(11 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I started to explain which manuscripts we have of the Hebrew Bible and broached the question of whether we know they were “accurate.” That is, if we read the stories of Genesis, or the book of Isaiah, or the Psalms, can we be sure we’re reading what the authors originally wrote? Or could things have been changed?
In this post, I explain some of the complications of knowing what the original authors of the Hebrew Bible wrote, based on what we know about Jewish scribal practices over the centuries. It turns out that what we know is not actually what we often hear, that Jewish scribes going all the way back to the beginning had ways of making sure they never changed a single letter of what they copied.
We start with ….
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
You mention in the article, “the ancient Septuagint (Greek translation) of the book of Jeremiah…” I recall in a past video, or possibly one of your online courses, you mentioned there are different meanings for what is referred to as the “Septuagint”. I believe you mentioned the original Septuagint only included ancient Hebrew scholar translations of the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses, into Greek. Is there a “second phase” of additional books (i.e., Jeremiah, mentioned above) that scholars consider as part of Septuagint II? I believe you mentioned some early Christian apologists mistakenly refer to a third version (not-so-legitimate) created later, that include modifications/additions. Is this correct, and what was the basis for this third version?
I’m not sure what I said! There were a number of different Greek translations of the (whole or just parts) Hebrew Bible; the problem wiht talking about “the” Septuagint is that there may have been multiple versions. Unfortunately we don’t know much about the stages of the translation, all we have are unreliable legends. And the Greek BIble as it has come down to us was not necessarily done in stages. (I wonder if you’re thinking about my comments on the Latin Vulgate, which was started — in the NT — by Jerome but done by others for other parts of it)
You say that before the end of the first century the Hebrew Bible existed in multiple Hebrew forms, and that we do not know how much it changed or why. From a historian’s standpoint, is it accurate to say that there was no single, stable Hebrew Bible in the time of Jesus?
Yes, we have good evidence of that from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Wow! I just read “The Words of Bart Ehrman and the word of God” by Satchel Walter in the 1/8/26 issue of “The Daily Tar Heel.” What a great article about you. The readers of this blog should read it.
Thanks!
As a matter of when content was added or whether content has been included since the beginning, I am intrigued by social rules and guidance which seem part of the Israelite’s social consciousness and cleanliness laws. A few examples:
Numbers 5:11-31 specifying an ‘adultery dirt drink’. While the treatment is proscribed I’m not aware of any stories that apply it.
Numbers 27: 1-11 and Joshua 17:3-6 Which seem to change inheritance customs (not yet laws) allowing women to inherit land so they can be socially independent.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14 specifying where the Israelites should deposit excrement, presumably it is associated with Yahweh’s ability to deliver their enemies. What does one have to do with the other? As a cleanliness matter, seems a rule that could or should have been specified much earlier. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, in God An Anatomy, translates the verb as god ‘walking’ through the camp while other translations translate the verb as ‘pass’ so presumably god doesn’t need to touch the ground and chance stepping in ‘it’.
Perhaps this type of content could be in a section intended to “Consider social condition influence.”
All the best.
FR TH BBL TLLS M S
Bart; I read another post of yours and was skeptical. I risked a subscribtion to comment on it, in three parts – never got three posted. I took exception to what you said so only subscribed for a month knowing I could cancel if I found I didn’t like it. I read that you are considered secularist in your views; I confess I found that hard to beleive, but this post seems to confirm that I might have judged you wrong. Over the years I have tried to overcome my ignorance regarding the Bible, increasingly becoming convinced that it can’t possibly be the absolute truth; meaning every single word from “in the beginning” (first words in Genesis), to “Amen” (last word in Revelations) is literally true. Your explanation that up untill 1000 BCE there was no standard rule for how the Hebrew Bible was written, I prefer “Redacted and Transcribed”, seems to confirm my susspicions.
Is the Bible literally true? I think not, but I’m just novice so, “We just don’t know” makes sense to me. I won’t always agree with you but, I think there is much I can learn from you.
Sorry ot hear that. I post every comment I get, unless it is offensive to others or overtly political. If you want to resubmit them I’ll be happy to post them.
My views about the Bible aren’t secularist; they are the views that critical scholars have, whether religious or not. The vast majority of NT scholars are Christian, and most of my views are fairly mainstream among them.
Dr. Ehrman,
I be spent the weekend reading some works of Father Alfred Loisy after a lucky stop at a peddler’s mall.
I’ve been impressed with the scope of his scholarship, especially since he predates an and Nag Hammadi and Quman considerably.
Is Loisy still considered relevant and respected by modern scholars?
He’s highly respected still, though, as is the case with most older scholars, not read much. He was indeed impressive though.
Off topic:
Were the 1st century eucharistic meals basically meals with a purpose: the purpose being to remember Jesus, and that’s basically it. At the meals, they talked about Jesus and remembered the cool stuff he did, most likely got into theological discussions. But the meals were kinda, akin to Thanksgiving: We eat with a purpose with like minded people in remembrance of…
They were kinda like that, but really more directly focused on a thankful recognition of his crucifixion for salvatoin.
It’s important to note that much of the additional material in the MT of Jeremiah isn’t newly invented content, but material drawn directly from 2 Kings, especially ch24–25. Jeremiah 52, in particular, is nearly a verbatim reproduction of the account of Jerusalem’s fall already preserved in Kings. This matters. The scribes weren’t inventing new narratives, but reusing already authoritative material from Kings. It’s not textual fabrication, it’s inner-biblical rearrangement.
1 Samuel is the most textually fluid book of the Former Prophets. For example, in the MT, the David and Goliath narrative is longer with multiple narrative redundancies. But crucially, the expansions don’t invent new theology or introduce new characters/events. They function as clarification and narrative smoothing. This is editorial development, not corruption. On Goliath’s Height, the MT records “six cubits and a span” while the DSS record “four cubits and a span.” This is a classic case where the DSS/LXX reading preserves an earlier, more realistic measurement and the MT reflects either exaggeration or later standardization. Yet even here, nothing theological hinges on the number and no doctrinal shift occurs.
Kings, however, is remarkably stable, with the DSS largely confirming the Masoretic tradition with few substantial narrative variations.
Bart, how and when were the names of the books in the Hebrew bible established and were there other names for these books in Greek copies as opposed to copies in Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, etc.? The reason I ask is because, how do we know that the book of Exodus was called “Exodus” in any of these languages? In the gospel of Mark, chapter 12 verse 26, Mark has Jesus say “…have you not read in the book of Moses…”. I am assuming that the “book of Moses” is a reference to the book of Exodus. Was the book of Exodus ever named the book of Moses and if not, then what could the book of Moses be? More generally was there a time when the books in the Hebrew bible didn’t have the names they are known by today? Web searches didn’t seem to be of much help answering these questions.
We get the most of the English names of the books of the Old Testament from the Greek Bible. (“Ex – odus” literall means the “way” [odos] “out” [ex] — because it is about the Israelites being taken out of Egypt. Deuteronomy literally means “second law” since in it Moses gives the law for the second time [in Greek Deutero is “second” and “nomos” is law). These have different names in the Hebrew Bible (though often the Greek names that have come into English are based on their Hebrew Equivalents) disabledupes{b8d9ee7cf0b2b48309f29c87bea7f72d}disabledupes