The 2015 edition of this book has been replaced by a 2022 version.

The updating is fairly

modest, consisting of corrections, some updating of the bibliography, and updates on the
progress of various textual versions of the Old Testament

Textual Criticism of the Old Testament by John F. Brug. 229 pages, letter size.
Printed paperback from Lulu or Amazon: $25 list price. Also available in
hardcover and pdf versions.

Book Preview: Textual Criticism of the Old

Testament, by John F. Brug

This is a textbook on the textual criticism of

the Old Testament based on a high view of the
inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. It also
provides a special section on the contributions of
Martin Luther as a pioneer of Old Testament
textual criticism and more in-depth study of
knotty problems.

Why another textual criticism of the Old Testament? There are some very good textbooks
available, most notably the third edition of Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, which is recommended for a more in-depth study of the subject. In that textbook the non-
specialist will find everything he needs for Old Testament textual criticism, and more. One
reason for this textbook is to supply less—that is, this text aims to be a simpler and more
accessible starting point for the non-specialist, particularly for the parish pastor. It aims for a
more “popular” style than Tov. For heavy-duty study go to Tov’s, third edition.

Although seeking to supply something less than Tov’s Textual Criticism in some respects,
this volume also aims to provide something more than TCOHB in three respects. First, this text
examines textual criticism from the perspective of a high view of the inspiration of Scripture. It
takes the Bible’s claims about the authorship and origins of the books of the Old Testament at
face value. In many respects this perspective makes textual criticism even more complex than it
is for those who hold critical views about the origin of the Old Testament, because it greatly
extends the time-frame for the process of transmitting the text, and it assumes the existence of
many more centuries of transmission of the text for which there is no extant manuscript
evidence. Second, this work aims to provide more information about the Lutheran contribution
to textual criticism, particularly that of Martin Luther, who was in some ways the pioneer of

1
modern Old Testament textual criticism. Third, it provides more in-depth studies of the knottier
problems in specific passages.

Since this book tries to be both something more and something less than other textbooks, it
has something of a platypus design. It joins together a number of parts that do not exactly seem
to go together. The aim was to design an animal that seems to be a strange mixture of
incongruous parts, but which fits nicely into the niche for which its creator designed it.

Chapter One: Introduction to the Principles and Guidelines—many of the vendors

provide a sample of this chapter in their ads.
Chapter Two: Typical Causes of Textual Variants and many examples
Chapter Three: Textual Resources for the Old Testament
Chapter Four: The History of Textual Criticism from the rabbis to English versions
Chapter Five: Special Textual Studies, such as David’s mighty men,

GUIDELINES FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE MASORETIC TEXT

FOLLOWED IN THIS BOOK

To practice sound textual criticism of the Bible a scholar basically needs two things: common
sense and hard work. Tov begins his magnum opus with an observation from A.E. Housman, a
noted textual critic of classical texts:
A man who possesses common sense and the use of reason must not expect to learn from
treatises or lectures on textual criticism anything that he could not, with leisure and
industry, find out for himself. What the lectures and treatises can do for him is to save
him time and trouble by presenting to him immediately considerations which would in
any case occur to him sooner or later.
If textual critics and Bible readers believed and practiced Housman’s axiom, there would be not
need for this textbook since it is true that common sense, sober judgment, and hard work are the
main traits needed to practice textual criticism wisely and well. The reason, however, that we
cannot stop here is that common sense unfortunately is not very common, and it has too often
been absent or in short supply in the practice of textual criticism. For that reason it is necessary to
begin with a brief summary of common sense as it applies to Old Testament textual criticism.

1) There are no really good rules or canons for Old Testament textual criticism which are
applicable to all cases. Common sense, aided by experience, and good judgment in
evaluating all the factors involved in each variant produce better results than rigid application
of rules.
2) Collect all the manuscript evidence. For in-depth work this means going beyond the
apparatus of BHS to critical editions of the versions or even to original manuscripts.
3) Beware of prejudging. Do not sift the manuscript evidence, seeking support for the reading
which you favor on a subjective basis.

2
4) Unless there are good, objective reasons to the contrary, the Masoretic Text should be given
general precedence over the versions. However, this bias should not be carried too far since
even the best manuscripts are wrong sometimes.
5) The evidence of the versions is most weighty when two or more independent sources agree
against the MT, for example, if a Dead Sea Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan
Pentateuch agree against the MT. Daughter versions of the LXX are not independent
evidence.
6) It is possible that a minority reading from a less reliable source could occasionally be correct.
7) Older manuscripts are not necessarily better. Many of the Qumran texts are rather carelessly
copied.
8) The need to recognize that each book has its own peculiar textual characteristics and
problems is greater in the Old Testament than in the New Testament.
9) Remember that different portions of the LXX vary greatly in the quality and style of
translation.
10) Remember that the versions themselves are in need of textual criticism in order to establish
their original reading.
11) Readings in the versions which differ from the MT may be due to paraphrasing by the
translator, rather than to a difference of the underlying Hebrew text.
12) When a version has an easy rendering of difficult or possibly corrupt expressions in the MT,
this may be due to a guess on the translator’s part rather than to possession of a better
Hebrew text.
13) Conjectural emendations should be a last resort and must be based on an analysis of the line
of thought of the passages and on a plausible cause to explain the miscopying. Difficulty of
the text is not adequate grounds for emendation.
14) The one sound rule: Consider each case on its own merits.
 Apply the principles listed above.
 Discard obvious scribal errors.
 Be suspicious of any reading that appears to be an artificial correction, stylistic
improvement, modernization, or reconciliation with another text.
 Look for wording and phrases which would be likely to produce errors, omissions,
or glosses.
 Choose the reading which best accounts for all the others.

Trenchant Observations on the Art and Science of Textual Criticism

The following observations on the art of textual criticism from outside the field of biblical
textual criticism provide food for thought for would-be textual critics, whether in the classical or
biblical branch of the discipline. They are the observations of A. E. Housman, poet, practitioner
of classical textual criticism, curmudgeon. Reading them will have the wholesome effect of
instilling would-be textual critics with a sense of caution and humility as they approach the
subject, or it will have the wholesome effect of deterring all but the most determined and
confident would-be critics from ever taking up the practice. Caveat lector.

3
In beginning to speak about the application of thought to textual criticism, I do not intend to define
the term thought, because I hope that the sense which I attach to the word will emerge from what I
say. But it is necessary at the outset to define textual criticism….

Textual criticism is a science, and, since it comprises recension and emendation, it is also an art. It is
the science of discovering error in texts and the art of removing it3….

It is not a sacred mystery. It is purely a matter of reason and of common sense. We exercise textual
criticism whenever we notice and correct a misprint. A man who possesses common sense and the
use of reason must not expect to learn from treatises or lectures on textual criticism anything that
he could not, with leisure and industry, find out for himself. What the lectures and treatises can do
for him is to save him time and trouble by presenting to him immediately considerations which
would in any case occur to him sooner or later. And whatever he reads about textual criticism in
books, or hears at lectures, he should test by reason and common sense, and reject everything
which conflicts with either as mere hocus-pocus.

Secondly, textual criticism is not a branch of mathematics, nor indeed an exact science at all. It deals
with a matter not rigid and constant, like lines and numbers, but fluid and variable; namely the
frailties and aberrations of the human mind, and of its insubordinate servants, the human fingers. It
therefore is not susceptible of hard-and-fast rules. It would be much easier if it were; and that is
why people try to pretend that it is, or at least behave as if they thought so. Of course you can have
hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will have false rules, and they will lead you wrong;
because their simplicity will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but
complicated by the play of personality. A textual critic engaged upon his business is not at all like
Newton investigating the motions of the planets: he is much more like a dog hunting for fleas. If a
dog hunted for fleas on mathematical principles, basing his researches on statistics of area and
population, he would never catch a flea except by accident. They require to be treated as
individuals; and every problem which presents itself to the textual critic must be regarded as
possibly unique.

Textual criticism therefore is neither mystery nor mathematics: it cannot be learnt either like the
catechism or like the multiplication table. This science and this art require more in the learner than a
simply receptive mind; and indeed the truth is that they cannot be taught at all: criticus nascitur,
non fit. If a dog is to hunt for fleas successfully, he must be quick and he must be sensitive. It is no
good for a rhinoceros to hunt for fleas: he does not know where they are, and could not catch them
if he did. …

But the application of thought to textual criticism is an action which ought to be within the power of
anyone who can apply thought to anything. It is not, like the talent for textual criticism, a gift of
nature, but it is a habit; and, like other habits, it can be formed. And, when formed, although it
cannot fill the place of an absent talent, it can modify and minimize the ill effects of the talent's
absence. Because a man is not a born critic, he need not therefore act like a born fool; but when he
engages in textual criticism he often does. …

4
 Not only is a natural aptitude for the study rare, but so also is a genuine interest in it. Most people,
and many scholars among them, find it rather dry and rather dull. Now if a subject bores us, we are
apt to avoid the trouble of thinking about it; but if we do that, we had better go further and avoid
also the trouble of writing about it. …The less one says about a subject which one does not
understand, the less one will say about it which is foolish. …

Those who follow the physical sciences enjoy the great advantage that they can constantly bring
their opinions to the test of fact, and verify or falsify their theories by experiment. When a chemist
has mixed sulphur and saltpetre and charcoal in certain proportions and wishes to ascertain if the
mixture is explosive, he need only apply a match. When a doctor has compounded a new drug and
desires to find out what diseases, if any, it is good for, he has only to give it to his patients all round
and notice which die and which recover. Our conclusions regarding the truth or falsehood of a
manuscript reading can never be confirmed or corrected by an equally decisive test; for the only
equally decisive test would be the production of the author's autograph.

Come now to the sphere of emendation. There is one foolish sort of conjecture which seems to be
commoner in the British Isles than anywhere else, though it is also practiced abroad, and of late
years especially at Munich. The practice is, if you have persuaded yourself that a text is corrupt, to
alter a letter or two and see what happens. If what happens is anything which the warmest good-
will can mistake for sense and grammar, you call it an emendation.

Not to be a textual critic is no reproach to anyone, unless he pretends to be what he is not. To be a

textual critic requires aptitude for thinking and willingness to think; and though it also requires other
things, those things are supplements and cannot be substitutes. Knowledge is good, method is good,
but one thing beyond all others is necessary, and that is to have a head, not a pumpkin, on your
shoulders and brains, not pudding, in your head.1

Fortunately, the author of Textual Criticism of the Old Testament had the good fortune and good
sense not to have read Housman’s thoughts on the subject until after this volume was nearly
completed when it was too late.

The textbook Textual Criticism of the Old Testament is an attempt to put these principles into
practice.

Textual Criticism of the Old Testament by John F. Brug. 229 pages, letter
size. Printed paperback from Lulu or Amazon: $25 list price. Also available
in hardcover and pdf versions.

1
A. E. Housman, “The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism,” Proceedings of the Classical
Association, August 1921, Vol XVIII, p. 67-84. Interesting, witty, and somewhat acerbic observations
on textual criticism by a renowned classical scholar, poet, and curmudgeon. Available online.