6

What evidence is there that the OT was accurately passed down. Muslims claim they were corrupted - what is the likelihood of this?

dimo
  • 173
  • 8

4 Answers4

18

One highly regarded company/software for Biblical studies is logos, and it's an excellent resource. Commenting on the dead sea scrolls, they say

"Remarkably, many of these ancient scrolls closely match the medieval Masoretic Text tradition, which modern Hebrew and English Bibles are based upon, confirming the biblical text has been faithfully preserved for all these centuries."

When the dead sea scrolls were found, we then obtained Hebrew manuscripts that were about 1000 years older than the oldest Masoretic text. From this, we can see how much has changed in a 1000 year timespan. Bibles printed today often say whenever there is any significant difference between the manuscript tradition (including the dead sea scrolls, the Masoretic text, and the Septuagint). If you take a look at such a Bible, you'll find that the message doesn't change much based on which plausible variant reading you use.

Given that not a lot has changed in 1000 years of copying, that would be evidence (but not proof) that the texts were not corrupted beforehand. Yes, it appears that certain books (such as Deuteronomy) were edited after being originally penned (such as the recording of the death of Moses), but that is not the same as being corrupted.

If you want to learn about the manuscripts of the Old Testament, a standard book to read is "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" by Emanuel Tov.

One other thing to note is that Muhammed did not claim that the Bible in his day was corrupted. On the contrary, in the Quran, it says this:

"If you ˹O Prophet˺ are in doubt about ˹these stories˺ that We have revealed to you, then ask those who read the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so do not be one of those who doubt," - Surah 10:49, from quran.com

We know what the Bible said in Muhammed's day, since we have copies from that time. So the modern Muslim claim that it has been corrupted has to deal with the fact that Muhammed was told that he can check stuff by asking the people who had the Bible.

The Muslim claim that the Bible was corrupted is levied against both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the case of the New Testament, the manuscript evidence is extremely strong. We can be extraordinarily confident that we have the original wording in the New Testament. You can buy a copy of the Greek New Testament, and in almost all cases of variant readings, we can determine with high confidence what was originally written. Sometimes though, the original reading might be in a footnote instead of the main text. In fact, a standard book on textual criticism, "The Text of the New Testament" by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, states on page 56,

"Furthermore, even in the world of the Byzantine Imperial text it should be recognized that individual texts and text types tended to survive stubbornly, because an indomitable stubbornness is one of the basic characteristics of New Testament textual history: once a variant or a new reading enters the tradition it refuses to disappear, persisting (if only in a few manuscripts) and perpetuating itself through the centuries. One of the most striking traits of the New Testament textual tradition is its tenacity." - Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland

  • 1
    It has been a tradition for a long time that each Jewish man is expected to write out his own copy of the Torah, and to use that when reading in the synagogue. Others who have their own copies follow along. Any errors noted are checked on the spot, and whoever turns out to be wrong is expected to fix their copy (usually by excising the incorrect copy and replacing it with a fresh, accurate copy). This has enabled the OT scriptures to remain preserved for a very long time with very few changes. – EvilSnack Mar 20 '24 at 15:03
  • "Closely match" is a kind way of saying "there are actually a lot of differences". – T.E.D. Mar 20 '24 at 15:31
4

We don't.

There are no known surviving original manuscripts of the Bible, although estimated ages of manuscripts place some of them at best within a hundred years or so of the events. Most are removed by many hundreds of years. There is no unbroken or even documented provenance for any Biblical text in the current OT, short of actual modern revelation confirming the origins, authenticity or correct translation of a given text.

As such, there is no way to corroborate the authenticity of all of the texts other than by actual further revelation from God. Textual criticism does relatively little to alleviate this problem, since it cannot definitively falsify corruption or alteration. However, the inspiration and good fruits obtained by applying the doctrines in the texts is a strong testament of their veracity broadly speaking, but is still not a strong guarantee against specific corruptions or even large-scale redactions.

The teachings, experiences and writings of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah and of Abraham are all abridged and transmitted in the OT through Moses, and the oldest manuscripts we have of the books of Moses are removed more than a thousand years from the actual events. There were doubtless much older original documents from each of these prophets and others, but what remains? It is generally unknown what became of those records.

In short there is no hard evidence that the OT texts we have inherited generally are thoroughly true, correct, complete (we know they are not altogether complete), accurate and untampered, apart from actual revelation and confirmation from God.

pygosceles
  • 2,009
  • 6
  • 15
  • 2
  • 1 for the basic answer but I wonder what you mean by the writings of Adam, Enoch, Noah. and Abraham. Few scholars if any consider the writings attributed to them as authentic.
  • – Dan Fefferman Mar 18 '24 at 13:58
  • 1
    @DanFefferman It is apparent that all of them kept records (otherwise how did Moses have sufficient detail and clarity to recall and summarize the major religious history of the world from the Creation and Fall down to the Exodus from Egypt? It would have been rather difficult to have recounted the entire book of Genesis from memory), and yet the originals of those records are not contained in our volume known as the Bible. The texts themselves clearly existed, but locating and identifying them if they are still extant would of course be another matter requiring revelation to confirm. – pygosceles Mar 18 '24 at 17:35
  • 5
    The original transmission of the OT books was, in fact, through memorized chanting passed down from generation to generation. While such transmission can accumulate errors/divinely inspired modifications, there were in fact people who memorized and propagated entire books. – arp Mar 18 '24 at 22:43
  • 3
    Your last paragraph is overly pessimistic. If by "incomplete" you mean the Bible doesn't quote the entirety of its sources (like in Kings or Chronicles), then trivially every book that quotes a part of any source is incomplete. If by "incomplete" you mean that it doesn't record all possible information, then no book ever written is complete. Further, there is solid historical evidence supporting much of the OT. If by "hard evidence" you mean mathematical proof, then you are expecting the wrong thing from history. – Andrew Kelley Mar 19 '24 at 01:23
  • 5
    OP is a Mormon. Thus he answers according to his own, and only in that light can his answer be understood. It is plausible that an argument that we simply don't know from before the return of Babylon; but he is rather arguing we don't know the NT, which is preposterous. – Joshua Mar 19 '24 at 19:13
  • 1
    If you doubt me, look an see that the extant copies of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah are true prophecies of themselves; in that the oldest copies actually existing predate Christ. Upon that I will stake the whole; that the objective here is to throw shade on the accuracy of the NT for which we have copies that are very short chains from originals. – Joshua Mar 19 '24 at 19:16
  • 3
    Here is the root: "there is no way to corroborate the authenticity of all of the texts other than by actual further revelation from God." That is false. The texts can proven old enough and intact enough to contain prophecies written before they could be observed which have since been fulfilled. The revelation of God is observed. – Joshua Mar 19 '24 at 19:19
  • @arp - I doubt there is a scrap of evidence for anything you have claimed in your comment. Please turn it into a question, and answer your own question giving reasons for what you believe. – Andrew Shanks Mar 20 '24 at 12:14
  • 1
    Whereas whatever manuscript evidence we do have points to great copyist integrity, the claims of redaction, inaccuracy, and failed transmission rest, then, upon "modern revelation"? – Mike Borden Mar 20 '24 at 12:56
  • I believe most of the oldest manuscripts are incomplete too, so there really isn't even any one source you can point to and say "This is the best source we have for the Hebrew Scriptures". Everything is an amalgam from multiple sources, all of which have at least some differences with each other where they overlap. – T.E.D. Mar 20 '24 at 15:33