What Is the Oldest Hebrew Bible?
The formation of the Hebrew Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Aleppo Codex
The Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript is a seventh- or eighth-century C.E. manuscript that sheds light on the formation of the Hebrew Bible in the period between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the later codices. Photo: © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Ardon Bar Hama.
What is the oldest Hebrew Bible? That is a complicated question. The Dead Sea Scrolls are fragments of the oldest Hebrew Bible text, while the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex are the oldest complete versions, written by the Masoretes in the 10th and 11th centuries, respectively. The Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript falls in between the early scrolls and the later codices.
In “Missing Link in Hebrew Bible Formation” in the November/December 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Biblical scholar Paul Sanders discusses the role the Ashkar-Gilson Manuscipt had in bridging the gap between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the later Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered by Bedouin in 1947. Over 80,000 scroll fragments that came to be known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 11 caves near the Dead Sea site of Khirbet Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls date between 250 B.C.E. and 68 C.E. and represent the largest group of Second Temple Jewish literature ever discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain two types of documents: fragments of the oldest Hebrew Bible texts and writings that—most scholars argue—describe the beliefs and practices of a community of Jews living and writing at the nearby settlement of Qumran.
The Aleppo Codex, the oldest Hebrew Bible that has survived to modern times, was created by scribes called Masoretes in Tiberias, Israel around 930 C.E. As such, the Aleppo Codex is considered to be the most authoritative copy of the Hebrew Bible. The Aleppo Codex is not complete, however, as almost 200 pages went missing between 1947 and 1957.
Interested in the history and meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls? In the free eBook Dead Sea Scrolls, learn what the Dead Sea Scrolls are and why are they important. Find out what they tell us about the Bible, Christianity and Judaism.
While the Aleppo Codex is the oldest Hebrew Bible, the Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete Hebrew Bible. The Leningrad Codex dates to 1008 C.E. The scribe who penned the Leningrad Codex actually identified himself in two colophons (an inscription containing the title, the scribe’s or printer’s name, and the date and place of composition) at the beginning and end of the text as Samuel ben Jacob, or Samuel son of Jacob. The colophons also identify the place written (Cairo), the person who commissioned it (Mevorak son of Nathaniel) as well as further sale and donation details.
The Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript was purchased by Fuad Ashkar and Albert Gilson (hence the name Ashkar-Gilson) from an antiquities dealer in Beirut, Lebanon in 1972, and some years later, they donated it to Duke University in North Carolina. Based on carbon-14 dating and paleographic analysis, the Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript was dated to sometime between the seventh and eighth centuries C.E., right at the tail end of the so-called “silent era”— an almost 600-year period from the third through eighth centuries, or the time between the oldest Hebrew Bible fragments (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and the oldest complete Hebrew Bible authoritative Masoretic codices.
Was the Ashkar-Gilson Manuscipt the source of the later, authoritative Masoretic traditions? For the answer to this question and more, read the full article “Missing Link in Hebrew Bible Formation” by Paul Sanders as it appears in the November/December 2015 issue of BAR.
BAS Library Members: Read the full article “Missing Link in Hebrew Bible Formation” by Paul Sanders in the November/December 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 1, 2015.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
More on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Aleppo Codex, and Leningrad Codex in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Feb 9
An Ode to Oxen
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
I am curious why a Bible believing society such as yours has switched from BC and AD (when talking about the ages of found manuscripts etc.) to BCE and CE? Are you ashamed to admit that the calendar as we know it today was timed by the life of Christ? Just curious and hope I don’t offend anyone but would like to see you go back to the old way of stating the years of discovery.
Let it go, Michael. You need to move on and get this behind you. Perhaps some anger management for you?
I would say there are many who wonder why the change, Harold. Here in the USA we are free to ask questions, even if we don’t agree. It doesn’t call for anger management.
This article ignores the Septuagint. It is 200 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it has marked differences. The most striking are the ages of the Patriarchs, which in the Masoretic version, are shortened by a total of 1400 years. The explanation for this deliberate shortening involves Bar Kochbah and Rabbi Akiva. The result was the archaeological rejection of the veracity of the Torah. Once restored, the Torah is seen as chronologically accurate to the year.
– Dr. Saul Pressman
Change for the sake of change to accommodate often leads to chaos which proves ignorance. Look at our last two presidential elections. Hold your ground Michael. Chandler b
Nothing wrong with saying Before the Christian Era (BCE) and the Christian Era (CE). I know some want to use the words Common or Current, but hey, we can easily put Christ back into its meaning. 🙂
Dr. Saul Pressman, You are correct in saying that the Septuagint is older than the oldest Hebrew bible we have. I am curious if you have some documentation on your implication on the influence Bar Kochbah and Rabbi Akiva had on Masoretic vsersion of Torah?
Michael asked: “Are you ashamed to admit that the calendar as we know it today was timed by the life of Christ?”
I, for one, am not at all ashamed that I don’t believe Jesus was God. So for me, using BCE and CE works just fine, and the “C” stands for “common.” As for Michael et al, he’s welcome to use what nomenclature he wants. I just won’t be going along with it. And since we’re in the USA, that ought to be just fine.
What assurance is there that the Bible has not been changed?
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Benjamin Kennicott published at Oxford (in 1776-1780) the readings of over 600 Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts, and the Italian scholar Giambernardo de Rossi published at Parma comparisons of 731 manuscripts in 1784 to 1798. Master texts of the Hebrew Scriptures were also produced by the German scholar Baer and, more recently, by C. D. Ginsburg. Hebrew scholar Rudolf Kittel released in 1906 the first edition of his Biblia Hebraica (The Hebrew Bible), providing therein a textual study through a footnote service, comparing many Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic text. The basic text he used was the Ben Chayyim text. But, when the older and superior Ben Asher Masoretic texts became available, Kittel undertook the production of an entirely new third edition, which was completed by his colleagues after his death.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200270805
My understanding is that the community of scientists (i.e., archaeologists, historians, etc.) have a problem with using the old BC (i.e. Before Christ) and AD (i.e. Ano Domani a.k.a. “In the Year of our Lord”) because of two specific issues. The first issue is that “hard science” needs to distance itself from any reference to the supernatural, which is not considered to be based on any substantiated scientific evidence. In this sense, science feels the need to sterilize data from anything that is not considered naturalistic phenomenon.
The second issue has to do with being politically correct, so as not to offend other faiths who are sometimes violently opposed to Christianity and Judaism. In fact, there have been recent instances of scientific papers being rejected for publication due to use of the terms, “Bible” or “Biblical,” two words that directly or indirectly refer to Judaism and/or Christancy (see article “First Person: Is ‘Bible’ a Dirty Word” by Hershel Shanks in the Biblical Archaeology Review).
So the two new terms B.C.E. (i.e. “Before the Common Era”) and C.E. (i.e. the “Common Era”) do tend to create some confusion. After all, these two abbreviations beg the question, exactly whose Era was “Common?”