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
Must-Read Free eBooks
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!
The Masoretic OT is all Luther had access to along with Erasmus’ Byzantine NT. So Calvin and Tyndale followed. Do Septuagint and Dead Sea scrolls have similar greek? Interestingly different than Masoretic. Would love to see a resource that shows the hebrew idioms in the Septuagint. Politically correct, not me. I’m just a follower of Jesus who realizes the manipulation of the english versions after Tyndale’s 1536 bible……..by esoteric enlightenment.
All experts secular or otherwise agree that Jesus was not born in the year 1 AD. Various experts give a range of from 2 BC to 7 BC. Whether this is due to faulty calendars lacking leap years or 400 year adjustments, 1 AD is just an arbitrary “stick in the sand”. The terms BCE and CE seem fitting and proper.
All the rectitude of men cannot find a solution to what is happening in the world today,
So what if ???? does it really matter what or who is politically correct.
Let us live our lives as if Jesus is coming back to earth today, because we
desperately need a special leader who knows how things work for the good of all mankind.
@ Tim Thanks for putting “hard science,” in quotes because the bulk of science today is theory and speculation. Anthropology is particularly soft, in spite of claims by the character in the popular TV series, “Bones.” [humor, because we need it] It would be okay to keep the distance, but today science ventures into areas where the Scientific Method is useless, so opinion prevails, and objectivity fails. Let’s not distance ourselves from the truth.
Why is there more than a thousand year gap between the autographs and the Masoretic text, when there are representative copies of the New Testament in every century. I understand that Christians abandoned the Hebrew Old testament early on, in favor of the Septuagint, resulting in the Jews repudiating it, even though it was a Jewish translation originally, a few hundred years before Christ. I’m deliberately saying before Christ rather than BCE to make a point. The messianic prophecies in the Septuagint seem to be watered-down in the Masoretic text. I read that a Muslim cleric gathered together all the copies of the Qoran that were available, made a standardized copy to his liking and then destroyed the previous copies. Is it possible that the same thing occurred with the Old Testament Text? The sopherim recorded more than 100 changes they made to the text (mostly swapping “Adonai” for the tetragramaton when it was spoken by men). Could they have also altered the messianic prophecies so that they wouldn’t point directly to Jesus, destroying all the previous manuscripts that were then know? It seems that this would explain the paucity of earlier manuscripts along with the specific differences between the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea scrolls and the Septuigent which are pretty much consistent with each other, but not with the Masoretic text.
The consensus even among non-Muslim scholars of Islam is that the Qu’ran is accurately preserved, as it was memorized by large numbers of people during the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime. and Islam retains a memorization tradition for the scripture. Every year in Ramadan, the Qur’an is recited publicly in every mosque during evening prayers in full and any misreading can be immediately corrected. This was confirmed by recent carbon dating of the Birmingham Qur’an which has dated the earliest Qur’an pages to between 568-645 CE, which is within the Prophet’s lifetime (570-632 CE). And there is no textual difference between that text and the Qur’an today.
The English word “chronology” comes from the Greek khro·no·lo·giʹa (from khroʹnos, time, and leʹgo, say or tell), that is, “the computation of time.” Chronology makes possible the placing of events in their orderly sequence or association and the assigning of proper dates to particular events.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000970
Paul, I will readily admit to not being a scholar but the books I have read suggest that the Jewish scribes held their text in such reverence that whenever it wore out or was damaged in some way, they would make the copy, check it for accuracy multiple times and in multiple ways (count the lines, the words and the letters of each copy to make sure they matched the “original”), and then burn the old scroll.
That would give a good “reason” for the lack of copies
The notion that there are only slight differences in the Masoretic and Septuagint texts does not hold up very well on examination, simply by looking at the table of contents of the two Bibles. Several of the books and chapters that are either considered by many faiths as deutero-canonical or apocryphal were once included in the King James and other collections; in recent years they have been discreetly dropped. Criteria for what is canonical came literally with book binding. So long as scriptures were tied to scrolls, the documents we know collectively as a Bible were once components of libraries, or more likely parts of one. And not necessarily all of it was included due to local availability or the commissioning of a copy. Councils of churches and the Judaic equivalent set the criteria for a canon over centuries.
Many of the books of the Septuagint did not make the canonicity cut: Judith, the Wisdom ( of Ben Sirach), Maccabees, later chapters of Daniel and others not even appearing in the Vulgate.
Comparison of many verses in the Masoretic and Septuagint differ considerably. So consequently, OTs of intermediate age could shed light on what had transpired in between. If some sciences advocating BCE and CE are not “hard”, interpretation of the meaning of these texts cannot be considered on any firmer ground, save the resolution of the adherents to forge on based on their beliefs.
Many of the individual OT books are many centuries older than the demarcation of BC and AD or BCE and CE ( your choice), yet others creep very close to that dividing point. Yet what exactly are the criteria for inclusion? Who said so? How? When?
I cannot help thinking that many deutero-canonical and excluded chapters shed as much or more light on Scriptures than winnowing the selection or shuffling the table of contents.
(A·pocʹry·pha).
The Greek word a·poʹkry·phos is used in its original sense in three Bible texts as referring to things “carefully concealed.” (Mr 4:22; Lu 8:17; Col 2:3) As applied to writings, it originally referred to those not read publicly, hence “concealed” from others. Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the additional writings declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.
These additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305#h=10:0-10:483
Evidence Against Canonicity. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305#h=1:0-48:292