This is a continuation of the last two posts, written in response to the recent publication in Newsweek Magazine, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.” The point here is to give a few of the reasons I have found most compelling to justify belief that the Bible I hold in my hands is worthy of being trusted. Yesterday I posted about the New Testament

Let’s move on to the Old Testament:

1. While oral tradition existed in the Ancient Near Eastern world, it did not exist without written documents.

The Old Testament was written during a period of about 1000 years, from 1400 BC to about 400 BC. The writing materials used during that time, and the areas in which they were kept, were the reasons the original documents and most early copies did not survive. A very small number of writing materials from the BC era have survived outside of writings found on tablets, ivory, pottery, etc. 3000 years is just a long time to expect something written on a plant or animal skin to survive, particularly in damp climates. The absence of the kind of Old Testament manuscript numbers such as what we have for the New Testament (see previous post) is not necessarily a problem because that is what we would expect for something written 3000 years ago.

So how do we know the texts we have for the Old Testament are accurate? Archaeologists who have analyzed written documents from ancient Mesopotamia, the Hittites, Egypt, Ugarit and other Northwest Semitic literature insist that while oral traditions existed (stories and events passed down by word of mouth), they always existed alongside what was physically written down. There is a major difference between methods used to preserve a text (carefully copied and preserved written texts), and methods used to disseminate what is written in the text (word of mouth, or “oral tradition”).  So the fact that the Old Testament stories were handed down by word of mouth does not mean that they were not also written down and preserved. Both are true.

So the critique that says people have been “playing telephone with the Word of God” for centuries is based on an incorrect assumption about what “oral tradition” even means.

2. The integrity of the preserved text from the 400’s BC to the present day is proven and astounding.

Disciples of Ezra the scribe meticulously preserved the text of the Old Testament from his day until the invention of the printing press in the 1400’s AD. These scribes were known as the Masoretes, and are the body behind what is known as the Masoretic Text, which is primarily what is used to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into modern languages.

Ezra was quite ahead of his time. His methods of preservation to ensure near flawless copying from text to text are the same methods email servers use (“forward error correction”) to ensure an accurate transmission of an email. They would use a master text, count the number of lines and words on a page or a scroll, count the number of letters, count the number of letters or words from the outside to the middle letter, etc., double-checking as they went. And, like the New Testament, the amount of agreement between texts we have found is extremely high. At least 95% of the Old Testament is completely textually sound with no questions, and the questions that do exist in the other 5% are almost entirely spelling issues.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove at least 1000 years of accurate preservation of the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls is probably the most significant archaeological discovery of the last 100 years. Found in the 1940’s in pots in a series of caves in Qumran were thousands of ancient scrolls, some biblical and some not. In these caves were discovered copies of every Old Testament book except Esther. An example of the significance is seen in the book of Isaiah.

the DSS Isaiah scroll

The Isaiah scroll in the DSS is 1000 years older than the oldest previously known copy. Get that? It’s 1000 years older than the oldest copy of Isaiah previously known. The biggest difference between them is a word omission in Isaiah 6:3 which reads “Holy, holy, is Yahweh of armies,” rather than the correct reading, “Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of armies.” A scribe left out the third “holy” for grammatical reasons. Beyond that there are virtually no differences beside variations in spelling.

This proves that the text of the Old Testament was meticulously and accurately copied, being treasured and cared for from its earliest days.

As I said before, this is far from exhaustive. There are hundreds of volumes to be read and written on this subject. These are a few of the most compelling reasons I believe the text of the Old and New Testaments are accurate and reliable.

Here’s some recommendations for further reading if you’re interested:

The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Eugene Merrill, Mark Rooker and Michael Grisanti

The Journey from Texts to Translation: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Paul Wegner

Is the New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett

The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 1: General Articles

Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason Archer

The Books and the Parchments by F.F. Bruce

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix

And many, many more if you look around.

I hope some of this is helpful.