Significance of Old Testament Textual Criticism in Biblical Studies

The technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their original form is called textual
criticism. The study of Textual criticism is of imperative for one who pursues a depth study
of the Bible. As Emmanuel Tov states, “since no textual source contains what could be called
the biblical text, a serious involvement in biblical studies necessitates the study of all sources,
which necessarily involves study of the differences between them.” 1 According to Paul
Wegner, Textual criticism enables the students of the Bible to determine the original
construction of the biblical text, which in fact is the discipline’s primary aim.2 This involves a
discussion of supposed original forms and an analysis of the various representatives of the
changing biblical texts. Scholars involved in textual criticism collect data on differences
between the textual witnesses3, and try to evaluate them.
The concern of this paper is to study the significance of textual criticism for the study of
Bible, particularly of Hebrew Bible. To state about the significance of Textual criticism in the
Old Testament studies, first and foremost, I must indicate what exactly the function of
Textual criticism is. Wegner’s simple definition is apt for this purpose: “textual criticism is
the science and art that seeks to determine the most reliable wording of a text”.4
My study is based on the writings of Emmanual Tov, Ernst Wurthwein, The anchor Bible
Dictionary, and the International Bible Commentary, Indian Edition.
Nature and Goals of Textual Criticism
The majority opinion holds that there once existed an Ur-text.5 Textual criticism aims at the
reconstruction of elements in the assumed Ur-text.6 But many scholars differ in their opinion.
Some scholars define the aim of textual criticism as the recovery of the Old Testament Text
of a particular period of time (4th or 3rd Century BCE). Emmanual Tov resonates in this line
and he clearly points out that, “The biblical text has been transmitted in many ancient and
medieval sources which are known to us from modern editions in different languages: We
now have manuscripts (MSS) in Hebrew and other languages from the Middle Ages and
ancient times as well as fragments of leather and papyrus scrolls two thousand years old or

1
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg Fortress,
2001),p. 3
2
Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results (Downers
Grove, IL:IVP Academic, 2006), p. 23
3
Textual witness is a technical term used for the available and ancient resources of the text.
4
Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results (Downers
Grove, IL:IVP Academic, 2006), p. 24
5
Ur-text is the Original Textual form
6
Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol.VI, Textual criticism, p.394
more. These sources shed light on and witness to the biblical text, hence their name: "textual
witnesses." All of these textual witnesses differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent.
Since no textual source contains what could be called "the" biblical text, a serious
involvement in biblical studies clearly necessitates the study of all sources, including the
differences between them. The comparison and analysis of these textual differences hold a
central place within textual criticism.” 7 Having known the aim of textual criticism as to
compare and analyse the textual witnesses, I now enlist a brief summary of the available
textual witnesses.
Various Textual witnesses
Textual witnesses (sources) represent tangibly different forms of the biblical text. These
include The Maosretic Text (m), the Samaritan Pentateuch, (m), the texts from the Judean
Desert, biblical quotations—especially in Hebrew compositions from the Second Temple
period—and, indirectly, the reconstructed Hebrew source of each of the ancient translations.
The text of the Bible forms an abstract entity known from its textual witnesses.8
The Masoretic Text
The Masoretic Text sometimes called the "received text," is strictly speaking a medieval
representative of a group of ancient texts of the Bible which already at an early stage was
accepted as the sole text by a central stream in Judaism. As a result, the slightly different
forms of this text were copied and circulated more than other texts. The final form of this text
was determined in the Middle Ages, and it is that form which is usually called the Masoretic
Text, while earlier forms found in the Judean Desert, lacking the later vocalization and
accentuation, are named proto-Masoretic.9
The Samaritan Pentateuch (m)
It is an ancient text of the Torah written in a special form of the "early" Hebrew script and
preserved by the Samaritan community. Its basis was a Jewish text, very much like the so-
called pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran. One of these texts was used as the basis for the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and to this text the Samaritans added a thin layer of ideological and
phonological changes. Texts from the Judean Desert are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts

7
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg Fortress,
2001),p. 2
8
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg Fortress,
2001),p. 18
9
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg Fortress,
2001),p. 19
which were probably copied between the mid-third century BCE and 135 CE and were found
in the Judean Desert, especially at Qumran, between 1947 and 1956.10
Ancient Translations.
In antiquity several translations were made of the Bible from different Hebrew texts, which
modern scholars attempt to reconstruct. They are LXX- the Greek translation, Peshitta-The
Syriac translation, The Targums- The Aramaic translation, The Vulgate –The Latin
translation.
Now I try to examine the types of errors that are common in the Hebrew Bible, then outline
the methods of textual Criticism.
Types of errors Encountered
There are two categories of errors in the Hebrew Bible. They are unintentional errors that
derive from human vulnerability and intentional errors derive from particular exegetical
methods, theological motivations and the desire to make the text applicable and
understandable. These errors are of little significance. E. Tov indicates, “It should be
remembered that the number of differences between the various editions is very small.
Moreover, all of them concern minimal, or even minute, details in the text, and most affect
the meanings of the text in only a very limited way” 11 Therefore the aim of textual criticism
is not to degrade or doubt the reliability of the text rather to have a deeper understanding of
the text and thereby develop a greater esteem for the text.
Unintentional Errors
1. Interchange of Letters: This comprises Graphic similarity and Phonetic Similarity.
Graphic Similarity: There are several letters in the Hebrew Script that look very similar.
E.g., ‫ר‬/‫ד‬, ‫כ‬/‫מ‬/‫ב‬, and ‫ה‬/‫ח‬.12
Phonetic Similarity: Interchange is supposed to be taken place owing to letters that are
confused due to phonetic similarity. E.g., ‫ש‬, ‫ׂש‬, ‫ צ‬and ‫ז‬, and ‫ע‬, ‫א‬, ‫ה‬, and ‫ח‬, and ‫ ב‬and ‫פ‬.13
2. Haplography: Haplography is the omission of a letter or word which is usually due to
a similar letter or word in the context.14

10
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg
Fortress, 2001),p. 19
11
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg
Fortress, 2001),p. 3
12
See, Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg
Fortress, 2001),p. 229-231
13
See, Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg
Fortress, 2001),p. 232-234
14
Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results (Downers
Grove, IL:IVP Academic, 2006), p. 46
 3. Dittography: Dittography occurs when a letter or word is erroneously repeated , is
the opposite of haplography.
E. Tov is of the opinion that it is difficult to determine if a variant resulted from
haplography of dittography because, “what looks like haplography from one angle is
dittography from another”.15
4. Metathesis: Metathesis occurs when two letters next to each other are transposed.16
Tov indicates that this scribal error sometimes produces legitimate alternatives, which
can make it difficult to determine the original reading. 17
5. Word Division: Words were usually separated with a small dot or space. However,
there are numerous instances in which incorrect word division caused textual
corruption. Incorrect word division often results from confusion over where to place a
particular letter- whether at the beginning of one word or the end of another. Besides
this there are two other word-division errors: Fusion, where two or more words are
written together that should be separated and fission, where one word is separated into
two or more words, but should be written together.18
6. Homoioteleuton and Homoioarkton: Homoioteleuton is an omission in the biblical
text that occurs because two words or phrases end similarly. Homoioarkton is
precisely the same phenomenon, except that it occurs when words or phrases have
similar beginnings rather than similar endings.19
Intentional Errors
Intentional errors are much more difficult to determine because they were made to improve or
correct the text. This includes modifications to grammar, orthography, offensive language,
efforts to harmonize the texts, and theological changes. Scribes sometimes changed the
language of the biblical text because it offended their sensibilities.20 For example, in Job 2:9,
Job’s wife tells him to “bless God and die”. The context, as well as most modern and ancient
scholars, indicates that Job’s wife actually means “curse God and die”, and the text was later

15
Emmanual Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ,Jerusalem Biblical studies;
Jerusalem: Simor, 1981, p. 192
16
Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol.VI, Textual criticism, p.394
17
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg
Fortress, 2001),p. 232
18
Emmanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis, MI.:Ausburg
Fortress, 2001),p. 235
19
Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results (Downers
Grove, IL:IVP Academic, 2006), p. 49
20
Tov lists a number of anti-polytheistic changes that occur primarily with the name Baal. (Textual criticism,
247-250)
changed by a scribe.21 Theological changes are changes that a scribe makes to a text in order
to bring the text into line with his own theological perspective. This is visible especially in
Samaritan Pentateuch, in which the Samaritans changed the Pentateuch to highlight Moses as
prophet and define later prophecy as fundamentally a preaching of the law.22
The Procedure of Textual criticism
The methods of Textual criticism allow the reader to determine which error caused a
particular variant reading. Emmanual Tov says, “that the common sense should the textual
critic’s main guide when attempting to locate the most contextually appropriate reading. At
the same time abstract rules are sometimes also helpful.”23
Collection and Evaluation of evidence: The first step in textual Criticism is to collect the
evidence which falls into two categories: external and internal. 24 External evidence relates to
the evidence outside of a particular variant text. Internal evidence relates to the content and
context of a particular text. It is important that the researcher gather as many textual
witnesses as possible, preferably in the original languages.25
Second, many scholars argue that the Masoretic Text should be preferred to all other textual
witnesses. 26 However, Tov demonstrates that this need not be the case: “statistical
information should not influence decisions in individual instances, because the exceptions to
this situation are not predictable.” 27 Instead each variant must be investigated on its own
without prejudice. Although the Masoretic text is overall the best witness to the Old
Testament, particular variants may be better preserved in another tradition. Finally, one must
consider the interrelatedness of textual witnesses. Perhaps the most important tenet guiding
textual criticism is that the reading that fits the context best is preferable. 28 Along with it
familiarity with the text by way of spending time with the text will make the textual critic
effective in determining the variants.
Conclusion.

21
Tov, Textual Criticism, 251. However, Tov notes that the original author may have written “bless” instead of
curse, in which case there would be no theological modification of the text.
22
Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol.VI, Textual criticism, p.394 also see, Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 299
23
Tov, Textual Criticism, 270.
24
Tov, Textual Criticism, 270-281
25
Tov, Textual Criticism, 272-273
26
Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to Biblical Hebraica (2 nd Edition; trans.
Errol F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 116.
27
Tov, Textual Criticism, 273
28
Kyle McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (GBS:OTS; Philadelphia:Fortress,
1986), p. 74
Textual criticism is an important aspect of understanding the Hebrew Bible. In this paper, I
tried to explore the causes that lead to variant textual traditions. It is important to have a solid
understanding of these various factors when one evaluates different textual witnesses,
because it will enhance our effort to know what exactly the scripture says.
Bibliography
Klein, Ralph. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. GBS:
OTS 4. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
McCarter, Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. GBS: OTS.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Noth, Martin. Old Testament World. Translated by Isebill V. Gruhn; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1966.
Perles, Felix. Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments. München: Theodor Ackerman,
1895.
Pinker, Aron. “A Goat to Go to Azazel,” JHS 7 (2007): article 8.
Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem
Biblical Studies 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981.
_____. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls.” HUCA 53 (1982): 11–27.
_____. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31
(1985): 3–29.
19
_____. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd revised and expanded edition.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012.
Vodel, Friedrich. Die konsonantischen Varianten in den doppelt überlieferten poetischen
Stücken des massoretischen Textes. Leipzig: Druck von W. Drugulin, 1905.
Wegner, Paul. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods,
and Results. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.
Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblical Hebraica.
2nd edition. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.