The Reduced Significance of Secondary Versions After the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) at Qumran beginning in 1947—ranging in date from 250 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.—provided a revolutionary advancement in Old Testament textual studies. These Hebrew manuscripts, predating the Masoretic Text (MT) by over a millennium, significantly diminished the need to rely heavily on secondary versions such as the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic translations for primary textual reconstructions. These versions, though preserved through various Christian traditions, offer readings generally reflective of their respective translation bases—mainly the Greek Septuagint (LXX)—and were originally of value because they preserved ancient textual traditions indirectly. However, with the DSS offering direct Hebrew witnesses to many biblical books, the role of these translations has become supplementary rather than foundational. Their chief modern use lies in their function as monitors for textual traditions, especially where DSS evidence is unavailable or inconclusive.

The Coptic Old Testament: A Translation From the Greek Septuagint

Coptic, the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language, evolved out of Demotic and began taking written form by the 2nd century C.E. with the invention of a script based on the Greek alphabet, supplemented by Demotic characters to represent uniquely Egyptian sounds. Given the widespread influence of the Greek language in Roman Egypt and the close affinity of Coptic with Greek vocabulary, it was natural for the Old Testament to be translated from the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

Papyrus 96 (P96) – A 6th Century Greek-Coptic Diglot of the Gospel of Matthew

The Coptic Bible does not reflect a singular translation effort. Instead, it consists of various dialectal translations, the most prominent being the Sahidic (Upper Egypt) and the Bohairic (Lower Egypt) versions. The Sahidic, older and closer to the original translations from the Greek, is of greater value for textual criticism. However, the Bohairic became the standard version for the Coptic Church by the 8th century C.E.

Due to the lack of a complete manuscript of the Sahidic version, current efforts such as the “Biblia Coptica” under Karlheinz Schüssler aim to catalog and evaluate tens of thousands of manuscript fragments housed in various collections. Although the Coptic texts primarily attest to the LXX, questions remain regarding which recension they reflect—pre-Hexaplaric, Hexaplaric (Origen’s recension), or otherwise. In some instances, such as the Psalms or Minor Prophets, possible affinities with the kaige recension have been suggested, although this requires further verification. Until a critical edition of the Coptic Bible is complete, its textual weight remains constrained by fragmentary preservation and the difficulty of establishing manuscript relationships.

The Ethiopic Old Testament: A Complex Transmission History

The conversion of Ethiopia to Christianity in the mid-4th century C.E., traditionally under King Ezana, ushered in the initial translation of the Bible into Ge’ez, the classical Ethiopic language. The source text for the translation was the Greek LXX, consistent with the transmission of Christianity into the region via Greek-speaking missionaries.

However, Ethiopic Old Testament manuscripts do not survive from earlier than the 13th–14th centuries, and the text underwent several recensions over time. An early “popular” recension relied on Greek or Arabic texts, while a later “academic” recension may have incorporated some readings from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition. This history complicates the textual value of the Ethiopic Old Testament. For textual criticism, only the unrevised elements, which can be tied to the early LXX, are relevant. Its inclusion of apocryphal works such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch further separates it from the canonical Hebrew corpus and highlights its more eclectic and regionally influenced character. While historically significant, the Ethiopic version lacks the stability and antiquity necessary for foundational text-critical reconstruction.

The Armenian Old Testament: A Valuable Witness to Lucianic and Hexaplaric Recensions

Armenia officially adopted Christianity in 301 C.E. The Armenian alphabet was developed around 405 C.E. by Mesrop Mashtots, primarily to facilitate Bible translation. The Armenian version of the Old Testament was based on the Greek LXX, although it also demonstrates influence from the Syriac Peshitta.

Of particular interest to textual critics is the Armenian Psalter, which appears to reflect the Lucianic recension—a revision of the LXX traditionally attributed to Lucian of Antioch (died 312 C.E.). Additionally, a group of Armenian manuscripts contains Hexaplaric signs (e.g., asterisks and obeli), indicating that Origen’s Hexapla influenced their underlying Greek base. These features provide evidence for multiple Greek textual traditions circulating in the Eastern Church during the early centuries of Christianity. Therefore, the Armenian Old Testament serves as a secondary but significant witness to the early Greek textual environment, especially when corroborated by other sources like the Hexapla or Lucianic readings in Greek manuscripts.

The Arabic Old Testament: Reflecting a Mixed and Late Transmission

The Islamic conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries brought Arabic to prominence across the Middle East and North Africa. With Arabic’s rise, translations of the Hebrew Bible into Arabic began to proliferate. These were produced by both Jewish and Christian communities, and the resulting texts reflect a wide array of base texts.

The most notable Arabic translator was Saadia Gaon (Saʿīd al-Fayyūmī), who translated most of the Pentateuch directly from the Hebrew Masoretic Text in the early 10th century. His work is a crucial witness to the Jewish textual tradition of his time and reflects the MT quite accurately. However, other Arabic translations of Old Testament books have been based on sources such as the Syro-Hexapla (a Syriac translation of Origen’s fifth column), the Peshitta, or even Coptic. For example, Arabic versions of Job derived from these diverse sources demonstrate the eclectic and derivative nature of the Arabic biblical tradition.

Given the relatively late date of these translations and the complexity of determining their source texts, Arabic translations are generally of little value for direct textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Their chief utility lies in the history of interpretation and liturgical use rather than in reconstructing the earliest Hebrew text.

Summary of Their Collective Role in Old Testament Textual Criticism

In the current stage of textual criticism—particularly with the abundance of Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran and the stability of the Masoretic tradition—the secondary versions such as the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic Old Testaments are no longer central in establishing the original text of the Old Testament. Nonetheless, they provide important auxiliary support for understanding the textual history of the LXX, especially in areas where the Greek manuscript tradition is thin or where multiple recensions may have existed.

Furthermore, these versions serve as control witnesses, offering readings that can either corroborate or challenge readings found in the MT, DSS, or LXX. However, without rigorous critical editions and due to their often composite or revised nature, their testimony must be approached with discernment. Their main value remains illustrative rather than definitive.

You May Also Benefit From

Textual Criticism vs. Historical Criticism: Reconstructing the Original Biblical Text in OTTC and NTTC

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS