​The furore about race that has taken the world by storm may have started in a despicable way, but it has opened up conversations that really needed to happen. People are hurting. Injustice has gone on unchecked for too long. Angry responses are devastating lives and businesses. We have to talk about race.

GOD IS NOT COLORBLIND

​God created each one of us uniquely, intentionally, with a specific destiny in mind. He made us in the skin we’re in – on purpose. Moreover, He sees nations, tribes and ethnicities with unique callings, characteristics and contributions to His greater purposes. 

Different cultures together create a beautiful mosaic, with each reflecting aspects of God’s glorious nature in different ways, yet each flawed in at the same time. Each people group has its own character, history and journey.
When you observe closely how God talks about people groups, He is more than happy to “lump them together” as a singular unit, even though we know very well that He also knows each one of us intimately, as individuals. But God also relates to us in our communities, addresses congregations as one unit (see the letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3), and speaks to entire nations as singular entities. You have to be pretty determined to read the Bible through and conclude that He does not see races, people groups and nations. Indeed, we see the glorious climax and evidence of this in Revelation 7:9-12:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.”

Each people group has its own unique place before the throne of God. All are invited, people will be there from every nation, and all are equal before Him. Our race does indeed matter to God, and is significant to His wider story. He deals with nations as a whole, and our racial heritage and culture will ultimately stand to give glory to the God who created us all. We not only see God dealing with nations in the Scriptures, but even today, we can observe how He seems to pour out His revelation on people groups in remarkable ways. I heard a Cru staff member saying how it seemed wherever they were in the world, Chinese people were coming to faith at that time. Now we see God at work in Iran, which is the fastest growing church in the world (with Afghanistan in second place). The curious thing is that Iranians are coming to faith in great numbers even though they are scattered throughout the nations (something that God spoke about regarding Iran in Jeremiah 49:36 along with several other interesting prophecies). Yes, God sees our ethnicity, wherever we are in the world.


GOD IS NOT RACIST

When Moses’ sister, Miriam, criticised Moses for his African wife, God punished her with a temporary but terrifying bout of leprosy. Leprosy is a symbol of sin. Not OK, Miriam! When Jonah was reluctant to share the good God of Israel abroad, God insisted that he should go to Nineveh so they could know him too. The first missionary team in Acts was multi-ethnic, and Peter’s ethnocentrism was rebuked.
“So Peter opened his mouth and said: “I now truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”” (Acts 10:34-35)

However, the sin of racism is most definitely alive and kicking all over the globe. Grievously, people reject and abuse one another on the basis of ethnicity all the time. Injustice, hate and division are rampant, as our hearts so often incline to evil. The ironic thing is that countries most often and most loudly accused of racism – including the US and Israel – don’t even make an appearance on the list in research seeking to determine the most racist countries in the world. According to the findings of a research-based inquiry from 2016, the most racist country on Earth is India, followed by Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya, and Egypt. (World Population Review).

IT’S NOT JUST THE SKIN, IT’S THE STORY

There are reasons why the situation is so explosive in the US. George Floyd’s appalling murder has a wider context. There is such a thing as national trauma, as the people of Israel know all too well. Moreover, that trauma can be literally passed on through the genes, as a research team at New York’s Mount Sinai hospital led by Rachel Yehuda discovered:
Genetic changes stemming from the trauma suffered by Holocaust survivors are capable of being passed on to their children, the clearest sign yet that one person’s life experience can affect subsequent generations. The conclusion stems from the genetic study of 32 Jewish men and women who had either been interned in a Nazi concentration camp, witnessed or experienced torture or who had had to hide during the second world war. They also analysed the genes of their children, who are known to have increased likelihood of stress disorders, and compared the results with Jewish families who were living outside of Europe during the war. “The gene changes in the children could only be attributed to Holocaust exposure in the parents,” said Yehuda.2
Similar results appear to occur among descendants of those who went through the horrors of slavery.3 In a phenomenon known as Epigenetic Transmission, signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder have even been found in the third generation, and have been detected in the grandchildren of trauma survivors. 
The science of epigenetics, literally “above the gene,” proposes that we pass along more than DNA in our genes; it suggests that our genes can carry memories of trauma experienced by our ancestors and can influence how we react to trauma and stress… Trauma experienced by earlier generations can influence the structure of our genes, making them more likely to “switch on” negative responses to stress and trauma.4

When looking at people groups, God sees everything they have gone through, and everything they are still going through till this day. And when it comes to the traumas of both the Holocaust and slavery in the US, they are more recent than many seem to think. The pain is still very fresh. We need to look through this lens of history and appreciate the depth of trauma and pain that is continuously and deeply felt, always there, just below the surface. Especially in these tense times of global upheaval, George Floyd’s murder was a match thrown on a petroleum-soaked situation. It’s not the only incident of racial injustice happening today and African slavery isn’t the only incidence of collective trauma, but these are horrors demanding our attention right now. The balm that needs to be applied here needs to be applied to every injustice and racial rift around the globe.


GOD OF JUSTICE

The God who sees, has seen it all. He has seen the collective suffering and also each individual travesty of justice, whether it was recognized or not. Just as God said that He had been paying close attention to what had been done to the people of Israel during their own 400 years of slavery in Egypt, He hears the cry of all the oppressed:

“I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their slave masters, for I know their pains.” (Exodus 3:7)

The first thing that God’s law addresses after the Ten Commandments is that slaves should go free. God is a God of freedom and slavery goes against all that He is. God rescued Israel out of Egypt, but it took a long time to shake off the shackles even as they journeyed with Him to the Promised Land. Liberation is often a painful process rather than a one off event.
God understands and He cares. He is a God of justice and compassion for the oppressed. All who love God and are seeking to be conformed to His image need to fit into this mould too – there is no room for complacency or disinterest when the oppressed cry out.

As God’s children, His ambassadors in this world, it is up to us to seek peace and pursue it. We can be vehicles to bring God’s justice and healing, and indeed, that is what we are called to be. Isaiah 58 spells it out very clearly – our religious fasting is no good if we are not prepared to take an active part in loosing the chains of injustice. But what does that look like?


HEALING RACIAL RIFTS

Closing our ears to the cries of the downtrodden is an offense to God. He is the God who hears our cry and sees our pain, and we need to be willing to be intentional about listening, learning, and deliberately opening our ears to others. We need to get in the habit of getting into another’s shoes and walking around in them for a while, trying to see what they see and feel what they feel. This in itself is an important step in helping to bring comfort and finding the way forward. Being seen and heard really helps. But can deeply entrenched trans-generational trauma ever be healed? Going back to epigenetics, it has also been found that since genetic codes can be changed by trauma, they can also be changed back, breaking the cycle:

“There’s a malleability to the system… The die is not cast. For the most part, we are not messed up as a human race, even though trauma abounds in our environment.” At least in some cases, Dias says, healing the effects of trauma in our lifetimes can put a stop to it echoing further down the generations. 5
Healing ultimately comes through repentance and forgiveness. This is the main reason why – even though black lives absolutely do matter – we cannot fully align with the BLM movement. Apart from their pro-choice, anti-Israel / BDS and anti-heteronormative family stance6, there is no goal of forgiveness or reconciliation in the BLM agenda. These things are prerequisites for resolution and healing, and are not optional according to God. Unforgiveness and bitterness will eat us alive and make us pawns in the enemy’s games. Peace, life, and blessing come through repentance and forgiveness. We must make sure we are giving no room whatsoever to the enemy in our hearts, and to give God first place. It’s up to each one of us to examine our lives and make these choices. As God said to His people in Deuteronomy 30, it’s up to us to choose what we want for our own lives and the generations to follow. It’s up to us to choose blessings or curses, God’s way or the way to destruction.

THE JEWISH / ARAB CONFLICT AS THE “TOP BUTTON”

Dr. Raleigh B. Washington of Promise Keepers once said that the Jewish / Arab conflict was like the top button of a shirt – if you get that one wrong, then all the others will be out of line. As a key advocate for racial reconciliation in America, he could see the spiritual significance of getting things right in the spiritual epicentre of the world. There has been so much tragedy and pain, so much horror and injustice along the paths of Israel and the Palestinian people, but we are seeing the great power of the gospel to change hearts. We have our hope in Jesus, the Prince of Peace, and His ability to heal broken hearts. We are not blind to the trauma of the peoples around us, both in the Middle East and in the nations, but we are witnessing first hand the power of God to restore long-broken relationships.

​Here at ONE FOR ISRAEL, we can testify to the fact that God can transform, heal, and bring life where there once was death and destruction. We have seen the great blessing that happens when we dwell in unity together. We declare to America and the world that there is hope.

​The “good news”… Usually when people think of the term “sin,” they think of a list of wrong behaviors. But sin, at its core, is a decision on the part of #humanity to live -outside-of God’s #design; choosing to go your own way and in some sense be your “own god.” The #symbolism of Adam and Eve illustrates clearly- They lived in perfect harmony with God until they were tempted to go their own way by eating from the Tree of #Knowledge of Good and Evil. God placed that tree in the garden as a #symbol of -their need- to *trust His goodness and live according to his #design. The consequence of *choosing not to *follow God was that sin entered the *human *experience, and death came too as the inevitable consequence of living outside of God’s design. Everyone in human history, with the exception of Jesus, has sinned. If we were to be put on trial before God, we would all be found guilty. We are all guilty of the same core sin of rejecting God. The opposite of sin is what the Bible calls righteousness. Righteousness is doing and being right- without sin. We lack righteousness if we live apart from God. To be justified, we have to obtain that righteousness from somewhere or from someone. Without it, the death penalty of eternal separation from God awaits us; God, in His #grace, made a way for people to be #free of the penalty of sin. This comes through “justification.” If you trust him, Jesus will cover your sin with His righteousness. All your impurity will be made -perfect through #Christ- because He lived a sinless, blameless life. Jesus died a painful, humiliating death for the sin of -every- person [their separation from God]. We could never fully pay the penalty for our sin; No amount of effort on our part would ever clear the debt we owed to God. #Jesus #paid that debt Himself. Its crucial to understand that He did not just -cancel- the debt- He *paid* it. God allowed Jesus to die the death -we- deserve, clearing the debt owed, and paid the -ultimate- price by allowing His *only *Son to die -in our- place, then -return- to us in *his #spirit. Jesus satisfies the requirements of His #Holy-law. This is the #gospel message, the “#goodnews!!”

One could argue the invention of the book is the most important technological development in Christian history. What we today call a “book” is also referred to by the Latin word codex, or a series of pages bound together on one side. Although we take this innovation for granted today, it was, at one point, as cutting edge as the newest modern smartphone. Christianity’s readiness to embrace the new technology, along with Judaism’s apparent reticence to it, was among the most important reasons for the growth of the church and the spread of the Gospel in the early centuries of the Common Era. Since the term “Bible” means “book,” either in the form of a scroll or a codex, it is imperative that we consider the production of books in the ancient world in determining how, indeed, we got the Bible.


Before the Book...

The “book” in the form of the codex is a relatively recent development. Apparently invented by the Romans, none of the Old Testament characters ever saw a codex. Thus we should not imagine Moses, Isaiah, or Daniel reading a book as we would today. Other, less convenient writing mediums were used. By the time of the New Testament, however, the codex had made its way into the world. Consider various writing materials and mediums before the book, as we know it, was born.

Clay Tablets...

earliest known writing material is the clay tablet. Typical of Assyria and Babylonia, wet clay tablets would be inscribed with a stylus and usually placed in the Sun to dry. The Bible only contains one reference to such a writing surface. Ezekiel, in Babylonian exile, is instructed, “You also, son of man, take a clay tablet and lay it before you, and portray on it a city, Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 4:1). Although Ezekiel is not being commanded to write words here, the process of drawing a picture is the same. The Hebrew word for “writing tablet” (levēnāh) is likely borrowed from an Akkadian word meaning “baked,” Akkadian being the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The same word describes dried bricks elsewhere used for building materials (e.g., Genesis 11:3; Exodus 1:14).


Ostraca...

Israel had its own version of baked mud. Broken pieces of pottery, known by the Greek word ostraca, served as the ancient equivalent to scrap paper. Although the Bible never mentions ostraca as a writing surface, hundreds of ostraca have been discovered in Palestine from many periods of history. The “Samaria Ostraca” collection, probably dating no later than the eighth century B.C., includes over 100 documents relating to agriculture. The Lachish Letters, written in the early sixth century B.C. when Judea was under Babylonian attack, record communications between the strategic military fortresses in the midst of the Babylonian siege.


Stone...

was readily available in ancient Israel. A heavy and durable material, stone was apparently the writing material for the earliest parts of the Scriptures (Exodus 32:19; Deuteronomy 9:17). Although no Scripture engraved in stone has survived from the Old Testament period, a number of secular inscriptions have survived, two of which mention the “house of David,” and date to the ninth century B.C. (the Tel Dan inscription and the Mesha inscription). In Figure 1, an artistic reconstruction of the Tel Dan inscription, I have highlighted the expressions “king of Israel” in line eight, and “house of David” in line nine.

Figure 1: Artist’s reconstruction of Tel Dan inscription. Credit: Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons license)


Plaster...

Israelites also used plaster as a writing surface. Painted onto stone, the Israelites could inscribe the wet plaster with images and writing. This writing material had the advantage of being cheap and easy to erase. Of course, it was limited to indoor use. The Bible refers only once to this kind of medium (Deuteronomy 27:2-3), but many secular examples survive that are of interest to the student of the Bible. One was found in the Jordanian town of Tel Deir ‘Alla and dates to the late ninth century B.C. This plaster inscription mentions the biblical character “Balaam son of Beor” (cf. Numbers 22-24). Another, dating from around 800 B.C. from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, raised an academic sensation because of its proposed translation, “To Yahweh of Teiman and to his Asherah.” This latter inscription provides archaeological support for what the Bible tells us: Israel worshipped the Lord alongside of other gods (Exodus 20:3; Judges 3:7; 2 Kings 21:7). Whether the reference to Asherah, a female goddess, represents the mistaken belief that God had a wife is disputed among scholars.


Wax Tablets...

whereas the Mesopotamians preferred the clay tablet, the Greeks generally used the wax tablet. Two flat pieces of wood were held together on one side with a hinge or series of cords through drilled holes. The wooden pieces were slightly hollowed to receive a thin coat of wax which the author could inscribe with the desired message. The resulting product resembles in appearance a modern laptop computer (see Figure 2). It would be possible to adjoin several additional wooden plates so that the product began to take on an accordion shape. It is from this accordion-style series of tablets that we receive the word “codex,” and probably the concept as well. The wax tablet proved to be popular among students and note-takers alike because it could be quickly erased and reused.


Metal...

Metal was occasionally used as a writing material. The earliest copy we possess of any part of the biblical text is found on two small silver scrolls that were discovered in a tomb dating to the late seventh century B.C. These scrolls contain the so-called “priestly blessing” (Numbers 6:23-26). Gold is mentioned as a writing material in Exodus 28:36 where God orders a plate to be worn by the High Priest engraved with “holy to the Lord.” This engraving, however, represents an exceptional case for an important spiritual office. Metal otherwise would have been impractical as a normal writing surface.
PapyrusPapyrus does not appear to have been common in ancient Israel, but the Bible does reference the papyrus plant twice (Job 8:11; 35:7). Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated “papyrus” (gōmeh) describes the boat made by the mother of Moses (Exodus 2:3), but the term is translated “bulrushes” in the New King James Version (cf. Isaiah 18:2 where the word is used in a similar context). An aquatic plant native to Egypt, papyrus became the dominant writing material in Egypt for centuries. Our first example is conventionally dated to around 3000 B.C., although the papyrus is, unfortunately, blank.
To manufacture a papyrus page, one starts by peeling away the papyrus bark to expose the pith. Then the pith is cut into uniform thin strips which are laid beside one another. A second identical layer is then placed horizontally across the vertical strips at a right angle. A light, wooden hammer pounds the two layers together until they merge to form a relatively durable page. Finally, the papyrus is dried and scrubbed with a pumice stone so as to create a smooth, light writing surface. Multiple pages are then glued together on one edge to form a continuous scroll.

Because the papyrus was native to Egypt, the first “Israelite” papyri that survive are the Elephantine papyri dating to the fifth century B.C. These documents reveal a Jewish community living on Elephantine Island in southern Egypt, but still retaining contact with the homeland. The community sent letters both to the Persian authorities and to the Jerusalem priests requesting permission to rebuild their Temple to the Lord and asking to observe the Passover.


Animal Skin...

The most durable and expensive writing surface in antiquity was parchment. Still used for valuable archival documents today (the Declaration of Independence is written on parchment), parchment is carefully produced from animal skins. “Vellum” is the term used to describe the best parchment in antiquity, and our finest manuscripts of the New Testament are written on this material. The rise of the codex is at least partially responsible for the popularity of parchment.

The production of parchment is extremely involved. After the skin was cut away from the animal, it was scraped to remove as much hair, epidermis, and flesh as possible. Then it was soaked in slaked lime for several days and re-scraped to remove any excess hair or flesh. The skin was soaked again in a bath of lime to cleanse it, after which it was stretched onto a wooden frame to dry. After a lengthy and repetitious process of wetting and scraping, the skin would then be smoothed with a pumice stone and whitened with chalk, yielding a smooth and durable writing surface. Paul mentions his “parchments,” probably referring to part of the Bible (2 Timothy 4:13). Such a copy would have been extremely valuable, and it is understandable why Paul would desire to possess such an object in the days leading up to his death.
Parchment was preferred to papyrus as time went on (especially by the fourth century A.D.). This was due to its strength, durability, versatility, and beauty.

As Colin Roberts and T.C. Skeat recognize,
even the strongest supporters of papyrus would not deny that parchment of good quality is the finest writing material ever devised by man. It is immensely strong, remains flexible indefinitely under normal conditions, does not deteriorate with age, and possesses a smooth, even surface which is both pleasant to the eye and provides unlimited scope for the finest writing and illumination.1

The Production and Cost of Books
The modern book industry is big business, generating over 27 billion dollars worldwide in 2013.2 The largest printing houses can produce over one million printed pages per day! Trade paperbacks can be widely purchased for less than a dollar, and specialized reference sets rarely exceed $500. Furthermore, over 84% of the world’s modern population is functionally literate.3 These figures stand in stark contrast to the reality in the ancient world.

First of all, the production of books is tremendously tedious. We have already spoken of the labor that would go into producing a single sheet of writing material. Then one has to locate a scribe, purchase the proper concoction of ink, and dictate the material. Then follows the “binding” in the case of a codex or rolling the sheets onto a wooden rod in the case of a scroll. Such a process yields one copy of one work, which was proofread before additional copies were made. The next step is to make multiple copies for dispersion. Dispersing copies is literally called “giving out” (ekdosis in Greek; editio in Latin, from which we derive the word “edition”), and is the equivalent to what we today call “publication.”

Second, books were expensive. Each of the aforementioned steps costs money. Scribes charged by the line, and their fee represented the bulk of the cost of production. The Edict of Diocletian to fix prices (issued A.D. 301) states, “To a scribe for best writing, 25 denarii per 100 lines; for second quality writing, 20 denarii per 100 lines; to a notary for writing a petition or legal document, 10 denarii per 100 lines.”4 The fact that the emperor felt the need to fix prices indicates that inflation had run rampant in his day. Scribal fees in the first century would have been much less, but books were by no means cheap. Martial records that a high-quality book of approximately 40 pages (a total of ca. 120 lines) would cost five denarii, or nearly a week’s pay for a day laborer.5 Slightly later, Pliny the Younger (ca. A.D. 61-115) informs us that his uncle’s library of common books could have been sold for 400,000 sesterces (approximately 16,000 denarii).

As expensive as books were, money did not pile up in the lap of the author. No author of the early centuries of our era expected to receive substantial compensation for his writing. This was the business of booksellers. When Greek became the lingua franca of the classical world after the conquests of Alexander, the world witnessed the construction of a number of public libraries. These public collections spawned private libraries, which were guarded as precious treasures. Of course, book collectors required booksellers. We have the names of several from Rome who maintained prestigious bookstores from the first century B.C. through the second century A.D.: the Sosii brothers, Dorus, Tryphon, Quintus Pollius Valerianus, Secundus, and Atrectus.7
Most of these individuals would have been responsible for copying the books they sold. After all, librarius is a term both for “bookseller” and “copyist.” How they copied books we do not know. Some have imagined a lector (“reader”) surrounded by dozens of scribes taking down the text at his dictation, but no direct evidence of such large-scale production exists.8 In any case, it is true that booksellers were not responsible for books of the finest quality. Wealthy collectors and scholars preferred to keep slaves trained as scribes.9 The example of Cicero (106-43 B.C.) is exceptional, but his book distributer, Atticus, had a private scribal army sufficient to meet demand after Cicero’s death.
We should pause here to mention that the preceding paragraphs represent exceptional cases. Most people in the ancient world could not read, and most of those who did could not afford books. Public readings thus became an important element of informal public education. The desire on the part of pagans to learn about the Jews or Christians doubtless drove many to attend synagogues and, later, churches, where it seems the chief aim from the beginning was the reading of Scripture. Literate or not, all had the opportunity to be educated in the Word of God.


From Scroll to Codex...
​
Judaism preferred the scroll. The huge archive of Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the 1940s and 1950s turned up over 1,000 scrolls of both biblical and non-biblical material. Not a single codex was found. Judaism’s preference for the scroll is based on a long-established tradition of understanding the original Scriptures to be written on scrolls. The Hebrew words, however, admit other possibilities. The term usually translated “write” (kātav) can also mean “inscribe,” and the term translated “scroll” or “book” can also mean “inscription.” The earliest evidence we have for the existence of scrolls does not predate the first millennium B.C., and thus we have no evidence placing the invention of the scroll to the time of the earliest biblical books. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Judaism adopted the scroll from a very early time, and used it exclusively, at least for biblical writings, throughout their ancient history.

The Christians, by contrast, seem to have adopted the codex at least by the second century, and probably as early as the first century A.D. This move stands in stark contrast to the general trend. Of all the books we possess from the second century A.D., scrolls still account for 90% of the whole! So Christians countered the book culture as it was then known. Even more important, since Christian copies of the Old Testament were made from Jewish ones, we must conclude that Christians conscientiously changed the medium of Scripturefrom scroll to codex. This would have been very much “against the grain.” So why did the Christians make the move?

The codex had a number of advantages, which explain its eventual triumph over the scroll in the fourth century A.D.:

• The codex had a greater capacity than the scroll. It could accommodate almost twice as much material as the scroll, allowing the scribe to copy both front and back (recto and verso).10 The Gospel accounts were circulating together, as were the letters of Paul, by the late second century. They would have occupied about 130 pages or 260 leaves.11 The typical scroll, by contrast, is only about 20 pages long.12 In other words, a scroll containing all four Gospel accounts would be 13 times longer than a scroll of normal length!
• The codex was cheaper. One estimate is that it would cost about 25% less than a scroll of the same required length.13 This does not mean the codex was cheap. The Edict of Diocletian fixed the price of a luxury codex of Vergil at 2500 denarii. Again, the Edict is not representative, nor is the codex in question typical, but if the average price in earlier times were even a tenth of that inflated value, a codex would be out of the price range of most. Imagine, then, how much more expensive the scroll would be.
• The codex was more portable. Because it required approximately half the length of the scroll, the codex was much lighter to transport. Also, to keep scrolls from rolling away and unwinding their contents, boxes (capsae) were used as storage containers. These only added to the weight and bulk of the roll.
• The codex was easier to use. To look up a reference earlier in the codex one need only flip back through the pages. To do the same with a scroll one would require incessantly unwinding and rewinding. If a reference should happen to be at the end of the scroll, one could repeat the process for a considerable length of time. Then, if one dropped the handle, the scroll went rolling across the room, unspooling as it traveled. Such mistakes could cause the scroll to twist and tear. Pliny the Younger tells the story of the Roman consul, Verginius Rufus, who slipped and broke his collarbone chasing after a runaway papyrus scroll.14
• The codex was more durable. The outer side of the scroll was most always exposed. Every time it was unwound or rubbed or squashed it was prone to damage and required repair. Papyrus especially grows more fragile over time, and all preceding pages are exposed every time the document is unrolled. The codex, on the other hand, featured a wooden cover to protect the contents, especially at the beginning of works—the very place where scrolls would be most vulnerable. This does not mean, however, that the codex was superior in every way. While a cover did offer additional protection, the original covers of codices are almost always missing. Frequently, both the beginning and ending of works, which best inform us about the author and recipient, are missing as a result.

ConclusionThe painstaking efforts responsible for the production of an ancient book ought to cause us to appreciate the desire to read, to learn, and to disseminate information. This is especially true of our brothers and sisters in the early centuries. The Bible was not copied and bound because the process was easy or cheap. We should assume most churches in the early centuries felt fortunate to possess even one codex of the Gospel accounts, of Paul’s epistles, or of the books of Moses. Few churches were wealthy enough to acquire the entire Bible in the multiple volumes such a product would require. Individual Christians, as a rule, would not have owned private copies of any complete biblical books.

Contrast the ancient reality with the contemporary one. Consider that you likely possess dozens if not hundreds of bound books in your home. You are probably not without access to a Bible in its complete form. How we got the Bible depends in large measure on the invention of the book, for the very word “Bible” (biblos) means “book.”

The Old Testament was written over a span of about 1,000 years by approximately 30 different authors (most of whom are anonymous) in at least three different countries (Egypt, Israel, and Babylon) in two different languages (Hebrew and Aramaic). We have nothing that any of the biblical authors personally wrote, nor do we even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. In fact, we cannot know for certain how many steps removed our earliest manuscripts are from the originals. All of these facts pose serious challenges to those who wish to know what the Holy Spirit originally inspired (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16).

Sensing vulnerability, critics of the Bible continue to pound away at the anvil of skepticism. They deny the possibility of any knowledge of the original text of the Bible. They remind us that some literature (especially the Prophets) originated orally, and allege we cannot know how accurately it was written. We cannot know whether or not the Bible substantially changed over the course of its transmission through time. We cannot know whether some inspired books were lost (the Bible makes numerous references to books we no longer possess). Therefore, we cannot know what to believe. How do people of faith respond to such assertions?

Can we know with any degree of confidence that we have the Bible? Can we use the evidence available to reconstruct the text of the Old Testament? These simple questions involve complex answers. In this article we shall attempt to emphasize the challenges inherent in establishing the text of the Old Testament. We shall also argue that, despite these challenges, we can, indeed, have confidence in how we got the Old Testament.

The Manuscripts of the Old TestamentThe two great codices of the Hebrew Bible are the Aleppo Codex (10thcentury A.D.) and the Leningrad Codex (11th century A.D.). These both represent the Masoretic text type, and are excellent copies. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars and textual critics who sought to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew text. This led them to develop a system of vowel “points” to assist in pronunciation. The value of their work is that they did not wish to change the consonantal writing of the text (Hebrew, even today, is not traditionally written with vowels). The system of ketiv (pronounced, k-TEEV) and qere (pronounced k-RAY), the former meaning “what is written” and the latter “what is read,” explains that the Masoretes recognized there were transcriptional errors in the Bible, but these were not to be read since most make no sense at all in Hebrew. The fact that the Masoretes were willing to preserve the text, even when they knew it contained copying mistakes, tells us how seriously they took their work. They viewed themselves as mere transmitters, like modern copy machines. They transmitted exactly what they received.

Although the Masoretes worked in the Middle Ages, most scholars believe the basic text with which the Masoretes worked had become standard by the first century A.D. In fact, of the biblical manuscripts discovered in the area of the Dead Sea (excluding the site of Qumran), all of them match the later Masoretic text. This should give us a great deal of confidence in the text of the Old Testament. At Qumran, the so-called “proto-Masoretic” text type is the most prominent, although a greater variation can be observed here than at other Judean desert sites. This points to the careful copying of the Hebrew Bible.

All English translations today are essentially reflections of the Masoretic Hebrew text, and, if the Dead Sea Scrolls are consulted at all, they are usually accounted for in the footnotes (see especially the RSV and ESV). This is due to the fragmentary nature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the uncertainty of using the ancient translations (such as the Septuagint) as a means to reconstruct what the Hebrew might have said. While we would love to discover the original autograph of any biblical book, the closeness of most of our earliest biblical manuscripts to those of Medieval times furnishes us a reason to have confidence in the accuracy of the transmission of our Old Testament.

The Aleppo CodexThe Aleppo Codex has a fascinating history. It was carefully copied sometime in the early 10th century A.D., and contains what was then the recent refinement of Masoretic vowel points by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher (10th century A.D.), whom the Jews regard as the greatest of Masoretic grammarians. A book of great value, it was housed in Jerusalem during the First Crusade (A.D. 1096-1099) before it was taken by the Crusaders and held for ransom. Finally released undamaged, the Codex came to rest in Egypt for the next 200 years. After this it was apparently taken to Aleppo, Syria, where it was carefully guarded for the next 600 years. Even the great textual critic Paul Kahle, former editor of the standard academic edition, Biblia Hebraica, was denied access to the Codex.

After the United Nations resolved to form the modern State of Israel in 1947, anti-Jewish riots broke out in Syria, leading the Arab population of Aleppo to burn the Great Synagogue where the Codex was housed. After this point, the story becomes nebulous. What we know for certain is that the Codex was complete or nearly complete before the riot, and today, 196 of the original 491 pages are missing. Some allege that fire destroyed these pages, but those who have closely examined the Codex find little evidence of fire damage. Others allege that pages were intentionally torn from the Codex, perhaps in an effort to save as much as possible in the midst of a precarious situation. 118 of the 196 missing pages are from the Pentateuch (the oldest and holiest part of Scripture for the Jews), and a few individual leaves have emerged through the decades. This evidence suggests that concerned Jews did in fact tear pages from the Codex likely in an effort to save them. But whether these rescued pages will ever come to light is impossible to say.

The significance of the Aleppo Codex lies in its largely complete nature for many biblical books. 295 pages survive. Only 12 books are missing completely (Genesis–Numbers, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Obadiah, Jonah and Haggai), although others are missing parts (Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, Psalms, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Amos and Micah). Still, it is the best Masoretic manuscript in existence.

The Leningrad CodexThe early 11th century Leningrad Codex is today housed in St. Petersburg, Russia (“Leningrad” under the former Soviet Union). This copy, like the Aleppo Codex, belongs to the Ben Asher family of Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts, and serves as the basis for the standard Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the more recent Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the standard academic editions from which most modern Old Testament translations come. The Hebrew University Bible Project, on the other hand, has elected to utilize the Aleppo Codex as its primary base text. Although scholars generally regard the Aleppo Codex as more reliable, the two manuscripts are extremely similar. The Leningrad Codex holds the distinction of being the oldest complete Hebrew Bible known to exist, although it is not even 1,000 years old.

The Nash Papyrus
​
Figure 1. Nash Papyrus (late second century B.C.) (Wikimedia commons, public domain)We now turn from more or less complete copies of the Bible to fragments. Acquired in 1902, the Nash Papyrus (so named from Walter Llewellyn Nash who purchased it) dates to the late 2ndcentury B.C., and was the oldest copy of any part of the Old Testament text known before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The manuscript is small, being about 5.5 inches tall and a little over 2 inches wide (see Figure 1). Only 24 lines are legible, and these represent the Ten Commandments and part of the Shema‘ (pronounced sh-MAH) extracted from Deuteronomy 5 and 6. Some have suggested the text was a phylactery due to its size (cf. Matthew 23:5).

One interesting difference between the Nash Papyrus and the received Hebrew text is the former’s absence of “the house of slavery” in reference to Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:6). Some have alleged that, since the papyrus likely originated in Egypt, the scribe wished not to offend his homeland with such a reference, and so removed it. If the Nash Papyrus is a personal copy intended for private use, we might assume that the strict rules about the sanctity of every word of Scripture did not apply quite as strictly as it might for a synagogue copy (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 5:18). However, it is also possible (although less likely) that the parent-text (what the Germans call the Vorlage) did not contain these words and the scribe of the Nash Papyrus is copying what was in front of him.

The Silver Scrolls from Ketef HinnomIn 1979 two small, silver scrolls containing the Priestly Blessing (Numbers 6:23-26) were found in an excavation near Jerusalem. The larger of these texts measures just one inch in width and not quite four inches in length. The smaller is a half-inch in width and about an inch and a half in length. Despite their size, these texts, which date to the 7thcentury B.C., represent the oldest copies of any part of the biblical text we possess. Ironically, they seem to have been intended as amulets to ward off evil spirits (cf. Isaiah 3:20; Ezekiel 13:18,20).

The Dead Sea ScrollsThe oldest of the biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls date to the mid-3rd century B.C., and the latest date to the 1st century A.D. 4QExod–Levf (4Q17) and 4QSamb (4Q52) are the two oldest known to exist, and both date to the mid-3rd century B.C. The former probably once contained the entire Pentateuch, but now includes only five fragments totaling 259 words. The latter contains about 23 fragments and represents various sections of 1 Samuel 12-23. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is the only one of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls to survive in its entirety. Because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, it is impossible to compile a complete Hebrew Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, while of tremendous value, our ability to apply what we learn from the Dead Sea Scrolls is limited.
The fragments that do exist offer a number of variant readings. While none of these variants alters the theology of the Old Testament, many of them are noteworthy. For example, traditional English translations set the height of Goliath at six cubits and a span, following the Masoretic Hebrew Text (1 Samuel 17:4). But the oldest Hebrew copy of the Goliath story of Samuel, 4QSama, agrees with the Septuagint that Goliath’s height was four cubits and a span. This drops the height of Goliath from about nine and a half feet to about six and a half feet! The oldest reading is perhaps the original reading.
Another example can be provided from the Great Isaiah Scroll. In Isaiah 53:11 1QIsaa agrees with the Septuagint, reading, “From the anguish of his soul he shall see light and be satisfied.” The Masoretic Hebrew, represented in most English translations, does not have the word “light.” It is uncertain whether the word “light” has been inserted into the Isaiah Scroll or removed from the Masoretic Hebrew. So, in this case, we cannot be certain what the original reading was.

There are a few occasions in which we know material is missing in the Masoretic Hebrew text. For example, Psalm 145 is an acrostic Psalm in which each line begins with the succeeding letter of the Hebrew alphabet (ד ,ג ,ב ,א, etc.). The problem is that the line beginning with the letter nun(נ) is missing. 11QPsa, the only Dead Sea Scrolls Psalms manuscript to cover Psalm 145, has the nun verse: “God is faithful in his words and gracious in all his works.” It just so happens again that the missing verse matches what was already preserved in the Septuagint long ago. There is no question the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the original reading.

I do not wish to give the impression that the Dead Sea Scrolls always agree with the Septuagint. In fact, Emanuel Tov states that no single Qumran manuscript can be regarded as the parent text of any book translated into its Septuagint Greek form. Rather, Tov offers the following statistics: of the Pentateuch, only 46 manuscripts provide a sufficient basis for analysis. Of these manuscripts, 27 (nearly 60%) clearly anticipate the later Masoretic Text, while only one generally matches the Septuagint. The remaining 18 cannot be aligned with any known textual tradition (39%). Of the remaining books of Scripture, 75 manuscripts are sufficient for analysis. Of these, 33 anticipate the Masoretic Text (44%) while only five reflect the text represented by the Septuagint. Among these manuscripts Tov regards 37 as unaligned (49%). In other words, manuscripts matching the later Masoretic text are dominant.
Of course, the various textual traditions are not as divergent as one might be led to believe by these statistics. Textual criticism is concerned with minute details such as the presence or absence of letters or the division of words. For example, “valley of the shadow of death” (Psalm 23:4) assumes the Hebrew צל מות, but the Hebrew text actually has צלמות, meaning “deathly darkness.” The difference in definition hangs on a single space in a word, and not on a different text! Another example would be the spelling of Moses as משה or מושה, or David as דוד or דויד. These spelling differences count as variants, but in no way change the meaning. It should also be stressed that statistical analyses, such as those cited above, tend to be highly subjective, and many others are bound to disagree. Further discoveries could substantially alter what we think we now know. Humility is always appropriate in the field of textual criticism. Still, the plurality of various Old Testament texts at Qumran seems to match a similar variety with Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. There was no “authorized version” of the Bible at the time of Jesus.
Textual Plurality and New Testament QuotationsWe have striven thus far to show the Hebrew Bible did not exist in one pristine form at the time of the New Testament. Were the New Testament authors aware of this situation? If so, how do they handle the textual variety? It seems clear that the New Testament authors both respected and utilized the textual variety in existence. The New Testament quotations sometimes match the Masoretic Hebrew exactly (e.g., Mark 14:23 ~ Isaiah 53:12), sometimes match the Septuagint exactly (e.g., Mark 7:6–7 ~ Isaiah 29:13), sometimes agree more with the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., Romans 15:10 ~ Deuteronomy 32:43 [= 4QDeutq), and sometimes match nothing else known (i.e., they are “unaligned” in scholarly parlance; e.g., Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11 ~ Habakkuk 2:4).

There are times when the Greek translation is actually a clearer reflection of the Divine intent than the Hebrew original. For example, to refute the Sadducees, Jesus quotes the Septuagint form of Exodus 3:6: “‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:32). The Hebrew language has no present tense verb, and thus the “I am” verb is missing in the Hebrew text of Exodus 3:6 (note the NKJV italicizes the word “am” in Exodus 3:6, indicating its absence in the Hebrew text). In order to leave no doubt about the meaning, Jesus cites the Greek form of the verse (which specifies the present tense).

There are other occasions when the New Testament authors might generalize a verse by altering it slightly. Paul’s quotations of Habakkuk 2:4 could fall into this category. The Masoretic Hebrew reads, “The just shall live by his faith,” which can be understood either as the faithfulness of the just man or the faithfulness of God. The Septuagint clarifies, “The just shall live by my faith,” unambiguously referring to God. The difference between the possessive pronouns “his” and “my” is just one stroke of one letter in Hebrew (“his” = ו and “my” = י). These letters are often confused in Hebrew manuscripts (to the sympathetic comfort of many elementary Hebrew students!), and it appears Paul here wishes both to eliminate the textual confusion and generalize the truth of the verse with the more abstract, “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11).

The way the New Testament authors used the various versions of the Scriptures is not unlike the way many preachers use English translations. I have heard the sermons of several who prefer the King James Version but switch to the American Standard Version when preaching on Psalm 119:160a. The former reads, “Thy word is true from the beginning,” while the latter states, “The sum of thy word is truth.” Since the Hebrew is ambiguous (literally, “the head of your word is true [or truth]”), either translation can be regarded as possible. But most would opt for the passage that “preaches” better or makes a clearer point. In the absence of certainty, perhaps it is not foolish to follow such a course, even though modern translators (and preachers!) do not have the benefit of inspiration. The bottom line is this: despite minor differences across the manuscripts, the Old Testament is remarkably—one might say providentially—preserved and transmitted.

ConclusionThe text of the Old Testament was both confirmed and complicated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Septuagint likewise supports the basic content of the traditional Hebrew, but also contains some differences that need not be overlooked. Modern translations of the Old Testament generally take into account all of the evidence, exercising their best judgment when it seems there may be a mistake in transmission of the Masoretic Hebrew. For example, Genesis 47:21 in the Masoretic text seems to have mistaken the letter daleth (ד) for resh (ר), an understandable mistake, as these letters are very similar in appearance. The RSV and ESV have elected to follow the ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and Latin Vulgate) while the KJV and ASV choose to translate the Masoretic Hebrew, in spite of its apparent mistake. Again, in 1 Samuel 1:24, almost all the modern versions read “three-year-old bull” as opposed to the KJV and NKJV which have “three bulls.” The KJV tradition follows the Masoretic Hebrew (even though it is difficult to imagine Hannah dragging three bulls to Shiloh!), while the modern versions follow 4QSama, the Septuagint, and the Syriac traditions. The oldest text makes better sense in this case.

The evidence suggests we should exercise good judgment in our reading of the Old Testament, as the New Testament authors seem to do. Only in a handful of cases are there differences in the textual traditions worth noting, and even then the differences concern minute details that, while important to textual critics, do not alter any major teaching of the Old Testament. It appears that God has provided us with an Old Testament text substantially accurate in all we need to know about His character and His will.

Critics who allege we cannot know the text of the Bible must resort to building mountains out of molehills. Let them produce one variant reading from the Old Testament that substantially alters a theological point affirmed by Jesus or the Apostles. The basic differences in the textual traditions of the Old Testament can be compared to the differences in English translations. While one person’s Bible might have a different word or phrase here and there, the substantial message of God’s Word remains the same.

​

​Long before Johannes Gutenberg (1400-1468) introduced movable type and printed the Bible (a copy of the Latin Vulgate) in the 1450s, the biblical text had already been copied by hand for centuries. The word “manuscript” itself means “hand-written” and reflects a reality that many Christians—especially after the Printing Revolution of the 15th century and the 19th-century Industrial Revolution—have forgotten, namely, that the Bible was hand copied until recent history.1 But what was this copying process like? What can one know about the scribes who copied the Old and New Testaments? How good a job did they do in copying the text? What kinds of variations in copying are evident from the manuscript tradition? Has the text of Scripture been faithfully and accurately copied through the years? There is great debate over these questions, thus in this article attention will be given to each question, especially with regard to both testaments and each historical period.

The Copying Process: A Brief Historical Overview
Before the actual copying of the text could occur, one would had to have first found a suitable exemplar (the manuscript from which the copy was being made). Interestingly, one of the more recent developments in the study of biblical manuscripts is the development of stemmata (family trees), which illustrate the relationships that exist between manuscripts and their ancestors, which might even include their exemplars.2 Then papyrus, parchment, or paper materials, the ink, and writing instrument(s) had to either be made or purchased. Once the scroll or codex was assembled and prepared for writing, the scribe would begin to copy. In preparation the selected material would be ruled both horizontally and vertically to designate rows and columns.

The Renaissance-like setting that many have imagined of scribes sitting in a scriptorium with good light, nice desks, fresh ink with quill pens, and constant efforts to correct the text is not an accurate picture of the conditions in which many of the scribes labored. While transmission eventually leads to standardization (as evidenced by the Vulgate [4th cent.] in Latin, or Peshitta [5th cent.] in Syriac), the transmission of the biblical text was not generally standardized until a later period. For the Old Testament this would have been around A.D. 500 with the Masoretes and, for the New Testament later, with the development of the Byzantine text tradition around A.D. 700-800.4 Historically, the standardization of the text in a New Testament setting would have also been made difficult before the early 4th century because of the status of Christianity as illegal, which the emperor Constantine (A.D. 274-337) would change.

The variety of exemplars and scribes is evident even in the manuscripts themselves, given the differences between the illumination of manuscripts (the way they were decorated), calligraphy (handwriting styles), marginal glossa (notes that became much more frequent in the Middle Ages), ligatures (the joining of two or more letters into a single sign), and other paleographic figures. Furthermore, the size of manuscripts varied from personal amulet-like copies of Scripture to large manuscripts like the 12th-century Codex Gigas (36″ long x 20″ wide x 8.7″ thick).

​With the variation of scribes, exemplars, skill levels, and contexts, unintentional errors sometimes resulted from a misreading of the text of the exemplar. In both the Old and New Testament text traditions, errors of the eye seem to be more common than errors from mishearing the text being read aloud. With all of these variables, those interested in the transmission of the text of Scripture would be well served to speak of the characteristics of particular manuscripts, scribes, and correctors, rather than assuming universal qualities that all of these facets of the transmission of the text shared. In both the Old and New Testaments, the earlier the period, the less one can know definitively about scribes or the copying process.

The vastness of the time and the sheer volume of material is much greater for the Old Testament than the New. Beginning with the first Old Testament books to be written, the text was hand-copied for nearly 3,000 years.5 Scribal interest likely arose after the Babylonian exile, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, when an emphasis on the Law led to a need to know and teach the Law. While it is possible that “the (Jewish) scribes” referenced in the New Testament arose out of the leadership and influence of these sopherim (scribes), there is little textual evidence for the Old Testament before 300 B.C. From 300 B.C. to A.D. 135, there is extant manuscript evidence, including biblical manuscripts from Qumran. It is in this time period that those examining the manuscripts themselves can begin to see evidence of varying text families.6
While some manuscripts align in style with the later standardized Masoretic text, not every manuscript fits this style. Likely, there were concurrent texts at this time of Samaritan and Babylonian origin that were still read and revered in certain settings. Most significantly, the Old Testament text was divided into paragraphs and verses early in this period, which along with other adaptations aided readers in using the Old Testament text in liturgical settings. It was later during the textual activity of the Masoretes (5th-9th centuries A.D.) that the Old Testament text became more standardized, including the development of written vowel pointing, written symbols for pronunciation, and other specialized notes. Scribes sought to preserve the text as evident through the changes made. The period from A.D. 1000-1450 was basically a time to preserve and maintain Masoretic readings.7 All printed editions of the Old Testament contain the Masoretic text, though it differs from the Samaritan Pentateuch and many other texts from the Judean desert. 

While the history of the text of the New Testament is not as long, it does follow a similar pattern. Not much is known about scribal practices among the first Christians—given the lack of many extant witnesses from the 1st and 2nd centuries (there are a few fragmentary witnesses like p52dating back to A.D. 125-150). But beginning in the 3rd century, the nature of textual transmission becomes much clearer. From the time the New Testament writings were first produced, until the time of the “conversion” of the emperor Constantine (around A.D. 325), the text was freely copied in a number of diverse ways. This diversity was due in large part to the varieties of copying processes, scribes, materials, exemplars, and perhaps even the emerging recognition of Scripture by Christians throughout the Mediterranean world. Most variant readings (a place where manuscripts present at least two options for a reading in a given text) in the New Testament come about in this earliest period because of a lack of a professional copy process. Furthermore, oral tradition was still strong and, as late as the middle of the second century, some still preferred the oral tradition in a setting only one generation removed from an apostle. Certain scribal traits were already being developed at this time which one can see in the Alexandrian text that took shape around the end of the second century in Egypt, as evident in the text of p4 (A.D. 200), p75 (A.D. 200), and Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325-350). Professional scribal activity arose after Christianity was legalized, while most copies of Scripture in this earliest period were transmitted through the hands of scribes who wanted to copy Scripture as carefully as possible.

After Christianity was legalized, there is a period in which the text of the New Testament text began to converge from A.D. 325-700. The emperor Constantine unified the Roman empire politically through his move towards Christianity, but also ushered in a period where many religious structures were built, aspects of the faith were discussed in open council meetings, and Christians found themselves benefitting from more political freedoms than ever before. One illustration of the benefits of this Constantinian shift comes when the emperor ordered 50 copies of Scripture, which resulted in a limited number of standard copies for urban churches throughout the empire.

As noted earlier, at this same time translations of the New Testament in other languages began to be standardized as with Jerome’s Vulgate and the Peshitta for the Syriac versions. The Greek manuscripts did not consistently carry a text tradition form of the New Testament text at this point, though textual traditions like the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine began to be more pronounced at this time. While a lot of evidence points to Egypt as the primary consolidation point (namely, through the influence of Alexandria), John Chrysostom (A.D. 349-407) is a major figure in pushing the Byzantine text to the forefront, which became the standard form by A.D. 700-800. The influence of the Byzantine text tradition and the natural movement towards standardization really defines the history of the transmission of the New Testament text from A.D. 700-1500.

The ScribesIn greater Greco-Roman society the task of copying texts was not an honorable one.8 There was a wide range of scribal training and experience in the New Testament world. Literary copyists worked for the book trade in producing, reproducing, and disseminating the texts. Bookstores would keep exemplars on hand and literary scribes would copy them as requested. While ancient libraries employed these literary copyists, private copyists were also prevalent as personal libraries were frequently a way of demonstrating one’s social status. Private scribes were contracted by those who could not read or write. Public administrative scribes maintained official archives, oversaw financial and agricultural workings, religious temple documents, and legal documents. Some scribes were not highly literate. Thus, a distinction existed between those scribes who could simply copy as compared to those who could actually compose. Some scribes were multifunctional and could take dictation, edit, and keep copies of letters. Nonprofessional copies were also common as they were made by those who used the text themselves. In the 4th century, the evidence for the copying and dissemination of texts increased dramatically. There was a notable shift as scribes went from being viewed as low class to highly spiritual for displaying their religious stature. It is highly possible that scribes of all kinds of training converted to Christianity and used their skills to copy the biblical text.

To summarize, scribes differ in their abilities and tendencies as they represent a diverse group, ranging from professionals, who were paid by the line for what was copied (stichometry was the practice of counting lines in the text to measure the length of a book and sometimes to calculate the payment for a scribe), to novices who wanted to copy the text of Scripture but were barely literate enough to copy it—much less read the text. Gamble recommended that in the tumultuous pre-Constantine setting of the church, manuscript production in Christian settings was not about profit, but rather about simply distributing writings that were readable and usable. He also recommended—by means of internal evidence from the letters of Paul, the Gospel accounts, and Revelation—that Christian materials were widely distributed through private channels as well.

Female scribes were also present in antiquity. While female copyists most often worked for female masters, they were more than mere secretarial help. Eleven Latin inscriptions from Rome identify women as scribes.10While some female scribes were free and some slaves, it seems that all of these scribes primarily worked in urban areas. In early Christianity, the scribe Melania the Younger (A.D. 383-439) was raised as a scribe in a monastic setting. An Arabic note ascribes the copying of Codex Alexandrinus to a certain female scribe named Thecla.11 Nowhere in the ancient traditions is the possibility of a female scribe questioned, though there was generally a gender separation with males working for males and females working for females.

The scribes of the Old and New Testaments were predominantly those who believed they were copying holy words and sought to give careful attention to the sacred task before them. Their familiarity with the text is evident based on their tendency to harmonize the text not only to the immediate context, but also to parallel contexts. They desired to copy the text for accuracy and readability. Human error was inevitable (as with parablepsis “eye jumps”) but, in general, Old and New Testament scribes were trustworthy in the task set before them.

Westcott and Hort recognized the introduction into the text of accidental, or “clerical,” errors by scribes even when transcribers were attempting to copy accurately the text. In their discussion of the value of internal evidence for evaluating manuscripts, they argued that a knowledge of the manuscripts themselves (based on external and internal criteria) would provide a “sure foundation” for determining the “original” reading. Westcott and Hort also suggested that sometimes manuscripts are affected “by the blunders of a careless scribe,” but one must be sure to evaluate scribal traits as associated with particular manuscripts, rather than ascribing traits to “scribes as a class.”12 Readers should be thankful for scribal devotion to the task and the apparent success with which they handled the Word of God. And we must also avoid the tendency to describe these diverse scribes, who copied manuscripts of varying texts in different historical contexts, as all being the same.

An Overview of the Types of VariationsThe primary goal for God-fearing scribes was to copy the biblical text accurately, but none of them did so perfectly. Their number one problem was that they were human. Old Testament scribes sometimes accidentally erred because of the confusion that resulted from the similarities between Paleo-Hebrew letters, or with the square letters that eventually replaced them.13 In the Hebrew, the consonantal nature (the lack of vowels) of the language likely led to variations, since divisions between words in the text were sometimes not easily discerned. Similar sounding vowels led to many “errors of ear” (orthographical shifts) in the copying of the New Testament text as well. Of course, illegible handwriting, colophons (omitted text), and damage to exemplars could have also contributed to changes in the Old and New Testament texts. Tov correctly noted that these types of variations are evident in both the proto-Masoretic and Masoretic text traditions of the Old Testament, while New Testament textual critics observe the same pattern in manuscripts of all text traditions from the 3rd to 16th centuries. 

Scribes of the Old and New Testaments sometimes accidentally omitted material (minuses), added material (pluses), confused letters for one another, while also unintentionally missing word divisions, vowels, or abbreviations. These same scribes sometimes committed homoeoteleuton and homoeoarkton (commonly called parablepsis), which occurred when the identical ending or beginning of words caused material to be skipped due to an eye-jump. Similarly, scribes occasionally were guilty of haplography (“writing once”) which omitted neighboring words or letters that were similar, or dittography (“writing twice”) which doubled letter(s) or word(s) in the text that should have only been written once, while also transposing words on occasion which reversed or rearranged words in a clause or phrase. Sometimes scribes created “doublets” or “harmonization” because, in their familiarity with the text, they conflated more than one reading.

Are there occasions when scribes intentionally altered (emended) the text? Yes, but rarely if ever with malicious intent. Bart Ehrman famously challenged the historicity of the New Testament because of a tendency of scribes to expand divine names out of reverence (for example, from “Jesus” to “Lord Jesus Christ”). Ehrman argued that on occasion scribes made changes to the text in order to make readings more orthodox so that the text would be more difficult to use by Christians with differing perspectives.15 On other occasions scribes attempted to “correct” difficult readings as with the difficult expression “unique God” (μονογενὴς θεὸς) in John 1:18, which many scribes changed to the more familiar “unique Son” (μονογενὴς υἱὸς). Ehrman used Walter Bauer’s (1877-1960) perspective on the history of early Christianity to argue that textual emendations before the 4th century resulted from an opposition to teachings labeled as heretical by the “winners” of these theological battles.16 Ehrman argued many variants in the text that resulted from an intentional “corruption” introduced by proto-orthodox scribes. Most of the “corruptions” that Ehrman noted, however, have little manuscript support.
In the copying of the New Testament text, Dan Wallace estimated that there are 300,000 to 400,000 variations existing in a testament that only has 140,000 words total.17 The sheer number of variants can be discouraging until one considers the nature of the variants. If one focuses on the number of variants, without also considering the number of variables, this number can be misleading. When the number of manuscripts and text traditions, the diverse training of scribes, and other contextual factors are taken into account, it is obvious that the number of textual variants will naturally increase based on the number of manuscripts and scribes. Furthermore, it is comforting to consider that no human organization oversaw or had control of the copying process, which might have lessened the number of variants but also could have prevented the autograph texts from being represented more fully in the manuscripts themselves.

ConclusionAs noted above, in recent years, Bart Ehrman and others have begun to suggest that these copies of the text indicate that the process of copying Scripture points to both a lack of standard text and set of scribal controls in the earliest period of Christian history. Though one cannot know everything about the copying process of the Old and New Testaments, through the careful evaluation and comparison of manuscripts, the text of Scripture can be established. The copying process was diverse depending on the qualifications of scribes and the qualities of their exemplars, but there is no evidence of a widespread effort to “corrupt” the biblical text. Most scribal errors were accidental or intended to “correct” a reading that could be misunderstood because of thematic, grammatical, or theological difficulties. The scribes who copied the text of the Old and New Testaments were not perfect, but the texts they were handling reflected perfect autographs. In other words, most of these scribes believed that they were copying a holy text that communicated God’s will for those who would read the text of the scrolls or codices or hear it read. When one weighs the evidence, evaluating the types of textual variations that have been introduced into the text as it has been transmitted, it is difficult not to see that the text has been faithfully transmitted. Are there differences between biblical manuscripts? Yes, but these differences have resulted from the work of human scribes, not the God who inspired the autograph text when it was first written.

The reader is urged to sit down sometime and try to write out by hand a biblical book, a group of books, or even a testament. Sixty-five members of the Concord Rd. church of Christ in Brentwood, TN recently copied the New Testament by hand. In the preface to their work (“The 260 Project,” which began in 2008), it was acknowledged how copying the text of Scripture helped them to read, review, and remember the biblical text, while also developing a greater appreciation for those who sacrificed so much to copy the Word of God by hand. Let us never forget the simple blessings of having a copy of the Bible that we did not have to write out—in our own language—that we can read. The transmission of the text shows that the demand for the Word was high even when the supply was low. Some apologists for world religions have used textual variants as an opportunity to attack the credibility of the Bible, while having destroyed the discordant copies of the books they value to avoid the same critique. Yet, these copies of Scripture are an opportunity to praise God for His faithfulness, while acknowledging the tireless efforts and sacrifices of so many to transmit the Word of God faithfully from generation to generation.

​A revelation comes over the first church that many of God’s promises are for the whole world. Gentiles are welcomed into the family of God through faith in Jesus. He grants them full access to the throne of grace, just like to the Jewish people (Matthew 8:5-13). Just as God gave special promises to the Jewish people, He also promised a place within His family to the gentiles. They were grafted in to the “wild olive branches” which is Israel and the Jewish people (Romans 11:17). However, the Word of God clearly shows God’s heart for all nations and all people—long centuries before Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. Before kings and queens, before God chose Israel, even before God made Abraham His friend, God gave a promise to all mankind. Do you remember the story of Noah? Early on in world history, God miraculously saves Noah and his family. They were the only humans on earth to survive a flood. And that is when God showed up in nature to send a message. He gave mankind a promise in the rainbow. “I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. …The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth. And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” (Genesis 9:13,16-17) In all God’s goodness, we know that He is for us and His promises are true. We see a beautiful confirmation of that in Paul’s letter to Corinthians: “For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.” (1 Cor. 1:20). If you’d consider the Greek language, you’d notice that what Paul is essentially saying is that God’s promises are always sure and firm. God’s promises are “yes and amen” because they are unwavering, unchangeable and alive in us. His “Yes” is a declaration of life. And Jesus’ “Amen” is an assurance that what He promised, will come to pass.