criticism would also predominate the landscape of biblical studies in the medieval era in Europe, as scholars frequently charted variants and made corrections to the Vulgate out of their interactions with Hebrew manuscripts, with which they had access thanks to European Jews. One Hebrew codex made during this era, what was later known as the Leningrad Codex, would become the primary basis for the Biblia Hebraica series in the 20th century and beyond.

I refer the reader to Tov for more extensive history on this field, but two other major events should be noted before we move to discussing sources. First, near the turn of the 20th century scholars finally recognized the significance of the manuscript collection available in the genizah (storeroom) of the Ben Ezra synagogue of Old Cairo. The Cairo Genizah contained hundreds of thousands of manuscripts in multiple languages—especially Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic—making it the largest collection of mostly medieval manuscripts in the world. This collection included ~10,000 biblical manuscripts.

Second, by far the most significant development for OT textual criticism in terms of finding ancient sources came in 1946/1947 with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Among the thousands of documents were fragments and manuscripts of biblical texts in manuscripts that pre-dated our oldest available manuscripts of any version by centuries and our oldest available Hebrew manuscripts by over a millennium. Unfortunately, there is no complete biblical codex among them and not all texts are represented among what remains. The most famous biblical scroll—and one of the first to be discovered—was the Isaiah scroll, a virtually complete manuscript of the Book of Isaiah. It broadly agrees with the MT, such as in the arrangement of the text, but differs at many points, and other Isaiah manuscripts at Qumran seem to correct it in the direction of the MT.

Sources

Despite the issue noted for the temporal gap of available manuscripts from autographs in the OT, there are still thousands of manuscripts to work with. But as noted before, many of the older and more complete manuscripts are not available in Hebrew, but rather in Greek or Latin, including in patristic quotations. But to get a better sense of what kind of sources we are working with, it is helpful to outline them.

MT, proto-MT. Most of our available Hebrew manuscripts of the OT exemplify the Masoretic Text. The MT is named after the Masoretes, medieval scribe-scholars who developed a system of vocalization and accentuation, including vowel marks, in the second half of the 1st millennium CE. Older Hebrew texts contained only the consonantal text, whereas the Masoretic system allowed for a more standardized vocalized reading of the OT. The system of the ben Asher family is the primary one in use to this day. Alongside the manuscripts that used this MT system (or, occasionally, the ben Naphtali system), there are a few Hebrew texts that served as the precursors to the MT, but which lack the MT system. These manuscripts are thus designated “proto-MT.”

Samaritan Pentateuch, pre-Samaritan. A relatively small but significant class of Hebrew manuscripts of the Pentateuch/Torah are written in a peculiarly Samaritan script. In addition to its distinctive script, it is also notable for some differences from the MT it shares with the LXX and/or Vulgate—mostly stylistic in terms of grammatical constructions—as well as some more ideological differences that comport with Samaritan tradition, such as in the emphasis placed on Shechem and Mount Gerizim as the central place of worship (as opposed to Jerusalem and Mount Zion). In addition to its similarities with some of the other ancient versions in opposition to the MT, the antiquity of this version is further demonstrated by the presence of “pre-Samaritan” texts (without the notable ideological differences) among the DSS.

DSS and other Hebrew texts. The DSS include hundreds of manuscripts and fragments of biblical texts. These biblical texts include proto-MT and pre-Samaritan text-types, as well as some that more closely resemble the LXX. Others still do not particularly align with any of these versions. Some of these texts are even written in Paleo-Hebrew, which differs from the Aramaic characters that compose biblical and modern Hebrew. Additional texts that are relevant for textual criticism include the Silver Rolls from Ketef Hinnom (which contain Num 6:24–26), the Nash Papyrus, and assorted mezuzot and tefillin.

Targumim. The targumim were Aramaic companions to Hebrew Scripture, which sometimes offered more expanded translations that blurred the line between translation and commentary/exposition (as befits the various meanings of the word targum). These targumim were edited over centuries, perhaps reaching their final redactions in the medieval era, but we have evidence of targumim among the DSS as well. Where there are not obvious expansions, the underlying texts for the various targumim largely agree with the MT, but differ at many, mostly small, points for stylistic or theological reasons.

LXX/OG, revisions of the LXX. The LXX translation of the OT into Greek, which served as the OT or the basis of the OT for the early church, was the first translation from Hebrew (and some Aramaic) made for wide distribution. Of all the ancient translations/versions, it has the greatest divergence from the MT and thus has been of greatest interest to OT textual critics. This divergence extends to the arrangement of the canon and of books within the canon (Jeremiah is an especially notable example). It also has older attestation than many instances of the MT/proto-MT between the texts resembling it in the DSS and what text is available from the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

In turn, there were several revisions of it, some of which we may only have indirect attestation of in quotes. The version suggested to be the reconstructed original is alternatively called the Old Greek (OG). Others are included in Origen’s Hexapla, as noted above, from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as well as his own critically marked version. These revisions more closely resemble the MT than the OG does, but they each vary in significant ways. Another revision worth noting is that of Lucian, which contains some interesting variants in the historical books.

Vulgate. The Vulgate is Jerome’s translation of the OT into Latin through consultation of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) with the help of Jewish scholars. It basically reflects the MT, but Jerome also consulted the LXX and its various revisions for his translation. And as noted above, it was subject to revision over the centuries after Jerome by medieval textual critics in consultation with European Jews.

Peshitta. The Peshitta is the Syriac translation. Syriac is of course genetically linked to Hebrew, being a dialect of Aramaic. Its name means “the simple [translation],” to distinguish it from the Syro-Hexapla, which was the Syriac translation of the Hexapla. It deviates most significantly from the MT in Chronicles but is generally closer to it than the LXX is. However, there are also several places where the Peshitta reflects at least engagement with the LXX in the composition of the translation.

Some Key Considerations for OT Studies

The history of the OT text is rather more complex than that of the NT. In addition to divergences represented in the various translations, there are more significant divergences in how texts are divided, structured, and arranged, particularly when comparing the MT with the LXX. This latter type of divergence represents struggles that go beyond translation difficulties that naturally accompany this enterprise.

But it is also clear that translation difficulties had a significant impact, more so even than the task of translating the Greek NT into other languages. Hebrew was never a lingua franca like Greek was for so much of the Mediterranean world and beyond. There were thus not as many standard ways of translating Hebrew to other languages or of bridging linguistic gaps (which often happened in Greek by adapting to the local style).

The various versions have varying levels of consistency with the MT. Most of them follow it closely with slight divergences at many points. But this is not in itself and indication that the MT should always be taken as the base text representing the earliest recoverable reading. The MT itself was not an utterly stable text-type, as one can see from the many variants in MT manuscripts. Many presume that the MT is the highest quality text, not least since it is in the same language as the original for the vast majority of the OT, and many variant units support this determination, but it should not be presumed in every case. For example, my old Hebrew professor Lawson Stone has argued well in lectures that the Vulgate most likely represents the best reading of Josh 2:15, while the MT is difficult to comprehend. My own test-case, which is reproduced from a paper I wrote a few years ago, will be a case in which the MT is shown to have the best reading in most cases, but one cannot generalize this point too hastily. I simply offer it here as a demonstration of OT textual criticism at work.

A TEXT-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ZECH 14:3–5

Introduction

While Zech 14 has caused significant controversy among commentators over its meaning, reference, and place in biblical theology, the chapter’s textual history also shows controversy among scribes concerning what it actually says at multiple points. The most controversial section of this chapter, textually speaking, is the second scene in vv. 3–5. The history of textual transmission presents several differences between the versions that invite analysis to understand how and why they developed. To these ends of understanding the textual history and adjudicating between the differences, I compare the versions of the text in the MT, Targum Jonathan, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta, note where they vary, and seek an explanation for each difference. In my argument according to text-critical criteria, I argue that the MT tends to reflect the earliest recoverable reading. In my supporting argument according to the imagery of the text, I argue that the non-controversial text evokes the exodus, which is an argument that extends the common observation that Zech 9—14 is a highly allusive text,¹ and offers further support to how we should read the controversial text.

Note for the following textual notes that the bold text corresponds to note 1, single underline to note 2, and double underline to note 3.

ZECH 14:3²

1. The first notable difference is from Targum Jonathan, which refers to YHWH as “revealing himself” (יתגלי) rather than “going forth” (per the other versions). This terminology also appears in the extension of this appearance in vv. 4–5 and in v. 9 to denote the “revealing” (תתגלי) of the kingdom of YHWH, rather than referring to YHWH “being” (היה) king. The targumists prefer this verb as a translation for many other verbs of divine action in theophanies, as is the setting in this verse and the subsequent appearances of this verb.³

2. Albert Wolters suggests this verb, which is an Aramaic loanword, should be revocalized from קְרָב (“battle”) to קָרֹב (“near/close at hand”) in order to keep the unusual phrase from being redundant. Furthermore, this revocalization would be consistent with the word Zechariah usually uses for battle (מלחמה: 9:10; 10:3–5; 14:2) and consistent with several texts that use the adjective in connection with the noun יום, specifically in referring to the Day of YHWH (Isa 13:6; Ezek 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14).⁴ The main problem with this reading is that it has no attestation in the versions, which otherwise maintain the redundancy. Also, the defective spelling does not appear in any of the cited parallel texts. But the latter point may have just as well contributed to misunderstanding of the consonantal text, so the point is equivocal. Despite the weaknesses of Wolters’s arguments, his case for revocalization fits the Zecharian context, fits with tendencies that cluster around “Day of YHWH” passages, and does not require any change of the basic Hebrew text.

3. In any case, the Targum keeps the Masoretic vocalization of the verb, but it adds three words that help avoid redundancy by specifying the day of battle at the Sea of Reeds. This explicit link to the exodus appears in no other versions, but it draws attention to other connections of this climactic act of divine deliverance with the exodus. First, this verse invokes the Divine Warrior theme that goes back to the exodus and the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1–12; cf. Ps 77:15–20; Isa 51:9–11). Second, in v. 4 God splits (בקע) a mountain to open up a valley instead of splitting (בקע) a sea, as in the exodus (Exod 14:16, 21; Neh 9:11; Ps 78:13; Isa 63:12). Third, though this point is more obscure, the mountain splits from east to west and the halves move north and south just as the sea split from east to west (Exod 14:21–22) and would have receded north and south. Fourth, this act of deliverance links to a declaration of God’s kingship (למלך in 14:9), as in the end of the Song of the Sea (ימלך in Exod 15:18).

ZECH 14:4

* Codex Reuchlinianus contains a substantial addition to the beginning of this verse in the Targum that connects this event to the resurrection of the dead after the sounding of YHWH’s trumpet: בעידנא ההוא יסב ייי שׁופרא רבא ויתקע ביה עסרא יבביו לאחאה מיתיא. A similar connection of the splitting of the Mount of Olives and the resurrection of the dead appears in a painting at the synagogue in Dura-Europos,⁵ which may have come from a similar eschatological tradition. Though this text is a later addition to the Targum, it nevertheless fits with the tendency of the targumists to express resurrection hope where they can.⁶

1. No version agrees with the other on the exact description of the motion of the mountain halves. The MT has the sense of departure or removal, the Targum has the sense of being torn away, the LXX has the sense of leaning or inclining, the Vulgate has the sense of being separated, and the Peshitta has the most passive sense of being left. Clearly, the translators have had difficulty here, though it is far from clear that these differences are attributable to different Vorlagen. Although it is difficult to be confident, perhaps the differences support the MT as preserving the base term from which all other versions emerged as translators either had trouble accurately translating the verb in this context or were dissatisfied with the sense of the Hebrew term as an adequate description of a theophanic earthquake splitting and moving a mountain.

ZECH 14:5

1. The most controversial text-critical debates have been over this verse. The first major debate concerns how to understand ונסתם. The divergences are not so much a testimony to a different Vorlage as to differences in vowel insertion. The unpointed verb could be the irreal Qal perfect 2nd person masculine plural of נוס (וְנַסְתֶּם: “you will flee”) or it could be the irreal Niphal perfect 3rd person masculine singular of סתם (וְנִסְתַּם: “it will be stopped up”). The MT, Vulgate, and Peshitta favor the former pointing.⁷ The LXX (followed by four MT manuscripts, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Origen) favors the latter pointing in its translation.⁸ The Targum presents the only mixed witness in favoring the latter pointing in the first translation and the former pointing in the other two instances.⁹ The differences in vowels completely change the picture as to whether the valley created in the splitting of the Mount of Olives is stopped up or becomes the way by which the people will flee from Jerusalem (or, in the case of the Targum, the valley is stopped up and the people still flee from Jerusalem). But which of these readings is more likely to be the earliest in this context? I argue that in all three cases it is the reading of the MT, Vulgate, and Peshitta.

First, given the connections with the exodus tradition that I cited above, the scenario is more coherent if the new valley created by the division of the Mount of Olives is God’s means of providing an escape for his people while fighting for them. Second, this allowance of flight aptly serves as the anticipated reversal of the battle at the end of v. 2.¹⁰ Third, David Petersen observes that, according to the typical theophanic imagery (which could also link this text to the exodus), “mountains shake or are moved, valleys are opened, not shut; and waters flow, and are not stopped (Micah 1:4; Nahum 1:5, 8; Hab. 3:10). Humans cannot stand before such an appearance; they either cower or flee.”¹¹ Fourth, the blocking up of the valley also seems pointless in light of 14:8, in which living water flows out to the east and west, meaning that the water would need to go around or through the blockage to the east in the picture of the LXX and 1/3 of the Targum.¹² Fifth, the emendations made to the surrounding text by scholars in support of the reading of the LXX and 1/3 of the Targum—which have no textual support in any manuscript thus far of any version—show how badly this reading fits with the context if it requires the context around it to change for its accommodation.

2. The aforementioned emendations favored by scholars who support the LXX or Targum readings concern the phrases גיא־הרי and גי־הרים. Given the difficulty in explaining why a valley presumably created in the splitting of the Mount of Olives would suddenly be stopped up, these scholars have generally supported the emendation of these phrases to גיא־הנום (“valley of Hinnom”). The blocking of the Hinnom Valley could thus be God’s way of burying the memory of idolatry in that valley (2 Kgs 23:10; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31–32; 19:13; 32:35). This reading faces a geographical problem, considering Hinnom’s location, as well as a textual problem in that this proposed change from a nun to a resh is difficult to believe and the emendation has no manuscript support, not even in the LXX or Targum. Another—less popular—emendation changes the phrase to גיחון, so that the Spring of Gihon is stopped up. Once again, no manuscript of any version supports this reading and it is difficult to explain how this text changed so significantly so early that it left no trace in any manuscript. As such, I agree with the scholars who say that LXX and Targum reading present the lectio difficilior, but in contrast, I think the reading is more difficult for the good reason that it does not make sense in context. 

3. The various versions of the text have as much trouble as the verse’s commentators in terms of understanding where this valley is reaching. The MT and Targum express a slight variation in how they describe this valley as reaching אל־אצל or לאצל respectively. Whatever this phrase means, these two versions are in basic agreement as to what it says. The manuscripts of the LXX have a varied history of naming the place. V attests to ιασολ; B, S, and W attest to ιασοδ; A, Q, and C attest to ασαηλ; L attests to ιασσα.¹³ Aquila attests to ασέλ, Theodotion attests to ασήλ, and Symmachus—followed by the Vulgate—attests to τὸ παρακείμενον.¹⁴ The Peshitta translators read the controversial phrase as referring to calamity, an otherwise unattested reading that fits the context, but not the phrase translated. Most of these witnesses are attempted transliterations and even the Symmachus/Vulgate reading attests to the same consonants with different vowel pointing (אֵצֶל) from the MT scribes (אָצֵל). Unfortunately, the earlier argument about the exodus connection does not assist in judgment on this matter. Although the Symmachus/Vulgate reading makes sense in context, it would represent as unique a construction in biblical Hebrew as it would if it were a place name—as the MT, Targum, and LXX (with its complicated textual history) support—since אֶל and אֵצֶל never appear consecutively. Furthermore, by this account this text would be a unique instance of the MT and other versions sharing an instance of misunderstanding this particular preposition for a place name. In any case, the evidence is not strong enough to form any confident conclusion; even if the weight of the evidence from the versions favors a place name, the reference is unclear.

CONCLUSION

Though the MT vocalization may be debatable at a few points in this text, including at minor points outside of the scope of this analysis, text-critical considerations and the undisputed imagery of the passage that point to exodus resonances support the chronological priority of the MT reading as a whole over and against the variations with other versions. This argument thus lends weight to the text-critical verdict on the controversial v. 5, though it cannot assist in some other more or less controversial points in the text. Nor does this analysis in itself solve the larger interpretive problems with Zech 14:3–5 in particular or with Zech 14 as a whole. But in the quest for understanding what this text means, it helps to have confidence in what it says.

1. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, eds., Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, JSOTSup 370 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); Katrina J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study on the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, CBET 6 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994); Konrad R. Schaefer, “The Ending of the Book of Zechariah: A Commentary,” RB 100 (1993): 165–238; idem, “Zechariah 14: A Study in Allusion,” CBQ 57 (1995): 66–91.

2. The Syriac translation is from George A. Kiraz and Joseph Bali, eds., The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: The Twelve Prophets, trans. Donald M. Walter and Gillian Greenberg (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012).

3. Andrew Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, TSAJ 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 243–45.

4. Albert M. Wolters, Zechariah, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 455.

5. Available at: https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/49.1BradshawEzeiel72f94317-3800-4698-b5ea-c81d6376b98e.pdf.

6. Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets, ArBib 14 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989), 7; Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, (New York: KTAV Publishing; Baltimore: Baltimore Hebrew College, 1983), 181–82.

7. Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 754; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9—14, AB 25C (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 424; Benedikt Otzen, Studien über Deuterosacharja, ATDan 6 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1964), 267–68; David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi, OTL (London: SCM, 1995), 136; Schaefer, “Ending,” 183–84.

8. Hinckley G. Mitchell, “A Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah,” in Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah, ed. Hinckley G. Mitchell, John Merlin Powis Smith, and Julius A. Bewer, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 343–46 (who cites several scholars before him). Rex Mason (“Zechariah 14,” in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 179–80) does not assert a definite position, but his analysis assumes the LXX reading.

9. Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, KAT 13/4 (Güterlsoh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), 231; Sæbø, Sacharja 9-14, 111–12, 291–95; Julius Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten, 3rd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 51, 201; Douglas Allan Witt, “Zechariah 12-14: Its Origins, Growth, and Theological Significance” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1991), 67.

10. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 424.

11. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 136.

12. Rudolph, Sacharja 9-14, 231 recognizes this problem with the interpretation, but adopts the emendation in reference to the valley in order to solve the problem.

13. The V text could support the idea of F. M. Abel (“Asal dans Zacharie XIV 5,” RB 45 (1936): 385–400) that the term refers to the Wadi Yasoul in the Kidron Valley.

14. Petersen (Zechariah 9-14, 136) supports the Symmachus/Vulgate reading, though he adds a וֹ suffix to the preposition, which he suggests was lost due to haplography.