Textual criticism never operates in a theological vacuum. Every decision about a variant reading—whether conscious or not—rests on assumptions about God, Scripture, and history. Critics who insist they are “only following the evidence” often overlook the fact that what counts as “plausible” or “implausible” is already shaped by their presuppositions about divine inspiration, prophecy, and the reliability of transmission.

This is true for skeptical higher critics who deny inspiration, and it is just as true for those who confess that all Scripture is God-breathed. The question, therefore, is not whether theology influences textual criticism, but whether the theology guiding our work is aligned with Scripture and with the actual manuscript evidence.

A responsible approach must expose how theological assumptions can distort textual judgment, while also showing how a biblical theology of inspiration and preservation provides a stable framework for evaluating variants.

Scripture’s Self-Witness: Inspired Words Preserved Through Ordinary Means

Any discussion of faithfulness and error must begin with Scripture’s own claims about itself. The Old Testament presents the written Word as the locus of God’s covenant revelation. Moses emphasizes that Israel’s relationship with Jehovah is word-centered and text-dependent:

“You shall not add to the word that I am commanding you, nor take away from it, so that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I am commanding you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

Here the written words themselves are the boundary of obedience. The people are forbidden to add or subtract, which presupposes that the text is objectively knowable and capable of being preserved.

Later, the psalmist confesses:

“The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments is everlasting.” (Psalm 119:160)

Truth is tied to the totality (“sum”) of God’s Word. The judgments are “everlasting,” not fragile or fleeting. That does not mean no scribe could ever miscopy a letter; it means that God’s revealed words are not lost, and that His people remain accountable to them.

In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the enduring precision of the Old Testament text when He says, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18) He assumes the continuing authority and recognizability of the Hebrew text then in use.

These passages together establish a theology of Scripture in which:

1. The original autographic text is fully inspired, down to the words.
2. God expects His people to know, preserve, and obey those written words.
3. Preservation occurs through ordinary means—scribes, scrolls, copying—not through perpetual miracle.

This theology neither guarantees that every later copyist is infallible nor allows us to imagine that God’s Word has dissolved into uncertainty. Instead, it predicts a situation very much like what we actually have: a rich, overwhelmingly harmonious manuscript tradition with a limited number of identifiable variants, from which the original wording can be recovered with exceptional confidence.

How Presuppositions Shape Textual Decisions

Theological assumptions influence textual criticism at several key points. They affect how a scholar views predictive prophecy, how likely large-scale redaction seems, how readily conjectural emendation is accepted, and how trustworthy the Masoretic tradition is considered.

If one assumes that true long-range prophecy cannot exist, then any text that appears to predict future events with specificity will be assigned a late date or treated as the product of multiple editors. Textual variants that support a “smoother” historical development will be preferred, even if the manuscript evidence is thin.

If, on the other hand, one assumes that God has preserved His Word through faithful but fallible copyists, then the existence of variants does not lead to despair or to theories of radical textual instability. Instead, variants are evaluated within a framework that honors both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

The issue is not whether we have presuppositions, but whether those presuppositions are biblically warranted and honestly acknowledged.

Theological Assumptions Behind Higher-Critical Skepticism

Modern liberal scholarship often rests on several interlocking assumptions. First, there is usually an anti-supernatural bias. Predictive prophecy, direct revelation, and long-term covenantal planning are treated as inherently improbable. Second, there is an evolutionary view of Israel’s religion, which is assumed to have moved from simple tribal notions to sophisticated monotheism over many centuries. Third, anonymous redactors and late editors are invoked freely, often with little or no textual evidence.

Consider Isaiah. The book contains remarkably specific prophecies about future events, including the naming of Cyrus as the instrument of Jehovah’s purpose:

“Thus says Jehovah, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, Jehovah, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone.’… who confirms the word of His servant and carries out the purpose of His messengers… who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and he will carry out all My desire’; and he declares of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’” (Isaiah 44:24, 26, 28; see also 45:1)

Because critics assume that such prophecy cannot date from the eighth century B.C.E., they divide Isaiah into multiple literary strata and claim that later editors inserted or reshaped material after the events occurred. Textual criticism is then recruited to support this reconstruction. Variants are sometimes interpreted as traces of editorial activity, even when the actual manuscript evidence—such as the unity of the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran—supports a stable textual form.

In these cases, theology (denial of predictive prophecy) drives the textual theory, not the other way around. The assumption that God does not reveal the future in detail leads to skepticism about the unity of the text, which in turn encourages suspicion toward the Masoretic tradition.

A similar pattern appears in discussions of Daniel. Doubt about the possibility of accurate prophecy regarding successive empires results in a late dating of the book and the suspicion that the text has undergone heavy redaction. Variants in Greek versions are often elevated as though they preserve a more original form simply because they fit the critical reconstruction.

When theological skepticism governs the process, the result is not neutral science but a reshaping of the text to fit a preconceived worldview.

The Bible’s Own Account of Textual History

Scripture itself acknowledges the reality of writing, copying, loss, and renewed preservation. Jeremiah 36 provides a crucial case study. Jehovah commands Jeremiah to record his words on a scroll:

“Take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you… until this day.” (Jeremiah 36:2)

Baruch writes the words, they are read, and finally they are destroyed by King Jehoiakim:

“And as soon as Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire.” (Jeremiah 36:23)

Jehovah then instructs Jeremiah to rewrite the scroll:

“Take again another scroll and write on it all the former words that were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned.” (Jeremiah 36:28)

The account concludes:

“Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the son of Neriah… who wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire; and many similar words were added to them.” (Jeremiah 36:32)

This passage is crucial for a theology of textual history. It shows that:

The same inspired prophet can produce a new copy after the first is destroyed.

The second edition can contain “many similar words” in addition, without ceasing to be fully inspired.

God’s Word is not extinguished by a king’s fire; it is preserved and even expanded through renewed revelation.

Higher critics often appeal to Jeremiah 36 as a paradigm for anonymous redaction, but the text says the very opposite. It attributes the expansion directly to Jeremiah under divine command. This supports a theology in which God safeguards His revelation through authorized prophetic agency, not through unknown editorial processes centuries later.

Theological Assumptions Among Conservative Critics

While liberal scholarship errs through skepticism, conservative circles sometimes fall into opposite but related errors. Here the problem is not doubt about inspiration but an unnecessarily rigid view of preservation.

Some assume that God guaranteed a particular late printed text—such as a specific Hebrew edition or a particular vernacular translation—to be free from any copying error. In this framework, any deviation from that edition is viewed as a threat to doctrine. Textual criticism is treated with suspicion, as though examining the evidence itself were a lack of faith.

Yet Scripture nowhere promises that a specific medieval or early-modern printed form would be flawless. What God guarantees is the preservation of His Word as a whole and the enduring authority of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Masoretic tradition is an outstanding example of this preservation, but even within it, careful comparison of manuscripts reveals occasional copying mistakes. Recognizing such errors is not unbelief; it is honesty.

Psalm 22:16 provides a valuable illustration. The Masoretic Text, as pointed in the medieval period, reads:

“For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encircled me; like a lion, my hands and my feet.”

The consonantal text, however, along with early evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient versions, supports the reading, “they pierced my hands and my feet.” The difference amounts to a small change in the underlying Hebrew form.

A rigidly dogmatic approach that treats the later vocalization as untouchable is effectively granting inspired status to Masoretic pointing rather than to the original consonantal text. A more balanced, evidence-driven approach respects the Masoretic consonants as primary while recognizing that the vocalization sometimes reflects the Masoretes’ best understanding, not an infallible revelation.

In this case, the older evidence strongly favors “they pierced,” which also fits the context and the syntax better. To acknowledge that is not to undermine the Masoretic Text but to honor the actual history of the Hebrew Bible and to allow manuscript evidence to function as it should.

Conservative assumptions must be disciplined by Scripture and by evidence. Confidence in preservation cannot be used as a shield against legitimate textual analysis.

A Biblically Grounded Theology of Preservation

The way forward requires a theology that rejects both naturalistic skepticism and unfounded dogmatism. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word; it does not teach that He bypasses human instrumentality. The Levites, scribes, and later Masoretes served as stewards of the sacred text. Their work was meticulous but not mechanical.

Ezra’s example is instructive:

“For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of Jehovah and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel.” (Ezra 7:10)

Ezra is presented as a skilled scribe, devoted to the study, observance, and teaching of the Law. His role presupposes a copyable, readable, stable text, yet his work also requires constant attention, checking, and instruction. Preservation is an active process carried out by faithful servants, not a static miracle that makes all analysis unnecessary.

When this theology governs textual criticism, several consequences follow.

First, we expect the vast majority of the text to be stable and uniform, which is exactly what we find when comparing the Masoretic manuscripts and the proto-Masoretic tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Second, we acknowledge that a small percentage of passages will exhibit variation, reflecting ordinary human fallibility. We also expect that, because God has preserved His Word in a broad manuscript base across locations and centuries, those variations can almost always be resolved in favor of the original reading.

Third, we recognize that conjectural emendation—proposing readings that have no manuscript support—should be used sparingly, if at all. A theology of preservation that honors God’s providence over history expects the original readings to be preserved in the real manuscripts, not lost entirely and recoverable only through scholarly guesswork.

Faithfulness, Error, And the Task of the Textual Critic

Once these theological foundations are in place, textual criticism can be practiced as a form of service to the church rather than as an exercise in skepticism. The critic’s aim is to distinguish between faithful copying and occasional error, trusting that God has overseen the process so that His Word remains intact.

The existence of variants is not, in itself, evidence of theological failure. It is evidence that God chose to preserve Scripture through the ordinary work of human hands, just as He advances the gospel through ordinary preachers and sustains His people through ordinary means. The task is to identify where minor slips occurred and to restore, with high confidence, the wording originally given by the Spirit.

In this context, theological presuppositions still operate, but they are anchored in Scripture’s own claims and in real historical data. We do not assume that predictive prophecy is impossible; therefore we do not use that assumption to fragment books like Isaiah or Daniel. We do not assume that late anonymous redactors had free rein over the canon; therefore we do not attribute every textual difficulty to editorial reshaping.

At the same time, we do not assume that a particular later edition is beyond question. We do not treat Masoretic pointing as inspired or a single translation as flawless. Instead, we evaluate each variant case by case, using the Masoretic Text as our base while drawing responsible support from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Targums, and the Vulgate when they confirm or clarify the Hebrew tradition.

Exposing The Hidden Circle: When Theology Drives “Neutral” Criticism

Both liberal and conservative errors often operate in a circular fashion. The skeptic assumes that the text must have undergone extensive editorial development, then interprets every difficulty as proof of that development. The ultra-traditionalist assumes that a favored edition must be error-free, then dismisses any evidence of copying mistakes as an attack on Scripture.

In both cases, theology—not the manuscripts—has already decided the outcome. The solution is not to abandon theology but to subject our theological assumptions to the authority of Scripture itself.

When we allow passages such as Deuteronomy 4:2, Psalm 119:160, Jeremiah 36, Ezra 7, and Matthew 5:18 to shape our doctrine of Scripture, we arrive at a view in which the original text is inspired and fully trustworthy, the process of transmission is real and human, and God’s providence ensures that His words have been preserved with extraordinary accuracy.

Within such a framework, textual criticism becomes an exercise in faith-informed reason. We fully expect the text to be recoverable. We fully acknowledge that minor errors entered through copying. We categorically reject both the despair that treats the text as irretrievably fluid and the naïveté that treats every later traditional detail as infallible.

Conclusion: Honest Theology, Honest Evidence

Faithfulness and error in textual criticism cannot be separated from theology. Liberal scholars, operating from an anti-supernatural worldview, routinely reshape the text to fit an evolutionary narrative of Israel’s religion and a denial of predictive prophecy. Their textual theories are inescapably theological.

Conservative scholars, if they are not careful, can also allow theology to override evidence by insisting on the perfection of a particular textual form or by resisting any acknowledgement of scribal fallibility.

The biblical path avoids both extremes. Scripture itself teaches that God has spoken in words, that those words were written, that they have been preserved through faithful stewards, and that they remain authoritative and knowable. It also candidly records episodes in which scrolls are lost, destroyed, and rewritten under divine supervision, reminding us that preservation operates within history, not outside it.

When textual critics embrace this theology, they approach variants neither with panic nor with cynicism. They work from the settled conviction that the Old Testament we possess today, especially in its Masoretic form, is an exceptionally accurate reflection of the original autographs, and that the small percentage of places where questions remain can be responsibly evaluated without threatening any doctrine of the faith.

In the end, the most important presupposition in textual criticism is not skepticism or traditionalism, but trust in the God who speaks, who preserves what He speaks, and who holds His people accountable to the words He has given.

You May Also Enjoy

Do Textual Variants Affect Theology? A Principled Approach

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS